ACCURATE THINKING ABOUT BELIEFS

The following link goes to a documentary entitled 'Why I Am No Longer A Christian' by an adept student of   epistemology, named Chris Redford. Chris explains a current wave of reasoning, called evidentialism, that professes the validity of belief solely upon evidence for it. He uses his journey from a belief in theism to a non-belief in theism as his personal example of a process of validation. However, if the whole series of videos in his presentation are not watched, then the best part will be missed. But, if one doesn't watch the first parts, then the last parts may not make as much sense. In any case, It is the best presentation that I have ever seen about epistemology, whereas it is academically presented but with simplicity and everyday examples. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND VIEWING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY--WHETHER CHRISTIAN OR NOT: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical  and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. 

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. 

These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. 

Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. 

Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. 

Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. 

This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

ACCURATE THINKING FOUNDATION

Evidentialism as explained by Chris Redford promotes a strong foundation for accurate thinking.

He asks himself:

• How do I know what is real?
• Why do I believe what I believe?
• What am I justified to believe?

He asks himself these things about any situation, about any topic, about the very nature of reality itself.

In other words, WHAT AM I JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE?

This question, WHAT AM I JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE, is the core concern of a branch of philosophy called epistemology.

In 1641, Rene Descartes attempted to answer this question in his philosophical treatise called Meditations on First Philosophy.

Descartes strategy was to began by presuming that he was not justified to believe anything--purging himself of ALL his beliefs; after such purging, he would add back only beliefs he could justify.

Given that the senses are sometimes unreliable, the only thing that he could justify beyond any doubt is his own existence as a thinking being. He said: I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

Chris Redford began with this statement and added that he would have to make some other presuppositions in order to have any claims of awareness of anything outside of one's own mind.

Following are Chris's assertions:

1:  I exist.

2:  I have to make a presupposition that at least some of my perceptions (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell) are accurate--that is, that they accurately reflect reality sometimes.

3:

a)  I form beliefs about reality based on physical evidence.

b)  The STRENGTH of my beliefs should be directly proportional to the amount of physical evidence I have for them.

c)  If, based on evidence, I ever DOUBT, the validity of a conclusion I have drawn from previous evidence, I can RETURN to that evidence, RE-EXAMINE it, and SEE IF I COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.

NOTES:

3a)  States that physical evidence is the only justification for any belief.

3b)  States that the strength of my belief should equal the strength of the physical evidence.

3c)  Physical evidence enables verification.

So, every justified belief that we have about reality is ultimately grounded in physical evidence.

And, conversely, beliefs that are not grounded in physical evidence and beliefs that are grounded in less physical evidence are unjustified and more weakly justified respectively. 

EVIDENTIALIST OBJECTION

MAJOR PREMISE:  One ought not to believe something upon insufficient evidence.

MINOR PREMISE:  We have no sufficient evidence for the proposition that God exists.

______________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION:  One ought not believe that God exists.

But what, you might ask, is sufficient evidence?

Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism)  is the philosophical position that all knowledge is most likely impossible.

Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified.

Most members of the skeptical school of philosophy augured for what might be called 'epistemological skepticism'--their focus was upon the reliability of our senses and therefore our ability to make knowledge claims about the world around us. A number of philosophers came to argue that our senses were not reliable sources of factual information. We do not know the external world because we cannot trust our senses, since they have deceived us in the past.

According to skeptics, our knowledge of the external world is blocked because various logical possibilities can be raised--that we are in a dream or are living in a computer-generated virtual reality.

Another skeptical view is that we do not know the world because the mind's structures are a distorting influence on our knowledge of what is real.

Rene Descartes proved, at least to himself, that there was something could be known to exist. He captured this awareness in a profound statement: "I think; therefore, I am." Of course, he could not prove beyond any doubt that anyone else or anything else existed, but he had sufficient proof--beyond any doubt (at least to himself) that he existed. Because he could think, he knew undoubtedly that he existed as a thinking being.

Still, as a radical skeptic, one could not prove (nor claim to know) anything beyond his or her own existence. Such limited perspective in regards to existence would hinder scientific discovery because it would not allow anyone to claim anything as factual outside of his or her own mind.

Thus, to aid scientific discovery, which is based upon inductive reasoning, one must make some provision for believing things other than one's own existence. There are five assumptions in the following provisional hypotheses: (1) I exist, (2) my senses are sometimes accurate, (3) only beliefs that are justified by physical evidence are valid, (4) belief strength is proportional to evidence amount, and (5) evidence-based beliefs are validated through re-examination.

RELIGION & EVIDENCE

SOURCE: Forrest, Peter, "The Epistemology of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether evidentialism applies to religious beliefs, or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here evidentialism is the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if “it is proportioned to the evidence”.

Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the arguments for there being a God, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the belief that God is not just good in a utilitarian fashion but loving, or the belief that there is an afterlife. Likewise it would be unjustified to believe even with less than full confidence that, say, Krishna is divine or that Muhammed is the last and most authoritative of the prophets, unless a good case can be made for these claims from the evidence.

