IN SEARCH OF REALITY IX
Belief and Truth
A Study in Thought
by
Marius Heuff
@M.Heuff
Chapter 1
Content
The many and varied facets of the truth.
Religious and agnostic points of view.
Circumstances favouring religious attitudes or philosophical opinions.
The problem of good and evil.
The need for leadership.
A review of the logic of a "willed" Universe of natural forces.
Why is it, that we believe in the truth of so many different
and often contradictory concepts and ideas? It seems, that this question
is far more important than the arguments involved in discussing the merits
of one belief versus another. Why is it, that some of us believe that the
entire observable world can, eventually, be explained in a magnificent web
of causes and effects, regulated by predictable laws of necessary happenings,
while others cling, tenaciously, to the idea, and the experience, of a
supra-human power; an anthropomorphic intelligence that has created all items
of existence, including man and the moral guidelines for his behaviour.
The concepts and beliefs that consider man as an integral part of a hierarchy
of spiritual or anthropomorphic forces, are, by far, the most common and
oldest belief structures of mankind. These structures of belief provide an
explanation for the flow of events we experience, and, we have to acknowledge,
that many of these religious belief structures are logical conclusions from
man`s primary sense impressions.
Yet, time and again, the inadequacies of a belief structure become apparent, whenever discrepancies between a structure of explanations and a number of experiences become noticeable. Usually, these discrepancies come only to the fore, after a belief has been generally accepted and clearly formulated as an explanation of common experiences. This means, that man`s powers of prediction and manipulation, (using accepted and strongly believed-in religious or secular concepts), fail, from time to time, and, these failures can not always be swept under the critical rug by assuming imperfections in an observed ritual. Man is often tempted to assume responsibility when superior powers seem to be displeased for one obscure reason or another, and, man assumes, then, that he has offended some uncooperative deity.
At times, a socially integrated group of people reaches an exuberant peak
of success and achievements in their experiments with a new way of life.
The vigour of inherited behaviour patterns and beliefs combines with favourable
geographical and ethnological circumstances to give a group, a tribe, or
a specific social entity, the possibility to dominate. The combination of
wealth and vitality leads to numerous existence possibilities for human endeavour
and expression, and, these possibilities of endeavour and expression include
a variety of diverging attitudes and structures of belief.
Freedom from the need to spend long hours providing for the basic necessities
of life, a lessening dependence upon a divine providence to arrange matters
to the advantage of the individual and his social environment, as well as
the frequent experience of a close correlation between man-made decisions
and subsequent reality experiences; all these factors, and, probably, many
more, lead to a sense of understanding; a "feeling" for the natural relationships
between causes and their effects. We see an attitude of confidence emerge.
This encourages the belief, that, whatever happens to man, is due to his
own actions and decisions, and not, to the whims of an unpredictable and
unreliable super-natural force.
The increase in manipulative powers that comes with technical dominance is
associated with the elaboration of a mechanistic world-view. This interpretation
of reality re-enforces, strongly, the validity of rational behaviour and
thought patterns, and, it supports the idea, that the human being is uniquely
endowed with the capability to choose, consciously, and, often, freely, a
certain form of behaviour.
It is, indeed, remarkable, that man is able to come to the conclusion that
he is nowhere in contact with an intelligent force; a force, which has the
same freedom of choice as man himself. In spite of the inevitable demise
of the individual human being, and, in spite of the numerous forces he can
not control, (together with the myriad of sensations and observations that
can not so easily be reconciled into a coherent structure of happenings and
events), man comes, occasionally, to the conclusion, that all such phenomena
are "natural phenomena", implying, that these events occur in an ordened,
regular manner, and, are not dependent upon a chosen or "willed" behavioural
act of a god, who functions, then, somewhat, like the freely-willing human
being.
Such a mechanistic or naturalistic concept of reality becomes most difficult,
when the occurrence of misery, the vagaries of fortune, and the feelings
of guilt, hope or injustice, are reflected upon. Occasionally, the beauty
of such a rational belief structure is sufficient to make it acceptable for
a reflective individual, especially, when long hours of thought and a wide
variety of experiences have convinced the thinker, that such a belief is
closer to the truth than any belief in a divinely ordained world-order. However,
this type of belief is very difficult to teach or transmit to those, who
are still seeking answers to their personal existential needs, and, who are
incapable of seeing in the myriad of emotional experiences, a lonely but
sovereign human will.
It is logical, that a large majority of people asks for a ready-made belief
structure. Most people are not capable, nor, do they have any inclination,
to work-out for themselves a system of coherent beliefs, and the intuitive
recognition of the need to accept a ready-made belief structure, leads to
a willingness to believe the appropriate authorities in all questions of
a religious or secular nature. Most people need to be told what to believe,
and, even, the thinker needs to know, what other people have believed in
the past, or, what they believe, now, before he can come to his own synthesis.
Sometimes, even our most famous thinkers never reach the stage that they
are able, or willing, to tell us, exactly, what they believe, and, consequently,
a remarkable part of their efforts is spent in analysis, as well as a
subconscious worship of logical thinking and sophisticated reasoning.
In the face of our primary experiences, it is, indeed, extremely audacious, even illogical, to assume, that man is not subjected to the same forces of willed behaviour man can exert in his contacts and interactions with other people and his natural environment.
One of the cardinal experiences of man is the fact, that he can choose a
deliberate course of action in relation to other people or the items of existence
in his natural environment. Man can choose his actions, or manipulate his
environment, in such a way, that he creates the most favourable circumstances
for himself. Man experiences the fact, that he can fight and kill, and revel
in victory, and, that he can increase his might and wealth by taking it away
from others. He knows, and experiences, often, that he has to kill to stay
alive, and, he realises, at least intuitively, that he may be killed, in
turn, by others, who are experiencing the same needs and drives as he
does.
Man sees, that the animal world around him behaves, essentially, in the same
manner, and, there is no alternative for early man, than to explain his
experiences in a structure of forces that has a similar biological orientation
as his own powers of interaction. Early man had to explain his awarenesses
with the help of forces that may help or harm him, since he was able to help
or harm, whatever he came in contact with himself.
