The real issue behind our current problems: blind faith

I had an epiphany today. I was reading through some threads when it dawned on me what the real issue is behind our current problems. It’s not the banks or the government. It’s not bailouts or taxes. It’s not even religion or plots for world takeovers. The real issue behind our current problems is the faith we put into others.

We put faith in the people we elect to do what is best for the country without taking the time to make sure we vote for the person who will actually do so, and instead vote for the name we remember or even worse the same person who has held the office for 20+ years. We put faith in media outlets to tell us the truth without putting any spin on it, and don’t bother researching things for ourselves. We put faith in tv and radio talk show hosts and believe that they are looking out for us, and refuse to even consider the possibility that our favorite one actually isn’t.

Faith in itself is not a bad thing, but all of this faith that has gotten us where we are. Because of this faith, we believe what we are told by our favorite tv and radio personalities without giving it much if any thought. We believe promises from politicians, and then don’t understand why those promises aren’t kept. If someone contradicts our favorites, they are attacked and we deny any evidence that they are right, or in some cases we flat out ignore and refuse to respond to their evidence in the hope that others will ignore it as well. Even worse is when you come across someone who has done no research of their own into whatever topic you happen to be discussing, yet remain convinced their opinion is correct regardless of the evidence to the contrary simply because their favorite tv/radio personality or politician said believes it. Were it not for this blind faith, discussions here might stand a chance at getting to the truth of the matter and we might actually be able to discover solutions for our problems.

Most, if not all, of us are here to learn about, share, and discuss the issues whether it’s politics, religion, medicine, or science. So why is it then when presented with views opposite of our own we declare the other poster a disinfo agent, a sheeple, an idiot, a neocon, a left-wing/right-wing nut, (enter your favorite insult here)? Why is it when presented with evidence that disproves our opinions or those of our favorite tv/radio personalities or politicians, we ignore and/or belittle the poster who presented the evidence? Why do people come here if they are unwilling to even entertain the idea that they are wrong? Seriously, what is the point?

Nice post. It's funny you bring that up, because I was thinking the same thing the other day. I feel like it's all an expression of our poor education system. We don't teach our kids to think critically. Instead, we shove information down their throats so they can regurgitate it at a later time.

When we stop thinking critically, we become complacent. And that's when we start allowing others to direct our lives for us. It's appalling, but a too common reality nonetheless.

I don't have kids, but when I do I'll make sure to fill in the gaps where their schools fail to provide.

You may very well be right. Regurgitation of information isn't restricted to K-12, it continues on into college. We are taught from the moment we first step into a school to just remember what we are told so we can repeat it later. Very few of the classes I have taken for my degree have required any degree of critical thinking beyond figuring out how many paragraphs I should put on that last page so that it counts as a 10th page. The classes that had nothing to do with my degree required some critical thinking, but for the most part the cycle of remember and repeat has continued since kindergarten.

It is very possible that this cycle becomes so ingrained into people that by the time the reach adulthood they utterly incapable of doing anything else, though the optimist in me would like to think otherwise. The question is, what can be done to break this cycle? All the logic, reasoning, and critical thinking in the world is useless in the face of blind faith.

But what are we blind to? Here is my proposal for what should complete this thread premisse:

We, in general, are blind to the fact that a not so small minority of us, usually cited at between 3 and 15%, are individuals with psychopathic behaviour patterns, with reduced emotional intelligence, with higher manipulative awareness, with less scruples. This is the premisse behind political ponerology (google it). The idea that psychopaths have a big impact on the makeup of modern materialistic societies. It becomes obviously true when you read up a bit about it and think about all that is wrong in society. We fail to see our own mentally ill leadership, and thus have faith in them (be them in whatever hierarchy they may be in, religious, economical, political, family, friends, and so on). Male dominance has made psychopathy a survival trait. However, since we have evolved to a point where we can literally destroy ourselves and the biosphere, perhaps it is time to look back into the genepool and find leadership in kinder, gentler, less rabid and genocidal personas?