Evidentialism, then, sets rather high standards for justification, standards that the majority do not, it would seem, meet when it comes to religious beliefs, where many rely on “faith”, which is more like the forecaster's hunch about the weather than the argument from past climate records. Many others take some body of scripture, such as the Bible or the Koran as of special authority, contrary to the evidentialist treatment of these as just like any other books making various claims.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Source: Investopedia

Most people are aware that there is a government body that acts as the guardian of the economy - an economic sentinel who implements policies designed to keep the country operating smoothly.

In the U.S., the answer lies in the role of the Federal Reserve, or simply, the Fed. The Fed is the gatekeeper of the U.S. economy. It is the bank of the U.S. government and, as such, it regulates the nation's financial institutions. The Fed watches over the world's largest economy and is, therefore, one of the most powerful organizations on earth.

The Federal Reserve was created by the U.S. Congress in 1913. Before that, the U.S. lacked any formal organization for studying and implementing monetary policy. Consequently markets were often unstable and the public had very little faith in the banking system. The Fed is an independent entity, but is subject to oversight from Congress. Basically, this means that decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the government, but Congress periodically reviews the Fed's activities.

The Fed is headed by a government agency in Washington known as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors consists of seven presidential appointees, each of whom serves 14 year terms. All members must be confirmed by the Senate and can be reappointed. The board is led by a chairman and a vice chairman, each appointed by the President and approved by the Senate for four-year terms. The current chair is Ben Bernanke, who took over for Alan Greenspan on February 1, 2006. Greenspan had been chairman since 1987.

There are 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities around the country that operate under the supervision of the Board of Governors. Reserve Banks act as the operating arm of the central bank and do most of the work of the Fed. The banks generate their own income from four main sources:

• Services provided to banks
• Interest earned on government securities acquired while carrying out the work of the Federal Reserve
• Income from foreign currency held
• Interest on loans to depository institutions

The income gathered from these activities is used to finance day to day operations, including information gathering and economic research. Any excess income is funneled back into the U.S. Treasury.

The system also includes the Federal Open Market Committee, better known as the FOMC. This is the policy-making branch of the Federal Reserve. Traditionally, the chair of the board is also selected as the chair of the FOMC. The voting members of the FOMC are the seven members of the Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and presidents of four other Reserve Banks who serve on a one-year rotating basis. All Reserve Bank presidents participate in FOMC policy discussions whether they are voting members or not. The FOMC makes the important decisions on interest rate and other monetary policies. This is the reason why they get most of the attention in the media.

The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."

In other words, the Fed's job is to foster a sound banking system and a healthy economy. To accomplish its mission, the Fed serves as the banker's bank, the government's bank, the regulator of financial institutions and as the nation's money managers.

 The term monetary policy refers to the actions that the Federal Reserve undertakes to influence the amount of money and credit in the U.S. economy. Changes to the amount of money and credit affect interest (the cost of credit) and the performance of the U.S. economy. To state this concept simply, if the cost of credit is reduced, more people and firms will borrow money and the economy will heat up.

The FOMC typically meets eight times each year. At these meetings, the FOMC members decide whether monetary policy should be changed. Before each meeting, FOMC members receive the "Green Book," which contains the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) staff forecasts of the U.S. economy, the "Blue Book," which presents the Board staff's monetary policy analysis and the "Beige Book," which includes a discussion of regional economic conditions prepared by each Reserve Bank.

When the FOMC meets, it decides whether to lower, raise or maintain its target for the federal funds rate. The FOMC also decides on the discount rate. The reason we say that the FOMC sets the target for the rate is because the rate is actually determined by market forces. The Fed will do its best to influence open-market operations, but many other factors contribute to what the actual rate ends up being. A good example of this phenomenon occurs during the holiday season. At Christmas, consumers have an increased demand for cash, and banks will draw down on their reserves, placing a higher demand on the overnight reserve market; this increases the federal funds rate. So when the media says there is a change in the federal funds rate (in basis points), don't let it confuse you; what they are, in fact, referring to is a change in the Fed's target.
If the FOMC wants to increase economic growth, it will reduce the target fed funds rate. Conversely, if it wants to slow down the economy, it will increase the target rate.

The Fed tries to sustain steady growth, without the economy overheating. When talking about economic growth, extremes are always bad. If the economy is growing too fast, we end up with inflation. If the economy slows down too much, we end up in recession.

Sometimes the FOMC maintains rate at current levels but warns that a possible policy change could occur in the near future. This warning is referred to as the bias. The means that the Fed might think that rates are fine for now, but that there is a considerable threat that economic conditions could warrant a rate change soon. The Fed will issue an easing bias if it thinks the lowering of rates is imminent. Conversely, the Fed will adopt a bias towards tightening if it feels that rates might rise in the future.

The Fed has more power and influence on financial markets than any legislative entity. Its monetary decisions are intensely observed and often lead the way for other countries to take the same policy changes.

Finally, all national banks and some state-chartered banks are part of the Federal Reserve System. They are referred to as member banks.

The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."

In other words, the Fed's job is to foster a sound banking system and a healthy economy. To accomplish its mission, the Fed serves as the banker's bank, the government's bank, the regulator of financial institutions and as the nation's money manager. 

