I think it is most likely that religions arose from people attaching agency to things or aspects of life, and creating what we describe as religions therefrom – that is the most logical explanation. Like attributing deities to different aspects of nature – Gaia the god of nature or Odin the god of thunder. When there were harsh weather conditions and poor quality of life the gods were angry. Or when the there were clear blue skies, sunshine and abundant crops the gods were pleased. Herein we can observe the faculty of pattern recognition in human-beings (as you expounded on in your post) and how interpretation of these patterns leads to beliefs of all different kinds, superstitions etc (which Prismatic has ignored) People wanted to maintain good relations with the gods or God, the reward of which was a favourable life on earth, and an eternal life with the gods/God hereafter which doesn’t strike me as fear. These are historical human facts.
Yes, death is associated with religion, no one is disputing that. But it is difficult to contextualise the relationship in anything more than an anecdotal way. There is no necessity to conclude that it was/is fear, that is something which is clearly open to interpretation. Yet Prismatic is certain that his claims are justified by evidence - which is just his interpretation of the religious texts… Though people fear death, believing in life after death may be part of the belief systems themselves and may have arisen from people’s perceived communication with those who have died. Whereby they claimed that their loved ones were in a beautiful place or at peace somewhere in eternal paradise, like Valhalla or Heaven. Again, not fear.
In the Christian religion there is the story of Jesus communicating with Moses and Elijah, implying that even though they had both died physically, they were in heaven with God - that is hope, not fear. Does that mean that I should make a certain claim that all religions are based upon the subconscious need for hope, because I interpret it? Certainly not - how could I prove that? Death is entwined in religions, because that is a part of human life, the human experience, but fear being the cause of them, is from my perspective incorrect, when there are other valid causes to consider and have been put into the arena. However, for some reason Prismatic rejects them all and has prioritised death. He further compounds his position by adding “subconscious” to the equation, as if he somehow knows the full scope of how the subconscious mind relates to how we perceive death, not even having the humility to perceive that he is speculating. Nope, he believes that his claims are not only based upon principles, but that he also has evidence of this, both of which I haven’t observed, and what little external “evidences” he has provided, are clearly open to interpretation.
From my perspective, Prismatic needs to see the wizard of Oz .
I did note your other points but I assessed what I have posted cover them all.
If you think they are critical, I will have a re-look on them.
As stated it is always your discretion to continue or not.
On my part I will respond to whatever counter arguments there are and whatever is necessary, that’s all.
I will not impose nor be bothered whether you counter reply or not. That’s Buddhism’s detachment from expectations.
This discussion is like a casual tennis practice of rallying [not a competitive game btw], I will return the ball as long as you hit the ball back and show intention to continue. If you decide not to return the ball to my side of the court, so be it, that the end of the rally.
I have responded to the first part which I believe cover the following as well.
Since you think I have not covered, here is my response.
Why not?
As I had mentioned somewhere;
You can test it yourself personally, whether you want to be killed or not, i.e. to avoid death. If you are to face a threat of death in serious situation, your subconscious and conscious fear of death will trigger you to save yourself.
I believe all human beings will respond the same as you do except the mentally ill who are suicidal and indifferent to living.
Point is all the above are grounded on;
DNA-RNA programmed all human to strive to live
To live all humans has to avoid death [cup half-empty = cup half-full].
To avoid death, all humans are programmed to fear death at the subconscious level and the conscious level. The emotion of fear trigger responses to avoid death.
Note to avoid death, all humans are programmed with many other potentials but one of them -the topic on hand - is fear, i.e. fear of death to as to avoid death.
Note the link, avoid death via fear of death is very logical and rational.
Re the idea of agency from the beginnings.
In the primitive days, humans are faced with loads of catastrophe that killed many members of the tribe.
By ascribing agency, they put a name to these agents so that they can appease them to that these super agents will not bring forth more catastrophe.
Note the ancient practices of sacrificing animals and humans to appease the ‘gods’ e.g. the Incas and elsewhere.
These sacrifices are done to appease their gods to avoid death of tribe members including the individuals.
These sacrifices to avoid death are triggered by the subconscious and conscious [where apparent] fear of death.