When man`s experiences and conceptualisations became more sophisticated,
large areas of the experienced force-fields became predictable, and, as a
result, they were brought under the grasp of an intellectual concept, or
a manipulative technique. Slowly, the realm of spiritual forces contracted
and subsided into the background. The multitude of spiritual forces in the
world coalesced, eventually, into a more or less monotheistic concept of
an all-powerful God. However, the fusion of all metaphysical realities into
the concept of one original Creator, (who was then, necessarily, considered
to be responsible for all existence), has always been severely hampered by
the experience of good and evil.
The polarisation in conceptual thought that came about as a result of the
experience of good and evil, became a major spur to elaborate a metaphysical
reality accounting for the fundamental division between good and evil. A
purely scientific or mechanistic view-point of a natural world-order of
predictable force-fields can not easily reconcile the experiences of good
and evil, which are so obvious and fundamental to the members of mankind.
Therefore, a cold, emotionally neutral, scientific view of our ultimate realities
is difficult to understand and accept for most people.
.......
Chapter 2
Content
The relativity of good and evil.
The need for an intellectual foundation for ethical behaviour patterns.
Difficulties with religious and philosophical explanations for an ethical system.
The swing of the pendulum.
Interpreting facts according to the structures of our beliefs.
The fragmentation of public opinion.
The relativity of good and evil; the insight, that, so often,
good for one is evil for someone else; the observation that victory for one
is defeat for someone else, has become a major tool in the artistic experession
of dramatic tensions, and, this concept became a vehicle of thought to question
whatever explanations were current. Yet, tragedy and misery, but also, humor
and laughter remained difficult to reconcile with the emotionally neutral
world-order of the agnostic scientist or philosopher, and it became obvious
to many people, that the agnostic can not prove his theories with anymore
certainty than the metaphysical believer can prove the existence of God.
The concept of "ethical behaviour" refers to a number of concepts and guidelines
every society has developed in order to regulate the attitudes and actions
of its members during social contacts. The need for, as well as the foundation
of, ethical behaviour, has, time and again, become the major topic of discussion
after the stalemate between religious convictions and philosophical arguments
became obvious. Yet, these arguments always flare-up again, because our ethical
beliefs have always felt the need for a foundation upon some sort of an
acceptable perception of reality.
True, important ethical insights and concepts have often been developed and
formulated on the basis of "common-sense", or, a feeling of "fair play" and
a sense of "natural justice", which neatly side-stepped the exact definition
of the nature of man. However, the authority of an ethical principle is severely
hampered, if it can not rely on a persuasive, or, even, dogmatic point of
view, answering the basic questions about the nature and meaning of human
existence.
A philosophical system may come to almost identical ethical conclusions as
a religious structure of beliefs, but the sophistication and intellectual
virtuosity needed to understand a philosophical system makes it, necessarily,
a pass-time for the reflective and educated individualist, who is wealthy
enough to spend the major part of his time in the leisurely pursuit of knowledge
and ideas.
A religious system of explanatory beliefs and behavioural guidelines is,
or can be, far more direct in its approach to the people, and, it can avoid
an enormous amount of intellectual sophistication by presenting a divinely
revealed Truth and a simple system of divine commandments. These commandments
formulate ethical principles of behaviour, not, on the basis of insight,
but, on the basis of obediance. Unfortunately, religious commandments are
rarely a happy synthesis of intellect and feeling, but rely, heavily, on
authority, fear, and the promise of a reward.
Certainly, such a sobering impression has often been blurred by numerous
efforts, made throughout history, to give a divine revelation a substantive
intellectual basis. However, the religious system remains, in essence, a
question of faith. It remains the intuitive or trustful acceptance of a divinely
revealed reality, and, the intellectual "foot-work" is then accomplished,
mainly, to counter-act rational objections to, or inconsistencies of, such
a structure of beliefs.
Impressive structures of thought and belief have been erected, often with
great skill, beauty and persuasiveness, but, at the same time, we also see
the tenacious persistence of an agnostic point of view, where the belief
in a divine influence upon man is resolutely rejected as a delusion of wishful
thinking, based on the psychological needs of human existence.
The balance of power between these two antipodes in belief and attitude is
forever changing. In essence, the differences can be summarised by saying,
that, in a religious world-view, we accept the existence of an anthropomorphic
Force and a measure of influence upon the ways of man, while the agnostic
view comes, time and again, to the audacious conclusion, that any concept
or experience of such a divine existence and influence are due to psychological
mechanisms and adaptations to stress.
Psycho-analytic insights can, indeed, provide us with remarkably persuasive
concepts about the mechanisms of human behaviour, and, there seems to be
convincing evidence to state, that such explanations on the basis of natural
mechanisms form a coherent account of man`s behaviour patterns. At the same
time, however, we should not lose sight of the fact, that the "naturalistic"
concepts of psychological mechanisms are also "belief structures". At least,
they are mental structures of explanation that are typically human in nature.
The scientific elucidation of psychological mechanisms has shown us, how
we perceive reality, and, these mechanisms do not exclude, in any way, the
possibility of the existence of willed forces outside the human being. However,
so far, we have no convincing evidence that we are in contact with, or subjected
to, intelligent, willed, anthropomorphic force-fields comparable to our
own.
In the final analysis, the debate between the religious believer and the
agnostic remains a battle of convictions, where the agnostic has the intuitive
feeling, that, eventually, all phenomena scrutable to man, (including his
own existence and behaviour), can be "explained" in a network of comprehensive
natural laws or predictable regularities. With the acceptance of a belief
structure that includes the existence of a Divine Being, as well as the
possibility that this divine being helps or influences the believer and others,
the religious believer will, eventually, explain or interpret certain experiences
as a confirmation of these beliefs.
The interesting observation, here, is the fact, that we have to interpret
happenings and events within the framework of our beliefs. We classify
experiences within a framework of pre-existing notions or convictions, and
the experience of a discrepancy must be overwhelmingly strong and irrefutable,
before it results in a radical loosening of a belief structure.
