God and religion and beliefs | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

God and religion and beliefs

What do you believe about these things?

  • One God almighty and creator

    Votes: 24 35.3%
  • No God

    Votes: 12 17.6%
  • Many Gods

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • We are God

    Votes: 3 4.4%
  • Mind itself is God

    Votes: 8 11.8%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 10 14.7%

  • Total voters
    68
I'm buddhist.. so that pretty much generalises my beliefs.

There is no reason for God to exist (Sorry if this offends anyone, it's just my personal opinion) and in that, God is more like an illusion people wish to create because they want some sort of answer to how we came about on this planet.

Karma, Nirvana, Enlightment and all that jazz is for me :]
 
That's not true at all Minerva.

Kane wasn't a vampire. He was a guy who manipulated events from behind the scenes for 5 thousand years until forming the Brotherhood of Nod and eventually calling down the apocalypse to make himself a higher being.
 
I'm buddhist.. so that pretty much generalises my beliefs.

There is no reason for God to exist (Sorry if this offends anyone, it's just my personal opinion) and in that, God is more like an illusion people wish to create because they want some sort of answer to how we came about on this planet.

Karma, Nirvana, Enlightment and all that jazz is for me :]

What reason is there for karma to exist? What reason is there for reincarnation to exist? If you say God is unnecessary, seems like you have, at some point, applied the same reasoning to your own beliefs. I'm curious to know your answer.
 
What reason is there for karma to exist? What reason is there for reincarnation to exist? If you say God is unnecessary, seems like you have, at some point, applied the same reasoning to your own beliefs. I'm curious to know your answer.

This, is where I can admit that my own logic is contradictory. My theory for reincarnation is that a soul is the actions of the person, moulding their "aura" (I know aura is a different thing, but it's the best way to describe it) as a person. This molding consists of bad and good things, depending on the person's actions (Karma), and when that person dies, that karma is then passed on. Because that person has not achieved a perfect state of being (enlightenment) the karma must be passed on until the soul is perfected. But, you're right, there is no real 'reason' for it to exist, like there should be no reason for karma to exist. But then i came more to the theory of consequence rather than a mystical "do bad things and later on it will bite you in the butt". I view karma as consequence; for example, if you shout and yell at your boss at work, that negative action (bad karma) would have an effect on you later, eg getting the sack, which is the consequence. And the same thing for good actions.
When it comes to reincarnation, I cannot really justify my reasoning for it. The only arguement I have is that, if people are to have souls and roam the earth as ghosts, then why do we not have prehistoric ghosts? etc. I don't believe in a Heaven and/or Hell because who is to define what makes you bad or good? And, the fact that the bible is extremely contradictory and sexist (again, in my opinion. Please, noone get angry at me. i'm not saying anyone's wrong.) you could be condemned to hell for being gay. Also, what I don't understand is why people have to go to church. If God is almighty, surely he can hear you anywhere and still be kind even if you did not attend? Anyway, a bit offtopic and off the question. In your question, yes, i have wondered what reason is there for reincarnation to exist. And I have yet to answer that to myself, let alone another person. But, I am glad you asked me that, though I can say that I find Buddhism in itself alot more logical, fair and just than any other religion I have researched, (I still have a few more to look into) and also it's seen more as a philosophy, rather than a religion.
 
This, is where I can admit that my own logic is contradictory. My theory for reincarnation is that a soul is the actions of the person, moulding their "aura" (I know aura is a different thing, but it's the best way to describe it) as a person. This molding consists of bad and good things, depending on the person's actions (Karma), and when that person dies, that karma is then passed on. Because that person has not achieved a perfect state of being (enlightenment) the karma must be passed on until the soul is perfected. But, you're right, there is no real 'reason' for it to exist, like there should be no reason for karma to exist. But then i came more to the theory of consequence rather than a mystical "do bad things and later on it will bite you in the butt". I view karma as consequence; for example, if you shout and yell at your boss at work, that negative action (bad karma) would have an effect on you later, eg getting the sack, which is the consequence. And the same thing for good actions.
When it comes to reincarnation, I cannot really justify my reasoning for it. The only arguement I have is that, if people are to have souls and roam the earth as ghosts, then why do we not have prehistoric ghosts? etc. I don't believe in a Heaven and/or Hell because who is to define what makes you bad or good? And, the fact that the bible is extremely contradictory and sexist (again, in my opinion. Please, noone get angry at me. i'm not saying anyone's wrong.) you could be condemned to hell for being gay. Also, what I don't understand is why people have to go to church. If God is almighty, surely he can hear you anywhere and still be kind even if you did not attend? Anyway, a bit offtopic and off the question. In your question, yes, i have wondered what reason is there for reincarnation to exist. And I have yet to answer that to myself, let alone another person. But, I am glad you asked me that, though I can say that I find Buddhism in itself alot more logical, fair and just than any other religion I have researched, (I still have a few more to look into) and also it's seen more as a philosophy, rather than a religion.