In the earliest primitive religion, human were focused on appeasing their god via offerings, sacrifice of animals and humans as triggered by the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate.
The concept of afterlife came later as in mummies and pyramids and various forms of burial which may be related to a god or simply they believe the soul just moved on to another life.
Again this thinking and action is triggered by the emotion of fear, fear of what? it is the fear of death to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate.
Note this is programmed thus not a conscious effort by rather driven subconsciously.
As I had argued the above is reducible to the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate as programmed.
What you did is stopped on the surface and did not dig into what is going inside the human brain, mind, DNA-RNA and further.
The fear of hell is subsequent to fear of death [subconscious].
To fear hell is to fear death which would lead to hell.
The idea of the fear of hell, is more of a moral issue as a threat to ensure the person obey the commands of a God or deity.
But why the person believe in the idea of the deity in the first place is due to the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate as programmed.
Before a person in influenced by a threat of no-self [I don’t agree it is a threat] the person has to become a Buddhist first.
Why a person become a Buddhist is because of the the fear of death [subconscious] to avoid death so as to live, then to procreate as programmed.
It is only thereafter he is told [wrongly] there is absolutely no-self.
As I had shown above you are merely scratching the surface of human actions in relation to religion.
You simply ignore what is going on in the brain/mind, the emotions, the DNA-RNA factors of the person.
Note I have stated many times, humans are unique in that humans are “programmed” with inhibitors to suppressed the fear of death otherwise humans will be paralyzed with fears of the conscious fear of death at all time and will not be able to function effectively.
Humans are the only mammals programmed with self-consciousness.
Other mammals and animals has to avoid death to survive, thus are programmed with fears to avoid death.
Because other mammals and animals do not have self-consciousness, there is no question of whether their fear of death is subconscious or conscious. Their fear of death is like what we humans would termed as subconscious fear of death.
Note other mammals also have emotional triggers of fear, anger, etc.
You are very short-sighted on this.
The DNA-RNA programs are very multi-faceted. There are programs that drive humans to live as long as possible and there are programs what oppose this.
Example DNA-RNA wise the neurons in the human brain are subjected to atrophy and there will come a time where the brain will be ineffectively and thus the human will likely to die. Even the neurons that activate the person to live as long as possible will be weakened in time.
Point is the program that drive humans to live as long as possible are optimized for the period the human is most productive to produce and care of the next generation. Thereafter nature will not give a damn.
I must say again, the % cannot be specific but merely to denote the relatively significant ratio which we can more or less infer from experiences. This relative ratio is recognized by scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists.
As I had argued, all the above forms of actions and thoughts of humans are reducible to the subconscious fear of death, to avoid death, so as to live to produce the next generation.
What advantage for humans?
The advantage is to ensure humans can produce the next generation.
To do so, human must live to survive
To survive, humans must avoid death
To avoid death, humans must fear death [subconsciously] and perform other functions.
As you can see above, we cannot avoid the subconscious fear of death that lead to the idea of agency to gain advantages.
The primary emotions are fear, happiness, sadness, and anger.
One condition of happiness is the removal of fear.
Do people report they turned to religion because of sadness?
Sadness is a result from the subconscious fear of death.
Do people report they turned to religion because of anger?
Anger is an emotion to eliminate the threat that trigger the fear of death.
As you can see the most dominant emotion is ‘fear.’
So its a question of me choosing fear over other emotions but point is it is a natural fact.
As you can see from the above, the main point is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
This is what I had focused on my earlier respond in ignoring the above to save time.
One limitation to your argument is you lack a deeper knowledge of how the emotion of fear works within the brain with evolutionary link to the first single-cell living thing.
There’s also the shamanic tradition which involves altered states, sometimes narcotic plants, and long term training. And we have to remember also that religions have everyday people who may or may not understand their own religions and then people who come up with practices and engage in them for long periods. And their conceptions will be quite different. You can see this with Buddhism which in Asia may very well have deities, reincarnation and all sorts of other beliefs that practicing masters do not agree with or contextualize in different ways.
His evidence is scanty. He keeps harping on that quote from John. I know there are other references, but really he has not here or elsewhere made a strong case. And he seems to have no explanation for why religious texts focus on other things much more than death and afterlife.