In most cases, such a loosening of the belief structure is only possible,
if the individual has already allowed doubts about the validity of his beliefs
to enter his mind. This means, that we open ourselves to the possibility
of receiving an experience that will either confirm or discredit our beliefs.
Then, we have created, in essence, an additional category for the classification
of our experiences.
Similarly, the agnostic is besieged, quite literally, with numerous experiences
and questions that are difficult to answer without the acceptance of some
metaphysical beliefs. It is not surprising, therefore, that the favourite
pass-time of the agnostic is to point out possibilities of doubt regarding
generally accepted religious beliefs, rather than the construction of a
vulnerable and potentially erroneous agnostic belief structure that has been
built-up in an audacious worship of the powers of rational thought.
The practice of sniping at the institutionalised beliefs of society is often
carried-out as a compulsion by the perceptive citizen, who feels, intuitively,
that the accepted beliefs and the experienced realities are miles apart,
and, that the adherence to the common beliefs of society, is a source of
unnecessary strife and blatant hypocrisy. Here, the constructive social function
of reform is hinted at in the seemingly negative attitudes of questioning
and doubting the officially sanctioned beliefs adhered to by a majority.
This intuitive effort to bring-about a change in the perception of our realities,
creates tensions and unrest, and, it may, even, weaken a social environment.
Not suprisingly, these criticisms are looked upon with suspicion by the
establishment. Yet, a renewed intellectual scrutiny of the commonly accepted
beliefs and attitudes may become a contributory factor to the processes of
social renewal by encouraging the essential element of flexibility in beliefs
and attitudes, and, this, in turn, facilitates a process of adaptation to
changed circumstances and experiences.
It is a refinement in the perception of our realities, which is responsible
for the discrepancies between predicted outcome and actual observation of
the events we are exposed to. The predicted outcome reflects an experience
that is expected in the light of our beliefs, while the actual experience
may be quite different, if we have the energy, and the intellectual honesty,
to admit to the possibility of such discrepancies. As we have mentioned before,
we all have a strong tendency to make our actual experiences conform with
our predicted experiences, since a discrepancy is usually felt as a painful
failure. We find it, often, difficult to acknowledge a failure, and, we rather
explain it away, subconsciously, by minimising the awareness of a discrepancy,
before we have to explain it away in a more conscious and deliberate effort;
by changing the framework of our reality perceptions.
In times of confident prosperity, when we are, so to speak "on top of the
world", we tend to relax our dependency on super-natural belief structures.
The strength and influence of our decisions, the power to manipulate people
and the natural environment, our ability to create wealth, leisure and pleasure,
leads, naturally, to the exploration of different ways of thinking and
interpreting reality. Receptive and reflective, innovative people, in societies
all over the world, will often acknowledge and worship the rational powers
of the human mind, in particular, when they notice, that the remnants of
the ancestral Faith are hampering rather than helping them to enjoy, fully,
their powers and freedoms.
The inevitable decline of society by internal strife, the confusion of many
divergent opinions, as well as the disappearance of the steadying influence
of sacred institutions and revered customs, will always remain a severe challenge
to the continued viability of rational thought, and, the philosophically
inclined individual often withdraws into a lonely elitism, contemplating
the foolishnes of irrational behaviour and the discrepancies between man`s
potentials and achievements.
.......
Chapter 3
Content
We do not have to choose between religious and scientific view-points.
An attempt to harmonise the contradictions of these varying views.
A review of various influences on structures of belief.
Discrepancies between expected and actual experiences.
What is "truth"?
The mental nature of our concepts.
The "school" as a selective filter of thought and attitudes.
We have alluded to the concluson, that it is essentially
impossible to make a choice between these two, fundamentally different points
of view. On the one hand, there is the view, that, behind all our realities,
there exists a Divine Being, who is responsible, in some way, for the existence
of natural laws and the order of the Universe. Perhaps, this Divine Being
is even responsible for, and concerned with, the fate of mankind and each
individual human being. From this belief flows the hope, or the certainty,
of the possibility to receive divine help. This expectation of hope becomes
a major factor in man`s ability to resist stress.
The other point of view, (much less prevalent, and, of a much more recent
origin, tenacious nevertheless, and surfacing, time and again, whenever people
are reflective and prosperous), is represented by the view-point, that there
is no convincing evidence to believe that man`s experiences and observations
are influenced by an intelligent, concerned Being. This view sees in the
cycles of birth and death, nature`s recurring re-organisation of matter into
living existence, where man is only a part of this natural phenomenon, be
it a special, intelligent and creative part. In this view, however, the
overwhelming majority of man`s calamities and sufferings are considered to
be man-made, resulting from an ill- or non-understood nature of the human
being, and, in this view, the prayer to God, or, the belief in Divine Providence,
only leads to further strife and polarisation between those, who believe,
and those, who do not.
These two view-points seem to summarise the crucial differences in attitudes
between the religious and agnostic believers, but it is becoming apparent,
that no conclusive choice between them is possible. Besides, any choice would
be meaningless, since the chances of convincing one party, or the other,
of the validity of the opposite point of view, are limited indeed.
The apparent justification of either point of view is a problem we should
deal with more profitably. On the surface, it seems impossible to reconcile
these antipodes into a coherent view, but we should not despair without trying.
It may well be, that this antithesis can be shown to be somewhat irrelevant,
based as it is, on a common assumption. There is, indeed, a common assumption
in both beliefs, in spite of the fact, that many people will have difficulties
recognising this common assumption. This common assumption is the belief
in the existence of an "absolute truth". The belief in the presence of an
absolute truth is the reason, and the cause, for the persistence of this
conflict.
It may be possible to show, that, seen in a different light, the anti-thesis
of these opinions disappears. It may be argued, however, that in such a different
point of view, both structures of belief are "dethroned" beyond a useful
meaning, and, then, the solution of the antithesis may well be rejected by
both parties, who much prefer the duel between two absolutist points of view.
However, let us look at the task ahead, and see, whether or not it is possible
to outline a concept, able to defuse the conflict between the religious and
agnostic believer.