I appreciate your answer and your honesty! I have a few further questions:

It seems you like to compare Buddhism to Christianity (I'd wager you grew up in a Christian society as I have, and so it gets most of your attention as it does mine :)). Have you ever compared Buddhism to a secular belief system rooted in psychology, physics, and the like? I know you are aware that such a thing exists, but have you researched the points of view common to the sciences to see if they are more accurate?

In addition, let me ask if you could be Buddhist without belief in karma and reincarnation...does the philosophy of Buddhism still make sense when we entertain the idea that these concepts don't exist?
 
I appreciate your answer and your honesty! I have a few further questions:

It seems you like to compare Buddhism to Christianity (I'd wager you grew up in a Christian society as I have, and so it gets most of your attention as it does mine :)). Have you ever compared Buddhism to a secular belief system rooted in psychology, physics, and the like? I know you are aware that such a thing exists, but have you researched the points of view common to the sciences to see if they are more accurate?

In addition, let me ask if you could be Buddhist without belief in karma and reincarnation...does the philosophy of Buddhism still make sense when we entertain the idea that these concepts don't exist?

I can't say i've compared Buddhism to any other scientifically based religions, perhaps maybe Confusionism/ towism but they all compliment eachother very well. I shall have a look into it though, as I have been meaning to. And yes, I was forced by my parents into a christian school, so I know christianity in relative depth, but not fully. Also, I'm always open to any other questions you may have on it, or any conradictions you may see in Buddhism, and i'll try to answer it for you.

Yes, you can. Buddha said that concepts of buddhism can be followed if the individual wishes it. He thought that concepts of the religion, if it appeals to people, could be followed, but they should not follow things they do not believe in.

I hope that helps :)
 
No god, no afterlife.

Besides the fact that I'm gay and thus naturally disinclined to get my feet wet with institutions that sort of hate me (most of them anyway), here's why: god and religion seem less about god than they are about some form of afterlife. That, if you're good, you'll have a good life even after you die. Death is a very threatening prospect and it'll get us all eventually, and religion giving you an afterlife is comforting.

Same with the whole "god works in mysterious ways" stuff, if someone you care about gets run over by a drunk and dies it's more comforting to think it was part of some grand plan than to just accept it as the cold, harsh randomness of life.

So since religion obviously gives comfort from death and other harsh realities of life it logically seems more likely that people who believe in it do so because it's comforting, rather than because any of it is actually true. Following that conclusion I cannot be compelled to believe in it as believing in it is then tantamount to lying to myself.

Mind you even on the best days I really want to believe in it. I just can't.
 
I can't say i've compared Buddhism to any other scientifically based religions, perhaps maybe Confusionism/ towism but they all compliment eachother very well. I shall have a look into it though, as I have been meaning to. And yes, I was forced by my parents into a christian school, so I know christianity in relative depth, but not fully. Also, I'm always open to any other questions you may have on it, or any conradictions you may see in Buddhism, and i'll try to answer it for you.


See, I was thinking of a point of view absent religion. The point of view I am referring to is one where we create a method of learning things as they are. If you have a nail you use a hammer, right? So wouldn't the best way for learning how things happen the way they do be a specialized way of finding it out?

Science was created for that purpose. People wanted to know how the physical universe works so they created physics. People wanted to know how the human mind works so we have psychology. People wanted to know how to cure sickness so they created medicine. We have a specific way that has been developed through trial and error, bred for efficiency, to learn what is true/false, healthy/unhealthy, useful/useless.

