Can someone please explain people to me? How is it possible to disown and kill people over an idea that only exists within the mind?
Religion
- Thread starter Eventhorizon
- Start date
It's called blind faith. Some of these people truly think that what they are doing is not only justified by divine right, but that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their atrocious actions here and now. They have a very strong belief that they are doing it all for the greater good. Why they think this, I do not know.
Oh, this is extremely complex. From people believing that only they are right to using religion as a cover for political motives. Not a simple answer. If I weren't sick, I'd elaborate, but I'm confident that there are plenty of people here with insight. 
It's not just an idea that exists in the mind. It's a belief. For many a core belief. That's why in my opinion, when you're talking about religion to someone you have to be careful how you go about it or you can push them further into it.
Well this is a great place to start bringing in Jungian ideas-- as much as you'd like to think that the source of certainty is logical, in practice it is very intuitive. Jung described intuition as producing a feeling of "psychic certainty" -- namely a certainty rooted deeply in the mind.
And here is the link to your OP--while religion may stem solely from the mind, that's exactly why it interplays so deeply with the feelings conveying certainty.
If anything, we today appeal to science to deal with our lives because again, experience produces a feeling of certainty that science and evidence-based approaches give us what we want in our lives. By itself, logic is but an abstraction -- in fact, some theorists even write of the seemingly amazing thing that a purely logical construct like mathematics can explain reality.
So really to understand first of all what's going on, we just have to see that we are heavily intuitive creatures.
It is highly imaginable such creatures can sport a portion which readily stray from reason and seek "direct" feelings of certainty not rooted in logical argumentation as an impetus for action.
And here is the link to your OP--while religion may stem solely from the mind, that's exactly why it interplays so deeply with the feelings conveying certainty.
If anything, we today appeal to science to deal with our lives because again, experience produces a feeling of certainty that science and evidence-based approaches give us what we want in our lives. By itself, logic is but an abstraction -- in fact, some theorists even write of the seemingly amazing thing that a purely logical construct like mathematics can explain reality.
So really to understand first of all what's going on, we just have to see that we are heavily intuitive creatures.
It is highly imaginable such creatures can sport a portion which readily stray from reason and seek "direct" feelings of certainty not rooted in logical argumentation as an impetus for action.
It's not a problem specific to religion. I think it relates to fanaticism. Whether it is over politics, god, a pair of Air Jordans, or someone cutting you off in traffic, it doesn't really matter. Something becomes subjectively elevated to the point where one is willing to kill or die for it. If you get nuts enough about something, that is apparently reason to kill.
Last edited:
I know this comes as a difficult thing to internalize to some who are used to seeing the judging functions as producing certainty but actually if you advance your understanding, the feeling of certainty doesn't come from the organization of things into a rational statement necessarily (it can-- see Naranjo's enneagram 6) but also from knowing how it applies to one's intuitive sense of reality.There an unmistakable interplay of say a pure logical framework with perception must take place.
I actually used to hate the idea that an INJ could reasonably be a "perceiving dominant" but I realized that as much as Jung seems to portray perceiving types without their share of reason as somewhat meandering, directionless creatures devoted to noting events as they are, I think there's something to be said of the fact that intuition is also responsible for one's feeling of mental certainty--an irrational factor because a priori it doesn't follow directly from any rational premise.
I actually used to hate the idea that an INJ could reasonably be a "perceiving dominant" but I realized that as much as Jung seems to portray perceiving types without their share of reason as somewhat meandering, directionless creatures devoted to noting events as they are, I think there's something to be said of the fact that intuition is also responsible for one's feeling of mental certainty--an irrational factor because a priori it doesn't follow directly from any rational premise.
Would you kill someone that raped your whole family and killed them afterwards? Probably.
Why? Moral is just something that only exists within the mind, so why?
These questions are far more difficult than reason.
Yeah Oscillation hits it with morality -- a lot of things based on feelings are ultimately a mixture of philosophical idea and feelings about that idea. That's how morality in practice often works (whether or not philosophers ever will succeed in placing on purely logical foundations).
That said, I wouldn't disagree with your OP that I find it singularly unimaginable and unreasonable, and I think good moral philosophies rarely fall into the category of singularly non-reason-based. They usually involve some basic feeling-intuitions yes, but then again even mathematics and physics start off with sensory intuitions (eg the notion of set containment and so on is based on an abstraction from our sense of size).
I do not excuse religions from rational inquiry however, and I think that most people who trust feelings of intuitive certainty that are *very* divorced from reason are delusional. Of course there have been miraculous people who could show true logical statements essentially by diving them intuitively -- but in absence of such evidence, I'd hardly trust someone to bypass reason in how they achieve their sense of certainty.
That said, I wouldn't disagree with your OP that I find it singularly unimaginable and unreasonable, and I think good moral philosophies rarely fall into the category of singularly non-reason-based. They usually involve some basic feeling-intuitions yes, but then again even mathematics and physics start off with sensory intuitions (eg the notion of set containment and so on is based on an abstraction from our sense of size).
I do not excuse religions from rational inquiry however, and I think that most people who trust feelings of intuitive certainty that are *very* divorced from reason are delusional. Of course there have been miraculous people who could show true logical statements essentially by diving them intuitively -- but in absence of such evidence, I'd hardly trust someone to bypass reason in how they achieve their sense of certainty.
I cannot say what I would do. If caught in the act of killing, yes I would kill them to keep them from killing any more. If they were caught later by authorities etc... I can't say what I would do. Id probably internilize it and be sick for the rest of my life.
The point I want to make though is that a physical real world action is the cause. With religion all you have are people telling you about something. No real world action as the cause.
Last edited:
God no. I would torture him in the worst ways possible for an extended period of time. When I am done working out my anger on him, I would then bring him to a forest and loosely tie him to a tree. Maybe he'll make it out alive, maybe not. At that point, revenge will be in the hands of god.
By what you ask and the way you ask it, there is no explanation that will satisfy this.
Other people have given ideas. What you are saying is that you know of no way to answer this.
Tbis is your first thought as it is mine. Do you suppose its possible that if you imagine what you would actually do in the real world it might change? For instance, do you actually know how to torture someone in the worst way possible? You might opt for what you yourself believe is bad and play him Barney songs into the night. But for all you know he may love it.
No, I know it wouldn't change. I don't want to go into detail because I don't want to scare the shit out of anyone, but I would probably rewrite the book on the most brutal torture techniques.
I would steal whatever soul they have.
Because these people accept the premise that belief and devotion to God is more important than their relationships on earth with one another. The OT in the bible calls parents to put God before their own children, even. The NT states much the same--God and your eternal life depend on you being willing to forsake all earthly attachments.
I don't think I reallyunderstand it though. The extreme are willing to do these things but there are plenty of religious folk willing to make concessions and live in peace. These may not interpret things so literally.