no doubt
Various beliefs
Reading time...
As already mentioned, belief is not based on evidence or reason. So what is it based on? Why do people believe?
Here are a few reasons:
It brings hope and comfort. Most people find it hard to accept that there would be nothing after death. The idea that someone is watching over them can offer a reassuring feeling.
It provides stability and meaning. The world is complex and full of things we can't grasp, and life often seems meaningless and cruel. Many people find that unbearable. "God's plan" or, say, a socialist Utopia can then offer an Answer. Think also of beliefs like "nothing happens by accident," "everything happens for a reason," or "this was meant to be," and belief in the so-called law of attraction. Others believe in Love or Fate. Belief in astrology or divination (Tarot, I Ching, palm reading, and so on) belongs to the same category.
Believing in special or "secret" things gives people a sense of superior identity. Such people feel "special" or even "chosen". Think of belief in visiting aliens or angels, or the adherence to and preaching of bizarre conspiracy theories.
Even scientists can lose themselves in wild, unprovable hypotheses—for example, the idea that the universe brought itself into existence as a simulation.
Religious belief revolves around a few major themes, such as belief in an individual soul that survives death, belief that life has some kind of deeper meaning, and belief in a Person or principle that brought life and the universe into being.
Let's start with the last one:
Belief in God
If we ask ourselves whether something like God exists, then what god are we talking about? The God of Christianity, Islam, the many gods of Hinduism, or those of the ancient Greek pantheon? That alone already shows that the question is at the very least problematic. I once read that humankind currently worships around 5,000 different gods, and all those believers assume they are worshipping the "true" god or gods...
Throughout history, people have tried multiple times to prove the existence of God or gods. Such a "proof of God" was not meant to demonstrate that gods actually exist, but rather that they must exist based on philosophical or logical arguments. But, alas, for every proof, counterarguments have been found. See for instance here.
The existence of God or gods has not (yet) been proven. At the same time, it is logically impossible to prove that God, or anything for that matter, does not exist. In an (unpublished) article, Bertrand Russell put it this way:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
Another famous analogy comes from Carl Sagan:
“"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
"Show me," you say.
I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
You propose spreading flour on the floor to capture her footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you try an infrared sensor to detect her fiery breath.
"Excellent idea, but her fire is heatless."
You spray paint into the air to reveal the invisible creature.
"Good idea, but she's incorporeal and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?”
So, whether God or gods exist is clearly a matter of belief, not a scientific fact. Believers don't need proof. Non-believers do.
In fact, there's a whole spectrum of possible stances, just as with all ultimate "Answers".
A good example of the many possible answers to this ultimate question is Anne Provoost's "religiometer", where you can choose an answer to the question: "Is there an overarching universal principle?" She divides the answers into degrees of religiosity: (original is in Dutch)
Grades 1 and 2 represent non-believers. They are atheistic or adeistic.
Grade 1: "I live in the world but I don't feel, in any way, that I am part of what might be called a larger whole."
Grade 2: "I live with the feeling that I am part of a larger whole. I feel a certain connectedness to that magnitude — to the world, humanity, the universe — but I do not believe that this whole is governed by any force beyond the laws of physics. Even in situations of singularity, I believe those can still be explained by physical laws."
Note: Not everything called "religion" ranks highly on this scale. Buddhism, for example, shows up from grade 2 onward. Many therefore regard Buddhism not as a religion, but as a philosophy of life.
After the grade 2 atheists come the agnostics, who believe we cannot say anything about the "greater whole". This worldview allows for a supra-material force, unlike atheism.
Grade 3: "I live with the feeling that I'm part of a greater whole, but I believe we can't know whether this greatness falls within or outside the laws of physics."
Then come the "something-ists", just one step away from deism, though the term "god" is too loaded for them.
Grade 4: "I believe the greatness I feel does transcend the laws of nature, but I consciously avoid the word "God". No concept quite fits, so I just say: "There must be something!"
Grade 5 is deistic: there is a God, but one without powers or agency.
Grade 5: "I believe the greatness I sense is a supernatural force. I call it "God". God exists outside of matter and may be everything — but nothing more is known."
From Grade 6 onward, we're in the realm of theism — now the divine force has a personal aspect.
Grade 6: "I believe in a supernatural force I call "God". God has human characteristics. He is a personal presence who pays attention. He can feel love, disappointment, hope. He is powerless, but he knows everything about me."
Grade 7: "God not only has a presence, but also has plans for me. Those plans may not always be understandable."
Grade 8: "God has plans not only for me, but for the entire world and all people — believers or not. Nothing happens without His involvement."
Grade 9: "God's plans and goals are so clearly outlined that laws and rules can be derived from them. Most of these concern human ethics. God also determines my views on creation, life and death, God and humanity. Punishments and rewards are foreseen based on adherence to these laws and beliefs."
With grade 10 religiosity reaches a point where it can potentially conflict with civil and human rights. In its extreme form, this degree can mean that God uses the believer as an instrument of enforcement.
Grade 10: "Because God can only achieve His goals on Earth through human beings, He uses me to reveal, explain ("speak in tongues'), implement, and enforce His rules. I am His instrument."
If I had to choose, I feel most aligned with grade 2 or 3, but I can't say whether my position is the One True Answer. Perhaps we should add a grade 0: "I don't know, and nobody can know, so it doesn't matter."
