The idea of some things and some beliefs being sacred is a part of nearly every belief system; even most of those wherein the believer is quite certain that he holds no such beliefs. The sacred is by definition that which is believed in, accepted and revered, but never questioned. Absence of inquiry assures ignorance of that which is held sacred. Indeed, it is a requirement.
The ultimate significance of this situation is that the mind of a believer is committed to the sacred idea as absolute and unquestionable. This means that any idea that directly or indirectly opposes the sacred belief or beliefs, whatever it or they may be, will be rejected, usually adamantly so. To make matters worse, the sacred idea is quite often held in the subconscious and, although unknown and oft denied by the holder, invariably directs the thinking and beliefs of the holder. The sacred idea becomes, in effect, the "master circuit" controlling all thought and all beliefs and directing all actions. The "master circuit" determines the parameters of thought by shunting as nonexistent and not possible any idea that threatens it.
To sharpen focus upon this phenomenon, imagine a number crunching computer program in which all nines are converted to sixes, all sixes converted to nines, and all threes are ignored. This is the "master circuit". As long as the numbers fed in contain no nines, sixes, or threes, the conclusion is correct and there is no problem. However, suppose the users of this program are not aware of the master circuit and take as valid all conclusions even those with the 9-6-3 data corrupted? If we assume that this mathematical data is designed to be an accurate abstract representation of some aspect of reality, what happens in an attempted application of conclusions corrupted by the 9-6-3 master circuit factor? Obviously, they will not conform to reality and the end results of the application will not be as consciously intended and expected.
Let's look at a philosophical parallel involving the "master circuit": untouchable sacred idea. Several years ago, a book was written comparing the circuit operations of a computer with the functions of the mind. Among the things the author examined for purpose of illustration was some of the tenets of Christianity. He observed that a central belief of the denomination is the original sin concept. He further observed the doctrine of necessity to suffer in redemption. He noted that if someone is suffering, they are not happy. However, he also noted that since the suffering is for atonement and for the purpose of gaining a desired end, the sufferer must necessarily value the suffering, and therefore, be happy in this suffering. Thus he arrived at the conclusion (and these are his exact words), "They are happy to be unhappy."
He declared the conclusion "absurd" and promptly abandoned the issue. There is nothing wrong with the thinking that led up to this conclusion from the given premises. The problem is in the premises. The self-contradictory conclusion, "happy to be unhappy" is clear warning that one or more antecedent premises are in error, i.e., in contradiction and therefore false. The self-contradictory conclusion, "happy to be unhappy", is logically derived from the self-contradictory premise, volitional self and volitional, omnipotent, and omniscient "God". The dictate of subordination combined with the original sin idea and needed redemption by suffering in atonement necessarily created a dual value system within the mind of the believing individual. Self opposing self is the end result, but a mind locked into the sacred idea is completely oblivious to the warning contradiction. To the author of the book, "God" is absolute, and it is literally "unthinkable" that this belief in which he places so much psychological dependence could be false. The "master circuit" did its job. The sacred idea remained intact in his mind. Via this mind-dividing sacred idea, believers have a love-hate attitude towards war. Their beliefs call for being "happy to be unhappy"; which is to say, they enjoy misery and need misery to enjoy. War fills the bill. To put it quite simply, war goes on because it is much valued by many.
As illustrated, the "master circuit" sacred idea aborts continuity of thought in a continuous and principled universe. The logical conclusions from identity are accepted only when they do not conflict with the sacred idea. Since all sacred ideas are based on false premises and do not conform to reality, logical thought beginning with and depending on these false premises will invariably come in conflict with facts of reality. Since the mind is dominated by the sacred idea, it is the facts that refute it that will be dismissed. In these circumstances, which are many, premises are randomly picked up and dropped in step with the dictates of the "master circuit". Without continuity of thought, there is no mental connection between cause and effect. If the cause is unknown, it is virtually certain that the alleged cause will be attributed to some non-cause in correspondence with the dominant sacred idea. Ergo, error in perpetuity.