We still have 80% of "good" people out there, perhaps it's their time to take leadership, if nothing else of their own lives? Perhaps it is time for women to impose their own way of doing things?

reply to post by Mindmelding


Wow! Ponerology. I learned a new word today. Thank you!

How bad would a world be that was governed by women? I don't believe it would be very bad. Unless, of course, someone like my mother was in charge, but who the hell would vote her into power? Nobody I know would.

I was seriously surprised when I, an adult of 55 years of age dared to question a professor in college and the young students, fresh out of high school displayed their displeasure in me for actually challenging an educator. Where are the questioning people of my youth?

Age was not a factor in this discussion, so I shouldn't have made a point of it, perhaps. People my age questioned things way back when, but I don't see the same today. It's surely not an age thing, but a thing of the age we live in. I'm sorry if I got off topic, but in my convoluted mind, I think I am on topic.

Blind faith might be defined as a desire to place one's responsibility onto others. To let others instruct how one believes instead of doing the (mind)work and figuring it out for onesself. It's laziness and/or fear. A lack of confidence. This leads people to be controlled as well.

When it comes to your own existence, there's only one person you can really have faith in, and that's yourself.

reply to post by killuminati2012


I do not think that are problems are due to a lack of critical thinking, but a general lack of knowledge. We have to put blind faith in others when we are ignorant.

If our country's citizens were well educated, they would not rely on others with blind faith. If they knew something about economics, they would not rely on their real estate broker's assessment that the value of their house would continue to grow exponentially. If they knew a little something about medicine, they would make reasonble life style choices rather than take the pills their doctors are shoving on them.

In defense of those people that buy into our system. Everything in our society is structured around creditability. You get things right a few times and everyone trusts you. You say the right things and everyone allows you to keep talking. You have an high level of education regarding a subject then you can speak about it and people will listen.

Now the majority of us have none of that. We aren't creditable probably because we are just average people that haven't inserted ourselves into controlling or running some aspect of someones life. We don't get things right all the time because we question the premise of something and logically attempt to find a good reason or answer. We don't have some flashy catch phrase we can use to every topic. We don't define things as black and white. You shut your mouth, when someone in a higher position or with more education speaks on a subject (what do you really know).

Point in case. All of society structures and institutions are geared to prop up people that want Power. They all make people think there are only two ways to do something, without every being able imagine all of the possibilities. There is always a crisis to justify their quick responses which aren't thought out and which distract you from the real problem (which is there were more options they didn't want to consider and why is that). The reason is for you not to realize they care nothing about you and only about their power to influence their will on your life.

reply to post by Mindmelding


We are blind to any facts that don't fit with the preconceived notions we have that are fed to us every day through our favorite tv/radio personalities and politicians. If anyone dares to contradict those preconceived notions, it doesn't matter if they are correct, it doesn't matter if their evidence disproves our notions. We ignore anything and everything that doesn't fit with our view of reality without giving it a second thought.

I did google political ponerology, first time I had heard that term so I learned a new word as well. I don't think that it is necessarily that politicians and the like are evil or psychopathic, more that they are only concerned with their own livelihood and their wants and needs than they are with doing the things we elect them to do. That is the nature of human beings. We are all more concerned with ourselves than each other, regardless of how selfless we seem to be on the outside.

reply to post by kyred


I agree that age might be a factor. I have noticed the same thing in my college classes. Any who dare to question the instructor are often stared at in disbelief by the younger people in class. I think it's the result of them not questioning authority while in K-12 where the teacher is always right, even if they are wrong. It doesn't even occur to many of them that their college instructors may be wrong about anything.

Whether it's caused by the times we live in or the age of the people, I can't say for certain. There do however seem to be more in the older generations that question than there are in the younger generations.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


I have to disagree with you. Even when presented with knowledge people prefer to ignore it and stick with their blind faith. That to me is a lack of critical thinking skills, or at the very least they aren't being used. We have no choice when we are ignorant of something, it makes sense to follow the lead of someone who has knowledge about something we don't. But when we are shown the evidence and given the knowledge that refutes what the person we've been following says, we still refuse to think for ourselves about the issue. Instead we stick with what we have always done, which is have blind faith in what someone else tells us.