Exactly! He’s also making a logical error, a bit like when people say that a mutation in an animal (in evolution) happened for ability X, or to make it easier for an animal to survive. One of the side effects of religion might be that it eases the fear of death. I would guess this is true for many. That doesn’t mean that’s why it formed. And it is certainly only one of many of a large number of parts of the religion.
I have responded to what you claimed I have missed out.
However what you proposed are merely the superficial actions of the religionists, e.g. the idea of agency, personification, and other outer forms of behavior.
I countered argued you ignored the evolutionary, DNA-RNA, emotions factors and how the brain and mind works.
In countering all the points [you accused me of missing] I have directed them to the root cause of the subsconscious fear of death, to avoid death so as to survive thus driven to procreate and take care of the next generations.
It is very relevant.
I have explained above.
All the actions in the brain of mammals are what is to us humans, our subconscious mind.
All humans are programmed with a significant conscious mind that is not in all other mammals and animals.
This is why we have to differentiate our subconscious mind (equivalent to all mammals] from our unique conscious mind that we are conscious of our mortality which is suppressed most the time.
You stated “To avoid death, one must avoid threats” do not make sense.
Note you stated yourself,
“That makes sense. The organism via natural selection has unconscious and conscious fears of things that can cause death.”
It is logical that fear of things that can cause death [threats of death] is to avoid death.
So my point “To avoid death, one must avoid threats [of death]” do make sense.
As I had stated, the DNA-RNA is the genes has multi-faceted programs of which some oppose each other.
E.g. the program to drive one to live as long as possible is contra by the program of the atrophy of neurons.
The majority are risk adverse and fear death subconsciously so as to avoid death.
One point is the human species also risk extinction if the natural expansion of population to increase chances of survival of the species could be a disaster if no new sources of food and resources are available.
Therefore nature will programmed a small % [say 10%] with risk seekers program. This is so obvious, how many among the 7 billion are explorers, mountain climbers, involved in parachuting and other dangerous endeavors?
While these risk seekers are programmed with an addition program that drive them to seek greater risks than the majority, they still have the program that drive them to strive to live as long as possible. This is why we often hear of stories of risk taker who are caught in very dangerous situation but they had strove to live as long as possible until they have to give up. Some may give up easily, but they are the exceptional.
Re risk to save others, this is driven by a program that drives altruism. But again these people still have the program to strive to live as long as possible. Where there is death due to altruism, this is due to lack of impulse control, as in blind altruism. Again what % of these are to the 7 billion people?
Note I have replied to your repeated point above before but you don’t seem to get it.
Do you dispute my counter as above?
This is very logical.
Those who fear death constantly are recognized as having mental issue and need to consult a psychiatrist. This can be a very serious mental issue. healthline.com/health/thanatophobia
Therefore it is logical the normal person without such a mental issue will not fear death constantly.
This imply the fear of death is suppressed at the conscious level most of the time in most people except intermittently. This suppression comes in degrees so some may be trigger with the fear of death more regularly than others. Those extremes one will be suffering from Thanatophobia which warrant psychiatric attention.
As an ordinary human, it is obvious I have an inherent subconscious fear of death and intermittent conscious fear of death.
Naturally the inherent subconscious fear of death will generate unease in my mental self and I deal with them appropriately with effective spiritual practices including those from Buddhism-proper.
No you don’t consciously suppress the conscious fear of death.
Nature has done that for you naturally with evolved inhibitors.
It is a fact to conscious humans, mortality is a fact.
It is also naturally humans are programmed to fear death, to avoid death so as to live to procreate and nurture the next generation.
If humans has a constant fear of death, they will be paralyzed by it and will not be able to function properly to produce and take care of the children of the next generations.
Therefore its nature’s imperative that the conscious fear of death [unique to humans] is suppressed naturally.
Reflect on it deeply and you will note the above is very rational.
As I had pointed out,
while the very turbulent and tremendous within the subconscious by its definition is not relayed to the conscious mind by inhibitors, these turbulent impulses effects other pathways [emotions of sadness, secondary anxieties, anger, pains, etc] which manifests indirectly as conscious existential pains, anxieties, Angst, despairs, meaningless, etc.