Deep Religious Belief
There are people who say with absolute certainty that their immortal, God-created soul will enter an afterlife—and that their deeds and thoughts in this life will determine the nature of that afterlife. Such believers cannot be convinced by any rational counterargument. Their faith operates on a level entirely different from that of reason.
Not all religion concerns probability, certainty, or agreement with various truth claims. If it did, most religion would likely cease to exist. There is an aspect of religion that lies completely outside the domain of reason—something that, in turn, is incomprehensible to a rationalist like myself.
Ludwig Wittgenstein addressed this in 'Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief'. He points out that religious belief cannot be judged as a cognitive language game. For a believer, attitude and behavior are far more important than scientific or rational criteria. After all, it concerns their life!
I must say that reading Wittgenstein on this was a real eye-opener for me. What for me is an academic discussion, is for a deeply religious person something entirely different! Still, the reverse also holds: their belief cannot convince me either—because, like Wittgenstein, I operate from reason. And in the same way, I cannot believe in gnomes or in God—simply because there is no evidence for the existence of either. The believer needs no evidence. I, on the other hand, do. And I'm afraid neither of us can help it.
As bewildering as this may be to me, it seems there are mental stances that are completely incompatible. There's little left to do but accept this and let go of my arrogance toward those "ignorant believers." But do I understand it? No. Am I jealous of it? Also no.
Robert Saltzman puts it this way:
“I have not a flyspeck of interest in beliefs, conjectures, or faith of any stripe, not because one belief or another has been proven wrong, or because I'm an atheist or a materialist, but because this moment is sufficient unto itself without my needing to believe anything.”
I do understand that there can be a major difference between a grounded, religious faith and all kinds of superficial New Age spirituality or superstition. But it remains belief—not knowledge, and certainly not certainty. So the difference is, at most, a difference in degree or attitude.
In 'The God Delusion', Richard Dawkins states that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He then proposes a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two poles of opposing certainty, expressed in seven milestones:
- Strong theist: 100% certainty of God. In Carl Jung's words: "I don't believe, I know."
- De facto theist: Very high probability, but less than 100%. "I'm not entirely certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life assuming He exists."
- Leaning toward theism: More than 50%, but not very high. "I'm very uncertain, but inclined to believe in God."
- Completely impartial: Exactly 50%. "The existence and non-existence of God are exactly equally probable."
- Leaning toward atheism: Less than 50%, but not very low. "I don't know whether God exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
- De facto atheist: Very low probability, but not zero. "I'm not certain, but I think God is extremely unlikely, and I live my life assuming He doesn't exist."
- Strong atheist: "I know there is no God—with the same certainty as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while many people would place themselves at level 1 due to strict religious teachings against doubt, most atheists do not place themselves at level 7—because atheism is based on a lack of evidence, and evidence could always change a rational mind. In print, Dawkins has described himself as a "6," but when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested that "6.9" would be more accurate.
Source: Wikipedia – Spectrum of theistic probability
I also see myself as a "6."
And many people who describe themselves as atheist or non-religious associate religiosity only with the practices of the major formal religions: going to church on Sundays, praying five times a day toward Mecca, taking part in rituals like fasting, baptism, or church weddings. Yet many of these same people think nothing of lighting a candle for someone, attending séances, or offering food to an ancestor statue. There is far more belief out there than just the "official" expressions of the established religions.
See also this article.
Atheism
Not believing can also be a special form of belief. You may be 'convinced' that God does not exist and a member of atheist Facebook groups, but that doesn't mean you know that God does not exist.
"Okay," you might say, "but there's no conclusive evidence for the existence of God, right?" No — but neither is there conclusive evidence against it.
It also sometimes seems as if atheists are determined to be right and can be just as fanatical as the average Muslim fundamentalist. If you believe something doesn't exist, why get so worked up about it?
In fact, maybe God does exist — you simply can't know for sure.
Belief in an afterlife
The Emperor asked Master Gudo, "What happens to a man of enlightenment after death?"
"How should I know?" replied Gudo.
"Because you are a master," answered the Emperor.
"Yes sir," said Gudo, "but not a dead one."
About 170,000 people die every day in the world. You and I will die too. Could be through an aneurysm in 5 minutes, could be by a car accident next year, could also take 20 years or more. I am currently (July 6, 2025) 72 years old and that's 26,470 days. According to death clock, I would die on Monday, 2nd of July 2029, aged 76. Not so good. OK, maybe I should do something about my BMI, exercise more and not drink a glass of wine every day ...
But I also take a blood thinner, a cholesterol inhibitor and an antacid every day. And I almost do not eat any meat. Hopefully that will help too. But anyway, one day the day will come, which will be my last ...
I don't want to die. I have a huge fear of not being there anymore. The idea of not being there anymore just baffles me. The many painful ways to die also are terrifying to me: suffocation, burning, decapitation, a heart attack. How horrible.
Someone recently posted on Facebook: “At the end of the day, the only purpose of spiritual seeking is to make peace with one's fear of death.” I think that's true, but I find it anything but easy to dwell on this.