Even those who are educated don't necessarily make reasonable life style choices. I, for example, have my CNA certification, assisted my mom with her nursing classes for both her degrees, and worked in a hospital where all I had to do was ask and anything and everything to do with medicine was explained to me. I have taken classes on health, diet, exercise, etc. Even with all the knowledge I have on the subject, and the knowledge I have access to, I don't make what many would consider reasonable life style choices. I don't exercise and refuse to run unless something big and ugly is chasing me. I don't worry about my cholesterol or my fat intake, I eat what I like and what tastes good without focusing on the health effects of doing so. Having knowledge of what my choices could be doing to my health doesn't effect my decisions.

I do agree with you when it comes to popping a pill for everything though. I'd rather suffer for a few days than take a pill every time I get sick, and think that pills are handed out for way too many things nowadays.


reply to post by ExPostFacto


True, but even when someones creditability is shot people still choose to continue believing everything that person says and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Their blind faith doesn't allow them to see anything that doesn't agree.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna


I would advise you to read more on ponerology, because I think it is really more a case of them being mentally ill than just normal self absortion. They are pathological liars that are 100% ego and pleasure motivated. They will sacrifice people in a heartbeat. They doublecross those that trust them without guilt. And they fake emotions without having them.

They here are the majority of high officials, authority figures, businessmen. I would urge you to reconsider and realise that there is something very wrong with the human race, which I atribute to the male dominance model having outlived it's usefullness (which is debateable in the first place).

This is not to say I want everyone to be betamales, just to say that one can be his own leader and that true leaders do not have to hurt and sacrifice others or even lie. Somewhere along the line humanity lost track of what it means to be good and decent, lost track of itself. Reminder: It's to take care not to hurt others, to realise that our freedoms end where the freedoms of others begin, to realise that we are all equal (and here you can add under god or in nature depending on religious or scientific preference, it dosen't really matter).

My 5c.

reply to post by Mindmelding


Women can be just as egotistical, diabolical, and self-serving as men. That is something that you seem to be overlooking. They just haven't been in positions to do so on as large a scale as men until rather recently, what with women being considered the "weaker" sex and all. What I see being wrong with the human race is that we are all more concerned with making everyone else conform to our beliefs rather than let each other live how we choose so long as no one is hurt in the process.

It does not explain why so many people put blind faith into politicians and tv/radio personalities though. Were it not for this blind faith it wouldn't matter if any particular one of them was self-absorbed or out-right evil.

reply to post by Jenna


Oh, I know that women can have the same exact behaviour patterns. There is, after all, an alpha female structure in a lot of primate species. But it's not as dominant and in the end all we can do is play the probabilities. Women, out of maternal instinct, have higher tolerance thresholds and are less agressive. Women are more diplomatic. Yes, they can be selfish, and self centered. Yes they can lie. Yes, they can be cold. But the numbers would be different, can you not agree with that?

At the end of the day we need to be aware of what is the bad personality type, what the psychopathy is, and select people in position of authority based on it's absense, not have a system designed by people who suffer from it to select people who suffer from it. Gender has some statistical relevance, but the main point is psychology. At the end of the day we still have a very large majority of "good" people. Of people who care and want to do things "right".

Loss of moral compass is one of the first signs of either psychopathy or aquired psycopathic behaviour patterns.

reply to post by Mindmelding


Women less aggressive? In the majority of species, I'd like to say all but I can't say it and be certain, the female is more aggressive than the male especially when it comes to her offspring. I think the only difference in humans is that we women tend to get things done without being too obvious about it. Many world leaders throughout history have been influenced by the women in their lives, whether they admitted it or not.

But again, none of this explains why people put such blind faith into tv/radio personalities or politicians which is what I'm hoping to figure out. What is your opinion on that? Why do you think people have this blind faith that causes them to ignore or deny anything that contradicts their opinion or that of their favorite tv/radio personalities and politicians?

reply to post by Jenna


It's the alpha-beta hierarchy. People are socially trained to look up to the more afluent as superior, so when they see somebody on tv, or even just driving a nicer car, they tend to go into a mode of subservience out of pure pavlovian conditioning, which they received throughout their lives. It's a false subservience, there is always a level of resent and rebelion hidden under the false smiles and accomodation, but that's the basic mechanism.