I can not think of a better way than to start with the circumstances surrounding
my own beliefs. Far from concluding, superficially, that my beliefs are
representative for what others believe or do not believe to be true, there
is good reason to assume, however, that none of us is entirely exceptional
in the way we have formed our structures of belief. Obviously, people vary
immensely in the content and form of their beliefs, and, they will verbalise,
in may different ways, their doubts and opinions. Many people would be at
a loss to express their particular beliefs and doubts accurately, since so
many of our staunchest beliefs are somewhat hidden under a crust of customs
and routine behaviour patterns.
The influences I experienced during my up-bringing, the environment in which
I grew-up, the ideas and people I came into contact with, shaped, to a very
large extent, what I now believe, and, how I now behave. I am convinced,
that this mechanism applies to everyone else as well. My language and my
ideas, a good deal of my attitudes towards the world and other people, have
been shaped in those formative years, but I would be unable to outline, with
any degree of precision, what, exactly, is contained within this culturally
inherited complex of attitudes, knowledge and belief structures.
However, it is obvious to me, that the fundamental religiosity or agnosticism
of each individual is as much a part of this environmental heritage as our
ways of dressing, eating or talking to each other. Those of us, who believe
in the essentially secular ideas about life, (with an emphasis on, and faith
in, the sciences), believe such concepts as much on authority, or, on the
basis of cultural influences, as those of us, who believe in the existence
of God.
This does not mean, however, that we are exempted from the need to make a
deliberate choice about our beliefs, later in life, whenever we come to
experience great difficulties accepting the realities of a particular social
environment. People, who have been brought-up with a religious belief, usually
adhere to concepts and ideas that are fairly well delineated. They do not
just believe, vaguely, in a deity who may or may not have relevance for them.
Most of us, who have been educated in a metaphysical belief structure, have
been instructed in a fairly precise system of religious beliefs. The awareness
of numerous discrepancies between the various religious beliefs, together
with the marked fragmentation of Christianity, were major factors, for me,
in the realisation, that, obviously, these various groups could not logically
claim to be the sole possessor of the truth, and yet, most of them did just
that.
My contacts with a variety of scientific disciplines, in particular, the
remarkable cohesion of the biological and medical disciplines, (together
with the fascinating biochemical and biophysical fringe-areas that lie in
between living and non-living matter), as well as the remarkable ideas of
natural evolution, all these fields of knowledge and insight evoked in me
a great sense of beauty and truthfulness. Slowly, I became aware of the many
possibilities of understanding which seemed to open-up with the help of these
modern scientific insights. These possibilities of understanding seemed to
present themselves on many different levels of examination or
observation.
If I ask myself to what extent I believe these coherent descriptions of the
sciences to be "true", I would say, that I rely very heavily on them. These
scientific images helped me to shape my ideas about many different mechanisms
that seem to occur in nature. Yet, I am always aware of a feeling of relativity.
This is the awareness, that we are only "making use of" mental structures.
We are making use of mental images of comprehension, which allow us to select
certain behavioural choices with varying degrees of success and
accuracy.
It has always been obvious to me, that, regardless, how detailed a picture
of reality I tried to form in one subject or another, it only represented
a shadow of the possible whole of knoweable facts. But, in addition, I always
became aware of the fact, that I had no idea at all, whether or not my mental
images were, in any way, an accurate reflection of the "objective reality";
the non-human, non-conceptualised and non-focussed reality that is independent
of human existence, if such a reality would indeed exist.
When considering the peculiarly focussed aspects of human reality perceptions,
together with the inevitable classification of events and observations into
categories of similarities or cause-effect relationships, I came to the
conclusion, that our mental images, (as well as the remarkable similarities
of those mental images from one person to the next, in spite of the many
discrepancies we can always see), were entirely dependent upon our particular
way of functioning. Our reality perceptions are a reflection of our biological
structure, and, as a result, any idea about an "absolute" reality could only
be another human concept or mental product, whatever such a concept would
be.
I noticed, that the scientific imagery, tried and purified by extensive debate,
argument and experimentation, would be handed-down from the expert to the
lay-person with increasing simplification and an increasing reliance on the
authority of the scientist or the communicator. The sense of reliability
shifted from the degree of thoroughness of the scientific method, to the
degree of authority conveyed during a communication. Therefore, almost all
the images of the secular reality were handed-down to me, (and to everyone
else), in the form of pre-formed mental images that were largely accepted
"on authority".
Sure, we develop a certain ability to criticise and think for ourselves,
and, it is true, that, familiarity with a certain subject shows us, how the
fringe-areas of any field of knowledge and expertise become opinions or
"suggestive evidence", which we select or reject, accept or disbelieve, mostly
intuitively. An important criterium for the selection of these mental images
of belief is the common view of reality held by the "school" in which we
have been instructed, or, in which we have been scientifically "disciplined".
Interestingly, the existence of such a "filter", or, such a selective mechanism
based on local structures of belief, becomes only apparent after a period
of reflection; when looking back upon one`s formative years in the
sciences.
The conclusion becomes inescapable, that any sense of reality rests on a
belief. This belief may be an imagery of a scientific nature, accepted on
authority and corroborated by a sense of internal logic, or, this belief
may have been accepted as a set of customs or attitudes that were primarily
transferred from the cultural pool and relate to our position in society,
or, our destiny in death.
All these beliefs are only mental images, and, they have been accepted, because
there have been numerous persuasive influences to make us accept the various
sets of mental images that were available. Yet, they are only mental images.
They are structures of beliefs that are relevant for me and my immediate
social surroundings, but there is no absolutely sure way of knowing, whether
or not my beliefs are any more valid than those of someone else, even, if
I notice a number of important discrepancies. Sure, I can often see flaws
of logical cohesion in someone else`s beliefs, but, I am much less aware
of the flaws in my own system of beliefs, unless they have been persuasively
pointed out by someone I respect.
.......
Chapter 4
Content
The reality of what we believe to be true.
Ethics; approached pragmatically.
The persuasiveness of religious and agnostic attitudes.
Attitudes and beliefs.
The unequal validity of beliefs in a relativistic comparison.
The fanatic belief.
