Re-Programming Myself

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Hello. I've kind trolled these boards for a while and as of recently have had a reason to attempt to get some insight from the members on an issue of my own. I've wanted to do this for a while but have been tentative about it due to fear of the responses I'll get.

Right so here I go. I'm 19 years old and have spent my entire life growing up with my single parent mom. She's a Jehovah Witness (note I may use some vernacular that JW use so if you don't understand something just query me. Specific words and phrases will be in "quotations") and as such I have had my entire understanding of christianity and life based around it. As of late I have rather broken out of the box (dated, not gone to meetings et cetera) and am pursuing a goal of engineering, math, and science in college as opposed to being a servant of god.

The only problem I have, and please don't flame too hard because we're really indoctrinated, is that I'm not sure if I'm doing all of this because I genuinely don't believe or because I just am more interested in "worldly" things than my faith. I ask this because I still love reading the bible and whenever someone approaches me or talks about the bible with me and presents a doctrine that I have been taught as being false I immediately go about correcting them, citing scripture and the like. I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of a creator not existing, though I can use it as a model for discussion. All my own personal research and attempts at finding out what's really up with myself have failed, specifically because what I have been taught is what I've known my whole life and is quite difficult to reject or even consider as actually not being true.

As a result I've taken a surface "don't know, don't want to know, don't care" attitude toward most things theological, philosophical, and political, though it doesn't work because I feel so very strongly about certain things and I know that it stems from the way I've been raised and I can't help but get involved with certain things because they interest me and I feel so strongly them. My ex-thinks (another story for another thread) I should just go back to being a JW because it's what I know but I'm not the type of person to just say "Dur well it's what I know so go for it!". I do what I do and have lived how I have lived because I genuinely believe(d?) it my whole life, without doubt. I hate the fact that even the most controversial, nonsensical doctrines my mind accepts and attempts to prove but I can't help it. I want to at least try getting myself to think differently or else I think I'll end up going through life, believing one thing but acting out another and that disturbs me greatly.[/b]

[Darth Wong]

I believe that most Christian de-conversions go like this:

Start: "The Bible is true".

Step 1: "The Bible is not literally true, but it's still full of important truths."

Step 2: "The Bible has a lot of flaws, but it's still the wisdom of the ages."

Step 3: "Hmm, there are a lot of philosophers throughout history who have written stuff that works better than Biblicalism, but the Bible still belongs in that pantheon of philosophies."

Step 4: "I have lost respect for the people who created the Bible. They were primitive squabbling savages."

Step 5: "I no longer believe in the Bible, but I still believe that is something out there."

Step 6 (not always taken): "The whole thing is bullshit."

[Starglider]

Step 6 (not always taken): "The whole thing is bullshit."

The basic problem is faith itself; the notion that you should act as if something was true, tell yourself that it is true, simply because you want it to be true (/it makes you feel good/life isn't worth living if it isn't true/any other bullshit rationalisation). It's a mental illness. The only reasons to believe things are direct evidence, logical reasoning starting from direct evidence, or statements by parties for whom you have good evidence are trustworthy and highly competent at the above.

It's unfortunate that you generally have to deconstruct all the fairy tales that rely on the basic notion of faith to exist (in that person's mind) before you can attack the root problem - and as you say DW the majority of believers never get there. They just can't let go of wishful thinking. I have seen a very few Christians go directly from 'bible is true' to 'no wait, faith is bullshit' by way of studying logic and cognitive science, but they're exceptions.

[General Zod]

The basic problem is faith itself; the notion that you should act as if something was true, tell yourself that it is true, simply because you want it to be true (/it makes you feel good/life isn't worth living if it isn't true/any other bullshit rationalisation). It's a mental illness. The only reasons to believe things are direct evidence, logical reasoning starting from direct evidence, or statements by parties for whom you have good evidence are trustworthy and highly competent at the above.

It's unfortunate that you generally have to deconstruct all the fairy tales that rely on the basic notion of faith to exist (in that person's mind) before you can attack the root problem - and as you say DW the majority of believers never get there. They just can't let go of wishful thinking. I have seen a very few Christians go directly from 'bible is true' to 'no wait, faith is bullshit' by way of studying logic and cognitive science, but they're exceptions.

I think one of the problems is that a lot of people have the ridiculous notion that you have to believe in something in order for your life to not be completely meaningless.

[Starglider]

I think one of the problems is that a lot of people have the ridiculous notion that you have to believe in something in order for your life to not be completely meaningless.