Since sacred ideas are not questioned by believers, it is not surprising to find that while they are not questioned, they are not discussed either. If a belief is true, what harm can come from questioning it? Indeed, may not an even better understanding of it be gained by inquiry? Does setting a belief as immune from questioning indicate a fear that the belief may be false? Yes, it does, but the situation also tells of the psychological condition that necessarily accompanies the fear of questioning, the yielding of the conscious mind to the mystical unknown. It's all part of the subservience package. That which is understood by the conscious mind holds no mystery, and exerts no influence to believe beyond one's own conscious mental capacity. To "go beyond" conscious mental capacity, to accept that which is contrary to the conscious mind conclusions, is in the realm of faith. Confidence in one's conscious mind is the exact opposite of faith. Confidence in one's conscious mind is confidence in the principles of epistemology. Faith is the denial of these principles. To put it another way, confidence in the conscious mind is believing because of the facts. Faith is believing in spite of the facts.
In every known historical period, formal religion has played a large part in the beliefs and lives of most individuals. It still does. Although denomination names, rituals, and ceremonies have often changed over time and vary from group to group, the fundamental that links all together has been and is the same throughout all times and in all places, the belief in an imaginary superior being. The mind thus cut loose from limiting and stabilizing reality is subject to holding any and every belief no matter how self-contradictory and absurd. Indeed, the more absurdity believed, the more dedication shown to the imagined superior beings and the greater the "virtuous faith" by which a religionist is measured by himself and others. We could casually dismiss the whole thing as animistic fears and the attempt to bridge the gap between limited ability and infinite desire, but that would do nothing to aid in understanding exactly what religion is and the implication of such beliefs.
The discovery of many secular causes once thought to be mystical and unknowable does little or nothing to diminish the appeal of formal religion. No amount of scientific evidence will ever dispel a single religious notion for science and religion are of two different mental realms that are inherently opposed. The former is of finite objective identity and the latter of infinity and non-identity. Since science has no part in the making of religious beliefs, it has no logical connection to it and is without avenue to undo. When some opposing scientific facts become well known and are seen as irrefutable even by the most devout believers, beliefs are simply modified to fit the time and circumstances with no loss of faith and fervor. The only place that science may fit into the picture is scientific study of the mind to ascertain the cause of this penchant for mental inventions thought to be discoveries and worshipped as superior beings. We may gain some insight into the matter by observing psychological cause and effect as related to the pursuit of happiness, i.e., pursuit of a desirable state of mind.
It is easy to imagine those most ancient and inept Homo Sapiens barely conscious of self and goaded by fears both real and imagined. How simple it must have been to imagine causal gods and seek their favor and protection. Certainly believing would go a long way in reducing the stress. Although much advanced in knowledge, including knowledge of many causes, modern believers are motivated by the same emotions. We all seek a desirable state of mind. It's a matter of nature and not an issue. The issue is the means one employs. Most pursue religion in an effort to achieve this goal. They look not to self, but to "divine intervention". What is the end product of the quest by this means? To answer this question, we must examine the matter in terms of mind principles as pertains to cause and effect.
The first and always most obvious psychological relationship between a believer and his god is the superior being - inferior being status. The ramifications of this are extensive. The situation is one of complete mental reversal of reality. The believer creates a god, but sees self as the created, and therefore, subordinate. It is the psychological negation of self and individual per se. The subliminal directive is death. This is a central critical factor that we see evidenced again and again in the thinking and acting of believers as they oscillate between choosing life or death. They are forever engaged in a precarious balancing act to remain alive to promote the death oriented beliefs.
Recall the earlier description of the mental integrator, the "logic circuit" of the mind. If you have tested the idea presented, I believe that you have found it true that every conclusion and belief is a logical derivative of antecedent conclusions and beliefs whether those conclusions and beliefs are true or false. It follows that a god concept processed by this principle of mind will always produce a corresponding logical conclusion and belief. This means that if we have a mental reversal of the created and creator situation, all derivatives of this premise will likewise be reversed. Certainly, we can immediately see the mental reversal in the de facto denial of real individual as the real in deference to an illusory god. But what is not so immediately evident is that this represents a complete reversal of the principles of epistemology and criteria of thinking. This manifest effect is constant throughout and plays havoc with mental and emotional operations.