Therefore the person will react to these conscious existential pains but they are not aware of its root causes.
To soothe these existential pains, these people resort to actions that eventually become of what we termed as ‘religions.’ Point is these solutions work very effectively and that is why 90% of people are religious.
Ok, psychosis is a strong term.
Note this suppression of internal impulses re fear of death is done naturally.
Whilst the suppression will not invoke psychosis in general, it would definitely have manifested various degrees of psychological anxieties and Angst.
Since you have knowledge in psychology, do you understand the concept of Angst?
There is nothing wrong in repetition especially when the subject it complex.
The above is not a repetition but a further explanation to the earlier point why the majority turned to religions.
I meant the existential pains at the fundamental level.
For example all theistic religions [comprising 90% of all religions] dealt with the fear of the afterlife and promised salvation with eternal life after physical death.
This promise relieved the fundamental basis of their subconscious fear of death.
Of course as human beings theists will still have fears, anxieties, etc. but more often theists will have faith God will help them if they have full faith in God.
However I am confident no theists will doubt they are assured of life after physical death ,if any they are not proper believers.
Note the Buddha Story with the focus on illness, old age and death [corpse] which is primarily related to the existential threat and fear of death. This main focus of the existential is dealt with the 4NT and 8FP.
The attachment/desire is derived from Right View from the 8 Fold Path.
I say you are wrong in principle with Buddhism i.e. Buddhism proper.
Point is all humans are naturally suppressed from the conscious fear of death arising from the subconscious fear of death.
It is this natural suppression that walled you from getting to the root cause of the subconscious fear of death.
Why the desires and attachment [in 12 elements] is because of the subconscious fear of death, to avoid death so as to live, thus facilitating procreating and nurturing the next generation.
One desire food and cling to food as triggered by the fear of death, to avoid death to live to procreate. But the desire goes out of hand giving rise to attachment and greater attachments without understanding the root cause, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.
The rational solution is to understand the root cause is due to the subconscious fear of death that drive on to cling to more food to to alleviate the subconscious fear of death.
But when one understand the root cause as taught by Buddhism, one can mitigate one’s clinging to more food by merely having enough food that can sustain one to avoid death, thus overriding the subconscious fear of death.
Nope I have taken a helicopter view of your points and has addressed them effectively on an effective basis.
Yes, that is my fundamental thesis which I had justified.
You are unable to rationalize it because you are too focused on the forms rather than the substance of the issue.
Animals do not possess a conscious mind like humans.
Yes, I have dealt with your various forms but I will repeat the substance of the issue because there is nothing to change with the fundamentals.
I think it is childish to give all sorts of unwarranted reasons why you are displease with the discussion. I don’t believe it is my fault.
I posed a challenge, it would a waste of my time if I do not answer any challenges.
I will not leave any significant point unchallenged. To do so would be a blemish to my intellectual integrity.
If I missed any challenging point that is an oversight or I have already countered it somewhere and somehow.
If you think there is any point of yours that is not unchallenged your should point it out.
Whatever the case, it is your discretion to do what you want and I am not bothered about it.
As with a tennis rally, if you return the ball back, I will hit it back to keep the rally going. If you don’t return back, I will not be bothered.
Whatever the case, I believed I have already been enriched by the exchanges so far from you and Fanman, Phyllo and others, so thanks for that.
What is that I don’t understand? The statement made by KT above is pure ignorance.
You cannot be that ignorant as well?
There are tons of research that has been done regarding the subconscious mind, e.g. the workings of the primal responses, the instincts, the emotions, etc.
You missed my point and worst deceptively create a new statement.
Note my point is “To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death”
Note the new term ‘threats’.
What is so tautological about that?
Because I took the trouble to study the root causes, thus aware of them.
This is very obvious.
E.g. the typical Christian will be not doubt they are assured of eternal life as promised in John 3:16 by Jesus/God.
The exception is only when the person is skeptical, doubt and do not have faith in Jesus/God, where if any would be the very small minority.
You can confirm this yourself, i.e. are you and do have a conscious fear of death all the time?
Serious death anxiety or thanatophobia [conscious fear of death] is not a common mental issue.