Have you ever considered something like that?
 
See, I was thinking of a point of view absent religion. The point of view I am referring to is one where we create a method of learning things as they are. If you have a nail you use a hammer, right? So wouldn't the best way for learning how things happen the way they do be a specialized way of finding it out?

Science was created for that purpose. People wanted to know how the physical universe works so they created physics. People wanted to know how the human mind works so we have psychology. People wanted to know how to cure sickness so they created medicine. We have a specific way that has been developed through trial and error, bred for efficiency, to learn what is true/false, healthy/unhealthy, useful/useless.

Have you ever considered something like that?

I do find science very interesting, and contrary to belief, Buddhism is based on science, to which most disbelief of God and other beliefs of that kind of branch are down to psychology. But, I can't say i'm rather fond of psychology myself, but i'm not entirely sure why.
 
I do find science very interesting, and contrary to belief, Buddhism is based on science, to which most disbelief of God and other beliefs of that kind of branch are down to psychology. But, I can't say i'm rather fond of psychology myself, but i'm not entirely sure why.

Why do you say Buddhism is based on science? Did Buddhists do studies and follow the scientific method?

I can understand why you would not like psychology. Before I really got into it I had a negative opinion of it. The problem for me was that it has been taken over by the commercial system that tries to make people think psychology can fix all your problems...and then when it fails to do so (as it did when I was young), even if it's the fault of the client/guardian of the client (as was in my case), or the fact that psychology, like any science, is about discovering the unknown and so there is a lot we don't know (and hence why psychology can't cure all your mental ills).

In addition, I didn't like psychology because I, and many others in the pseudo-psychology industry (of which there are many), think they know all about how they and other people work better then controlled studies. We all like to think we're really good "intuitive psychologists," and to an extent we can be just that...but it's our responsibility to verify/falsify those beliefs...and that's why we have a discipline of psychology.
 
Why do you say Buddhism is based on science? Did Buddhists do studies and follow the scientific method?

I can understand why you would not like psychology. Before I really got into it I had a negative opinion of it. The problem for me was that it has been taken over by the commercial system that tries to make people think psychology can fix all your problems...and then when it fails to do so (as it did when I was young), even if it's the fault of the client/guardian of the client (as was in my case), or the fact that psychology, like any science, is about discovering the unknown and so there is a lot we don't know (and hence why psychology can't cure all your mental ills).

In addition, I didn't like psychology because I, and many others in the pseudo-psychology industry (of which there are many), think they know all about how they and other people work better then controlled studies. We all like to think we're really good "intuitive psychologists," and to an extent we can be just that...but it's our responsibility to verify/falsify those beliefs...and that's why we have a discipline of psychology.

Well, for example some of the beliefs, such as the creation of the world, is based on the scientific theory of the "big bang" rather than a creator. Also, it's foundation is that of very logical and non-superstitious mannerisms. The idea of luck, for example is disregarded; here's a quote from Dalai Llama himself:

"I know a person who makes a living selling lucky charms. He claims that his charms can give good luck, prosperity and he guarantees that you will be able to pick three numbers. But if what he says is true then why isn't he himself a multi-millionaire? If his lucky charms really work, then why doesn't he win the lottery week after week? The only luck he has is that there are people silly enough to buy his magic charms."

And, as for the God idea, from Ven S. Dhammika:

"Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."


And how the universe was made:


"All religions have myths and stories which attempt to answer this question. In ancient times, when humankind simply did not know, such myths were adequate, but in the 20th century, in the age of physics, astronomy and geology, such myths have been superseded by scientific fact. Science has explained the origin of the universe without recourse to the god-idea."

Buddhism is very scientifically and/or factually based for the majority of it. Of course, being a philosophy there is going to be dubious areas, like your question about reincarnation and karma.

As for psychology, perhaps that is what irks me about it. I have seen a psychologist myself, and they knew pretty much nothing about the way my brain works. I really don't see the logic in most of it. But I should look into it more.
Personally, I don't see how scientific study could help the human mind when the human mind is so unpredicting?
 
