What is the Destructive Force of Belief?

[coberst]

What is the Destructive Force of Belief?

A brief perusal of history manifests for us the destructive force of belief. Technology increases the destructive force that we humans have; plus the obvious fact that technology changes our environment with lightening speed, whereas our intellectual sophistication is stuck in the mud of our ‘beliefs without wonder’.

The word “belief” has many definitions; we can develop a scale of belief that meanders between the extremes of casual guesswork about both mundane and important matters to beliefs that we willingly live, die, and kill for.

‘I believe that it is going to be good weather for the picnic’ to ‘I believe that the planet is getting warmer fast’. Beliefs at this level are about matters of little or great consequence but the belief itself is not about certainty but is about matters still uncertain.

The content of our belief does not determine its place on our ‘belief scale’. It is our degree of certainty regarding our belief, which determines its position on the scale.

Belief systems are often characterized by an absolute certainty of truth by many of their members. A sense of certainty plus a sense of being surrounded by treacherous unbelievers are characteristic of many belief systems. Nazism and Marxism contained these features; there is no circumstance or situation in history that cannot be fitted into their ideological views.

The mention of Nazism and Marxism as examples is not meant to imply that all belief systems are uniformly dangerous. These systems of belief run the whole spectrum from the trivial and harmless to unrestricted evil; from Boy Scouts, to partisan politicians, to Civil War. The important point is that these systems of belief can be exceedingly powerful and the membership is often dedicated to exploiting political action to achieve the group’s selfish goals.

“The act of belief is always an act against; it requires an opponent who holds the contrary belief.”

If we (Americans) watch the verbal ping-pong game between the Republicans and Democrats we will quickly comprehend that you can’t have one without the other. If there is no itch to scratch who would be scratching? If there were no socialism what bogyman would capitalism use to define capitalism? Could Protestants exist without a Catholic Church?

True believers are dedicated to the destruction of the unbelievers. Because belief is always against unbelief, it then is in fact unbelief. The believer and the unbeliever are two sides to the same coin. Each belief is defined by its opponent’s belief. “Both sides depend on each other to know what they believe…belief marks the line at which our thinking stops…”

Quotes from The Religious Case Against Belief by James P. Carse

[The Comedian]

I'd like to see more about this scale of belief. Does this scale measure intensity? Validity? I could not get a clear picture of this. I was also wondering if the original poster argues that all belief is destructive. Is this this the contention?

[coberst]

I'd like to see more about this scale of belief. Does this scale measure intensity? Validity? I could not get a clear picture of this. I was also wondering if the original poster argues that all belief is destructive. Is this this the contention?

“Believers stop thinking at a designated line only when they refuse to see their shared dependence with disbelievers.” Only through this willful ignorance can we acknowledge that we have stopped real dialogue with others. We shield our beliefs from our self as well as from others. At this point we have willfully passed from a conversational to a declarative mode. At this point the believer will “just say no”, Critical Thinking ceases. At this point belief becomes ideology.

‘Just saying no’ occurs when both sides draw the boundaries between belief and unbelief in tandem. Such a line can hold only “if they did not step across it to look back at themselves from another perspective…they invented a division within a shared knowledge that need not exist.” Empathy cannot exist while the demarcation line exists.

The object of thought is not the enemy to both the believer and unbeliever but the greater danger rests in the ‘way of thinking’. The fact that republicans per se lust after tax cuts or that democrats per se lust after governmental intervention is not the problem; the problem is in their respective ‘way of thinking’. The ‘way of thinking’ is the enemy that must be destroyed. “There is no greater danger to belief than “false” thinking.”

Belief without thought is no belief at all. It is not thinking per se that is the problem it is a certain style of thinking that is the enemy. The believer must be constantly thinking about ways to counteract the actions of the nonbeliever and thus must be constantly on their intellectual toes. It is crossing the demarcation line that must be uppermost in the believers mind. Within these boundaries thinking must wander.

[skib]

Wow. I had to read this three times to get it all. Nice work.

[Emmy Castrol]

It is not thinking per se that is the problem it is a certain style of thinking that is the enemy.

Interesting. I have often suspected the same thing but have never thought to express it in words.

However, please clarify for what you mean below: is that way of thinking destructive, or its opposite? Or is it generally 'a certain style of thinking' that is the destructive force?


The believer must be constantly thinking about ways to counteract the actions of the nonbeliever and thus must be constantly on their intellectual toes. It is crossing the demarcation line that must be uppermost in the believers mind. Within these boundaries thinking must wander.

[The Comedian]

So, let's say I believe that I should love my kids. Is that belief a destructive ideology? Or I also believe that I should water the orchids in my house two times a week because, based on empirical research and personal experience, I've found this cycle to be the most productive for raising orchids with the prospect to bloom in my house. Is that belief destructive?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how all belief is destructive.