In fact, the fear of extincion is our most basic fear. This fear is being described as "the fear of annihilation, of ceasing to exist. This is a more fundamental way to express it than just "fear of death". The idea of no longer being arouses a primary existential anxiety in all normal humans. Consider that panicky feeling you get when you look over the edge of a high building."
And what would happen in the supreme moment? In all likelihood it looks like going under anesthesia: bang, lights are out, no consciousness, nothing. Without ever waking up again. The body has been dying for years and one day the heart also gives up, the brain no longer receives blood and dies too and that's it.
That's what I think, but of course I don't really know. This would only be true if our entire existence is just material. Perhaps there is "something" in us that is non-material and this "soul" or separate "consciousness" survives physical death. Perhaps everything is consciousness and our life is only a phase in a larger whole in that consciousness and we enter a new phase after death, perhaps in a new body ...
Many people believe something like that. But why should I believe that? Is there evidence for a "life after death"? Is there evidence to support the idea that "consciousness" is primary and the world only a phenomenon in and as that consciousness?
I don't think so. For instance: some spiritual teachers use the following reasoning: you can never experience anything that is not in the mind or in consciousness and therefore there is only consciousness. But such a statement really only says that "consciousness" exists. But it says nothing about the ontological state or nature of consciousness. But there is also no proof for the reverse, which is called physicalism (the assumption stating that everything is "physical", and that immaterial properties - things of a psychological, moral or social nature - arise from the physical, meaning: the properties of elementary particles and associated force fields). Physicalists have the greatest difficulty with the existence of that same consciousness; they call this the "hard problem" and it boils down to the following: the experience of the color red (or any other perception) cannot be reduced to properties of elementary particles and forces ...
Between the idea that there is only this so called "consciousness" and the idea that there is only so called "matter", there are countless intermediate forms. For example "panpsychism": this considers consciousness as an intrinsic property of all matter. Handy, because then you don't have to explain how matter produces consciousness or vice versa how consciousness creates material reality. A difficult point then is that even elementary particles also must have some form of consciousness. Try to prove that ...
For me there are in fact no such things as "consciousness" or "matter" (see my article about consciousness). Being more or less conscious (or not), of course, is a fact. How this, let's call it a property of the brain/mind (whatever they are), comes to be, is a complete mystery.
Conclusion: no conclusion. And by extension to the question of whether there is a personal survival after the death of the body: we do not know. Nobody knows.
As for me personally, I don't see how there can be being conscious without a living brain. Even the reports of people who have had a near-death experience (NDE) cannot convince me, because the brain may not have been (very) active, but of course it was still alive ...
So it comes down to learning to live with the uncertainty and with the real possibility that there is simply nothing after death ...
One thing I do know for sure: I live and I live now, which is absolutely incredible. Hence, the poet Horace compared the day to a flower:
[...] sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: **carpe diem** quam minimum credula postero.
[...] be wise, clear the wine and put down your future dream the short time that is given to you. While we are talking the jealous time already flown: seize the day and count on tomorrow as little as possible.
The Pursuit of Immortality
If there is likely no immortality after death, then perhaps we can try to eliminate death itself — or at least postpone it until a time of our own choosing. Some believe it might be possible to upload our personality into a machine, or that one day we'll be able to endlessly replace our bodily parts. Maybe that will even become reality. But is it something we should desire?
Death is seen as the enemy at the end of life — an enemy to be defeated. What is often overlooked is that the process of dying accompanies life from the very beginning. Without death, there is no life. Every time we go to sleep, we die in order to wake up refreshed. Every time we exhale, we die so we can inhale again. At every moment, thousands of cells in our body die so that new ones can take their place. You cannot stop death — because to do so would be to stop life, paradoxical as that may sound.
And when the body ultimately dies, it falls apart, and the atoms and molecules that made up that body return to the surrounding nature and will become part of other, new life forms. The process of life is simultaneously a dying process — two sides of the same coin, the same flow.
Plants and animals have no problem with death. We humans do, because we identify with a part of our experience — our personality — which we believe to be a stable and autonomous "thing," even though this part is constantly changing and thus constantly dying. We fear change. We fear death. But when I seriously imagine what it would mean to live for hundreds of years, or even forever, as a person, it strikes me as the greatest torment I can imagine: never being able to relax, never being able to let go, never exhaling fully, never sleeping, never being able to be absent from myself, never being able to forget.
That is what it means to be unable to die. That is no life at all.
The Belief That Life Has Intrinsic Meaning
Humans act with intention in what they do and create, and from this they infer that a Creator or a law of nature must also have a Purpose for what has been created. Our own purpose might then align with this Divine Purpose. In Christianity, for example, the goal of life might be to worship and serve God.
People often seek meaning and purpose in life to feel fulfilled and satisfied. They may believe that there must be a greater reason for their existence than mere coincidence or randomness. The fear of a meaningless life, of course, arises from the sense of isolation and alienation that results from the belief in a separate self amidst a world of other lonely selves and lifeless things.
But how could I — or anyone — know whether life truly has an ultimate, intrinsic meaning? I could only know that if I were able to stand outside my life, outside everyone's life, outside all life in all times — past, present, and future — outside life itself. And of course, that's impossible. All I can do is choose to give my life meaning, or at the very least, to recognize that life itself is meaningful enough simply by being lived — just like every other living being. I am alive. Isn't that enough?