I don't think you can proof that there is a god, or that there is no god.
And i don't see the reason for believing in a god/gods.
So for living my life I will just go with "no god".

If i die and it turns out there is an afterlife, wel awsome :)
 
So there is both only one God, yet more then one God?

1. I believe divinity can be neither comprehended nor defined.

2. I believe people should not be divided over their views on divinity.

3. I believe that divinity is a personal issue.

4. I have many diverse, complex, and perhaps contradictory views on divinity myself that I do not know how to sort out or explain.
 
Well, for example some of the beliefs, such as the creation of the world, is based on the scientific theory of the "big bang" rather than a creator. Also, it's foundation is that of very logical and non-superstitious mannerisms. The idea of luck, for example is disregarded; here's a quote from Dalai Llama himself:

"I know a person who makes a living selling lucky charms. He claims that his charms can give good luck, prosperity and he guarantees that you will be able to pick three numbers. But if what he says is true then why isn't he himself a multi-millionaire? If his lucky charms really work, then why doesn't he win the lottery week after week? The only luck he has is that there are people silly enough to buy his magic charms."

And, as for the God idea, from Ven S. Dhammika:

"Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."


And how the universe was made:


"All religions have myths and stories which attempt to answer this question. In ancient times, when humankind simply did not know, such myths were adequate, but in the 20th century, in the age of physics, astronomy and geology, such myths have been superseded by scientific fact. Science has explained the origin of the universe without recourse to the god-idea."

Buddhism is very scientifically and/or factually based for the majority of it. Of course, being a philosophy there is going to be dubious areas, like your question about reincarnation and karma.


What I have always found interesting about Buddhism is it seems more a moral and psychological philosophy then does Christianity, which seems to focus on the epistemological truth of it's claims on such things as biology and cosmology.

The 8 fold path has always been sound to me. The Middle Way of not taking extremes, however, doesn't check out philosophically to me: if we are always supposed to take things in moderation, does that mean we should take moderation in moderation (and so therefore sometimes go to extremes)? Also it says we should take in moderation metaphysical views of what exists and doesn't exist...when it seems pretty clear that there are some things that don't exist, and to compromise on this is to violate ditthi (seeing things the way they are). It seems contradictory upon itself.

As for psychology, perhaps that is what irks me about it. I have seen a psychologist myself, and they knew pretty much nothing about the way my brain works. I really don't see the logic in most of it. But I should look into it more.
Personally, I don't see how scientific study could help the human mind when the human mind is so unpredicting?

Well, the way studies in the social sciences are done is to look at the average or tendency. Psychology is rarely a 100% thing. So you may just not fall into the normal tendency...and that's not always a bad thing (for example, in the area of cognitive biases).

However, there are some (near) 100%s in psychology. Our brains are largely structured in a similar fashion...our language areas are on the left side of our brain in the same spot and they do the same thing from person to person. You remove it and it will have a similar effect from person to person.
 
1. I believe divinity can be neither comprehended nor defined.

You just defined it as undefinable. :p This statement seems to defeat itself.

2. I believe people should not be divided over their views on divinity.

3. I believe that divinity is a personal issue.

What do you mean by "divided by?" As in, they shouldn't fight over it?

4. I have many diverse, complex, and perhaps contradictory views on divinity myself that I do not know how to sort out or explain.

Why is this? Why would you have so many contradictory viewpoints that you can't sort out?
 
God is whatever an individual wants him/her/it to be. God is the meaning and reason behind life and God is defined only on a personal level. There is no proving or disproving beliefs because they are just that, beliefs. They are not concrete.

I personally don't believe anything is any more concrete than I want it to be. I believe there is much more to the world than we perceive and can even understand. What we experience, feel, think, conclude, etc... are only relative to our understanding of existence and therefore we cannot use our reasoning to prove or disprove anything outside of this realm.

I could easily be wrong and I could easily be right. I don't know and you shouldn't care.
 
What I have always found interesting about Buddhism is it seems more a moral and psychological philosophy then does Christianity, which seems to focus on the epistemological truth of it's claims on such things as biology and cosmology.