Right. Believe in the magic sky pixies and they will reward you with the mysterious, ineffable and wonderful substance 'meaning'. Which can't be defined and has no observable effect on anything.

[Kanastrous]

As of late I have rather broken out of the box (dated, not gone to meetings et cetera) and am pursuing a goal of engineering, math, and science in college as opposed to being a servant of god.

To whatever degree one chooses to invest faith in some conception of "God," why can't one be an engineering, math-savvy, scientifically-literate 'servant of God?'

[General Zod]

To whatever degree one chooses to invest faith in some conception of "God," why can't one be an engineering, math-savvy, scientifically-literate 'servant of God?'

Servant of God is a fancy term for "shutting off your brain and letting your preacher do the thinking for you."

[Starglider]

To whatever degree one chooses to invest faith in some conception of "God," why can't one be an engineering, math-savvy, scientifically-literate 'servant of God?'

Servant of God is a fancy term for "shutting off your brain and letting your preacher do the thinking for you."

Faith is an inherent, serious flaw in your reasoning system. If you start taking some things on faith, there is a very strong temptation to take other things that you /want/ to be true on faith. This can easily results in bad, broken science. Even for engineering, being in the habit of taking what is written as unquestionable truths results in a closed-minded attitude that is at best limiting and at worst dangerous.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You need to find something else which gives you emotional passion and captures your interest. May I suggest great works of literature? Poetry? Novels? If you think you can approach it without being dogmatic or excessively obsessive - i.e., applying a religious-like faith-based approach -, I suggest you could read the famous works of philosophy and epistemology. You'll find that all the interesting and emotionally-moving attributes of the Bible are even more plentiful throughout humanity's canon of philosophy and literature.

[Kanastrous]

To whatever degree one chooses to invest faith in some conception of "God," why can't one be an engineering, math-savvy, scientifically-literate 'servant of God?'

Servant of God is a fancy term for "shutting off your brain and letting your preacher do the thinking for you."

I agree that it usually means just that.

But I think that it's also possible to have a conception of God that's unconnected to any of the faith-systems on offer, and the codes/superstitions/etc accreted around them. Just allowing as that it might seem like there is something there, which impresses me as harmless to the society-at-large, and potentially beneficial to the Deist, even if all it does is make him feel a bit better.

Deism, that is.

[General Zod]

But I think that it's also possible to have a conception of God that's unconnected to any of the faith-systems on offer, and the codes/superstitions/etc accreted around them. Just allowing as that it might seem like there is something there, which impresses me as harmless to the society-at-large, and potentially beneficial to the Deist, even if all it does is make him feel a bit better.

Why go through all the trouble of relying on an imaginary crutch and playing into their psychosis when you can actually try finding something based in reality?

[Kanastrous]

Why go through all the trouble of relying on an imaginary crutch and playing into their psychosis when you can actually try finding something based in reality?

It's doesn't appear to be that much trouble, to indulge a sense that there is an influence, or presence - or whatever one might call it - that is not amenable to description or detection by scientific methodology. The trouble comes when people start insisting that the indescribable-whatever is immanent in the scientifically-describable world and worse, wants us to do things.

If people behave themselves, don't fuck with others, and don't try to impose their particular conception of Deity on others, or substitute it for science in all of the various arenas where science is demonstrably the best and most effective tool, then I don't begrudge their holding faith in something that lets them get through the day, a little happier.

For some reason, Cubs fans come to mind.

[General Zod]

It's doesn't appear to be that much trouble, to indulge a sense that there is an influence, or presence - or whatever one might call it - that is not amenable to description or detection by scientific methodology. The trouble comes when people start insisting that the indescribable-whatever is immanent in the scientifically-describable world and worse, wants us to do things.

Typically, it's considered a bad thing to help fuel someone's delusions because it weakens their already tenuous grip on reality. What do you do when they have a "crisis of faith"? Reinforce their delusional belief?

If people behave themselves, don't fuck with others, and don't try to impose their particular conception of Deity on others, or substitute it for science in all of the various arenas where science is demonstrably the best and most effective tool, then I don't begrudge their holding faith in something that lets them get through the day, a little happier.

I don't see why it should be encouraged at all, when it leads to precisely the type of behavior you're saying that isn't welcome. Or should we continue to permit children to believe that Santa Clause is real?

[Coyote]

R-n-W, you also have to reconcile the fact that there are millions, actually billions, of people out there who do not believe one whit of what you believe in. And they are not only not struck by lightning, but many actually live very happy, productive lives.