Joan Tollifson on Facebook:
“Here-Now, this present experiencing, THIS bottomless moment, exactly as it is, THIS is utterly simple: the sounds of the washing machine, the taste of oatmeal, the sensations in the knee or belly, the breath, the traces of thought and mental movies that appear like bubbles and eventually burst—THIS whole happening, just as it is, is simple, obvious, inevitable, and effortlessly present. It is ever-changing and yet always right here, in this moment. Without thought, it has no inside or outside, no beginning or end. It is without meaning and without need for meaning, although thought can spin comforting or frightening stories about meaning or meaninglessness. But the actuality IS just as it is.”
Alan Watts:
“If the universe is meaningless, then that statement itself is meaningless... The meaning and purpose of dancing is the dance.”
Let's imagine that life does have a fixed, knowable meaning or purpose. Wouldn't that be awful? We would be forced to constantly adhere to that meaning, to The Grand Plan, and we would have to be held accountable to it. And that is exactly what most religions and ideologies want us to believe…
Magical Thinking
There are many forms of belief beyond those of the "official" religions. These range from superficial habits like tossing I Ching coins or thinking that stepping on sidewalk cracks brings bad luck, to delusions that lead to serious hang-ups and neurotic behavior. At the root of all such beliefs lies some form of fear — and a desire to appease that fear. This is what we call "magical thinking": the idea that we understand the universe, can influence it, control it, manipulate it.
Magical thinking means believing that, as an individual, you can influence the universe — and that the universe, in turn, sends you signs and personal messages. You believe that you can cause good or bad fortune for yourself or others, or that you can avoid misfortune through certain actions.
It also means believing in causal explanations for things and events where, in fact, you don't know — and often can't possibly know — whether the supposed cause has any real connection to what you think you're explaining.
“By "magical thinking" I mean the habit of attribhuting causes to events when one cannot possibly know that causal relstions actually exist. We humans, whose minds evolved under pressure to identify threats, are voracious in our appetite for explanations, and thus prone to seeing false causality everywhere. That is why I have been recommending investigating one's beliefs with a view toward weeding out premature cognitive commitments. As long as one is burdened by the weight of unexamined beliefs, there is no chance at all of seeing things clearly.”
Let's begin with the more superficial and relatively harmless things that many people believe in:
You may not really believe in astrology, but you still find yourself reading your weekly horoscope.
You find or receive a four-leaf clover and secretly hope for "good luck."
You'd rather not walk under a ladder, and you feel a little uneasy if it's Friday the 13th.
I myself spent years with the strange thought that whenever I see a license plate with the letters "BX" on the road, it would bring me 'luck'. I honestly don't remember where I got that idea.
And who doesn't whisper a little prayer when something bad is about to happen? "Oh please, don't let this happen…"
All of these are examples of what's called "magical thinking". We (hopefully) know it's nonsense — and yet we still do it.
A classic example of magical thinking is a child who believes they caused the death of a pet simply because they once wished it dead after being scratched by it.
Even thinking in terms of having "good luck" or "bad luck" is a form of magical thinking. Things just happen — some of which you find pleasant, others unpleasant, that's all. And perhaps what seems unfortunate today will turn out to be fortunate tomorrow.
Alan Watts, for instance, once told the following well-known story:
There was once a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all the neighbors came over to commiserate. "So sorry to hear your horse ran away," they said. "That's too bad."
The farmer replied, "Maybe."
The next day, the horse came back, bringing with it seven wild horses. "How wonderful!" the neighbors exclaimed. "Now you have eight horses!"
The farmer said, "Maybe."
The next day, the farmer's son tried to ride one of the wild horses, was thrown off, and broke his leg. Again the neighbors came to offer sympathy: "That's really unfortunate," they said.
The farmer answered, "Maybe."
The following day, military officials came to the village to conscript young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they let him be. Everyone rejoiced, "How lucky you are!"
The farmer said only, "Maybe."
Also relatively harmless are beliefs in so-called paranormal phenomena like telepathy and clairvoyance, or in things like auras, chakras, and acupuncture. No scientific evidence has been found for any of these things — just as none has been found for astrology, palm reading, or tarot cards.
However, see the next chapter called 'One More Thing'.
Everyone has experienced thinking about someone, only to receive a call from them shortly after, or to learn something has happened to them. But this isn't paranormal communication — it's just coincidence. You've forgotten the countless times you thought of them and nothing happened.
We no longer live in caves or jungles and are no longer hunted by large predators, nor do we need to stay alert to every shadow, strange light, or sudden noise. But our minds still operate as though we do, needing explanations and protective measures. We are vulnerable — and what we don't know might harm us. In fact, we are still vulnerable. There may be no saber-toothed tigers anymore (we've taken care of that), but a car crash or burst blood vessel can still happen in a second. So we'd rather believe that a Virgo with Capricorn rising (I'm just saying something) will be fine this week — and that if we eat healthily and take our Bach flower remedies, everything will be okay. We hope...
Magical thinking is a way to deny the total uncertainty of the here and now.
Robert Saltzman on Facebook:
“Every life, no matter how happy, includes struggle on countless levels: physical, mental, psychological, and so on. No wonder we seek answers. No wonder we look for meaning in our daily routines. No wonder we want reasons for hope. Many who say they are searching for spiritual truths actually mean: "Give me hope, give me purpose, just don't let me fall into despair."”