In conclusion, we all must have formed, out of necessity,
a more or less coherent structure of beliefs, but the reasons, why we have
accepted a particular set of beliefs, may not be at all clear to us. The
only reality we know is formed by this conglomerate of awarenesses and belief
structures, which we accept as "truth-ful".
Reality is, therefore, a perception that is centered around each one of us,
and, it is equivalent to what we believe to be true, but, we can always be
aware of the fact, that, some, or, even, many of our dearest beliefs are
not shared by others, and, there is not one particular belief structure that
has absolute validity amongst every member of society. Even the most elementary,
logically inescapable beliefs may not be shared by some people, especially,
when they live in a culture or an environment that is radically different
from our own.
Rather than concentrating on the observation that none of the belief structures
is universally valid throughout the entire human species, it may be more
illuminating to look at the remarkable agreement that is possible amongst
widely divergent cultures. However, I would like to go back, first, to the
conclusion, that all mental images have only a relative value as a perception
of reality. They have a relative value, in the sense, that, most reality
perceptions are specific to a particular personality and apply, only, to
a set of specific circumstances.
We have seen, that the choice between what is considered true or not true
in the realm of religious or scientific images, seems to be heavily influenced
by the chances of encounter and contact an individual has been exposed to.
The agnostic, who tenaciously claims not to believe in God, can not prove
the non-existence of God anymore than the believer can prove that God does
indeed exist. The strongly religious person, who lives a life that has been
dedicated to his beliefs, nourishes these beliefs with an emotional investment,
and, the religious believer will experience increasingly convincing incidents
that confirm his beliefs. These incidents are often professed in an eloquent
and convincing testimonial. Occasionally, the strength of the religious
personality, as well as the sincere commitment to his beliefs, are deeply
convincing, emotionally, and, perhaps, intellectually as well.
Quality of thought, a well-tempered disposition, erudition and a vast knowledge
and awareness of human expressions and behaviour patterns, may, similarly,
be persuasive and convincing, in particular, when philosophical equanimity
is coupled with an intuitive wisdom and an attitude of kindness towards other
people. In addition, the attitudes of genuine wisdom are reflected in a moderate
lifestyle and an honest appraisal of the boundaries between knowledge and
belief.
The attitudes of emotional commitment and intellectual consistency can,
therefore, be greatly persuasive, and yet, they can both be terribly petulant,
if either attitude is neurotic or fraudulent. Every belief can be a source
of saintly wisdom, as well as arrogant aggression. Every attitude or belief
structure can become a tool of beauty and enlightenment, but, may also become
an instrument of tyranny and oppression. Attitudes can be based upon any
system of beliefs, and every system of beliefs can be perverted to egotistical
use, or, it can be transformed into a charmingly persuasively attitude of
common-sense and concern.
Yet, it would be a shame to close our inquiries now, and say, that "everything
is relative", and, perhaps, even, irrelevant. Also, let us not abandon our
discussion and examination of these belief structures prematurely, since
we will have to deal, quite often, with the tensions and strife that arise
from conflicting and diverging ideas.
It is not sufficient to blandly suggest, that both systems of thought have
an equivalent relevance, since the combatants will ignore such an opinion
as irrelevant. It is not easy to make a strong, dedicated believer see, that
his beliefs may be wrong, or, even, dangerous. It is not easy to forestall
the ever-present tendency towards polarisation and battle, because this is
the primordial, primitive way of solving a problem, especially, if one fails
to appreciate the full consequences of such an attitude or behavioural
choice.
How do we convince a crusader, killing in the name of his God, that he is
a scourge and satan to the other children of God? How do we teach humility
and tolerance to the fanatically committed? How do we reason with those,
who will look upon reason as vacillating treachery?
Once the mold of a fanatic belief has set, it can only be triumphant, or,
it will be destroyed. The strength of a fanatic belief is enormous, and its
resistance to change or destruction makes the effort to modify an ardent
belief, an arduous and laborious task that has to be met with a similarly
dedicated counter-attack.
Fortunately, the fanatic attitude and struggle is often limited and localised,
since the immense "bundling energy", necessary to harden and sharpen a fanatic
point of view, is seldom present for a prolonged period of time, and, eventually,
it disappears in the relaxing aftermath of triumph, or the shattering experience
of a crushing defeat.
While doubting vacillation and seemingly endless philosophical debate can,
rightly, be accused of undermining the beliefs and ethical principles upon
which moral attitudes and strength of character have been based, the loosening
of belief structures also provides an opportunity for renewal and re-adjustment.
Loosening a belief structure for its own sake, however, is a pernicious activity
that leads to the individualistic worship of sophistry and aggressive
intellectual gamesmanship.
The question is this; if I see all my belief structures as relative; as
determined by my biological and cultural heritage; as determined by the chances
of contact and the accidents of my personal history, how, then, can I find
any strength in my beliefs; how can I ever cope with the stress of confrontation,
if I adopt a totally relativistic attitude? Is this not the same as having
no belief at all? Would it not be better, then, to start from scratch and
try to fill my mind with a structure of beliefs I can fully believe in and
rely upon?
.......
Chapter 5
Content
The need for preference when making up our minds.
The impulse for ethical behaviour.
The need to understand.
The importance of knowing history.
It is, probably, impossible to really believe, that all belief
structures are completely relative. It is almost unavoidable to elevate the
belief in this relativity of the value of various beliefs, into a belief
of its own, perhaps, not with absolute validity, but, at least, with a conviction
that places a significant value and validity on such a relativistic point
of view.
Yes, it can easily be acknowledged, that the consequences of a belief structure
are important, because a belief influences, to a large extent, our contacts
and attitudes towards other people. I may fully believe, that someone else
has the perfect right to his beliefs, as I have to mine, but, what is my
attitude going to be, if someone else`s beliefs compel the individual to
be unpleasant, or, even, harmful to me? What stand do we take, and, what
attitudes do we adopt, if a belief is markedly aggressive or expansionistic
in nature? Does a believer have the right to act according to his beliefs,
regardless of the consequences?