Let's recap

• The Federal Reserve Board was created to in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible and more stable monetary and financial system.
• The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve heads up the Fed.
• Twelve Regional Federal Reserve Banks are the operating arms of the Fed.
• The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is the policy-making branch of the Federal Reserve.
• The Fed's mandate is "to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, stability of prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar and moderate long-term interest rates."
• The Fed serves as the banker's bank, the government's bank, the regulator of financial institutions and as the nation's money manager.
• Monetary policy is influenced through open-market operations, the discount rate and reserve requirements.
• The FOMC sets a target for the federal funds rate and attempts to reach that rate primarily through the use of open market operations.
• The FOMC typically meets eight times per year to make decisions on monetary policy.
• If the FOMC wants to increase economic growth, it will reduce the target federal funds rate (and vice versa).
• If the target rate has been increased, the FOMC sells securities. If the FOMC reduces the target rate, they buy securities.
• Reducing the target rate means that the fed is putting more money into the economy (and vice versa).
• Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke took over the position from Alan Greenspan on February 1, 2006. Greenspan had held the position since 1987. 

JUSTIFIED BELIEFS (Source: Chris Redford)

Every justified belief that we have about reality is ultimately grounded in evidence.

And, conversely, beliefs that are not grounded in evidence and beliefs that are grounded in less evidence are unjustified and more weakly justified respectively.

Even in defending evidence, I have to use evidence to be justified.

Evidence is essential to the verification process.

In other words, I form beliefs about reality based on physical evidence. The strength of my belief should be directly proportional to the amount of evidence I have for them. If I ever doubt the validity of a conclusion I  make based on evidence, I can return to that evidence, re-examine it, and see if I come to the same conclusion. Even in defending evidence, I have to use evidence to be justified. Therefore, evidence is essential to the verification process.

Although my direct perception is the strongest evidence, it would be unfeasible for me to personally collect all the evidence I use for my beliefs; however, I can gather evidence indirectly in the form of the multimedia and testimonies given by other people. But, I cannot place as much confidence in multimedia and testimonials--written, spoken, or otherwise--as I can in direct physical evidence that I myself perceive.

Thus, if I want to maximize my confidence in a belief, I should only use indirect evidence given to me by other people as a starting point and then directly verify the physical evidence myself. If I refuse to do this for any belief, I must accept that my confidence in it should be lower than my confidence in a belief based on evidence that I have directly verified.

A LITTLE BIBLE STUDY

A little study of the Bible will reveal how absurd some of its writings are:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. ¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; ¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
~ Genesis 2:15 - 17

[Even as a child, I questioned: Why wouldn't God want people to have knowledge? What I rationalized is that it was the knowledge of evil that he didn't want people to have and that it was a package deal--that is, if you had knowledge, then you had both knowledge of good and evil. But, think about it: without knowledge humans would have been just as ignorant as the other animals. For a supreme being to want that of us is absurd.]

1 Now the serpent was craftier than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

² The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³ but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
~ Genesis 3:1 - 5

[If snakes talked then, why don't any snakes talk now?
Moreover, history reveals that the snake was correct in that the Bible says: “Adam had lived 130 years.” (Genesis 5:3)

But, like a gullible Christian, I rationalized that the death would be spiritual—not physical.
Then, if that is so, THE BIBLE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY. And, WE SHOULD GET THE LESSONS FROM IT BUT NOT BELIEVE THAT THE STORIES ARE TRUE.]

OCCAM’S RAZOR (by Chris Redford)

According to the principle called ‘Occam’s razor,’ when faced with two opposing explanations for the same set of evidence, our minds will naturally prefer the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions.

So if an event or process can be explained without an extra or superficial element, our minds will naturally shave that element away using Occam’s razor.

The explanation that makes the fewest assumptions and yet still accounts for all the evidence one has is the one that the mind will naturally accept.

SOMETHING MAY BE POSSIBLE; BUT WITHOUT EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO RATIONAL MOTIVATION TO BELIEVE IT.

The same is true for God—if everything that one thinks is true about God is NOT explainable through natural evidence then there becomes NO rational motivation to believe that there is a god.

So, THERE IS NO RATIONALLY MOTIVATING EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOD.

I WILL AVOID ARGUING ABOUT RELIGION

I have resolved to AVOID ARGUING with anyone about their beliefs. And, I will respect all beliefs. I have made this resolution because I realize that some people would be much worse without their religion. In other words, I have come to the realization that some people actually need religion. ~ Perman Wilson

THE PRIMARY PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF A PERSONAL GOD IS TO GIVE THE BELIEVER A SURROGATE PARENT.

SOME MINDS ARE ABLE TO BECOME INDEPENDENT OF PARENTAL FIGURES; OTHERS CANNOT AND FALL INTO SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR WITHOUT THEM.
MINDS IN THIS CATEGORY RELY ON RELIGION.

~ Chris Redford

IF NOT RELIGIOUS, WHY PRAY?

If 'LORD' means owner, then MY BRAIN IS MY LORD.
If 'GOD' means ruler, then MY BRAIN IS MY RULER.

If 'religious' means belief in something supernatural,
then I am NO LONGER religious.