I'm also referring here to the phenomenon of Louise Hay, who claimed in her book 'You Can Heal Your Life' that affirmations could counteract the effects of negative thoughts, which she saw as the real cause of illness — and thus heal you. According to her, we are responsible for every ailment or condition in our lives. Our own fault. Well then — try applying this logic to an animal with cancer or a sick baby, and the argument falls apart immediately.
And so we arrive at beliefs that run deeper than simply thinking today is your "lucky day" and filling out a lottery ticket.
Karma
In various religious and philosophical traditions, "karma" refers to the moral or ethical consequences of one's actions. It is often associated with the idea of cause and effect, where a person's actions in the present influence their future experiences or outcomes.
Karma is a concept rooted in Eastern thought but also appears in Western spirituality in the form of "sin" and "virtue," or "good" and "evil."
According to the concept of karma, every action — whether physical, verbal, or mental — carries certain consequences. These consequences may be positive or negative depending on the nature of the action and the intention behind it. Good deeds are believed to generate positive karma, which leads to favorable outcomes or future happiness, while harmful actions generate negative karma, resulting in undesirable consequences or suffering.
In some belief systems, karma is seen as a mechanism explaining the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. It is believed that the accumulation of karma from past actions affects one's future lives or spiritual development.
In broader usage beyond religious or philosophical contexts, the term "karma" is sometimes used colloquially to suggest that "what goes around, comes around," or that people eventually face the consequences of their actions — whether good or bad.
But what actually determines whether a thought or action is "good"? Good for me? Good for others? Good for society? And what was considered good yesterday may no longer be so today (think of slavery, or the slaughter of animals!).
Do truly good and evil people exist? We are born with a set of traits we did not choose and cannot change. Then we are shaped by an upbringing and cultural environment we also didn't choose. It's a biological fact that some individuals are born with psychopathy, and as a species, we are inherently violent — just like our biological cousins, the chimpanzees (our other "cousins," the bonobos, are notably less aggressive). "Evil" isn't necessarily caused by poor parenting or unfortunate circumstances. It's part of our biology, and so-called "bad" things are done by all of us.
Furthermore, we only need to reflect on the fact that in the universe in which — and out of which — I exist as a process among all other processes, everything is interconnected, and the whole is so unimaginably complex and vast that it is utterly impossible for there to be a direct causal link between what I do now and what happens to me next week — let alone a year from now.
Civilization
Why is it that most people, normally, don't commit truly bad acts like murder or rape?
From an early age, we're raised with a system of rules we're supposed to obey, and there are punishments if we don't. This system serves to make society somewhat livable for everyone. We also learn that other living beings have the same kinds of feelings as we do, and so we're able—at least to some extent—to empathize with others. From there, a decision is made to either do or not do something.
Empathy appears to be an important trait to inherit in human development. Sociopathy is the exception, but it may also play an important role in the development of human civilization. After all, sociopaths are the ones who push certain developments forward without hesitation. Not everyone is capable of empathy, and some people will, if necessary, trample over others to get their way. And sometimes, even a "normal" person, with a normal upbringing, breaks under the pressure of circumstances and ends up doing something terrible.
By the way, anyone who's spent time on social media has likely come across memes featuring Native Americans, Aboriginal people, or other examples of supposedly "unspoiled" natural humans who then proclaim some kind of "wisdom" that aims to shame us for our way of life. A bit of study into these so-called noble savages quickly reveals that these people were by no means saints—nor are their descendants today.
The social order or "civilization" is, in truth, only a thin veneer over our primary, animal drives—both empathetic and sociopathic. We are, in fact, animals, simply part of nature. We are truly neither "better" nor "worse" than the rest of life on this planet.
Still, to make life within such a system of rules and punishments bearable, we cling to the belief in some form of ultimate justice. In the end, we want to believe that things will turn out right. Except, of course, for those we clearly consider "bad." Our reward awaits us—either in this life, or in the next. This idea is endlessly reinforced in books and films—the hero gets the girl, the villain gets what he deserves.
Progress
Then there's the belief in progress—the idea of a progressive Plan underlying humanity, all life on this planet, even the entire universe. In the end (always in the end!), we will evolve toward a better and brighter future, a Utopia, where everything is peace and harmony, where we'll populate the universe as enlightened beings, leaving our primitive, animal nature behind. And we invent this belief to make the daily misery and monotony of our existence a bit more bearable. The belief that we are destined to triumph—whether in this life, a next life, or in the eventual fate of humanity—helps ensure we keep society just the way it is, so as not to interfere with the Plan and to make sure we still receive our reward in due time.
The opposite belief also exists and is currently quite popular—namely, that things won't get better at all (just look at the popularity of dystopias on streaming platforms). No, the world is going to hell, and fast. Because we are acting "unnaturally," and "Mother Earth" has had enough of us. What's forgotten in all this is that we ourselves are nature, and that everything we do is, therefore, also "natural."
Belief in imminent collapse is just as dangerous as belief in a radiant future. Both lead us to sit on our hands and do nothing—after all, everything is either inevitably doomed or destined to work out.
