Why we believe and how it's done

[LoveWisdom]

"Why we believe and how it's done" - is that the right title for this piece? I am not quite sure. Maybe it should be - "beliefs systems could be compared to mathematical systems" or "or evolution of belief systems" or maybe all of the above....

Anyways, some thoughts about these things:

Christianity is like a mathematical system in some ways. It has it's axioms and theorems, but it's not a consistent system like mathematical systems are alleged to be. It's {Christianity} definitions aren't as clearly defined either. Still, it's a complex system full of "relative" truths. Relative to the system, that is.

Like Math, it can be explored and "truths" can be discovered. Alternate interpretations of things are possible because of different axioms in different Christian systems (e.g., different denominations).

Christianity evolved and so it's a system of truths that were "discovered" by evolution. This system competes with other systems of "truth", if the other systems make important statements that contradict (threaten) this Christian system.

Political systems (and parties) are examples of evolving systems of "truths" as well.

Individual ideas evolve as well. Their evolution is guided by systems that favor them (the system they could be considered to be a part of or an offspring of). When people think creatively, they use randomness as well as knowledge to guide them. So the systems plus randomness guide the evolution of ideas which in turn guide the evolution of the systems, sort of like natural selection.

We possess systems of ideas. These systems help to grow/evolve new ideas. The stronger the system that an idea relates to, the more the idea is believed. If we don't have a strong system in place for a certain idea, it will allow us to consider alternate/competitive ideas. But if there is a strong system or more than one reasonably strong system that supports an idea, it will be more highly favored and this will make it become a part of those systems and it subsequently won't be easy to dislodge. The more connections an idea has with other ideas in a system or systems, the more likely it will be accepted. This is one reason why ideas become more embedded over time. They grow connections in the system which solidifies their position in the system.

Replacing large systems of thinking is very difficult and may require a crisis. A crisis can lead one from non-belief in a God to a belief in one, for example. Systems have something akin to inertia and can't have their course changed or be altered without a sufficiently strong force (like a crisis) acting upon them.

People explore new ideas and check them for consistency within their systems of belief. If they match up well with some systems, but not other systems, then they (ideas) may or may not last. They may remain a part of the systems they match up with, but this would then put that system in conflict with the other systems and conflicts tend to need to be resolved (but only if people notice conflicts, some people don't even see them). If the ideas don't appear to match up with any of a person's belief systems (since the systems have changed/evolved since they were added), they will likely be purged.

So why do emotions relate so strongly to our systems/ideas? Emotions are apparently needed to help make decisions that deductive logic can't make. So they're like some semi-random element that helps us decide on things. When we can't tell if some idea is true or not very easily, then emotions can help out - it's like our gut feelings or intuitions are our attempts at using fuzzy logic at an unconscious level. They seem to help with fuzzy truths. The less fuzzy the truth, the less they're needed, perhaps? On the other hand, the less fuzzy the truth seems to us, the more our emotions might kick in to help defend it.

Also, emotions help support systems by giving them some or maybe a lot or maybe even most of their power. For example, emotions can help control/coerce/manipulate/cajole/force people to conform which only serves to strengthen the system (where system now refers to the high level ones and not the systems in an individual person).

Our systems of thinking will tend to line up with others that we like or respect or trust. We'll think more and more like them and share more and more ideas. This is how our individual systems can contribute to the larger versions of themselves. The interaction between systems might strengthen each system (by making them converge). Systems of thinking can become powerful by affecting enough of the right people, like people in authority of some sort. These larger systems (like Christianity as a whole) in turn can affect and cause more conformity (i.e., convergence) on the systems contained within each of us individuals. The more the conformity/unity they can cause, the more power they will have.

When we search for understanding (or truth) in some area or areas, we search for it in systems that are similar to our own systems. So if we're a Christian, then we'll search for truths in Christian systems and not in other religious or atheistic systems.

So the systems grow stronger due to the continued increase in unity. Some systems become very powerful and start to "swallow up" other systems or at least they start to incorporate ideas from other friendly systems.

So the Republican Party system is friendly to systems that support it's main views and in fact, the Republican Party (RP) gets new ideas from these very systems. So their view on global warming caused them (the RP) to favor scientists who favor the same view and those very same scientists benefit from this relationship as well.

But where did this view come from? In 1997 Republicans and Democrats were both 2/3 sharing the same view of the cause for climate change. But perhaps the view that were responsible for global warming threatened important parts of the RP system and therefore needed to be changed. In other words, maybe we believe what we believe in part because a large and powerful system resists ideas that can harm it and favors ideas that can benefit it. This system then pressures us to conform and many people will do so. So there's no conspiracies, per se, it's just evolution of systems in action!

Here's a quote from a great article on global warming and the views of the RP: "Reilly said that an evangelical leader warned him not to talk 'in terms of the scientific consensus and mainstream science, because those guys, they're the ones that support stem cell research, they're the big proponents of Darwinism, and they oppose any kind of creationism.' " Here's an example of a system (a Christian one) opposing something seemingly unrelated (global warming) because of its association with a system (scientists) which are at odds with the Christian system.

So systems of thought have control over much of what happens via controlling much of what people think. So the cult leaders, the politicians, the bible writers, the preachers, the teachers, the lobbies, etc., do not really control anything directly. They are being controlled by systems that have no will of their own. So it's not conspiracies, nor stupidity, nor evil nor any other perceived cause, but just systems that are competing with other systems in a very natural way because of how evolution and ideas work. Systems of thought then are what's in control of people and not great leaders, thinkers, etc. It's systems of thought that deceive people and are responsible for what we normally attribute to people. In some sense, people are but pawns of systems of thought/ideas. (Although people as a collective, create them in the first place).