Yet, I still pray, and I still say 'THANK YOU LORD'
and 'THANK YOU GOD.'
But who or what, you might ask, is it to whom I pray?
I PRAY TO MY LORD, which is MY GOD.

For me, prayer is no superstitious act.
When I pray, it is an act of self-suggestion
or communication with my subconscious mind.
I am communicating more deeply with my inner self.

A communal prayer achieves a similar purpose
for all in attendance.

So, I AM NO LONGER RELIGIOUS;
but, I AM VERY THOUGHTFUL;
and, I DO STILL PRAY.

THEISM MAY BE NEEDED BY SOME PEOPLE

The primary psychological function of a personal god

is to give the believer a surrogate parent.

Some minds are able to become independent of parental figures.

Some others cannot, and without such parental (or authoritative figures)

such mentally dependent people would fall into self-destructive behavior;

minds in this category may need to rely on religion.

MENTAL SLAVERY

MENTAL SLAVERY is much more enslaving than physical slavery because a person who is physically enslaved knows it, while one who is mentally enslaved doesn't.

Harriet Tubman said, "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed more if only they knew they were slaves."

HYPNOTISM, MIND-CONTROL, AND RELIGION ARE AWESOME METHODS OF ENSLAVEMENT.

Unfortunately, many people who are mentally enslaved by religion revere their religion and thus foolishly enjoy their enslavement.

Voltaire's words are just as true today as when he first uttered them:

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO FREE FOOLS FROM THE CHAINS THEY REVERE."

Please watch the following documentary to find how one individual escaped his mental slavery:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/

AN AWESOME VIDEO: WHY I AM NO LONGER A CHRISTIAN

This video is very empathetic towards both Christianity and atheism, but rests upon the theoretical foundation of ethics. It is candid but quite respectful. It is objectively rather than subjectively presented. IT IS BY FAR THE BEST VIDEO THAT I'VE SEEN THAT EXPLAINS A RATIONAL TRANSITION FROM THEISM TO ATHEISM. It is well worth the time it takes to watch every bit of it at least twice.

Click on the following link:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/

IT ALL ADDS UP

"A hand up is better than a hand out." ~ Sybil Mobley

Most of us normally perform far below our capabilities simply because we lack faith in ourselves.

Realistic self-confidence and wholesome self-esteem are your keys to unlock your doors to your success.

Or, the lack of self-confidence and self-esteem are the locks that imprison and keep you from experiencing your success and achievement.

Self-confidence and self-esteem gives us courage to persist, persevere, and progress in the present as we prepare for the future.

But how do we build self-confidence and self-esteem?

Well, they don't come all at once; they build up as one learns by endeavoring to become successful. Every successful attempt (and even unsuccessful attempts from which one learns) adds up. So, you gain self-confidence by both learning and trying--even if you experience temporary failure.

REMEMBER: Nothing overcomes losses but persistence.

So, as Jim Valvano said: "Don't give up. Never give up!"

Everything you learn (even in losses) eventually add up to successes.

LOVE MAKES US HAPPY

To love others makes us happy. ~ Kenny "Babyface" Edmonds

Love is the glue that holds friendship together. ~ Antonio "L.A." Reid

Friendship is built upon love. You can say that a true and loyal friendship is an exceedingly rare and wonderful thing--like a happy marriage or a successful partnership. It needs attention, care, guarding, and above all, it needs to be needed. ~ Dennis Kimbro

Like all other emotions, love attracts love.
If you love all people, you will never be without a wealth of love.
With love, you get in the act of giving.
And, it is love that creates and sustains happiness.
~ Perman Wilson

TEN LIFE LESSONS (from Albert Einstein)

1.  Follow your curiosity.
2.  Perseverance is priceless.
3.  Focus on the present.
4.  The imagination is powerful.
5.  Make mistakes.
6.  Live in the moment.
7.  Create value.
8.  Don't expect different results.
9.  Knowledge comes from experience.
10. Learn the rules and then play better.

TWELVE THINGS TO DO TO BE HAPPY

EXPRESS GRATITUDE:

·         When you appreciate what you have, what you have appreciates in value.

·         If we aren't thankful for what we already have we will have a hard time ever being happy.

BE OPTIMISTIC:

·         People who think optimistically see the world as a place packed with endless opportunities, especially in trying times.

AVOID OVER-THINKING AND SOCIAL COMPARISON:

·         Comparing yourself to someone else can be poisonous

·         The only person you should compare to yourself is yourself before now.

PRACTICE ACTS OF KINDNESS:

·         Selfless helping someone is a super powerful way to feel good inside.

NURTURE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS:

·         The happiest people on the planet are the ones who have deep, meaningful relationships.

DEVELOP STRATEGIES FOR COPING:

·         It helps to have healthy strategies for coping pre-rehearsed, on-call, and in your arsenal at your disposal.

FORGIVE:

·         Harboring feelings of hatred is horrible for your well-being.

INCREASE FLOW EXPERIENCES:

·         Flow is a state in which it feels like time stands still.

SAVOR LIFE’S JOYS:

·         Deep happiness cannot exist without slowing down to enjoy the joy.

COMMIT TO YOUR GOALS:

·         Magical things start happening when we commit ourselves to doing whatever it takes to get somewhere.