In fact, if you were able to take a moment and restrain yourself, and actually listen to another person's philosophies and imagine how & why those philosophies work for him (or her, of course), and you can understand the appeal of those alternate philosophies (remember, understanding does not mean you have to agree) to someone else, you can begin to realize that your way is not the only way.

Once you reconcile the non-primacy of your beliefs; that your beliefs are indeed nothing more than one voice in a crowd of voices, you need to reassure yourself that this is not a personal, existential threat to you or your well-being. Then you can relax and maybe even enjoy the interesting differences that people bring to the world.

My grain o' salt advice: Personally, I recommend first exposing yourself to others' beliefs. Read some introductory books on what Judaism is, and Islam. Those are related, Abrahamic faiths that you can relate to. Then once you come to grips with their differences and learn to reconcile them, apply the same openness to, say, Hindu or Buddhism. Look into real Druidic beliefs, and so on. Later, start delving into philosophers from Socrates to Descartes, and political thinkers such as Marx. Anyone who looked to an appeal to higher thought or meaning outside of man's physical limitations is worth a look. Basically, begin empathising with others' beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, social, political, and try to understand why this appeals to others.

Once you hit things like A Brief History of Time and similar stuff, you'll have a more well-rounded ability to focus on things other than your own beliefs, and you'll marvel at how you once lived within such tight mental confines.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

As of late I have rather broken out of the box (dated, not gone to meetings et cetera) and am pursuing a goal of engineering, math, and science in college as opposed to being a servant of god.

To whatever degree one chooses to invest faith in some conception of "God," why can't one be an engineering, math-savvy, scientifically-literate 'servant of God?'

Because if I were going to be a "Servant of God" it's doubtful that I would pursue any other religion than Christianity. And that being the case, makes it doubtful that I'll follow any other sect than the JW just because (to me) they make the most sense. The problem with that is that the teachings espoused there mean exclusive devotion. God first everything else second. An analogy given in one of the video dramas published by the organization is the idea of running a race for a team. You'd give your all for your coach, not holding back because you needed some of that energy elsewhere. While I could do that it really wouldn't follow what I would believe. I'd feel like I was jipping god.

You need to find something else which gives you emotional passion and captures your interest. May I suggest great works of literature? Poetry? Novels? If you think you can approach it without being dogmatic or excessively obsessive - i.e., applying a religious-like faith-based approach -, I suggest you could read the famous works of philosophy and epistemology. You'll find that all the interesting and emotionally-moving attributes of the Bible are even more plentiful throughout humanity's canon of philosophy and literature.

The problem with that is, at the moment any and almost everything I read dealing with philosophy my brain immediately and inadvertently attempts to correct or ignore if it doesn't agree with what I've already been taught. In addition I have a habit of shutting out things which seem inherently illogical or stupid (to me). That does not mean I can't see logic in things I don't believe and can not give them merit (example: evolution) but certain things I'd have trouble with. I'd love to give it a shot though. If you could point me in the direction of some books or magazines I'll give them a read.

It's doesn't appear to be that much trouble, to indulge a sense that there is an influence, or presence - or whatever one might call it - that is not amenable to description or detection by scientific methodology. The trouble comes when people start insisting that the indescribable-whatever is immanent in the scientifically-describable world and worse, wants us to do things.

If people behave themselves, don't fuck with others, and don't try to impose their particular conception of Deity on others, or substitute it for science in all of the various arenas where science is demonstrably the best and most effective tool, then I don't begrudge their holding faith in something that lets them get through the day, a little happier.

For me though this type of thinking is difficult. If there were a creator, it's mark would be on all of it's creations, either by similarities in style of or actually inscription of signature (like an artist). If we are capable of observing something within the describable world than wouldn't this evidence of creator be visible?

In addition if there were a creator I would think (or at least like to) that it would be concerned about it's creation and would want to provide guidance of some kind as opposed to leaving it's creation to fend for itself. I'd reference a parent except for an entire race. For mankind as a group we haven't matured to a point where contact or guidance is needed and we can fend for ourselves. And if said creator were to provide direction it would do so in a way that would be easy for it's creation to understand by making itself appear in such a way that it had the qualities of it's creation and would do so in a single way that would and could be understood by the entirety of it's creation such that it there would be a single model of creator to accept and knowing it's creations nature would cause difficulty for itself if multiple models were presented.

Now I'm going to stop right there simply because the above are examples of what happens without real deep insight or research or thinking. That shit literally kinda just popped out of my head without attempting to really develop the thought. I typed without stopping, except to correct spelling errors.

