Doo we end up losing sight of what we really believe?

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doo we end up losing sight of what we really believe?

I was working on a reply to FTSE's post because I thought it touched upon an interesting point. Then I noticed it had disappeared.
Hence a hastily assembled post that strives to be relevant and topical ;O)

It seemed to me that the underlying question FTSE's thread posed was :
Do belief systems need to create an illusion of ’secret knowledge’ that only the upper hierarchy, the ‘high priests’ truly understand?

Which made me wonder - If so how do they balance this against the growing background of paranoia?

However, I thought that with the growing furore over the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords it might be better to ask the question of -
How do we lose end up losing sight of what we really believe?

Surely it is because we trust in the system.
I suppose with religious belief systems the hierarchy is built on a privileged relationship with the Divine and so with a scientific belief system you would expect it to be built upon a privileged relationship with reality.

However, it would seem to me that in both cases it is not the established ‘truths’ of the belief system that really define the most important effects these ‘systems’ have on the layman but rather the opinions of the ‘High Priests’

I’ve long argued that it isn’t the belief of the belief system that fails us but the system itself.
Men being men will always allow their own personal prejudices to steer their agendas and pretty soon these agenda can become the very opposite of the original intent.

The most worrying aspect of this is that it inevitably leads to a schism between those who blindly follow the ’evolution’ of belief and those who see it as a betrayal.

Of course this does not only apply to religion and science but also to politics too.

In Thailand you have the so called Buddhist sect Santi Asoke supporting an extremely right-wing political pressure group (PAD).
Its chief devotee, Chamlong, suggesting several months ago that the army should shoot the Red Shirt protestors in Bangkok without anyone pointing out that surely this is the antithesis of Buddhism.

While in America the Right wing Christians seem willing to shoot at anyone or anything that suggests that ‘loving your brother as yourself’ might mean being a bit more socialist.

Perhaps ‘High Priests’ of all persuasions will have to become more accountable!

Sorry about the mistakes in the above but the first post cannot be edited. Obviously it should be "Do we end up..." and "How do we end up losing sight..."
I find all you have said interesting also. This is something I have pondered and debated myself. I certainly agree with a majority of ethos between both taoism / buddhism (ok different but marginally) and the many God and Jesus based religions. The Qu'ran a facinating and actually somewhat beautiful read has been twisted into something almost sinister and foreboding. Dont even get me started on the modernised versions of these 'holy' books. I am certainly not sitting on a wealth of personal knowledge or insight into these religions but I have learned what most Soldiers and students learn in modernised schools and society. I was always in the path of the self defined atheist although throughout my youth I was sent to a martial arts school of Arnis and kombotan which was Grandmastered by a fellow named Ernesto A Presas (hes on youtube if your curious) and he incorporated prayers before training and mantras to settle the mind. Not entirely religious more the power of meditation and to create a positive class environment. I would wish this particular mindset was something the rest of the world could share in. A facinating documentary called "What the bleep do we know!" entails some insightful and enticing ideas on religion and science and if it is something you have not watched I highly recommend a tv night and preferrably with open minded few friends to talk about it afterward. Being a soldier I have seen death closer than some. Also my job is as an explosive technician. The reason I mention this is because after leaving the army I found myself pondering mortality and religion amongst other things. When I was younger I laughed at these things and shouted "Atheism" with enthusiasm. Then you begin to see why the old knights needed a heaven. I will now say I have what I would call a spiritualist beliefs. I do not beleive in God but I beleive in the divinity an preciousness of life. Dan
What the bleep do we know!: Down the Rabbit hole*
I find Taoism to be more pragmatic and of this world than Buddhism, except maybe Zen, Dan... Which is probably why Taoism is generally seen as fitting ‘under’ Buddhism as a path to Enlightenment. I found your post very interesting and it might well be that we have both arrived at essentially the same position from different ends. I look forward to watching ‘What The Bleep Do We Know?” Is it on You Tube? Yes, it is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-azcMJ5JS4 Thanks Dan its great! I notice - the BBC science has a huge number of ‘hits’ “Who lives in the eleventh dimension? - Parallel Universes Scientists discuss what sort of life could be found in the eleventh dimension…” I can’t say I can really see the point - it’s just low grade speculation to me. Now the beings from the thirteenth dimension really rock ;O)
I think it all depends on whether you have kids or not. That's flippant I know, and may not be true for everybody (Kings, High Priests etc. are mostly interested in maintaining status quos), but my own beliefs changed radically when I started breeding. Now I'm not really sure about anything except family survival. That sounds awful. Can't believe I wrote it. Quick add smiley. :)
One only has to read the Art Of War and know that it's author was a successful general, to know that the wisdom in the Tao Teh Ching is not mumbo-jumbo. The Art Of War is applied Tao-ism and it really works. I would say that the works of Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi are my favorite among religious texts. The Holy Bible is a great and beautiful work of literature but the Tao Teh Ching really blows your mind. Anyone who is familiar with the Kung-Fu tv series is already familiar with the Tao Teh Ching since most of the best quotes from that series are lifted from Lao Tzu.
Although this thread has developed in an interesting way I was hoping that people might respond to what I wanted to be its chief question. Why do the ‘high priests’ of belief systems almost inevitably stamp their own personal opinions and aspirations on to the ways they encourage believers to express their belief, sometimes in stark contrast to the core precepts professed by that belief system? Perhaps more importantly, if these ‘high priests’ can be shown to be perverting the very principles they are supposed to be representing and safeguarding, should they then be held responsible for the consequences? Of course this is not simply a religious question but also a political one. In fact it is a question to which your answer may well decide as to whether you oppose or support, say, Wikileaks and whistle blowing, as a method of demonstrating that certain ‘high priests’ are, at the very least, being disingenuous! Should we blindly follow leaders, or their favoured experts, on the twin assumptions that they both know what is best for us and want what is best for us? Or, should we keep an eye on them and question their judgement if their means to an end need justifying by dubious assumptions? I wanted to include Science in this too because one of its core precepts is that theories should be based directly on experimental evidence and not on ways to make the data fit the theory. Also there appears to be a growing problem with the scientific method itself… in an article by Jonah Lehrer titled “The Truth Wears Off” he asks : Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” 'For many scientists, the effect (the Decline Effect) is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.' http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz1... See also More Thoughts on the Decline Effect: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/01/jonah-lehrer-more...
I'm a bit dubious about the conclusions drawn in the New Yorker article from only a few examples because, surely, every day millions of school pupils in school laboratories are carrying out the same tests as earlier generations of school pupils and getting exactly the same results and surely scientific method is constantly being used throughout the world in the fields of industry and health care and forensic science,for example and is thus proven, through its regular successful application, to be, in the majority of cases, reliable.
Could be a statistical decline well-wisher. The more certain the result the longer the decline :O)
I don't find it hard to understand Mangone. A few have authority, most don't. As long as people believe that the high priests know best the high priests will continue to entrench their positions. Every now and then the people produce a high priest of their own who invariably gets absorbed into the high priesthood.
I got the impression that what he was saying was that, if I throw a ball into the air enough times, rather than falling, it may start to float.
Topic locked