I have noted most members in philosophical forum assert they do not have fear of death [I presume constantly].
I believe if you ask the question to all humans, 99% will reply they do not have a constant fear of death.
Therefore the inherent and unavoidable subconscious fear of death is suppressed naturally and not relayed to the conscious mind on a permanent basis.
Are you are professional philosopher whilst participating in the “Philosophy” forum.
What counts is whether my views are rational and well justified.
I have NEVER claimed EVERYTHING is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
The subconscious fear is not the main root but the sub-sub root comprising other instincts that are necessary to avoid death, e.g. hunger, to breathe, physical security, and few others.
What I am claiming is ‘the root of all mainstream religions is the subconscious fear of death’. All other reasons given by believers why they are religious are merely secondary and are forms.
Do you understand the phrase ‘substance over forms?’
Note your counters are very superficial which due to misrepresentation of my views and ignorance of the subject matter.
Show me one point above where my counter-points are not effective to contra your views?
One of the problem is your lack of knowledge on the Neuro-Psychology of Fear. I suggest you read up on this topic.
I notice he makes some fairly common English-as-2nd-Language mistakes, so this may be a factor in some of his inablity to respond to points others make, to understand them, and also to present his ideas.
That said: He can’t understand that if, for example, one wanted a child to avoid dying, one would instruct the child about threats. Don’t run out in the street between cars. For example. Telling the child to avoid death is not helpful. So, it is with our instinctive fears. Traits that lead to people being afraid of things that can cause death will be passed on and selected for. Traits that get an organism to avoid death gives them nothing concrete to work with. But I explained this to him. I don’t think he can think his way into situations. He cannot think his way into the minds of religious people, now or back when religions were forming. He can only see abstractions. No context understanding.
And here he is now presenting my position as if it was his position all along.
Notice the implicit binary thinking. He cannot, he simply cannot have experience with theists OR he takes certain statements at face value. A theist says to him, I believe there is a Heaven, and he assumes they are sure they are going there, do not have doubts and then further that this is why they are religious and why the orignators of the religion made the religion. This is psychologically naive, binary and reductionistic to a rare degree.
Exactly.
It is one of those cases where something that makes sense on paper much be true in reality. Other models that also make sense on paper are ignored. Interaction with the actual people involved, the religions involved…not necessary for him.
He’s not even an amateur one.
And it doesn’t even work well as reductionism. Animals will kill themselves to procreate, for example.
And why do we desire to sing?
Someone with a minimal applicable knowledge of psychology would be embarrassed to write something like he did here.
It’s also a mind reading claim. He constantly behaves like a psychic when he would certainly consider psychics to be deluded.
Of course I agree with him. Why wouldn’t I? He broke it down to evolution, did you miss that?
Do any of those tons explicitly claim that all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death?
In my view it is. I don’t really see what difference “threats” makes to the statement. Because by “threats of death”, you mean things that can cause death - hence death. Maybe I’m wrong though.
You assume that those you are referring to haven’t? Because they have not reached the same conclusion as you, you interpret that they are ignorant. That is funny. Not only does it assume that you think that people don’t look into things that directly concern them, but that you found the root cause because you are thorough and sagacious. Like you’ve found some kind of intellectual holy grail. However, given your arguments relating to the root cause of religion, it doesn’t seem that you’ve studied enough.
I don’t agree. It is unlikely that you will encounter a Christian who doesn’t have doubts (they are human) about going to heaven or God in general. Because people are individuals, I don’t think there is a generic Christian in the sense that you mean. And if Christians tell you that they have no doubts, how would you know if they were telling the truth? How would you know if they were telling the truth to themselves? I don’t think you can apply majorities or minorities in this case. Not without being ridiculously arbitrary.
How do you know that the fear of death is suppressed by the subconscious, where is your evidence of this? The above is not evidence, it is a speculation based upon your interpretation (can’t you see that?). Couldn’t the case be that people accept the fact that they are going to die, because it is an inevitable part of life? Do you understand the nature of acceptance and how it affects people’s mental states?