The probable truth, of course, is that there is no such thing as linear progress, nor an unavoidable catastrophe. Everything is always completely open. The future is unknown. Anything could happen. From a piece of rock falling out of the sky tomorrow and wiping out all life in a single blow, or the return of the Middle Ages, or to the eradication of cancer and hunger, and abundant energy for everyone.
And let's be clear: the planet will take care of itself. It's been doing that for 4.5 billion years. Whether we will manage to take care of ourselves is a lot less certain...
Predestination
Closely related to the belief in progress is the conviction that everything happens "for a reason," that "there is no such thing as coincidence," and that our predestined soulmate is waiting for us. But who or what determines those reasons? And if such reasons do exist, how could we ever know them? And would it even matter whether there are reasons? And are they good reasons (again: good for whom)?
Our minds always demand a clear and simple explanation—our primate brains are wired that way—but in truth, as already mentioned, there is so much happening simultaneously in life, in the world, in the cosmos, that there can never be a single reason, never a single cause. There are always zillions of them, every second again, all together determining every event.
Self-Improvement
The idea that there is a better and different self—a better person is the subject of thousands of books, videos, and websites; it's a multi-billion-dollar industry. We feel responsible for what happens to us, especially for things that are often considered unwanted or unpleasant. And so, we are highly susceptible to beliefs that promise a better life. We'd like to earn our place in Heaven or meditate ourselves into Enlightenment. There is, of course, nothing wrong with consulting a therapist when we feel chronically unhappy, but that is something else entirely from avoiding and suppressing feelings deemed undesirable or unpleasant by trying to become a better and different person—for example, by cultivating "positive thoughts."
"Personal growth," in my view, is a nonsensical and ultimately disheartening pursuit. The idea of becoming (even) more, (even) better, or different—somewhere in the future—is drilled into us from an early age. Naturally, it serves the kind of economy we've created; it can also be useful for mastering a skill. But this mindset can also distract us from experiencing and appreciating the only thing we ever truly live: this moment.
The Search for 'Enlightenment'
“I do not like the way I feel now, so I imagine a state somewhere in the future when I have 'attained enlightenment.' When that happens, this fairytale goes, I will be special. I will be different from ordinary people. I will not suffer as they do, and as I do now. I will know the answers to my questions. I will know 'God.' Perhaps I will have magical powers.”
The Seeking
A very peculiar belief is the idea that one is not good enough, that something is missing. Alienation or existential 'emptiness' is the price we pay for the split between personality, the body, and the surrounding reality—a split set in motion during the transformation from child to adult in a culture that promises satisfaction in an imaginary future.
The emptiness feels like an uneasy longing, a lack, a black hole. It pulls and seeks. Most people are hardly aware of this. Only very sensitive individuals become aware of the seeking itself, of the emptiness, but in fact nearly everyone is unconsciously controlled and driven by the seeking. The seeking serves an evolutionary process responsible for the emergence of our culture. And culture, in turn, dictates the cultivation of emptiness, the separation of body and environment, for only a separate personality feels lack and longs for reunion—for reward. A reward that can only be attained through hard work and purification.
Emptiness initiates the seeking through the attempt to fill or conceal it—by finding an 'Answer,' by achieving a goal, by winning the prize. In doing so, it simultaneously builds an identity that seems to replace the emptiness. Emptiness and seeking are one and the same; they cause one another; they are two sides of the same coin.
"Answers" may consist of chasing ever-new experiences, following a 'path to enlightenment,' joining a cult or utopian ideology. Ecstasy or numbness is pursued through drugs, alcohol, sex, or gambling. Alternatively, the emptiness may appear to be filled by striving for fame, prestige, or wealth, and so on.
Most people, however, follow more "normal" paths to happiness: a good job, a career, a family. It is only the most sensitive individuals—those who suffer most from inner emptiness—who risk getting trapped in more excessive lifestyles. There can also be experiences of an altered, "deeper," or "higher" state of consciousness. The desire may arise to repeat or even make such a state permanent...
The seeking is the belief in ultimate fulfillment, ultimate happiness.
And so, the spiritual seeker is born, the religious fanatic, the addict, the workaholic—each trying to avoid the emptiness by securing fulfillment in the future, thus perpetuating the lack. The goal is never (permanently) reached, or else people fall into a 'void' if it is (momentarily) achieved—often resulting in depression.
I still vividly remember the first time I became aware that I was seeking. I was simply walking down the street somewhere when I became aware of a strange, restless, gnawing feeling and asked myself: "What do I really want in life? I don't get it. I'm looking for a foothold, a guide, an Answer." At the time (early 1980s), I was reading books by Carlos Castaneda and others, and I thought to myself: that's what I want too—someone like Don Juan, Castaneda's guru—someone to explain it all to me, someone who truly knows, someone who can see beyond the surface.
And so I went in search of a spiritual master. It didn't take long. The Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was all over the news back then and seemed to me—and many other intelligent people—to be the "real thing."" And so I learned about that ultimate state of cosmic consciousness called "Enlightenment." That became my new goal in life. In 1983, I took "sannyas" and received a new name: "Swami Pantha Chinmayo". I began wearing red clothes and a necklace with Rajneesh's image around my neck.