BE HUMANE:

·         When we are humane we have empathy for others.

·         When we have empathy for others we are neither excessively proud nor lacking in self-esteem.

TAKE CARE OF YOUR BODY:

·         Taking care of your body is crucial to being the happiest person you can be.

SUCCESS

The secret to success is to learn to do what you cannot do,

practice doing what you have to do even if you don't want to,

and stubbornly, patiently, and adequately complete the necessary tasks

that will achieve objectives that will eventually lead to the successful achievement
of YOUR PREDETERMINED, WORTHWHILE GOALS. 

~ Perman Wilson

There is an old saying that goes, "It is impossible to succeed without suffering."

Thus, failure becomes the final test of persistence. 

He who has never failed has also never succeeded.

It is impossible for success to be easy.

Success is difficult; it is gut-wrenching, it is pain-inducing;

and it is built upon inconvenience.

Success is a marathon, not a sprint.

Success seems to follow a kind of NATURAL SELECTION process.

Only those individuals who are willing to repeatedly try after repeatedly failing,

those who refuse to let defeat keep them down,

those who seem to know that success can be theirs if they just stay with it long enough,

finally win the fruits of life.

After failing many times in her bid for political office, former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm 

gave a clue to her secret of success: "The thing to try when all else fails is AGAIN."

Most men and women who have hit their mark will admit that just as they felt they were finally reaching

the point in life on which they had set their hearts, the rug was pulled out from under them

and they found themselves back at the beginning.

Only those who can hang in there long after the crowd has left will drink from the victor's cup. 

REPEATED VICTORIES OVER YOUR PROBLEMS ARE THE RUNGS ON YOUR LADDER OF SUCCESS. 

MAKE YOUR BREAKING POINT YOUR TURNING POINT.

~ Dennis Kimbro

COOPERATION IS A KEY TO SUCCESS

If we cooperate for mutual benefit, WE become more powerful.

According to an old Eastern parable, two beggars formed a symbiotic relationship:
one was blind and the other was born without legs.
the blind man was strong enough to carry the legless man on his back.
He became the legs for the lame man.
In return, the lame man became the eyes for the blind one.

MAKE WISE DECISIONS

"It's pretty hard for the Lord to guide you if you haven't made up your mind which way you want to go."       ~ Madame C. Walker

YOUR GREATEST GIFT IS THE POWER OF CHOICE.

We must continue to make choices--choices that will eventually determine our destiny.

CHOOSING THE RIGHT ATTITUDE IS THE BEST CHOICE WE CAN MAKE.

NO EXCUSES, NO FAULT, CONSENSUS, & COLLABORATION

"There aren't really enough crutches in the world for all the lame excuses."
~ Bill Demby, physically challenged athlete and motivational speaker

Excuses don't help; results are the only things that matter.

Don't blame anyone--not even yourself; instead, discover the shortcoming and foster improvements.

Don't manipulate or boss people; instead, seek fair and mutual agreement.

Don't compete with your teammates; instead, harmoniously cooperate with all members of your team and work together to achieve the primary objectives that will mutually benefit all stakeholders.

LAW OF CORRESPONDENCE

The law of correspondence acknowledges the correspondence (or connection) between your ideality (your mental world) and your reality (your physical world). Each one affects the other.

Your thinking affects your body, which may also cause your body to affect your  physical environment.

On the other hand, your bodily sensations and observations affect your thinking.

THE UNIVERSAL LAW CALLED: 'USE IT OR LOSE IT'

'USE IT OR LOSE IT' means that if you don't continue to practice or use an ability, you might lose the ability. For example, if a person doesn't exercise his or her physical body, he or she will likely lose strength, endurance, and stamina. Similarly, if a person doesn't practice a new skill, such as driving a car or speaking a foreign language, he or she may forget or lose that skill. The same is true for the ability to learn and remember new information, do well with problem-solving, etc. Practicing, that is "using" these abilities helps improve them. Not using them often leads to less ability.

SUMMARY CHECKLIST OF THE USES OF RATIONAL THOUGHT (By Maxwell Maltz, M.D., F.I.C.S.)

1. It is the job of rational, conscious thought to examine and analyze incoming messages, to accept those that are true and reject those that are untrue.

2.  It is the job of the conscious rational mind to form logical and correct conclusions.

3.  It is the job of conscious rational thought to decide what you want, select the goals you wish to achieve, and concentrate on these rather than on what you do not want.

4.  It is the job of your conscious mind to pay strict attention to the task at hand, to what your are doing and what is going on around you, so that these incoming sensory messages can keep your automatic mechanism currently advised of the environment and allow it to respond spontaneously.

LAW OF HABIT

Thought is the force underlying all acts; repeated actions formulate habits; a system of habits constitutes a character; and, one’s character largely determines one’s destiny.

And what is meant by this? Simply this: Every conscious act is preceded by a thought. Your dominating thoughts determine your dominating actions. Repeated acts crystallize themselves into a habit. The aggregate of your habits is your character.

Whatever, then, you would want to be your character you must look well to the character of every thought you entertain. If there is an act that is not in your best interest to do or a habit that you would not wish to acquire, you must guard against thinking about such.

