Why Blind Denial?

[Nick_A]

I have used the terms blind belief and blind denial in reference to the question of God. Each is considered by the other to be an acquired psychological trait that denies objective experience. Suppose they both block experience? People here all know what blind belief is but blind denial seems almost too objectionable to even consider. But should we? Here is a simple explanation of the cause of blind denial. It is easy to see how this emotional defense mechanism can be adopted because of the abuses within secular expressions of religion. But does that make it a worthwhile defense mechanism? I guess it depends on the person’s goal. If their goal is truth, then blind denial is best outgrown. But how to do it? A very difficult question

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-d ... echanisms/

1. Denial
Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event, thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development. Many people use denial in their everyday lives to avoid dealing with painful feelings or areas of their life they don’t wish to admit. For instance, a person who is a functioning alcoholic will often simply deny they have a drinking problem, pointing to how well they function in their job and relationships.

[Arising_uk]

You have already assumed as true the thing that you say shows that blind-denial is false?

What do you actually mean by 'God'?

... secular expressions of religion. ...

What on earth does this mean?

[sthitapragya]

I have used the terms blind belief and blind denial in reference to the question of God. Each is considered by the other to be an acquired psychological trait that denies objective experience. Suppose they both block experience? People here all know what blind belief is but blind denial seems almost too objectionable to even consider. But should we? Here is a simple explanation of the cause of blind denial. It is easy to see how this emotional defense mechanism can be adopted because of the abuses within secular expressions of religion. But does that make it a worthwhile defense mechanism? I guess it depends on the person’s goal. If their goal is truth, then blind denial is best outgrown. But how to do it? A very difficult question

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-d ... echanisms/

1. Denial
Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event, thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development. Many people use denial in their everyday lives to avoid dealing with painful feelings or areas of their life they don’t wish to admit. For instance, a person who is a functioning alcoholic will often simply deny they have a drinking problem, pointing to how well they function in their job and relationships.

Blind denial is a term you have made up. You are a nobody.That makes this an irrelevant thread which I just wasted two minutes replying to.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have used the terms blind belief and blind denial in reference to the question of God. Each is considered by the other to be an acquired psychological trait that denies objective experience. Suppose they both block experience? People here all know what blind belief is but blind denial seems almost too objectionable to even consider. But should we? Here is a simple explanation of the cause of blind denial. It is easy to see how this emotional defense mechanism can be adopted because of the abuses within secular expressions of religion. But does that make it a worthwhile defense mechanism? I guess it depends on the person’s goal. If their goal is truth, then blind denial is best outgrown. But how to do it? A very difficult question

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-d ... echanisms/

1. Denial
Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event, thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development. Many people use denial in their everyday lives to avoid dealing with painful feelings or areas of their life they don’t wish to admit. For instance, a person who is a functioning alcoholic will often simply deny they have a drinking problem, pointing to how well they function in their job and relationships.

Blind denial is a term you have made up. You are a nobody.That makes this an irrelevant thread which I just wasted two minutes replying to.

lol. True, but he seems to be terribly proud of it, as if it's the be-all and end-all of the discussion, and that it's so good it will go viral.

[Nick_A]

Arising wrote:

You have already assumed as true the thing that you say shows that blind-denial is false?

I can intellectually deny that there is a cow on the roof. However we cannot either intellectually affirm or deny a source for creation. Therefore, without proof, we can neither affirm or deny a conscious source for creation. The "I don't know" invites impartial contemplation within which a person unites the intellectual and emotional functions asking the same question.

What do you actually mean by 'God'?

Plato wrote: "Man is a being in search of meaning. God is meaning. It isn't a matter of whether or not a person believes in God but whether they believe in meaning. Meaning is a relative concept. The highest source of meaning is God.

Nick_A wrote:
... secular expressions of religion. ...
What on earth does this mean?

The essence of religion contains both an exoteric and an esoteric purpose. The exoteric affects the outer man or our personality with the intent of telling what is right to do. The esoteric purpose is designed to awaken the inner man to his objective humanity; what we are. A secular expression of religion is an exoteric expression and as such can be beneficial for an individual and society but can be vulnerable to all sorts of deception.

[Harbal]

Therefore, without proof, we can neither affirm or deny a conscious source for creation.

What about those of us who never even ask the question? Are we blind apathetics?

[Lacewing]

I can intellectually deny that there is a cow on the roof. However we cannot either intellectually affirm or deny a source for creation.

Is that simply because one is visible and the other is not?

[Nick_A]

Harbal wrote:

What about those of us who never even ask the question? Are we blind apathetics?

No, you just don't care. Both belief and denial are unimportant. you would rather play with your remote.

[uwot]

I can intellectually deny that there is a cow on the roof. However we cannot either intellectually affirm or deny a source for creation.

Is that simply because one is visible and the other is not?

Indeed. If you want to be sure there isn't a cow on your roof, don't waste time thinking about it; go and look. First rule of science.