The 8 fold path has always been sound to me. The Middle Way of not taking extremes, however, doesn't check out philosophically to me: if we are always supposed to take things in moderation, does that mean we should take moderation in moderation (and so therefore sometimes go to extremes)? Also it says we should take in moderation metaphysical views of what exists and doesn't exist...when it seems pretty clear that there are some things that don't exist, and to compromise on this is to violate ditthi (seeing things the way they are). It seems contradictory upon itself.

Rather than a wholesome view, buddhism is more like a flexible philosophy. yes, i agree that this does sound contradictory, but it's basically saying that the views on which you chose to see things as they are at face value, or look deeper into whether they exist or not is entirely your choice. It's what causes rifts in religion when people take things in different ways, and interpret the bible, or religious teachings in seperate ways. This is why Buddhism has many branches, yet they all compliment eachother. So really, it's not contradictory if you're taking the basic principle and applying it to your own beliefs.


Well, the way studies in the social sciences are done is to look at the average or tendency. Psychology is rarely a 100% thing. So you may just not fall into the normal tendency...and that's not always a bad thing (for example, in the area of cognitive biases).

However, there are some (near) 100%s in psychology. Our brains are largely structured in a similar fashion...our language areas are on the left side of our brain in the same spot and they do the same thing from person to person. You remove it and it will have a similar effect from person to person.

Ah I see. But still, i just think the entire concept of someone thinking they know me grates me. Although, like the positions of skills in the brain is pretty much accepted, most of the theories i do not really agree with.
 
Rather than a wholesome view, buddhism is more like a flexible philosophy. yes, i agree that this does sound contradictory, but it's basically saying that the views on which you chose to see things as they are at face value, or look deeper into whether they exist or not is entirely your choice. It's what causes rifts in religion when people take things in different ways, and interpret the bible, or religious teachings in seperate ways. This is why Buddhism has many branches, yet they all compliment eachother. So really, it's not contradictory if you're taking the basic principle and applying it to your own beliefs.

Well, this is the difference in seeing this as a left brained or right brained activity. Left brain is detail and logic oriented, while right brain is holistic and connection seeing.

I'd argue that the activity we are undertaking is properly a left brained activity. Determining truth seems a matter of logic and reason, not so much a matter of seeing whole pictures.

As intuitives we all are familiar and good with right brain thinking...the connections I make are sometimes surprising and ridiculous. This can be very useful for philosophical inquiries, but we can't very well say that I am simultaneously Duty, a birthday candle, and a pulsar. That is illogical. Reality demands that logical contradictions don't exist, and so making the claim that everything be taken in moderation is going to be subject to itself...do we take everything in moderation including moderation itself? This is, of course, impossible, as at some point to satisfy this we must take an extreme, and so violate our own rule.

But I'm not attacking Buddhism as a whole, only this part of it. :p


Ah I see. But still, i just think the entire concept of someone thinking they know me grates me. Although, like the positions of skills in the brain is pretty much accepted, most of the theories i do not really agree with.

Understood. Try to look at it another way: it's a great tool to explore yourself and understand yourself...not to mention understanding others. :)

Which theories do you not agree with? I'm curious to understand all kinds of points of view on psychology.
 
Kane wasn't a vampire. He was a guy who manipulated events from behind the scenes for 5 thousand years until forming the Brotherhood of Nod and eventually calling down the apocalypse to make himself a higher being.

For the technology of peace!
 
But I'm not attacking Buddhism as a whole, only this part of it. :p

Oh, I know, I didn't mean that you were attacking all of it ^^" I welcome your judgement on it, I was more saying that each section of apparent contradictive sections aren't, and it's just up to the individual to what they believe.




Understood. Try to look at it another way: it's a great tool to explore yourself and understand yourself...not to mention understanding others. :)

Which theories do you not agree with? I'm curious to understand all kinds of points of view on psychology.

I guess so, but personally I think that if you want to get to know another person, then approach them yourself, without assuming what you know from psychology is the person's way of thinking/attitude.

Well, i'm inclined towards the theory of using different parts of the brain, and that those functions can be moved if some part of the brain were to be removed. It seems logical to me.
Also, I do think that actions of a person can be down to their upbringing, and how the attitudes of an individual are a reaction to how they were brought up by their parents. Also, to me that seems logical.