Wealth=good. Wealthier=Better. Of course, rationally explained like this it dosen't hold water, but again, the psychological mechanism is pavlovian. It's a conditioned reflex created out of long term exposure to social memes that illustrate it.

It's the same thing as the smaller male looking up to the bigger stronger male and befriending him. Or female. Just at a much wider scale.

These inate psychological tendencies are explored by the people at the heart of the NWO. They are social engineers, and I suspect what they are trying to create is a society which is mostly composed of betas. If one is an unaligned alpha, male or female, the NWO will be trouble. If one is a beta, and surivive the population reduction, then one probably won't even notice the difference in day to day lifestyle.

Huxley's Brave new world gives clues about all this.

reply to post by Mindmelding


I have not read "Brave New World", but I will have to put it on my list. I recently finished reading "1984", and there are apparently some similarities between the two from what I have read.

Back to the false subservience. I have witnessed first hand the blind faith I've been talking about and haven't detected any resentment or rebellion. If anything there has only been resentment of anyone capable of producing evidence that contradicts that blind faith. That's usually the point where the name calling starts. I'm not disagreeing with you, the alpha-beta hierarchy may be involved. Just wondering how you would explain the blind faith that doesn't have any resentment or rebellion towards the one that faith is placed in.

reply to post by Jenna


I was referring to the false subservience as betas, the ego manifesting itself against social hierarchy conditioning. What you are talking about is beyond that, it's the person's worldview. What you are challenging with conspiracy theory is the whole way most people see the world. Again, it's cultural conditioning, but with a wider scope. Just because they don't hold celebrity and authority as high as celebrity and authority think they are held, this does not mean they go as far as having a fully critical mind, an awareness of history and the concept that, in reality, we are being lead by the worse of us, a working conspiracy theory, a political ponerology.

This is something a growing number of people are waking up to, but it's a hurtfull process, which, for me, was very painfull and full of anguish. I understand their anger when someone basically turns their world upside down. It's preprogrammed. We all buy into lies at some point in our lives, and nobody likes to admit to being duped. The ego again.

Their reaction is not a sign of intelectual incompetance, it is a normal emotional reaction, the ego manifesting it's displeasure at the circumstance of it's deception. Be patient with them, give them some time and good information, and many more will tread the path that, if you're honest, you might admit to have trodden yourself

reply to post by Mindmelding


I was talking about seemingly true subservience where the believer honestly and truly believes every word coming out of the tv/radio personality or politicians mouth and anything to the contrary is tantamount to heresy. To be honest that much faith in another person scares the living daylights out of me. It reminds me of cults worshiping their leader and is far from being a normal emotional reaction, in my opinion at any rate.

I can't recall a time when I didn't question authority figures. Even thinking back to childhood I was always the difficult one who questioned everything and never accepted a response that didn't make sense. Which perhaps is the reason why I cannot understand why someone would not question what they are told or would refuse to believe anything that contradicts what they have been told.

reply to post by Jenna


There are a lot of levels I suppose. There are people with flouride damage, with submissive personalities, with vaccine damage, with emotional trauma, low IQ levels and so on and so forth.

There is a percentage of the population which I guess can be called true betas. They are drones that can only function with hierarchy. They can have autonomy but all they are has to be acquired with external validation. I don't know how many they are, but I would wager it's a small percentage, close to the number of psychopaths, as both of them are pretty far out on the edges of their respective bell curves.

I have always questioned authority, yet also got suckered in to a lot of cultural memes that it took the development of the internet to bring me the information to break out of. I'm showing my age now...

And there is probably still stuff out there which we may believe that might not be true, like the moon landings. I suspect they are real, most of my views on space exploration accepts them as real. Yet I have this growing bug in my mind that is telling me to investigate that further, that it may bring me into a deeper level of conspiracy and lies. Who knows? It's not like we, conspiracy theorists, skeptics, free thinkers, know everything, is it?

Of course, it helps in debates to assume one is right