Of course not. The real importance, then, is, obviously, the question of inter-human relationships, of ethics, and, it is, therefore, quite reasonable to devote the major part of one`s philosophical efforts to ethical problems.
I am convinced, that ethical questions and concerns have always been the
major spur to philosophical activities, in addition to problems arising from
man`s inevitable mortality, disease and old age. Our endeavours to see nature
as a coherent and potentially understandable unit of existence, are based
on our deeply felt need and desire to understand, why we have to die, and,
why, so often, we have to suffer as well. Man`s desire to believe in forces
he can control, either by supplication and magic, or, with the help of scientific
manipulations, is, once again, an expression of this need to find a satisfying
answer, because, to have satisfying answers, means, to have a measure of
control.
Understanding is, in essence, a form of control, even, over forces that can
not be manipulated, because understanding provides, at least, a measure of
predictability in the course of events that are beyond control. The creation
of a pantheon of gods, and, the explanations of their interactions in a rationale
of legends and stories, are also attempts to understand the inscrutable forces
of nature, seen, here, as anthropomorhic force-fields with their irrational
decisions and fickle loyalties.
The awareness of personal suffering and the ability to identify or sympathise
with the suffering of someone else, (in particular, of those we have just
defeated or conquered), is one of the most important stimuli to reflect and
think. If we are able to see the vagaries of fortune; to see the other side
of our actions; to see the suffering induced by our triumphs, then, we begin
to wonder, who we are. Why is it, that man is almost always in conflict,
then here, then there? Now, we may be victorious, but tomorrow, it may be
our turn to be defeated and to suffer, and, perhaps, die.
It is our tendency to ask these sort of questions with their ethical
implications, which really stimulates us to come to grips with reality, and
these considerations encourage us to try to answer the question, why we behave
the way we do. It may well be much easier to agree amongst ourselves about
the practical aspects of an ethical system of inter-human relationships,
than to work-out a conceptual reality with universal validity. Nevertheless,
a conceptual structure with universal validity would give us a solid intellectual
foundation for a system of ethical behaviour patterns.
Ethical refinements in our feelings and awarenesses are, probably, a result
of prolonged contacts and conflicts, where an ever increasing heritage of
historical tales of victory and defeat, high-light, time and again, the vagaries
of fortune and the capriciousness of human behaviour. A familiarity with
historical data, be it in the form of stories and legends, the portrayals
of the theater, or, in the form of a variety of religious rites, can lead
to an increasing awareness of the suffering of defeat and the transience
of victory. These awarenesses may lead, in turn, to an ever greater ability
to identify with the suffering stranger, whenever we have learned to expand
our sphere of concern as a result of increased cultural contacts and the
awareness of inequities and injustices.
The similarities between human beings, as seen in the emotions of ambition
and frustration, or victory and defeat, will become increasingly apparent,
and, instinctively, we will try to search for a way of life, as well as a
code of conduct, that will limit the senseless wars of domination and
destruction.
Ethical considerations and our sphere of concern will, eventually, extend
to the entire realm of mankind, and, it is on this desire to understand and
limit strife, that our progress in ethics has to be based. Ethical behaviour
can not be based on the belief in a particular relationship between God and
a part or all of mankind, nor, by an emphasis on a mechanistic, emotion-less
play of natural forces, because the latter is a concept that may never be
wholly acceptable to a large majority of the members of mankind.
.......
Chapter 6
Content
Common-sense and ethical guidelines.
The need for an intellectual foundation for ethical problems and solutions.
The carefully designed rigidity of dogmatic guidelines.
The foudation for a system of ethical conduct has to be a
common-sense awareness, that, in order to minimise conflict, we have to learn
to see the consequences of our desires and aspirations. We have to recognise
the consequences of our behaviour for other people, and, we have to learn
to identify with other human beings, in the sense, that we find legitimate
in them, whatever we consider legitimate hopes and aspirations in
ourselves.
Do we need rigid belief structures for this? Do we need any form of fanatic
commitment to a Cause, be it a religious conviction or a social dogma of
rigidly prescribed human relationships? At the present time in the unfolding
of our evolutionary potentials, the emphasis has swung from a large-scale
commitment to religious beliefs, to an equally large-scale commitment in
the absolute validity of a certain social order. We will have an opportunity
to examine this shift more in detail, and, we will determine the merits and
demerits of such a shift in emphasis.
For the time being, let us remind ourselves of the importance of ethical questions. Human relationships are important, because they are a stimulus, not only, for philosophical understanding, but, they are, also, an inspiration to literature, drama, and the arts in general. Let us reflect upon the readiness of man to do battle on account of his conflicting beliefs, and, we will see, that this observation is a powerful reason to consider any belief structure to be of relative value only. However, the impossibility to behave efficiently without a structure of beliefs, (even, if it is only a subconscious belief in the superiority of asking questions, rather than providing answers), makes it clear, that we all select certain ideas to be more reliable and more valuable than others.
Our intuitive quest for intellectual precision and absolute reliability in
understanding the nature of the Universe, (together with its many
manifestations), has to be supplemented with, or, even, transformed into,
a careful consideration of the numerous practical problems we face, when
trying to regulate human behaviour and contacts. The realisation of the
ever-present need to adapt our belief structures, has made most of us flexible
enough to see the folly of killing each other for the sake of incompatible
view-points about realities we are not even sure of. Yet, even in our more
practical considerations about how we ought to live together, we show an
irrepressible tendency to enshrine our opinions into dogma, and, to obliterate
dissent or disbelief by force.
It remains to be seen, whether or not a purely pragmatic approach to ethical
behaviour will, in the long run, be sufficient to sustain a useful pattern
of ethical guidelines. It may well be, that an empirically formed, organically
evolved pattern of ethical conduct has to be "sanctified" for the sake of
stability and durability, and, it may well have to be endowed with an aura
of sacredness and infallibility.
We should not forget, that the process of grasping and groping for new forms
of conduct can never be the ultimate goal of any transformation or adjustment.