Really? You don’t have to be a professional philosopher to engage in philosophy. But you do have to be educated in the field of psychology to be able to diagnose people. What are you trying to say here, that you can diagnose people without any formal training if your views are rational and well justified? You can claim what you want about people, but there is a difference in claiming things about people, and creating complex diagnosis.
It was an exaggeration based upon the pattern of your comments, didn’t you recognise that? You claimed that the fear of public speaking was reducible to the subconscious fear of death, and you can’t even see the problems with that claim.
Which is patently, a nonsense.
In what context? I took your comment to mean that for some reason, you thought that KT had responded to the form of your claims, rather than the substance.
You might feel that way, but can you demonstrate that, other than to say that I disagree with you?
You won’t be able to recognise them, the proof of that is the above.
Category error. Based upon the inference that you believe yourself to be right in all cases.
…The point is this. You believe that your “thesis” is justified, but the justification is your interpretation of how you think the available information relates to your claims – hence it is subjective. Evidence of something necessarily has to show specifically that what you’re claiming is both valid and supported factually. However, what you’re claiming as evidence can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn’t necessarily lead to or demonstrate what you conclude it does. You don’t seem to recognise how important this is in substantiating your claim. As such your thesis is only justified to you.
Also;
You infer that when people disagree with you, they are lacking intellectually i.e. unable to rationalise, not reflecting deeply enough, lacking knowledge of the subject matter etc. You also claimed that KT has not focused on the substance of this issue, but it is patently clear that from reading his posts that he has. IMV, these are category errors.
“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
A classic “general description” argument.
Is it true or not?
Well, my point is always that it depends in large part on what the actual set of circumstances are when conflicting thoughts of this sort pass through one’s head. For one individual in one situation it might make considerably more sense to be pessimistic, while for another individual in the same set of circumstances, it might make more sense to feel optimistic.
It’s just that with Buddhism impermanence reconfigures into reincarnation such that the more virtuously you live on this side of the grave the better the odds there might be less suffering in the next incarnation.
But over and again one can’t but help to come back to this: how “for all practical purposes” does this actually all unfold? And who or what effectuates it?
And then the part where so much suffering endured by so many people is embedded precisely in the fact that the more people are preoccupied with their enlightened “soul”, the less likely they are to organize with others politically to effectuate changes that might reduce human suffering here and now. The religion as “the opiate of the people” tagline.
Sure, for the cravings that we want, this can make sense for some. Depending on their circumstances. But what of the cravings that we need: food, water, shelter, defense, a stable environment to reproduce. Subsistence itself. Suffering here is often embedded precisely in the arguments of folks like Marx and Engels.
And then the extent to which karma can be separated from determinism. Or the arguments that revolve around karma and conflicting goods. If karma is defined as “the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences” who is to say which behaviors precipitate a better incarnation in future lives?
Here of course Buddhism is not unlike all other religious denominations: It just shrugs aside the arguments that folks like me make regarding identity, conflicting goods and oblivion.
Which was much closer to MY formulation of the how evolution and natural selection created patterns in animals including us. IOW without acknowledging that my formulation made more sense, you integrated my formulation into yours. You say that my argument was ignorant and then you steal from it. It would be even better if you stole more. That the threats need only be avoided. There need not be a subconscous fear of death in relation to these threats, nature being parsimonius. It just needs to get the animal in question to avoid predators, rotting meat (unless they are, say, vultures), water if they can’t swim and so on.
Do you have any idea how rude it is to dismiss someone’s argument as ignorant while stealing from it to avoid the very criticism it weighed against you?
You also claim in this post to Fanman that you countered all arguments. But, in fact, in relation to my longer post where I presented an alternative root of religion, you did not respond in the least to my main points. No attempt was made at all.
Let’s just emphasize that. It was not that your attempt to counter failed or had weaknesses, you couldn’t even bother to respond.
You repeated you position.
Rational people are going to not respect your approach.
How did you miss that obvious point.
KT stated it ‘To avoid death is to fear the threats of death’ do not make sense.
I have given example why it make sense.
To avoid death is to be triggered to fear the threats of death from poisonous snakes and other creatures.
How can you be so blind and ignorant.
I mentioned DNA-RNA in genes, that is the fundamentals of evolution!!
