The preceding chapters on the principles of epistemology and the principles of the mind show how the principles of the mind act upon conclusions and beliefs. Conclusions and beliefs established by denial of the principles of epistemology create serious problems. This denial of the principles of knowledge and subsequent mental construction of the god concept (illusory "infinite entity") sets a condition of a mind divided against itself. Since this is a constant condition as long as a believer holds the god concept, the mind division and mental conflict will be evidenced in literally every area and aspect of a believer's life. Since nearly all subscribe to the mind-dividing beliefs, these beliefs underlie the self-contradictory official socio-economic system as well as being evidenced in self conflicts in the most personal of personal individual situations.
That which is discovered outside of the mind is without contradiction. While error is possible and knowledge not always as extensive as one might desire, that which exists independently of the mind is part of a continuous universe and is without conflict. It follows that beliefs conforming to reality are without conflict. On the other hand, a god concept representing an imagined discovery of an "infinite entity" in objective reality is a different matter. Although the elements of a god concept are the product of a subjective mind and exist only in the mind, since they are believed to be objective discovery, the elements constitute psychological directives of the same intensity as actual discoveries.
A god concept, by definition, is not a concept of individual self, that is, not recognized self. It is necessarily apart from, different from, and therefore contrary to a concept of individual self as seen by a believer. Psychologically, it establishes two sets of conditions in a single mind. In effect, it creates a "dual reality", i.e., two opposing "realities". Whether expressed or implied, declared or denied, the god concept always represents a "universal infinite entity". The "infinite entity" is attributed the human characteristics of volition, valuation, and cause along with omni-superior-being status. The "self values" and the "god concept values" can never meld lest self become the god to the defeat of the psychological purpose of the creating.
By choice, a "dual reality", i.e., contrary premises, are regarded as real. (Although the believer is not consciously aware of what's going on.) At this point, the principles of the mind take over and there is no choice about the outcome of these beliefs. One "reality" or the other will determine the parameters of thought and subsequently determine action. The effects will follow a sequentially logical pattern no less by natural law than gravity. The outcome is no less predictable than is prediction upon any principle.
The primary and highly visible logical inference is the relationship, superior-inferior beings. This is followed by subordination. Thus the first logical directive is to accept and abide by the "god concept values". Since these "god concept values" are inherently opposed to "self values" and reconciliation impossible, the mind tries to go two directions at the same time and is in constant conflict. It is caught between "I must" and "I can't", as well as being manifested in two opposing types of behavior.
In the reality of individual identity, there are no standards by which to judge, valuate, and evaluate self except as self determines. While one may be discouraged by limited capacity to achieve ends desired, acceptance of the finite and limited is accepting reality and imposes no standard of judgment. It is when mind leaves the finite and presumes to grasp infinity that the trouble begins. Let's look at excerpts from one personal experience that is basically representative of all experiences in the same context. To be sure, individual is reality and individual variations are to be expected, but the common effect from common cause is highly visible and logically undeniable. The representative example is a candid disclosure of the emotional turmoil of an ex-Catholic nun as a child, then as an adult.
"As a child, I was convinced I was going to hell. In the Catholic Church we heard so much about mortal sin I became convinced that I was a bad girl because I couldn't honestly say, I love God."
Note the primary evaluation of self as "bad girl" because she couldn't "love God". Why not? And why was this failure so emotionally devastating to the child? Mind cannot grasp infinity and the child's mind could make no connection to an alleged infinite being. In all probability, she was looking for a feeling toward "God" like the feeling that she had toward her parents. However, there was no identity to grasp, and the failure to grasp was not attributed to the non-identity factor. She attributed the failure to "evil self". What the child's mind did connect to was the values and judgment of her finite parents. To the child, the parents were the superior and omniscient beings; their conclusions and beliefs were necessarily correct - and if the child could not believe as well, certainly the fault must be the fault of the child. This was the emotional conclusions of the child. This negative self-judgment combined with the implicit threat of rejection by her parents as well as a threat of an eternal hell no doubt was a severe mental torment.
"I started to feel pulled in two directions. My church said, Don't question anything; my school said, question everything." The torment took its toll: "I cried for days", she said.
Not a very pretty picture, is it? The cardinal sin of inquiry and the fear and guilt associated with it is a nearly impenetrable barrier to knowledge that reveals such beliefs as a fallacy. Fear dominates and consequent ignorance prevails. Mental torment is the consequence. Confusion, inability to resolve the dilemma, and feelings of guilt from the lack of faith added to the feeling of self-doubt and lack of self-worth. Truth is consistent. There is no mind division in beliefs that are consistent and conform to reality. A mind divided against itself as described in this example is clear evidence of fallacy. Yet, this mind was so dominated by the god concept fallacy that there was no thought of this fact, not as a child, nor later.
However, there was a brief effort to escape and in defiance of faith, conscious mind concluded: "From the beginning, it was men and women who created God, to meet their needs, to conform to their time, and to reflect their socioeconomic circumstances". In other words, she consciously concluded that "God" is a mental invention. Unfortunately, she didn't trust her conscious mind and still held to the god concept lest she alienate friends and family, and perhaps offend the god that she consciously concluded doesn't exist. Throughout all her struggles, one base tenet of Christianity held total influence and dominance, an influence of self-condemnation:
"We know we are these cruel and murderous beings." She dismissed individual and individual volition, and dominated by the innate evil of man idea and "God" as the redeemer, she remained imprisoned in a confused and backward mind-world: "All religions have been designed to help us touch the God in each other."