A period of transformation will allow us the freedom and flexibility to find
a suitable code, enshrined in a global Constitution, but, we will have to
safeguard the perpetuation of this code by reducing flexibility; by "enshrining"
such a Constitutional Code, at least, to a certain extent, with the rigidity
of a highly valued structure of beliefs and guidelines, but, we will have
to allow for a carefully calculated mechanism of change, in order to make
it possible for this Constitutional Code to adapt and remain relevant.
This is the age-old dilemma or balance between rigidity and flexibility;
the strength to endure the stress of the moment, versus the ability to reduce
stress by adapting to new and changing circumstances.
.......
Chapter 7
Content
The sense of "de-personalisation".
Mechanisms of reality perceptions.
The fragility of the sense of reality.
Once in a while, in a fleeting moment, we may feel a disturbing
sense of bewilderment. We see ourselves, sitting somewhere, suddenly void
of any meaning, and, we watch ourselves, asking; what is this life? What
does it mean to be a human being? How long will it be, before I know who
I am, or, why I live? What is this curious ability to think and see ourselves
as a strange, incomprehensible object?
For a few moments, we are not absorbed by pursuing one objective or another.
For a few moments, our attention has not been focussed upon a particular
question or an existential problem, but, we see ourselves as "just being";
wondering how useful it all is. How illusory are our goals, and, yet, do
we not admire and enjoy the products of other people`s efforts? Do we not
continuously refresh our ideas and insights with the clarity of someone else`s
thoughts? How often, do we not recognise in other people this feeling of
doubt; was it all worthwhile?
During such moments, we loosen, for a moment, our most essential and basic
reality perception. This is not a verbalisable structure of goals and ideas,
but the reality experience of our identity; of ourselves, being engaged in
the processes of existence.
The very possibility of this experience, means, that we live and experience
reality under conditions we are barely aware of. Perhaps, this basic feeling
of being in contact with reality is dependent on physiological functions
that are constantly at work, primarily, beyond the sphere of our conscious
awarenesses. These physiological mechanisms select and classify each moment
of our reality experiences. We compare, constantly and subconsciously, incoming
impulses against our memory-traces, and the continuous re-assurance of
recognition gives us the relaxing feeling of familiarity, not only, with
our environment, but also, with the feeling of our own identity.
We assume, that, occasionally, for one reason or another, this continuous
stream of impulses, thoughts and feelings, fails to be classified with sufficient
strength and finality as "familiar and routine", and, for a moment, we feel
strange, not ourselves, questioning the unquestionable, not knowing, whether
I am I; whether or not I am the same as the me from yester-day or
yester-year.
Various indications seem to point to physiological or neurologial processes
to evoke these sensations. In other words, biological and biochemial processes
are at work, here, and this impression is enhanced by the fact, that a variety
of drugs, or, a state of exhaustion and fatigue, can greatly increase the
duration and severity of a feeling of sudden "unfamiliarity" with our own
identity. This is the essence of a feeling of "de-personalisation".
We also know, that the absence of sufficient stimuli to keep the classifying
activities of our central nervous system busy, may lead to a predominance
of feelings and reminiscences, blurring the distinction between what is real
and what is imagined. Not only, can this lead to a feeling that we are not
certain about what is real, but, we may even become convinced, that certain
imagined experiences or feelings are indeed "real". We say, then, that a
"break-down of reality functions" has taken place. We may become obsessed
by certain recurring feelings or ideas, and, the field of psychopathology
is abundantly aware of the existence of a great many delusions, hallucinations,
phobias, obsessions, etc.
There is often no way to convince the person who is suffering from a delusion,
that his experience is "not real", but, with the help of suppressive or
tranquillising drugs, the occurrence and severity of these delusions may
diminish, and, the individual may, in retrospect, recognise and acknowledge
the experience as a delusion, being persuaded to think so by convincing evidence
from his subsequent experiences.
What we believe to be true, then, may, not only, be determined by our previous
experiences and chance-meetings with various people and different circumstances,
but, it may also be influenced by our organic constitution. A state of great
fatigue, physical exhaustion, emotional tensions, drugs, etc., all these
factors may cause a break-down in the reality experience of contemporary
sense impressions, and, this break-down may allow evoked mental images to
be experienced as "visions" or hallucinations. These sensation may take place
with the same degree of reality-experience as any other sense impression
that is normally classified as an "actual occurrence".
Often, a particular hallucinatory experience is so intense and has such a
strong emotional significance, that it has a significant influence upon the
reality perceptions and behaviour patterns of an individual for the rest
of his or her life.
.......
Chapter 8
Content
The hysterical conversion reaction.
The ease of being deceived.
Critical faculties and the "well-tempered reality experience".
The filtering of sense impressions to fit our concepts of reality.
The fragility of reality experiences.
The stress of certain circumstances and excessive demands
may, literally, induce a paralysing anxiety, and it is not surprising, therefore,
that a strong feeling of inadequacy to cope with a stressful situation is
translated into a physical handicap, which is then used as a pretext for
the failure to cope.
This type of emotional reaction is called a "hysterical conversion reaction",
or, rather, it is much better to call it a "psycho-somatic illness". The
resulting physical "handicap" is not based on a deliberate distortion of
the truth, since these processes take place beyond the level of conscious
awareness, and, the person honestly believes, that he or she is handicapped
and, therefore, unable to function properly.
The boundary with malingering is somewhat blurred, however, as many people
will have a vague feeling in the back of their minds, that the handicap could
be restored, if they were given, in one way or another, the courage to cope
effectively with their problems. At the same time, we should keep in mind
that the deliberate distortion of reality, (malingering), and the sub-conscious
distortion as a result of the inability to cope, is, yet again, different
from the experience of "hallucination", where we honestly believe to have
perceived a reality that is not shared by our social surroundings.
I have mentioned these two common examples where our reality perceptions
have become distorted, (the hallucination and the hysterical conversion
reaction), to show, how easy it is to be fooled by our sense of reality.
We all are aware of the fact, that we can easily be deceived by our senses,
and, we have all experienced an immediate, defensive and suspicious behavioural
reaction, whenever we heard a sound in the dark we could not classify or
recognise immediately. It is frightening to realise, how easily the important,
and, yet, so fragile sense of reality can be disturbed, and, at the same
time, we can be so convinced about the reality of a certain experience or
sensation!