[coberst]

Emmy

The truly destructive aspect gets into gear when the belif becomes group thinking.

Freud informs us the reason for this form of behavior, group psychology, is the tendency for humans to be suggestible and influenced by a psychic form of transference.

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility of which contagion is a symptom leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will an discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he my be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—that is, a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.
------------------------------------------------

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for an understanding of group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.
English translation Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, 1922) was explicitly based on a critique of Le Bon's work. The quotes and short phrases in this post are from this book.

[coberst]

So, let's say I believe that I should love my kids. Is that belief a destructive ideology? Or I also believe that I should water the orchids in my house two times a week because, based on empirical research and personal experience, I've found this cycle to be the most productive for raising orchids with the prospect to bloom in my house. Is that belief destructive?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how all belief is destructive.

See my post to Emmy above.

[Emmy Castrol]

Ahh yes, the group mind or 'hype'...

Have you considered the possibility of a force behind the group mind? What if there were two opposing forces - the force of destruction and the force of construction?

If the force could be proved, and its alignment toward good and evil, would that contribute to the case for the existence of God and the devil?

[blazeofglory]

Of course beliefs have led us to a greater number of violence. If we believe in opinions, sets of ideas, whimsical thoughts, slogans, propagations and the like that led to violence, aggression, sadism, carnage, brutality. We are not unmindful and oblivious of what Hitler did to motivate a following of people who did not know how to judge between things. His ideas have morally blindfolded all. And from this perspective we have a history to present wherein beliefs have unhealed or sickened us.

[billyjack]

So, let's say I believe that I should love my kids. Is that belief a destructive ideology? Or I also believe that I should water the orchids in my house two times a week because, based on empirical research and personal experience, I've found this cycle to be the most productive for raising orchids with the prospect to bloom in my house. Is that belief destructive?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how all belief is destructive.

note your strong man shenanigans here mr comedian. the jist of this thread isnt an attack on belief, at least thats not how i read it. the belief you're referring to is really an educated guess, an hypothesis.

[grotto]

Before we really tear into the destructive force of belief, don't we need a group definition of what belief is? It seems easy to expound endless over done verbiage when the main topic of discussion isn't described by the original poster.

Define belief in terms of this topic! It’s easy to scatter it about with the for and against argument, comparisons to political ideals, religion and add infinitum dualisms, but what truly is belief? Where is that dividing line between, I know, I believe and I have faith begin? Doesn’t the true answer to the question exist long before another person agrees with you?

Time destroys all ideology, science destroys religion, yet a deep belief from the depth continues, only when it is labeled does it go horribly awry. Personal validation destroys belief. When two try to convince a third, a religion is born.

[Emmy Castrol]

Hmmm I thought belief was something very simple... grotto, are you telling me it's not?

[coberst]

Before we really tear into the destructive force of belief, don't we need a group definition of what belief is? It seems easy to expound endless over done verbiage when the main topic of discussion isn't described by the original poster.

Define belief in terms of this topic! It’s easy to scatter it about with the for and against argument, comparisons to political ideals, religion and add infinitum dualisms, but what truly is belief? Where is that dividing line between, I know, I believe and I have faith begin? Doesn’t the true answer to the question exist long before another person agrees with you?




The word “belief” has many definitions; we can develop a scale of belief that meanders between the extremes of casual guesswork about both mundane and important matters to beliefs that we willingly live, die, and kill for.

‘I believe that it is going to be good weather for the picnic’ to ‘I believe that the planet is getting warmer fast’. Beliefs at this level are about matters of little or great consequence but the belief itself is not about certainty but is about matters still uncertain.

The content of our belief does not determine its place on our ‘belief scale’. It is our degree of certainty regarding our belief, which determines its position on the scale.

Belief systems are often characterized by an absolute certainty of truth by many of their members. A sense of certainty plus a sense of being surrounded by treacherous unbelievers are characteristic of many belief systems. Nazism and Marxism contained these features; there is no circumstance or situation in history that cannot be fitted into their ideological views.

[billyjack]

The content of our belief does not determine its place on our ‘belief scale’. It is our degree of certainty regarding our belief, which determines its position on the scale.


person A could fervently believe in ID. person b fervently in evolution (i'd argue that person B's wasnt so much a belief as it is a trust in the scientific method). by your terms these beliefs would fall on the same place on this belief scale. so whats the point of the scale if it can't sift the gems through the muck?

[The Comedian]

. so whats the point of the scale if it can't sift the gems through the muck?

Maybe it's all muck? Or all gems?

[blazeofglory]

Of course beliefs can be destructive forces and if our beliefs are wrongly rooted or wrongly oriented such beliefs are said to be very fatal and destructive. Indoctrination is similar to this and we are very much familiar with the deadliness of indoctrination these days.