After all the mental torment and effort to escape this psychological domination, conscious mind was denied and she still held to the idea of a universal and objective value which she called god and revered as "the good". Self, is of course, the completely "evil". No doubt, she saw wars and other violent conflicts as "evidence" of "man's evil nature" to be redeemed by "touch of the God in each other". The thought never occurred to her that the god concept and subsequent concept of rule is the cause of the violence and "evil" that she witnessed, not the remedy.
From the "highly inspired" to the "uninspired", mind manipulation is the stock and trade of religion. (Albeit, not necessarily consciously). Guilt is a pivotal emotion. Duly note that the child in the illustration felt a very real and painful guilt, not because of some harm she had done to someone, but simply because she couldn't feel what she thought she "ought" to feel. Religion provides both cause and "cure" of guilt. To teach a child that "man" is evil by nature is to teach the child that he (she) is an "evil being". A feeling of guilt goes with the belief. The teacher then provides a way to absolve the guilt. The ritual may vary from sect to sect, but absolution always entails subordination, confession, and prayer for "forgiveness of sin".
In Catholicism, formal confession to a priest is the preferred ritual. In Protestantism, to be "born again" is the ultimate triumph of "good over evil". The Catholic ritual, although fundamentally the same as the Protestant idea, is lacking in the emotional intensity of the "born again" phenomenon. So, let's look at this "miracle" and see what's really going on.
First, the feeling of guilt is implanted by beliefs that have no connection to objective reality, that is, beliefs whose basis is entirely subjective emotions. The feeling of guilt is not a desirable state of mind and the "guilty" individual values means to alleviate the feeling. The believer follows the instructions to be humble, confess, and pray for forgiveness, and lo and behold, the feeling of guilt disappears. All is forgiven and the "sinner" is joyfully "born again".
The feeling tells only of its own existence. It tells nothing of cause, source, or relationship to reality. This knowledge is found by conscious effort and analysis of the mind. When identity is employed, it is discovered that "divine miracle" has secular roots. If a mind can be manipulated and conditioned to feel guilt by one fallacy, is it any great mystery that the same mind can be reconditioned to dismiss the feeling of guilt by another fallacy?
Unfortunately, most who experience the "miracle" of being "born again" know nothing of the mind and reach a different conclusion. All they know is the feeling of exhilaration as the burden of guilt is lifted. Being well conditioned to accept feelings as fact, they consider the experience as proof of "God" and "God's power to redeem the soul from man's innate evil". Little do they know that instead of "divine intervention" from a far distant heaven, the entire scenario takes place just a few inches above their shoulders. There are many who consciously reject the ideas of formal religion and cannot see themselves in the position described above. However, nearly all accept the same epistemology, the same psychology, and share the same mental state. Although the god in formal religion is denounced as fallacy, within the epistemology and psychology they often subscribe to the surrogate gods, "society", "public", etc., and are no less affected by the "standards" set for them. Who does not judge self as a "success" or "failure" by reference to these "standards"? Very few, I'm sorry to say.
As indicated in the foregoing, the god concept splits the mind into "is" and "ought". The dichotomy is further manifested in two personalities evidencing two sets of values. Of course, the two sets of values are antagonistic to each other and when put into practice sets a physical condition of self against self. Sometimes this is realized in direct self-mutilation or varied acts of direct personal self-destruction. However, the most common method of implementing the self-destructive dichotomy is via an official socio-economic system.
Relatively few individuals would take gun in hand, go to a neighbor's house, and by threat of injury or death, compel the neighbor to turn over part or all of his (her) material wealth, force a specific code of dress, determine the food and drink the neighbor is allowed to ingest and imbibe, and in general set guidelines for the neighbor's behavior in all areas of living. Most would consider such acts as outrageous, immoral, and a violation of rights. They would vehemently condemn such behavior as totally unacceptable and insist on laws and punishment to discourage it. They would label the action "unfair", "unjust", and "socially disruptive". They would clearly see that this action would be met with resentment and hostility culminating in violent conflict. They cannot envision themselves acting in this reprehensible manner.
In this circumstance, the focus is upon self and the neighbor as individuals. There is a conscious recognition that the relationship is a relationship of two finite human beings. Cause and effect are immediate and highly visible. There is a conscious recognition of self as cause and conscious sense of personal responsibility tending to preclude the intrusive anti-individual and anti-peace behavior.
Now enters the god concept and the whole epistemology, psychology, and philosophy is reversed. It divides a single individual mind into two diametrically opposed poles: The "self pole" and the "god concept pole"("ought"). The god concept is set as the dominant pole. The intrusive behavior regarded by the self pole as "unjust", "immoral", and "unacceptable" is now via the god concept pole regarded not only as "fair and just", but as a "moral imperative". In this reversal process, self is disowned, psychologically declared not to exist. The conscious connection between cause and effect is no more. There is no conscious recognition of the relationship as being a relationship between self and another finite human being.
The relationship is now emotionally regarded as a relationship of the god concept and subservient subjects. The god concept is now declared to be cause and beneficiary. Conformity to "God's will", "values of society", "national interest" is the directive for and justification of all action. Behavior shunned with disdain and horror by the "human self" is now embraced by the "god self" and carried out via an interconnected political system and centralized coercive force. The actors see only the preferred self-image of the "human self" and make no mental connection to self as cause of the effect via the system. Cause and effect are emotionally attributed to the disowned god-self thereby dismissing the sense of personal responsibility needed for peaceful coexistence. Although a simple and logical trace reveals the truth, believers refuse to see that voluntary support of the coercive system, including voting in a political election, is an act of violence no less that direct physical assault or armed robbery, which is suicidal in base character.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