I stuck to the fundamentals of evolution and manifestation of evolution and religions which is very basis to those who are familiar with evolution. While KT referred only the external forms of evolution and religion.
The default efficiency of gaining knowledge is to master the knowledge of the substance of any field and one can understand its form easily.
You insisted there is no such thing as the subconscious mind. I countered you with the above.
I have relied on the research findings related to the subconscious mind to infer the root cause of all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death based on the arguments and justifications I have given.
You are short-sighted on this.
There are also tons of research to substantiate, any thing that is a “threat of death” will trigger fears of death [reaction of fears] when a normal person is faced with such a threat of death and initially there is no possibility of escape or in a difficult situation to escape that threat of death.
?? I have not studied enough in comparison to what you have studied as enough?
Give me a clue what you know that I don’t know. I am very interested as that would increase my knowledge database.
As I have stated many times, the currency in this forum is proper and justified arguments.
Why I disagree with the counter-arguments of others is when their arguments are not justified nor convincingly.
The final authority of Christianity is Jesus/God’s words in the Gospel. If not, where else?
Whatever I relied on Christians, I reconciled their words to the words of Jesus/God in the Gospel.
Other than personal experience and based on what others stated, I made a very logical deduction, i.e.
P1. People has a serious mental issue [thanatophobia] if they fear death consciously.
P2. The majority 99% or more do not suffer from thanatophobia.
C3. Therefore the majority 99%+ do not fear death consciously
'Do not fear death consciously means they do not have a conscious fear of death.
This meant the fear of death which is inherent and avoidable as programmed in the subconscious mind is suppressed and not relayed to the conscious mind like other emotions.
The majority turned to God to counter their fear of death with an assurance of eternal life thus relieve the anxieties.
It is only a small % of people who will rationalize to accept they will die because it is an inevitable part of life, some of them will succeed, but not all of them can control what the subconscious mind’s reaction to it and exuding such a fear indirectly as merely feelings of anxieties, despairs, meaningless, Angst, etc.
Note the once world’s most famous atheist who could reason his death is natural and has no fears, but later in his life, he turned to God [deism] to relieve the indirect manifestations of the subconscious fear of death which he was ignorant of.
I did not offer any professional advise or diagnosis.
As such there is no reason why I cannot discuss psychology in a forum like this. The point is whether the argument I presented is reasonable or not. If not, why?
What is the problem with that?
The ongoing point is with the fear of death [conscious and unconscious] thus all points that need to be relevant will be reduced to fear of death.
I had justified how the fear of public speaking is reducible to the subconscious fear of death.
The main fundamentals which all human actions can be reduced to are;
The subconscious fear of death to avoid death
The sex drive for procreation to produce the next generation.
The nurturing drive to nurture the youngs of the next generation
All other humans actions are aligned to the above or merely sub-systems or are deviations due to errors, e.g. the suicidal not avoiding death.
I have given my reasons which you had not countered but merely dismissed without justification, i.e. based on uneasy feeling of disagreement.
Yes, as mentioned I had focused on the substance of evolution and religions but KT is focused on the forms of evolution and various form of religions.
You added ‘words’ to my statement to change the meaning totally.
Note you disputed and question there no difference between conscious and subconscious mind.
You lack knowledge on the depth of the emotion of fears and its neural mechanisms traceable to deep down the brain.
If you disagree and inform me I am ignorant of this and that [as substantiated with links and argument] I will definitely look into them as they potentially can increase my database if they are justified knowledge.
Where? you need to be specific.
I have done very extensive research into the topic of fear.
I have justified my argument re fear, i.e. the subconscious fear of death from the knowledge and theories from those research findings.
As such they are objective subject to the above justified true beliefs.
I agree, what I have concluded is not 100% certain but subject to knowledge available so far.
However, my conclusions are empirically feasible and qualify for further testing.
In contrast, the idea of God as real is moot, a non-starter and can be ignored outright.
In addition, I have stated my thesis is already put into practice in Buddhism in terms of theories, principles, knowledge, wisdom and actual practices. The limitation, Buddhism has no neuro-Science or neuro-psychology, thus did not pin point the subsconscious fear of death in terms of neural-mechanisms.
Note the recent, the Dalai Lama [very scientific minded] has ceded Buddhist truths to Science.