[Harbal]

No, you just don't care. Both belief and denial are unimportant. you would rather play with your remote.

All my life I have been fascinated by nature. When I was a kid I spent countless hours wondering around in the countryside looking for insects, hoping to find something I'd never seen before. I love trees and was for ever climbing them, right up to the age when it was beginning to look a bit odd. There's nothing quite like sitting up in a tree. Whenever I find myself surrounded by trees and wild flowers and grass and butterflies it's like being in a wonderland, that's what matters to me, how it all got there isn't my problem, it's the fact that it is that is important.

[Lacewing]

All my life I have been fascinated by nature. When I was a kid I spent countless hours wondering around in the countryside looking for insects, hoping to find something I'd never seen before. I love trees and was for ever climbing them, right up to the age when it was beginning to look a bit odd. There's nothing quite like sitting up in a tree. Whenever I find myself surrounded by trees and wild flowers and grass and butterflies it's like being in a wonderland, that's what matters to me, how it all got there isn't my problem, it's the fact that it is that is important.

Me too!!!

One of the reasons I can't even entertain the notion of a god is because all of nature is so vast and deep and connected and AWESOME, that it's so much bigger than any concept of any god that any human has made a claim of. The god concept is clearly limited and controlled by man. It often has a distinctive, narrow view of some sort... and is oblivious to the connections ALL around and ALL throughout. Such small thinking makes no sense. Such small thinking can only make things up.

Nick's crazy characterizations of people, in order to maintain and promote his belief system, are laughable. He only knows what he knows, and I'm not sure why that would be worth bragging about. Truly, Nick, you don't know anything about other people's awareness of, and connectivity with, all that is. There are so many more levels and perspectives than you can see from your platform. Why would God be as small as your platform?

[Nick_A]

Harbal wrote:

All my life I have been fascinated by nature. When I was a kid I spent countless hours wondering around in the countryside looking for insects, hoping to find something I'd never seen before. I love trees and was for ever climbing them, right up to the age when it was beginning to look a bit odd. There's nothing quite like sitting up in a tree. Whenever I find myself surrounded by trees and wild flowers and grass and butterflies it's like being in a wonderland, that's what matters to me, how it all got there isn't my problem, it's the fact that it is that is important.

This is normal and if you don’t pollute the forest or burn it down, what could be better? You love the experience of nature. Sometimes we get these people like Simone who feel the need for something deeper in the experience of natural existence. They begin to ask questions that eventually become a part of philosophy. Does that make them evil or wrong? Harbal, are you open to what she writes here? Can you see that it is a different quality of need? People have been burned at the stake for pursuing this need.

"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

What does it mean to “notice that things and beings exist?” Isn’t that what we do all the time? Perhaps not.This is the kind of question that makes people think. The problem isn’t the questions. The problem is in the answers. Blind believers who believe in this or that deity will start emotionally referring to this God as existence and blind deniers will emotionally deny any sort of source of existence and the result is that the value of the question is lost to emoting answers. If adults are willing to torture themselves with all this emoting it isn’t against the law. But what of some kid in high school who reads Simone’s observation and makes the mistake of asking their prof.what she means? How many would be capable of a meaningful answer? The kid will just hear ignorance and expressions of blind belief or blind denial? The result is that this kid would now begin to be looked at as abnormal making it appear better to just repress the questions of the heart at the source of philosophy. The result for a kid afraid to buck the system will be a spiritually dead kid. This is called progress.

[Harbal]

You love the experience of nature. Sometimes we get these people like Simone who feel the need for something deeper in the experience of natural existence. They begin to ask questions that eventually become a part of philosophy. Does that make them evil or wrong? Harbal, are you open to what she writes here? Can you see that it is a different quality of need? People have been burned at the stake for pursuing this need.

The deepness of our feelings doesn't really lend itself to objective analysis for the purposes of comparison with the deepness of someone else's, so I don't know if your Simone feels things more deeply than I do. All I do know is that I can be in a wood and feel like I have a relationship with nature that is unique to me. I am not left with the feeling that the experience is lacking completeness for the want of knowing who or what I should be offering praise to for giving it me.

[HexHammer]

Nick_A

..it's very simple, most times it's complete lack of intellect, just like you cozy chatters are in denial of being unable to make just 1 line of philosophy ..but will stoop down to cozy chat for an eternity..

[Nick_A]

Harbal wrote: All I do know is that I can be in a wood and feel like I have a relationship with nature that is unique to me. I am not left with the feeling that the experience is lacking completeness for the want of knowing who or what I should be offering praise to for giving it me.

Simone Weil wrote: "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying."

Your experience of existence is complete for you. You don’t want to be concerned offering praise to a deity or have one give it to you. The experience of existence is not complete for Simone. In fact she asserts the difficulty with the experience of existence. You begin referring to deities and she refers to our inability to experience. This is why such ideas are so difficult to discuss. They drift into different directions inviting defensive emotional reactions and battles of answers that ruin everything. Do they have to?