Enlightenment
"Enlightenment" — no, not the historical era, and not a story about light bulbs and cords — but spiritual Enlightenment with a capital E, also called "Self-realization" or "Awakening", is the supposed ultimate goal of many spiritual paths. Enlightenment is often taken to mean a permanent state of egoless bliss and knowledge of the secrets of the cosmos — a merging into universal, divine consciousness.
I spent years pursuing that. I also had a few special experiences in which I had the idea that the state I was in could somehow be made permanent.
My first "awakening experience" happened when I was 29. I was visiting the Kosmos in Amsterdam with some people from the commune where I was living. I bought some cannabis there, rolled a joint, and lit it. As unfortunately happened more often, I became extremely anxious and paranoid. I was completely "in my head." The fear grew stronger and stronger until suddenly it flipped into complete relaxation. I was free — free from the feeling of being judged. Free to do whatever I wanted. Free, clear, and awake. And when I did something, it felt absolutely right. There was not a trace of doubt. Body and mind were in sync. Everything fit. I looked at the other people present. They were all like robots. They were talking to each other, but there was no one speaking and no one listening. The conversations were automatic. There was no real communication. Very strange. I realized that this was normally my behavior too, and that I was always at least somewhat anxious about others' judgment — even when I was alone. But not now. I was thoroughly enjoying this state and started walking around the building. I met someone on a staircase and we smiled at each other. So, there was one other free person present.
I knew that this state was more real than how I normally perceive and function. I also knew for certain that this state had nothing to do with the effects of cannabis. The drug had merely been the trigger.
When it was time to go home, I began to worry. How could I possibly live with my housemates like this? No one would understand me, and the idea of having to live among "robots" seemed unbearable.
Soon I was back to my "normal" state. I tried for a long time to relive the freedom and clarity I had felt then — without success.
My second experience happened some years later. I was in a car in France with some friends. My fellow passengers wanted to briefly visit another friend, so I stayed behind in the car, alone. I sat comfortably, and suddenly I was overwhelmed by the feeling that everything was okay. Whatever might happen — it is okay. I could be sad or angry or whatever — still okay. I accepted myself as I am. I also felt at ease with everyone and could freely express my feelings. I noticed this garnered respect. I just said what I really wanted to say and didn't hold back. My state felt real and grounded.
It lasted several days.
Experiences pass. Nothing is permanent. A well-known example is Suzanne Segal, who wrote about her experiences in the book 'Collision with the Infinite: A Life Beyond the Personal Self'. She describes her sudden realization of 'unity consciousness', an experience that lasted nearly two years — only to, to her surprise and dismay, eventually dissolve into "unenlightenment"...
Such experiences cannot be repeated. For a moment, there's a shift in the mind, a different way of seeing life. And a little later, the experience changes again. It feels like you've lost something — something more "real" or "better" than a "normal" state of mind. Experiences come and go. And one experience is not more "enlightened" or "higher" than another. The moment you really see that, the search for a permanent "enlightened" state stops. That's not to say that the feeling of emptiness or the urge to search never resurfaces.
We are all, to some degree and in certain aspects of our lives, "enlightened." One person might be less influenced by magical thinking but be a total jerk in their dealings with others. There are people who are genuinely wise yet can't stop themselves from seducing impressionable followers. Or they have fits of rage, or they ruin their health with chain-smoking.
Enlightenment is a process — not a state, nor a final goal.
Bias and Bullshit
A special form of belief is prejudice and bias.
A bias is a way of keeping beliefs alive and reinforcing them. It's a disproportionate leaning in favor of or against an idea or subject, typically in a way that is closed, prejudiced, or unfair. (See also here).
There are many kinds of bias, and everyone — even serious and intelligent scientists — is guilty of it.
Take for example what is known as confirmation bias. This is the tendency to take more seriously what confirms your belief than what contradicts it.
A hypochondriac, for instance, will find "evidence" all over the internet that the small spot on their arm is definitely cancer. The article or doctor stating it's just harmless pigmentation is not believed. The hypochondriac is already convinced and will seek and find confirmation everywhere to support that belief. Anything that doesn't confirm it will be ignored or denied.
But be careful: it's not just hypochondriacs who do this. Everyone has this tendency to some extent.
“We humans love smooth sailing. We crave assurance and comforting concepts. We want our beliefs supported and approved — not challenged and possibly discredited. That psychological fact is called the "confirmation bias."" To state it briefly: human beings tend to give too much weight to evidence that corroborates what they already believe or desire to believe, while giving too little weight, discounting out of hand, or even forgetting entirely, evidence that tends to contradict what they already believe or desire to believe”
Social media have made confirmation bias nearly standard by algorithmically showing more of what matches a user's earlier searches. So, after watching an innocent video about the "Face on Mars", you might end up seeing a supposed image of Jesus in a piece of toast, and from there get drawn into other "paranormal" phenomena — and before you know it, your feed is filled exclusively with alien abductions and ghost sightings.
Seeing a face on Mars or Jesus in a piece of toast is, in fact, a different form of bias, called "apophenia" or "pareidolia": the tendency to see patterns in what are actually random configurations. Everyone sees a "face" on the moon.
Humans naturally tend to see faces everywhere — in floor tiles, in tree trunks. This likely has to do with early survival: as a baby, recognizing the face of the mother. And everyone knows the example of seeing a snake that turns out to be just a rope. Recognizing danger in time is of course crucial, but it can also be terribly misleading.