The optimism is there is potential trend that will enable humanity to trace and pin-point the subconscious fear of death down to its neural basis and thus have the potential to modulate humanity from religions and its bag of negativity and cons.
A connectome (/kəˈnɛktoʊm/) is a comprehensive map of neural connections in the brain, and may be thought of as its “wiring diagram”. More broadly, a connectome would include the mapping of all neural connections within an organism’s nervous system. humanconnectomeproject.org/
Stealing your idea??
Evolution and its forms of expression is public knowledge.
My views are all grounded on Evolution, based on genes, DNA-RNA.
Note I stated, I am more interested in the fundamentals of evolution than its forms in this case, thus did not discuss the forms unless necessary.
Note you stated my statement do not make sense.
“To avoid death, one must avoid threats of death.”
That is ridiculous.
I had stated long before, there are many ‘threats of death’ to avoid death e.g. hunger, physical security, not breathing, need of water, etc.
My focus regarding religion not on the above but rather is the ‘to avoid death, humans must fear death.’ This fear of death is activated at the subconscious level.
In any case, the other main avoidance of death, hunger, water, physical security, not breathing, etc. will trigger the fear of death, so that the person will be driven to avoid death.
If a person is trapped in the middle of a wide desert with water limited to 2-3 days and knowing access to water is slim, the subconscious fear of death is trigger and thus will drive him to seek water with whatever resources he has.
It is likely he will also have a conscious fear of death subsequent to the initial instinctual subconscious fear of death.
In such critical situation of possible death, the subconscious fear of death will trigger subconscious reaction that drive a person to panic, concern, anxious or whatever depending on his constitution and psychological state.
Yes, to avoid death from critical situations due to potential death from hunger, water, physical security, not breathing, it is inevitable fear of death will be triggered instinctively with various bodily reactions to deal with the potential danger of death.
All other fears, consciously or subconsciously are reducible mainly to the potential fear of death related to critical situations involving hunger, water, physical security, not breathing. Other fears may be related to sex, procreation and nurturing which is related primarily to the question of religions.
But the critical point related to religion is purely the subconscious fear of death being triggered upon the fear of death, NOT due to hunger, water, physical security, not breathing, or no sex.
This is why the central focus of all theistic religions is seeking eternal life to avoid permanent death.
I have made the attempt to cover all the points you claimed I have missed. I noted your points are mostly forms and I have summarized them into their substance.
Otherwise which one is not addressed.
It would be more efficient if you open a new thread for the omitted point [number them as you often do] so I don’t miss any critical point of yours.
Note my intellectual integrity and intent of not leaving any challenge unchallenged.
You are reading a bastardized version of Buddhism, thus wasting time critiquing the wrong view of Buddhism-proper.
Suggest you research Buddhism-proper properly to avoid the above straw-man.
Fanman: How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?
Literally in the above, it is implied that I don’t have real knowledge of the subconscious mind and you think there is only ‘perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?’.
If you agree the subconscious and conscious mind exists as real, then, there is the subconscious fear of death.
It is obvious there is an indisputable ‘fear of death.’
There is this point;
Researchers have found that fear is established unconsciously and that the amygdala is involved with fear conditioning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_proc … _the_brain
Therefore the fear of death, as established unconsciously, must have an unconsciously part to the fear of death, i.e. the unconscious or subconscious fear of death.
I have argued extensively, how this subconscious fear of death is the basis for all religions.
Note I have provided evidence of how ‘death’ [eschatology] is the central focus of all mainstream theistic religions.
KT had argued there are other reasons why theists turned to theistic religions, e.g. agency. This agency is reducible to the ‘subconscious fear of death’ i.e. directing attention to the agency to please them, making sacrifices to them so that they can escape the agency’s wrath.
There is the agency of Jesus/God who made promises of eternal life in exchange for Christians to comply with Jesus/God’s words.
For any reason relating to agency and divinity [not social or political reasons which are pseudo], I can reduce that to the subconscious fear of death.
No. It means what I stated. That at that point in the discussion, your knowledge seemed perceived rather than actual. Not perceived as coming from your imagination, but perceived as being a result of your interpretation.
.