In other words, guard your mind from negative thoughts; and, whenever one gets into it, displace it with positive thinking. Don’t let a negative thought give birth to some negative act. It is a simple psychological law that any type of thought, if entertained for a sufficient length of time, will, by and by, reach the motor tracks of the brain, and finally burst forth into action. And, repeated actions build strongly resistant habits.

LAW OF BELIEF

The universal law of belief states that we do not believe what we see, we rather see what we have already decided to believe.

LAW OF SUBSTITUTION

Brian Tracy, in his book Maximum Achievement, explains the Law of Substitution this way:

“It states that your conscious mind can hold only one thought at a time, and that you can substitute one thought for another. The ‘crowding out’ principle allows you to deliberately replace a negative thought with a positive thought.”

It is virtually impossible to eradicate a thought from your mind unless you fill the space with something else. 

The more you try not to think about something, the more you think about it.

And, according to Sigmund Freud, when a thought is deliberately forgotten it just recedes into the subconscious mind where it can cause havoc without the person ever knowing the cause.

So, rather than trying to forget negative thoughts it is better to replace them with positive thoughts. 

LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

Things that you think, say, and do will be causes that have effects on something or somebody even if on nothing or no one but your own mind and your own body.

LAW OF ATTRACTION

For me, the law of attraction works in this way:

You tend to attract or are attracted to that which you think about.

NATURE IS OUR CREATOR

Humans are the helpers and interpreters of nature. Humans have only acted rationally and comprehensively in so far as we have learned about and adapted to nature. By experimenting with nature or observing nature humans have come to perceive nature’s order and learn nature's laws.  Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another. Thus the knowledge of nature’s laws and order is power. There is no strength that can break the causal chain of nature, and nature cannot be conquered but by being obeyed.  Accordingly the twin goals—human science and human power—come in the end to be one. To be ignorant of the related causes and effects is to be frustrated in actions.

Our creator has clearly defined mental guidelines to direct our path: The laws of attraction, cause and effect, substitution, belief, habit, use or lose, and correspondence are only a few. Each guideline leads us to the safest and most fruitful path to travel. There is law and order in the universe. These rules for the road plant our feet on firm ground. They are words of reality that can provide light and uplift for our immediate pathways, and they can offer a beam of light down the corridors of our uncertain tomorrows.

Thus knowledge of nature’s laws and order is power, but mere knowledge is insufficient to keep an individual from acting like a fool. Nevertheless, obey these laws and prosper, disregard them and fail. 

UNLESS YOU ARE A CRITICAL THINKER, YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN REPEATEDLY TOLD

Hypnotism is nothing more than suggestion and susceptibility to suggestion.

Culture is strongly hypnotic. Culture hypnotizes its subjects by use of repetition. If someone hears or reads something often they are more inclined to believe that it is true. Culture also hypnotizes its subjects by using their want to be like 'everybody else' (to be normal); most people think that if most people believe that something is true, then it must be true.

Of course, one's belief may be a fallacy instilled by one's culture. Take 'RELIGION' for example:

If you were born in India you would probably be a HINDU.

If you were born in China, you would probably believe in Taoism.

If you were born in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, or Sri Lanka you would most likely believe in the Theravada Buddhism.

If you were born in Tibet, Bhutan, or Korea, you would most likely believe in Mahayana Buddhism.

A person born in Saudi Arabia would most likely believe in Islam.

And, one born in the USA would most likely believe in Christianity

WITH ABILITY COMES RESPONSIBILITY

We were not the source of our existence. We find ourselves born into a world we didn't choose and at first had no control—a world not of our own making and for the most part indifferent to our concerns.

The existentialist conceptions of freedom and value arise from a view of the individual. Since as adults we are ultimately responsible for our inner world, we can think subjectively or objectively, accurately or inaccurately, realistically or fancifully, optimistically or pessimistically, pragmatically or idealistically. We have freedom over our internal nature, and the source of our value is determined both by how we think, what we say, what we do, and what we don't do.

Given that we have independent mental potential, we are free to think independently for ourselves. We can, of course, let others do our thinking for us (and, of course, it is wise to follow a leader at times), but the individual alone can create himself or herself; those who don't have no personality--such a person is a copy of someone else's personality. 

It is an existentialist view that we create our own nature. First, we are born into existence without a predetermined nature and only later do we construct our nature or essence through our thoughts and actions.

In other words, our existence precedes our nature. As human beings with the potential to think independently, we have the ability to self-create or re-create ourselves.

Existentialists are opposed to the traditional view that the essence of a person precedes that person's existence. In other words. existentialists do not believe that we have a given nature prior to birth that predetermines our ultimate purpose or value. 

Correctly understood, it is the individual who is ultimately responsible for determining his or her purposes and values.

Of course, as children we did not have the physical maturity or sufficient experience to be responsible for our own decisions; but, as mature adults with the potential to think for ourselves, we are responsible for doing so. To abdicate this responsibility by allowing our minds to be programmed and controlled by cultures, traditions, other people, or institutions is irresponsible.

PRAGMATIC ADVICE FOR MODERATION

The following advice is found in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7:15 -17)

IN THIS MEANINGLESS LIFE....