Venerability
In some spiritual circles, it is assumed that the older something is, the more value and truth a certain idea must contain. For example, "Ki energy" (also spelled "Chi" or "Qi") is a Chinese concept that is several thousand years old. But does that mean this energy actually exists?
Ki energy is used to explain the beneficial effects of movement practices such as T'ai Chi or Qi Gong. The effectiveness of acupuncture is also said to be based on it. Such an energy, however, has not (yet?) been found by science — which doesn't necessarily discredit the potential health benefits of these practices.
Nevertheless, proponents are not impressed by the fact that modern science cannot detect Ki. This is then explained by claiming it is a "subtle" energy, supposedly undetectable by "crude" scientific instruments — or that other "dimensions" are involved. It must be true, just because it's so ancient and because so many people believe in it...
Perspectivism
Note: it is not possible to completely free oneself from all bias. At the very least, we cannot detach ourselves from the fact that we inevitably view things from the standpoint of a particular kind of primate...
Our view of reality is limited. Friedrich Nietzsche called this principle "perspectivism", opposing the idea that it is possible to attain "absolute" or "ultimate" knowledge — as if one could see through the eyes of God:
“For, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fable which posited a pure, will-less, painless, timeless knower — let us beware of the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as "pure reason," "absolute spirit," "knowledge-in-itself": always demanding a thinking activity from an eye that cannot be imagined — an eye that is supposed to have no direction, in which the active and interpreting forces are supposed to be blocked or absent, forces which are precisely what make seeing into a seeing-of-something. What is demanded here is nonsense and contradiction: an eye that is simply not possible.
There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival knowing. And the more affects we allow to speak about a matter, the more eyes, different eyes, we are able to use to view the same matter, the more complete will our "understanding" of it be — our objectivity.”
Prejudices
The group with which people identify often holds a special status in their minds. "Others" must be treated differently, kept under control, confined to their "own" space — or even killed.
Some examples:
Elderly people don't matter. We venerate and believe in youth; the elderly are pushed aside and no longer heard. Everyone wants to look young — for as long as possible. Multi-billion-dollar industries are devoted to selling products and services to make us look "youthful": no wrinkles, no hairloss or grey hair, and preferably stick-thin. Models in the fashion industry are rarely over 35. Seniors are urged to stay (hyper)active for as long as possible. "Keep up with the times," they say.
Sexism is the belief that one sex is superior to another and thus entitled to rights denied to others. In practice, this usually means the dominance of the male gender identity. All other identities are deprived of opportunities, told not to complain, and women are blamed for dressing "provocatively" and tempting men.
A heterosexist believes people with different sexual orientations are unnatural, evil, or inferior. In many countries, homosexuality is punishable — even by death.
A transphobe thinks it's unacceptable for people to express themselves as transgender and adopt the body and culture of another sex — deviating from the "normal" body and behavior associated with the sex assigned at birth. People born with ambiguous or absent sexual characteristics are expected to identify with one of the two "normal" gender identities: a "typical" man or woman.
A racist believes that people of their skin color are "better" than others. Yet biologically speaking, races do not exist. There are differences in skin color — just like there are differences in nose shapes or fingerprints. That's all.
True racism should not be confused with a mere fear of people from another culture or background, although in practice, this often happens. Anything "foreign" evokes fear. People fear their "own" identity being overrun — without realizing that this identity is also merely accidental.
Immense suffering is caused by the belief known as speciesism, the idea that the human species is a separate and "higher" category — giving us the right to kill, eat, abuse, experiment on, and exterminate other species.
Groupthink itself is a fairly "normal" phenomenon in the cultural-anthropological sense. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, exhibit behavior that could be called groupthink: they reject, suppress, and even murder members of other groups.
Groupthink has its roots in instinctive behavior shaped over millions of years of evolution. Defending "our" group against others is encoded in our DNA. But the belief that "our" group is better than others — that's been instilled in us.
It makes no sense to deny these tendencies by adopting a so-called politically correct "woke" identity, as that too is just another form of belief.
Nonsense
It's not always easy to recognize what we in fact believe — even when it's complete nonsense — especially in our current age of "fake news," "deepfakes," generative AI, and conspiracy theories.
“Bullshit often appeals to our emotions or to our existing worldviews, and once ideas lodge themselves in our feelings or confirm our worldview, they can be extremely difficult to dislodge — even with the truth.
A liar asserts something they believe to be false. They deliberately misrepresent what they see as the truth.
The bullshitter, on the other hand, is unconcerned with what is true or false. They are indifferent to the truth. Their goal is not to report facts — rather, to shape the beliefs and attitudes of their audience.”
Also remember: the amount of energy required to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude greater than that required to produce it. This is known as Brandolini's Law, or the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.
“No doubt,turning one's back on cherished beliefs can feel daunting and scary — but one finds no real relief in a superstitious embrace of spirituality either. The mind of superstition is a haunted house filled with the ghosts of other people's religion, other people's pain, and other people's fears.”
Carl Sagan once proposed a set of rules to help distinguish nonsense and pseudoscience from genuine science. He called it the Baloney Detection Kit.
