[From Rupert Young (2015.11.25 12.30)]
Hi Rupert, just for the record I am an atheist, but I am used
to these debates of whether beliefs or conflict cause problems
through my clinical research, and it seems to come down to
conflict every time. They is partly why PCT appeals to me so
much beyond cognitive approaches.
I don't see it as an either or situation. As I understand PCT
beliefs are perceptions and, so, can be controlled variables. That
is, beliefs can be the goals which form conflicts. After all
perceptions are perspectives on the world, and beliefs are no
different.
We are certainly seeing the results of intrapersonal conflicts in
the current situation, but wonder if there is (now) interpersonal
conflict within the Paris terrorists or they are just carrying out
their goals, which are based upon their religious beliefs. Perhaps,
they did have internal conflict, between their western desires and
their Islamic principles, but went up a level, to their belief in
allah, which has resulted in a resolution by accepting their Islamic
principles and further reinforced (controlled) by setting about
destroying western civilisation.
If we have one thing to change in society and we try to
battle religion we will firing a shotgun into the mist. Changing
society requires a targeted attack on the most pernicious
feature(s) of how societies of living systems fail at harmonious
mutual (self and collective) control.
Sure, but that failure might be due to goals which are
religious-based. And goals based on religion tend to be
intransigent, as they tend to be immune to reason and evidence. So
changing society might involve changing what people believe and how
they come to believe. I don’t think battles are good ideas, but
would favour an education approach, such as removing faith-based
education from schools and teaching children to be sceptical and how
to evaluate what they are being told, based upon reason and
evidence.
I can think of many things; here’s a few.
Do you have evidence that everyone with faith is at greater
risk of this kind of overgeneralisation? And what has it to do
with PCT?
Well, it is self-evident in a way, in that those in question have
already demonstrated that they are believers in bullshit (to use the
technical term). Of course it will also depend on what other
influences have led to their perceptions of the world. The killers
of Lee Rigby had been devout Christians who converted to (a violent
version of) Islam. It seems unlikely that they would have been
vulnerable to such a conversion if their background had been one of
scepticism and reason.
This wasn't a PCT point, but in response to your statement that you
didn’t think there was anything wrong with religion. However, it is
relevant to PCT in that it relates to how perceptual (belief) goals
are formed.
Again, not sure how this relates to PCT, and successful
interfaith groups challenge this view.
I wonder if they do that by sticking to their religious principles
by saying “look you’re all going to hell because you don’t believe
as we do but we’ll put up with you until then” or do they find some
common humanity, which doesn’t need a religious context. Actually I
went to a discussion last night on tackling extremism and there was
an interfaith (Christian) leader there who is also a governor of a
local Islamic school. To counter some issues inherent in Islamic
teachings such as inequality and the inferiority of women he got the
school to sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as
part of the school ethos. So the potential conflicts were resolved
by overriding religious principles with common human principles.
I can see some PCT in this is one considers eternal life at
the top of a goal hierarchy. However I don’t see why it entails
suicide attacks on its own; indeed it motivates highly pro
social behaviour too.
There are many outcomes of this complacency, depending upon what
other influences are in the mix; suicide attacks are just
one possibility. Not sure how it would motivate highly pro social
behaviour, perhaps people of like minds would get together for
Rapture parties! Is that what you mean?
Fortunately, these issues aren't a
problem with many, if not most, religious people, but that is
probably because they don’t take their religion that seriously.
It’s the ones who do that we need to worry about; IS (Islamic
Scumbags ),
Republican Presidential Candidates.
Disagree again. There are many 'serious' religious figures -
Dalai Llama, Amish communities, for example who are particularly
known to be non-violent.
The Dalai Lama doesn't sound very 'serious', this is what he says
about his religion,
"* This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no
need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is
our temple; the philosophy is kindness.* * Our prime purpose
in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at
least don’t hurt them.* * My religion is very simple. My
religion is kindness.*"
The Amish are a secretive, oppressive, divisive society where women
are subjugated. Google “amish domestic abuse” and I think you’ll see
they are not a great example.
However, it does depend on the message of the religion, so I'd
clarify my point to, where the content of religion is sometimes
violent we need to worry about those who take their religion
seriously.
It is the chronic conflict caused by faith or religion trying to control a variable in an opposing direction to other personal goals (of the self or society) that causes the problem. There are plenty examples of faith that sits alongside scientific achievement within certain individuals, and plenty of examples of non-faith-related goals (e.g. striving for power) that cause problems too when in conflict.
Yes, but aren't the references for those controlled variables
derived from religion? I’d say that goals like striving for
power are still faith-based (but not religious), in that there
is some belief in their own entitlement, power, status and
value compared to others, e.g. Trump, Stalin.