There is a most serious corollary problem: "The Lock". Looking once again to the principles of the mind, recall that the mind works by differential reference and cannot hold a contradiction within itself. What one believes to be true and real is held as absolute. Though one may speak of it and seemingly imagine counter belief, the mind cannot accept a "counter absolute". That which opposes belief is consciously or subconsciously regarded as non-existent. Add to this the principle that one must by nature necessarily think and act upon what one conceives to be real and we have a very large problem born of the god concept.
If the "superior being" is believed to be real, to be absolute, then literally every belief, value, and emotion attached to this belief are the dominating elements in the thinking and life of the believer. What we have in this idea of a causal superior being is philosophical absolutism. Note the reversal once again. In reality, individual is the real and philosophy (values by which one lives) is individualistic and infinitely variable. The superior being idea locks in a specific philosophy (the believer's own) as a universal. In other words, in reality there are fixed and immutable natural laws. Human individual is a part of that reality. Volition is a natural characteristic of the human individual and infinite choices means there are no philosophical absolutes. In the mental reversal via the god concept, the causal superior being, as cause, negates the idea of fixed natural laws while setting the contrary and erroneous idea of fixed philosophical absolutes.
"The Lock" part comes in due to the believer's mentally tying self in subordination to the "superior being". "Superior beings" are to be obeyed, not questioned. If a believer psychologically ties himself to a "superior being", then said believer's whole value system and sense of being is dependent on this belief. Aside from the direct conscious fear of displeasing the "superior being", a believer committed to the "superior being" as absolute cannot envision an existence without the divinity. Ergo, to challenge a believer's belief is to the believer a challenge to his very life. Fear, resentment, hostility, and instant rejection is a foregone conclusion. Any alleged questioning by the believer of their beliefs is merely a self-deluding pretense as such "questioning" is psychologically confined by the parameters of the belief itself. (Yes, one can get beyond this, but unfortunately, its rarely done.)
If a believer's beliefs were confined to himself, it would create no problem for others. However, this is not the nature of the god concept. It is inherently imposing. Bear in mind that a believer knows little or nothing of the mind and its capacity to invent and self-delude; to fail to make a distinction between mental invention and mental discovery. A believer is absolutely certain that the "superior being" he worships and obeys is real, is an objective existent. He has no idea that the "messages from God" are only his own confused beliefs and equally confused emotions. If a believer believes that the "superior being" is objective and real, then he must act in accordance with what he believes are the values and dictates of the "superior being". This is a matter of the natural law of the mind principle.
It is the "objective value" element that creates havoc. No matter what the obscuring rhetoric and word games of denial, every idea of objective value always culminates in the concept of rule. It is not sufficient that a lone believer believe and keep his values to himself. The very idea of a superior being and objective value means that said values are universal and applicable to all. Certainly, the "god", the "superior being", would be displeased if all did not follow "his" direction. It is just as certain that if a believer wishes to please his "god", it is his "moral duty" to see to it that all obey. A believer cannot be happy, cannot achieve that desirable state of mind, if his "god" is displeased. To please his "god" and thereby achieve his own desired state of mind, he is psychologically obligated to see to it that all conform to his "god's will" by whatever means is required. (Envision the billions of persons in the world committed to the god concept and all that it entails and perpetual war and other atrocities are not so hard to understand.) Keep in mind that the god concept refers not just to the imagined god in formal religion, but to "nation", "society", "public", whatever, that explicitly or implicitly posits a mental invention (an "infinite entity") as a superior being to which the real and finite individual is subordinated. In literally every instance, these mental inventions and mind sets of imagined superior beings are used to psychologically justify oppression.
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.