[Kanastrous]

Typically, it's considered a bad thing to help fuel someone's delusions because it weakens their already tenuous grip on reality. What do you do when they have a "crisis of faith"? Reinforce their delusional belief?

I think that what you're describing applies to people within the reality-tunnel of a religion or cult - that is, people who believe that their particular faith-system accurately describes the world, and that their faith's description of God is connected to physical reality in the way that, say E=MC2 is. And I share your mistrust of those people, and their behavior, and their faiths.

What I'm describing is much less specific, and much more tenuous. It's just the sense that there is an indefinable something out there - which does not conflict with a grip on reality, since it suggests nothing more than that, in addition to the reality we understand through scientific tools, there might be an undefined "more." The important word, being undefined.

If one's faith is in something so tenuous, and so undefined, it doesn't appear to me that any crisis-of-faith is going to really shake you up, all that much. Since the kind of faith I'm talking about, is a pleasant accessory to the believer's life, rather than the core of it.

I don't see why it should be encouraged at all, when it leads to precisely the type of behavior you're saying that isn't welcome.

No, I'm tolerant of a form of faith that doesn't lead to the type of behavior that's unwelcome. Which is to say a vague Deism, not a psychotic mess like JudeoChristIslamianity, or any similar here's-all-the-answers-and-yes-God-says-so nutbaggery.

And I'm not advocating encouraging it, so much as tolerating it. Which is not something I encourage, when it comes to JudeoChristIslamianity.

Or should we continue to permit children to believe that Santa Clause is real?

In and of itself, I am unconvinced that a childhood belief in Santa Claus is harmful, although I admit that I never had that belief, myself.

In and of itself, I don't think that an adult belief that there is an element of reality apart from what can be described via observation and experiment, is harmful, either - so long as the believer doesn't start ascribing specific desires or, worse, instructions, to that element, and so long as the believer doesn't disregard the proven value of the Scientific Method and all that derives from it.

Put it this way - if there's a fellow sitting next to you on the bus, whose day feels a little brighter to him because he feels that somewhere there's an undefinable Deity who doesn't interfere in the world, and doesn't command him to do one thing or another, and in whom he doesn't feel you are obliged to believe, or even take seriously, what's the harm to you, or to anyone else? And, you get to sit next to a guy who is at least in a good mood, which doesn't infringe upon you or cost you anything, which is at worst neutral, and at best might make your day a scintilla brighter, just from sitting next to someone wearing a sunny disposition.

[Darth Wong]

In and of itself, I am unconvinced that a childhood belief in Santa Claus is harmful, although I admit that I never had that belief, myself.

It's not harmful in and of itself, but it is symptomatic of a failure to develop critical thinking skills, which is VERY harmful.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

R-n-W, you also have to reconcile the fact that there are millions, actually billions, of people out there who do not believe one whit of what you believe in. And they are not only not struck by lightning, but many actually live very happy, productive lives.

In fact, if you were able to take a moment and restrain yourself, and actually listen to another person's philosophies and imagine how & why those philosophies work for him (or her, of course), and you can understand the appeal of those alternate philosophies (remember, understanding does not mean you have to agree) to someone else, you can begin to realize that your way is not the only way.

Once you reconcile the non-primacy of your beliefs; that your beliefs are indeed nothing more than one voice in a crowd of voices, you need to reassure yourself that this is not a personal, existential threat to you or your well-being. Then you can relax and maybe even enjoy the interesting differences that people bring to the world.

My grain o' salt advice: Personally, I recommend first exposing yourself to others' beliefs. Read some introductory books on what Judaism is, and Islam. Those are related, Abrahamic faiths that you can relate to. Then once you come to grips with their differences and learn to reconcile them, apply the same openness to, say, Hindu or Buddhism. Look into real Druidic beliefs, and so on. Later, start delving into philosophers from Socrates to Descartes, and political thinkers such as Marx. Anyone who looked to an appeal to higher thought or meaning outside of man's physical limitations is worth a look. Basically, begin empathising with others' beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, social, political, and try to understand why this appeals to others.

Once you hit things like A Brief History of Time and similar stuff, you'll have a more well-rounded ability to focus on things other than your own beliefs, and you'll marvel at how you once lived within such tight mental confines.

Incidentally this is one of the things I often cite when I'm debating (yelling match) with my mom. That the majority of mankind is in fact not worshiping as she does and is in fact living a better (in my opinion) life. For example, my mother and I as a result are poor, yet she claims to have the ultimate "truth" in life yada yada yada. However I doubt that if you took the top 100 richest individuals on the planet they'd mention their possession or care to possess the "truth". I bet most of their responses would be along the lines of "Who cares, I'm rich beeyotch!"