Well if you are counting non-religious 'faith' in one's own
power and self importance then you are agreeing with my
argument; these are not religious motives. You are alluding to a
way of thinking that is superordinate to any specific religion.
Yes, that's right, faith, which I think is the problem, is
superordinate to any specific religion. But religion is inherently
based upon faith and actually promotes it as a virtue and
perpetuates it. Combined with its allusion to divine justification,
and promises of eternal life, it results in a very enduring,
pernicious ideology which silences critics. A political system, like
communism, on the other hand, if unsuccessful, will ultimately fail
as it has no supposed support from supposed higher powers.
I guess I see a belief as a held perception (normally of the self or world) and a goal as the desire to have a particular perception of the self or world. People rarely bother holding beliefs that are not relevant to their goals. I think the desire to hold a certain perception is much more powerful, and through control, changes the nature of ourselves and the world.
Are not beliefs and goals the same thing, in this context?
That is, beliefs are the reference value of goals. E.g. if you
believe in creationism (or sharia law) you are going to
support actions (sub-goals) that maintain that viewpoint and
counter actions that don’t (education in evolution).
I guess this was Rick and Bill's point. I think beliefs can
be goals, but I am pretty sure we have beliefs about the world
that are just facts but not necessarily how we want things to
be.
Yep, beliefs, as they are perceptions, can controlled or
uncontrolled.
Right now I want my bedside table to be made of chocolate so
I can have a bite to go with my cup of tea. But I believe 100%
it is made of wood.
Do you think there is an equivalence between the "belief" that your
bedside table is made of wood and the belief that Jesus was born of
a virgin (in truth/knowledge terms)? The word “belief” is used in
different ways, but may mean very different things. For the former I
wouldn’t use the term belief, rather that you “know” the table is
made of wood (assuming you have examined it). I’d say there is a
spectrum of validity of our perspectives on the world with knowledge
at one end and ignorance (lack of knowledge) at the other. Religion
(and faith), by definition is at the ignorance end.
It is tempting to see the fundamentalist religious doctrine at the top of the hierarchy, driving the conflict, but this would not exist without individuals willing to resort to extreme levels to achieve eternal life. I always ask 'why are they attracted to this doctrine' and I expect that relates to the way they have experienced control and power in human relationships until that point. According to PCT, the perceptual hierarchy develops to ultimately meet intrinsic needs, and so it is during early childhood, surely, that the groundwork for the need to believe in religious extremism is started?
Sure, but I don't think you can separate the two (violent
tendencies and religious belief) necessarily.
Really? That’s odd. They sound different to me!
Me too, which is why I qualified my statement with (not)
necessarily.
Which came first?
If you are asking this, then they are separable.
Yes, my point was that they can go hand in hand, during development,
rather than fundamentalist doctrine following violent tendencies,
which was what you seemed to be saying.
Both the bible and quran are, in part, violent books, and
if you are brought up in a religious environment where those
perspectives are normalised then they are likely to inform
your goals.
Agreed, but there are edicts for virtually every human
endeavour in there too. The selection of page is controlled by
the individual not the book.
But very difficult to do when you are told (and come to believe)
that the whole book is the infallible word of god. Again, selection
may come down to how seriously people take it all.
I think what you are saying is it as a result of a higher
goal? Yes, but it could be that the violence goals leads to
“choosing” a religious group with violent aims, or it could be
that religious goals [only] leads to “choosing” a violent
group with religious aims.
I guess I am saying that the first is likely but the second
is almost impossible, with my parenthesis added. I don’t even
think it is a simple as a history of family violence that will
be related to choosing a violent religious group. Violence is
part of human nature (e.g. a child’s need to be play a ‘baddy’
who rips people’s heads off!) that needs to be channelled by
parents and society so that it does not breed conflict and
destruction. It is my impression that this collective control
process has gone awry in people who use violence to achieve
their aims, and the banner under which this is done is largely
circumstantial to their geographical location, family and local
community. Yes it is likely to be reflected in their thinking
styles, but not religion-specific.
Something else just occurred to me that we might be missing, is that
the terrorists might not regard what they are doing as violent. I
recall one of the 7/7 bombers was a primary school teacher (or
assistant) and didn’t seem to be a violent person. If people come to
regard (believe) others as not human or sub-human (Nazis/Jews) they
may not see the way they treat them as wrong, or violent. So that
may be enough for abuse to occur without them actually being violent
themselves, or having a history of violence.
If there is any conflict in this discussion it may be whether or not
we regard beliefs as controlled perceptions. The resolution, I
think, is for you to come over to my way of thinking (and
Bill’s/Rick’s?) in order to avoid my own internal conflict where I
may have to question some of my own deeply cherished beliefs :-).
Rupert
···
On 15/11/2015 18:23, Warren
Mansell wrote:
I don't think there is anything wrong with faith or religion per se.