                                                                                                                                                                    

A good human being may die while another lives on, even though he or she is evil. So don't be too good or too wise--why kill yourself?

But don't be too wicked or too foolish, either--why die before you have to?

AVOID BOTH EXTREMES.

PROCESSES THAT DEFINE A RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING

PERCEPTION provides us with information.

MEMORY stores the information from perception for future use.

THINKING utilizes the knowledge provided by perception and memory and combines and organizes it into new patterns and combinations.

PERCEPTION represents the present.

MEMORY reinstates past experiences.

THINKING reaches toward the future, toward something that has yet to be brought into existence.

Customarily, all three of these processes (PERCEPTION, MEMORY, & THINKING) are going on at the same time; together they constitute what is called COGNITION, a group of processes by which a person achieves knowledge and command of his or her external and internal worlds.

If a person possessed only the ability to perceive, he or she would be bound to the immediate present. Add memory to perception, and a person becomes a creature with a past as well as a present. By adding the power of thought, a person is able to project himself or herself into the future. Through thought, a person can rearrange both his or her internal and external worlds to suit his or her fancy and his or her needs.

THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT MENTAL PROCESS THAN THINKING, UNLESS IT BE THAT OF TRANSFORMING THOUGHT INTO APPROPRIATE ACTIVITY.

Thinking is an active search for something that the person wants and needs. It is an internal trying-out process, a testing of and an experimenting with reality. It reflects a need to explain and to understand, and a desire to create.

TO PERCEIVE THE WORLD CORRECTLY, TO REMEMBER ACCURATELY, TO THINK EFFECTIVELY, AND THEN TO ACT APPROPRIATELY--THESE ARE PROCESSES THAT DEFINE A RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING.

FAITH AND FACT ARE TRUE

PERMAN WILSON'S DISCOVERY

Because we live in two worlds (one mental and the other material), each one of us has its own truth--one real and the other ideal.

For something to be deemed true in one's mental world, one has only to believe it.

For something to be deemed true in one's material world, it has to be observable and verifiable.

In the mental world a mere belief may be called a faith.

In the material world a verifiable observation is called  a fact.

PRAGMATISM

William James (January 11, 1842 - August 26, 1910) was an American philosopher and psychologist who trained as a physician who trained as a physician and earned his M.D. degree at Harvard. He was the first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States. He also wrote influential books on pragmatism, psychology, educational psychology, the psychology of religious experience, and mysticism.

In his book, published in 1907, entitled Pragmatism, James suggested the division of philosophers into two distinct groups:

(1) "TENDER-MINDED" and
(2) "TOUGH-MINDED."

To the first group belong the rationalists, those "going by principles," the idealists, believers in free will, religious and optimistic thinkers.

To the second belong the empiricists, those "going by fact," the materialists, determinists, and irreligious and pessimistic ones.

James himself was striving for a philosophical position which would satisfy both types of philosophers, and the pragmatic method he proposed was meant "primarily as a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise may be interminable."

It consists in asking, "What practical difference would it make to anyone if this rather than that notion were true?"

If there is no practical difference, then the dispute is idle.

But it is obvious, for instance, that belief in a benevolent Creator and ruler of the universe makes a tremendous difference in the life of the believer. In this way theological and metaphysical statements were given a kind of respectability through James' "pragmatic" theory of truth.

According to it, A BELIEF IS TRUE WHEN IT IS "SATISFYING," "USEFUL," "EXPEDIENT."

In other words, IT IS THE RESULT OF THE BELIEF THAT COUNTS. IF WE ACT UPON A BELIEF AND IT "WORKS," THEN IT IS TRUE.

Unfortunately, the pragmatic theory of truth has only a limited application. It clearly does not apply to such statements as "The earth revolves around the sun," even though it might be more satisfying to believe that we are at the center of the universe and not inhabitants of a minor planet.

JAMES OBVIOUSLY CONFUSED ONE OF THE WAYS OF FINDING TRUTH WITH WHAT TRUTH IS. UTILITY IS MERELY ONE OF THE TESTS OF TRUTH, NOT TRUTH ITSELF.

The philosophical position that James presented in his book 'A Pluralistic Universe (1909) is the expression of his being a composite of the two types into which he divided philosophers. He was a mixture of tough-mindedness and tender-mindedness, trying to satisfy the demands of reason and scientific matter-of-factness with the demands of the heart. He projected this inner conflict onto the universe, which for him was not a harmonious whole, not a 'uni-' but a 'pluri-verse'; conflicting purposes and cross-currents seem so obvious that he considered "the religion of common people, polytheism," closer to the truth than monotheism.

THE ADVANTAGE OF VIEWING THE UNIVERSE AS "UNFINISHED" AND GOD AS NOT OMNIPOTENT IS THAT IT ALLOWS US TO SEE HUMANS AS FREE TO SHAPE OUR OWN FUTURE, AND AS CO-WORKERS OF GOD.

This view of the universe and of God was what William James called "the melioristic type of theism" (in Latin 'melior' means 'better'); this view adumbrates the possibility of gradual improvement of the human condition; IT IS A MIDDLE POSITION BETWEEN 'CRUDE NATURALISM' AND 'SUPERNATURAL ABSOLUTISM.'