It's quite easy for me to understand why a certain persons philosophies/beliefs work for them. It's actually one of my strong points I think when interacting with people is not being offensive. However in line with that within my own mind I may or may not be able to find merit in their beliefs, at the very least for myself. For example much of what we are taught about those who don't recognize a creator is that they simply do not wish to because doing so would admit responsibility of the creation to the creator, at the very minimum for the creator having created the reality in which the creation exists. Thus in order to mask this desire to not have responsibility towards a higher power, these individuals create their own realities so that they can reconcile their desire not to believe with what's actually going on around them. There are many other modes of thinking that aren't necessarily similar that my brain will automatically reject.

I will however take a look into what has been suggested my only fear is that the way my brain is now that it will simply reject it. That's the thing I really want to overcome.

[Kanastrous]

In and of itself, I am unconvinced that a childhood belief in Santa Claus is harmful, although I admit that I never had that belief, myself.

It's not harmful in and of itself, but it is symptomatic of a failure to develop critical thinking skills, which is VERY harmful.

Einstein's belief in a form of God - if I understand correctly, a basically Deist belief - doesn't seem to have interfered terribly with his critical thinking skills, at least so far as his math went.

Unless we're holding that "God doesn't play dice" crack against him, which may or may not be fair.

[FireNexus]

You're on the right path, man. You're starting to realize that the doctrine you've been taught is not necessarily true just because. Keep exposing yourself to other ideas. Keep challenging your ideas (or find an atheist buddy that will do it for you) to see if they make sense logically. As you continue to do so, the indoctrination will slowly disappear.

Most importantly, discontinue, to the best of your ability, your association with Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe your sect practices shunning. If you think you can mentally handle it, and if you have no other options, get shunned. This would force you to look elsewhere for social gratification, without being able to easily cast off the notion, but it could cause you severe emotional distress.

[Darth Wong]

In and of itself, I am unconvinced that a childhood belief in Santa Claus is harmful, although I admit that I never had that belief, myself.

It's not harmful in and of itself, but it is symptomatic of a failure to develop critical thinking skills, which is VERY harmful.

Einstein's belief in a form of God - if I understand correctly, a basically Deist belief - doesn't seem to have interfered terribly with his critical thinking skills, at least so far as his math went.

Einstein believed the universe itself IS God. That's what his "cosmic religion" was about. I don't know if you can call that "deism", although I suppose that depends on the definition of "deism". In any case, that particular form of religion is the only one which can provide evidence that its god actually exists.

Unless we're holding that "God doesn't play dice" crack against him, which may or may not be fair.

Why wouldn't it be fair? He said it, didn't he? He was wrong about QM, wasn't he?

[Battlehymn Republic]

What about Sir Isaac Newton? Man was a rampant loony on some subjects.

[DarthShady]

You are a believer who doesn't want to believe any more,but the fact is you still do.Your brain has been filled with so much bullshit that it is now hard for you to throw it all out of the window.Trust me i know how hard and painful the truth can be.I used to be a Muslim who believed that ˝Allah˝ was the one true god and that we are all his slaves.
There is no easy way out for you.People on the board have given you good advice you just have to try and follow it.
Don't give up too easily!

[Darth Wong]

What about Sir Isaac Newton? Man was a rampant loony on some subjects.

Indeed. He was an asshole too. Luckily for him, he lived at a time when our knowledge of physics was so poor that merely thinking physical movements always had physical causes was a major step forward. The man was arguably the most significant scientist in all of history, but that doesn't mean his religious beliefs would not have limited his inquiry if he had been placed in different circumstances with the same attitude.

[Kanastrous]

Einstein believed the universe itself IS God. That's what his "cosmic religion" was about. I don't know if you can call that "deism", although I suppose that depends on the definition of "deism". In any case, that particular form of religion is the only one which can provide evidence that its god actually exists.

It sounds like Deism, with a dash of Pantheism.

I'm not sure that it meets a literal definition of 'religion,' in the sense that to be religious, is from religare, 'to be bound.' And without attendant strictures on behavior, morals, etc, that definition doesn't seem proper. Which to me seems a compliment.

Unless we're holding that "God doesn't play dice" crack against him, which may or may not be fair.

Why wouldn't it be fair? He said it, didn't he? He was wrong about QM, wasn't he?[/quote]

It's fair in the sense that he was wrong about QM; I meant that it might not be fair to use it as a basis from which to describe Einstein's conception of God.