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.
This research article you’ve posted does not discuss the subconscious mind, it specifically states that “fear is established unconsciously”, that’s it - that is the thrust of the paper. I’ve read elsewhere that there is a difference between unconscious and subconscious, but you don’t seem to have recognised that; if you did, you would have included it in your… thesis. If the researchers were referring specifically to the subconscious mind don’t you think they would of directly stated that? Also, the article relates to brain, not mind, and makes no mention of the subconscious mind. The research is centred upon fear in general (as far as I can gather), it doesn’t specifically discuss the fear of death or fear in relation to religion - it also says nothing about why religions were developed. It seems as though it is purely your inference that the article supports what you’re claiming, which to me, doesn’t seem justified in the least. I can’t see how it actually supports your claim, or why you think that it does?
Given your earlier claim that I had insisted that there was no such thing as a subconscious, your interpretation of the wiki article you posted, your interpretation that people applying agency to things (as myself and KT discussed earlier) is reducible to the subconscious fear of death, your claim that KT is not discussing the substance of the issues etc. It is clear to me that in this discussion, you cannot interpret things well enough to discuss them meaningfully, accurately or in the context which they are intended, but that is just my opinion.
As such, it is not a case of the counter-arguments not being valid, but your inability to recognise the validity of them. Or in general, to acknowledge the validity of arguments which are contrary to what you believe is right.
Now, you will either bring your own objectivist account of “Buddhism-proper” out into the world of human interactions, or you will continue to stay up in the stratosphere of the “general description” assessment that folks of your ilk cling to so tenaciously.
The point here is on the demarcation of the conscious and unconscious mind.
So the emphasis on this point is about the fear of death and in relation to religion.
In general, I take both to be the same, i.e.
Conscious and unconscious mind
Conscious and subconscious
What is the Unconscious Mind https://www.simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html
Finally, the unconscious mind comprises mental processes that are inaccessible to consciousness but that influence judgements, feelings, or behavior (Wilson, 2002).
According to Freud (1915), the unconscious mind is the primary source of human behavior. Like an iceberg, the most important part of the mind is the part you cannot see.
What is the Subconscious Mind
Scholarly use of the term ‘subconscious’.
The word subconscious represents an anglicized version of the French subconscient as coined by the psychologist Pierre Janet (1859–1947), who argued that underneath the layers of critical-thought functions of the conscious mind lay a powerful awareness that he called the subconscious mind.[1]
In the strict psychological sense, the adjective is defined as “operating or existing outside of consciousness”.[1]
Locke and Kristof write that there is a limit to what can be held in conscious focal awareness, an alternative storehouse of one’s knowledge and prior experience is needed, which they label the subconscious en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious
From the above, there is no difference in general between the definition of the ‘unconscious’ and ‘subconscious.’
If someone want to differentiate them, then one will have to provide the specific qualification and context why they need to differentiate the two words.
The brain versus mind?
I am surprised you have doubts and raised this question.
It is only in biology and anatomy that the brain is studied specifically.
In general in terms of human actions, thoughts and behavior the brain and mind is taken into account at the same time.
I don’t understand what you mean here? You’ll have to explain in more detail.
I don’t know if that is the case. Some articles claim there is a substantive difference, whilst others claim the terms are interchangeable. However, I did read that “If you are trying to publish an article in a peer reviewed psychoanalysis journal, use unconscious." which may be the reason why the article you posted refers to unconscious, rather than subconscious.
I have read that there is, so I’m not going to form a solid opinion on this point.
Not necessarily, there are meanings and contexts where the terms differ. I agree that specificity may be required, but the terms can be differentiated informally, and apply to different aspects of the mind.
Surprised I have doubts and raise questions? Why does that “surprise” you?
Generally, I can agree with that, but the article you posted as I interpret, focuses more on the brain than than the mind. It does discuss behaviour, but I don’t see how that is related to what you claim or contextually similar?
Note I have shown there is no difference between what is ‘unconscious’ and ‘subconscious’ in general.
There is no significant issue when I used them interchangeably in the context raised so far.
I had focused on the substance of the issue, i.e.
Evolution.
Genetically, DNA-RNA wise, all humans are ‘programmed’ to live. [till the inevitable].
To live, all humans are programmed to avoid death. [truism like cup half empty - cup half ful].
To avoid death, all humans are programmed with the fear of death and other instincts.
The fear of death is triggered when there is a threat to the basic instinct, e.g. food/nutrients, breathing, physical security, potential death,
The above exclude all sex-related instinct which very critical is not relevant to the issue of religion in general.
The above covers all the fundamentals.
What else do you think is missing?
Every other actions [other than sex-related] is reducible to the above.
The element of agency as I had explained can be reduced to food, physical security which when threatened trigger the fear of death, thus the need of this super agent is plea with sacrifices [animals or humans] or prayers.
But what is most critical with ‘agency’ is the direct fear of death. In this case, an agent [illusory God] in invented that will promised eternal life, thus relieved the certainty of physical death.
Adults invented Santa to please their children and adults invented a God [illusory] to soothe their existential crisis and pains.
You stated earlier, “but the article did not mention fear of death or unconscious fear of death”
No, no …
the links [wiki] was specifically pointing to fear as established in the unconscious [aka subconscious]. To deal with ‘fear of death’ in that post and point would be off topic.
I had argued in other posts;
The fear of death is activated from the subconscious [aka unconscious] which you are very skeptical.
Thus, logically, the wiki link support my point.
Point is if you have read widely and extensively on the subject, you will note both ‘subconscious’ and ‘unconscious’ are used interchangeably, thus that is why I did it.
Ditto: Point is if you have read widely and extensively on the subject, you will note both ‘subconscious’ and ‘unconscious’ are used interchangeably, thus that is why I did it.
Not necessarily, there are meanings and contexts where the terms differ. I agree that specificity may be required, but the terms can be differentiated informally, and apply to different aspects of the mind.
The OP is focused on the mind which imperatively involved the brain.
Any reference I linked with the brain would be necessary supporting evidence.
No issue if you apply Principle of Charity.
So in your opinion unconscious fear of death is the same as subconscious fear of death? I’m not sure if that is the case, there may be subtle differences applied to the terms. Since you said “Ditto” I would assume that you are not 100% certain. Which is fine.
I believe that through this phase of argumentation, you’ve established that there is a subconscious fear of death. That claim is supported. One of my dispositions is skepticism, so whilst I am not completely (or 100%) sold on the idea, I think it would be incorrect to argue against that claim.
Now, I don’t believe that your claim “all religions are reducible to the subconscious fear of death” is justified/established, because I think that people attributing agency to different aspects of reality is the most logical explanation for the existence of God/gods and therefrom religions. This, I think, is largely to do with pattern recognition, a fundamental aspect of the human cognitive process. No doubt the subconscious plays a role in this, but we cannot be sure that the subconscious fear of death is primary. At the risk of being arbitrary, I believe that pattern recognition is based upon subconscious content.
Of course I agree with him. Why wouldn’t I? He broke it down to evolution, did you miss that?