THE RATIONAL RELIGION OF PERMAN WILSON

MY RATIONAL RELIGION: 

I believe in nature, humanity, and my own mind. 

In order to survive and thrive, I have to learn and obey the laws of nature.

To get along well with other good and fair people, I engage responsibly in good and fair social agreements.

I must persistently use my own mind to learn and improve in order to be healthy, happy and wholesome. 

To put my rational religion into the best operative perspective for myself, I have chosen to believe that my God is a trinity--nature, humanity and my own mind. 

Unlike most people who use the name, 'God,' I have a rational definition for the concept. 

I define 'god' to mean ruler. 

When I write the name 'God' with a capital 'G,' I am referring to each one of the elements in my trinity working together in harmony. 

Thus, for me: (1) NATURE is god of this universe. (2) HUMANITY is god of this planet. (3) MY OWN MIND is god of my own body.

KNOWLEDGE VS. WISDOM

KNOWLEDGE comes from INFORMATION or OBSERVATION.

WISDOM comes from CRITICALLY THINKING about knowledge.

BUT WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

WHAT EXACTLY IS ATHEISM?

Some people have a gross misconception as to what atheism is or means.

Atheism is NOT a religion or philosophy or belief.

Atheism  IS a non-belief in theism.

Theism is a belief in a supernatural god.

So, ATHEISM has no belief to defend. It is simply A NON-BELIEF IN THEISM.

WHY I CALL NATURE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE

NATURE is the first cause of any existence.

Nature has no beginning and no end. 

Although life exists in it, nature is not life itself, and it is mechanical--that is, it does not think or feel as human beings do; however, scientists strive to discover its laws, and technicians use the laws that scientists discover.

If persons or groups do not obey or conform to the laws of nature, then they will cease to exist.

MAKING AND BREAKING HABITS & ATTITUDES

Let's start with with two key terms: 'conditioning' and 'stimulus.' Professional psychologists have referred to the common term 'habit' as 'conditioning.' A stimulus (stimuli is plural) is a term that refers to the cause of an action, reaction, or response.

The following information is from a great book about self-improvement, entitled: 'The New Psycho-Cybernetics.' The author of this great book is Maxwell Maltz, M.D., F.I.C.S.:

In much the same way that you automatically obey or respond to the ring of the telephone, we all become conditioned to respond in a certain way to various stimuli in our environment.

The word "conditioning" in psychological circles grew out of Pavlov's well-known experiments where he "conditioned" a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, by ringing it just before presenting food to the dog.

This procedure was repeated many times. First, the sound of the bell. A few seconds later, the appearance of food. The dog "learned" to respond to the sound of the bell by salivating in anticipation of the food.

Originally, the response made sense, the bell signified that food was forthcoming, and the dog got ready by salivating. However, after the process was repeated a number of times, the dog would continue to salivate whenever the bell was rung, whether or not food was immediately forthcoming. The dog had now become "conditioned" to salivate at the mere sound of the bell. Its response made no sense and served no good purpose, but it continued to respond in the same way out of habit.

There are a great many "bells," or disturbing stimuli, in our various environmental situations, to which we have become conditioned to and to which we continue to respond out of habit, whether or not the response makes any sense. But you are NOT a poor, dumb animal who must go through life so unwittingly and easily manipulated and controlled. You ARE a human being with creative powers, with the power of rational thinking, with the ability to assert yourself. YOU MUST DECIDE to be "worked like a dog" or to be your own person, to be controlled or to be in control. This is a decision with far-reaching consequences. It is the answer to the question, how can I get respect in a disrespectful world?

A REALITY CHECKLIST:

It's not what's ideal; it's what's real.

It's not faith; it's fact.

It's not what's personal; it's what's correct.

It's not the thought; it's the act.

It's not what you think it is; it's what it actually is.

It's not the particular; it's the universal.

It's not the subjective; it's the objective.

It's not what you want; it's what you have.

It's not what you think; it's what you do.

TO SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE

The following, although I take full responsibility for its contents as my words, have been inspired by Dr. Maxwell Maltz,Robert Jett, and Keith Seymour: 

What each of us really wants, deep down, is more LIFE--something that may be termed ‘A SOARING SPIRIT' (or, simply stated, to be ‘LIVELY’ ‘HAPPY’ AND ‘FREE’)—to ‘SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE’ is to live one’s life persistently andconsistently experiencing a liveliness unrestricted by self-image-imposed limitations; artificial limits or mental slavery instilled in one’s mind by one’s present environment, past experiences, or cultural dictations and limitations (i.e., racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, ideological indoctrination, or social stratification into classes).

Happiness, success, peace of mind--whatever your own conception of supreme good may be—may be conceptualized as an experience of SOARING LIKE AN EAGLE. When we experience expansive emotions of happiness, self-confidence, and success, we ENJOY LIFE MORE.

And, to the degree that an individual inhibits his or her abilities, frustrates his or her natural potential, and allows himself or herself to suffer anxiety, fear, self-condemnation and self-hate, such individual literally chokes off the life force available to him or her to spiritually (in regards to thoughts and emotions) SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE; and, he or she essentially turns his or her back on the gifts that nature has given him or her.