Our ability to evaluate and discriminate, critically, is based on reason,
careful consideration and emotional detachment. These techniques are powerful
tools to help us establish an "evenly tempered" reality experience. Do I
hear the argument, that this critical faculty of reasoned argument can also
exclude from a reality experience whatever is considered not to "fit" into
a pre-conceived context of order and classification? Certainly, this may
happen, and, it is interesting to note the changes that are taking place
in our individualised reality experiences, (or, in the commonly shared
perspectives of a social environment), as time goes by.
Our view-points change and evolve, because we are forced to adjust to the
prevailing realities, from time to time, but, we all have a tendency to close
our mind to unusual, non-fitting aspects. However, when we think about it,
it is, really, unavoidable, that we have a strong impulse to interpret our
sense impressions according to the concepts of reality we already have.
Therefore, there are two different processes that tend to distort our reality
perceptions. First of all, we select for the focus of our conscious awareness,
almost exclusively, data we recognise and can classify in our notions about
reality, and, it is, indeed, quite an effort to admit data or sense impressions
that disturb or do not fit into this perception of reality. We "filter",
therefore, the awarenesses from our environment in order to make these sense
impressions fit with whatever we know and believe in.
Secondly, the classification of the incoming sense impressions can easily
be disturbed, or, even completely distorted, by strong emotional experiences,
or, by a state of exhaustion, sensory deprivation or hallucinogenic drugs.
Then, a very strong reality perception may occur with a great deal of influence
on the future behaviour patterns of an individual, but, this reality perception
may have to be classified, by outsiders, as a "hallucination" or a
"delusion".
.......
Chapter 9
Content
Biological reasons to doubt the existence of an absolute reality.
Reality pictures and existential circumstances.
The limits of teaching wisdom.
A confusing cacaphony.
Polarisations.
This brings us to the conclusion, that, besides philosophical
considerations, we have strong physiological and biological reasons to doubt
the existence of any particular absolute reality. We may, even, be able to
outline, in general terms, what circumstances will be conducive to a particular
type of reality perception.
It may well be, that we can correlate the divergent, philosophically
well-reasoned reality images of the reflective and secure individual, (who
discerns an absence of any divine influence upon human affairs), with the
existence of a leisurely and modestly prosperous state of well-being. This
state of well-being is usually found in a comfortable, but somewhat confusing
and easy-going society, while the fervent religious reality perceptions are
primarily developed and adhered to by people, or communities, who are living
under much more stressful conditions, where the outlook for future events
is coloured with intense emotions of hope and anxiety.
Turbulent times, frequent changes in social circumstances, as well as the
influx of primitive vigour, seem to favour the intellectually easier and
emotionally more appealing images of religious beliefs. It certainly seems
fair to state, that the philosophical imagery has seldom been successful
in guiding a society under stress. Philosophical wisdom is notoriously fleeting
and elusive, obtainable, only, at a considerable personal effort, and, it
is difficult to transmit philosophical wisdom culturally, since the essential
attractiveness of the philosophical attitude seems to be a personal discovery
of truths in knowledge and attitude. These truths make only sense after a
long, personal quest for such a wisdom, and, these discoveries are almost
entirely lost in any form of teaching or cultural transfer.
Widely contrasting philosophical or religious opinions form a confusing cacaphony
for the bewildered spectator in a complex and conglomerate society, and,
the possibilities for adaptation arising from widely divergent view-points
are often lost, because the confusing and somewhat demoralising conceptual
diversity is frequently felt as a threat to security and social stability.
Yet, the spectacular successes of the scientific methods of investigation,
together with their technical applications, have slowly influenced our modern
societies to the point, that a reasoned and critical evaluation of sensory
data is becoming widely accepted, and, this habit of intense scrutiny is
largely responsible for the agnostic beliefs and opinions, which we see widely
adopted, by so many people, in so many social environments.
It seems fair to say, that, at the present time, most of us do not really
know what to believe. As a result, a process of polarisation is taking place.
We see a fairly significant resurgence of fundamentalistic religious beliefs
and behaviour patterns, where, once again, the majority of mankind is seen
as doomed and destined for damnation. Others are clinging, ever more fervently,
to the secular dogmas of Communism and Dogmatic Socialism, and, they find
an outlet for their energies in an ever more violent confrontation with those
who oppose them.
Another section of the population worships the gods of free-enterprise and
private profit, and, this represents, indeed, a relatively large segment
of affluent or near-affluent people. These are the people, who still think,
that ruthless competitiveness and the survival of the fittest will produce
the healthiest and most stable societies, and, these free-enterprisers are
still surprised to learn, that an ever increasing gap between the rich and
the poor is not so pleasing to those who are poor. Many people are surprised
to see the intensity of discontent in affluent societies, because the universal
gospel of ever increasing consumption, preached by the advertising wizards
of Western television, radio and news-papers, seem to be so widely accepted
by everyone.
Then, we have the law and order advocates. These are the people, who consider
it their God-given right to own the Constitution and to employ it to their
liking, in order to obtain and maintain their assets and empires of multinational
dimensions. Unless we learn to control these giant corporations, the affluent
nations have little chance of developing a more equitable and stable social
environment.
All these groups see reality quite differently. In fact, the reality perceptions
are so different, that any communication, any feeling of mutual identification,
seems impossible. Yet, most of us still consider our societies to represent
one happy family, where we are all steeped in Christian charity and amicable
manners. In reality, our Western societies are fragmented along ideological
lines, as well as along the dividing lines of wealth and influence on the
one hand, and poverty and ignorance on the other.
We have seen, however, that the disappearance of a sense of togetherness,
leads, inevitably, to confrontation and strife. Mutually induced incidences
of injustice become, eventually, the main reason for an irreversible slide
into hostilities and mutual alienation, and the process of socialisation
has to start, again, from scratch.
Our reality perceptions are so different, and yet, we all believe, so ardently,
in the righteousness and absolute validity of our own particular truths.
.......
Summary
.......