excerpt from above ↑ ;
"My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule of thumb to believe."
excerpt from ↑
"No belief will automatically remain alive in our minds. We need to hold on to our beliefs. If we commit to a belief and we are never reminded that the belief is true or real in our lives, the belief will eventually fade. For instance, someone with a particular religious belief must exercise that belief at some point or the belief will change, reduce itself or disappear altogether.
In order to hold on to beliefs, we have to practice those beliefs. Many people believe they can be successful in real estate, but if they don’t pursue their license and begin to practice, they will never be able to hold on to the belief that they can be successful. In our youth, we believe we can achieve some sort of greatness, some sort of goal, some sort of passion within us. As we grow older, if we did not chase down that belief, we can sometimes barely remember what the belief was."
excerpt from ↑
The development of beliefs without reason
"Beliefs without reason" are beliefs which we have been taught to hold without being given adequate reasons. If the teaching is sufficiently strong, the result is to inoculate us against the evidence.
You have probably heard conversations like this between parent and child..."Don't do that Johnny!"
"Why not, Mummy?"
I expect you have heard the conversation continue. What typically follows is a spurious reason to support the command..."Because I say so." [or some other authority figure says so]
"Because I'll punish you if you do it." [or someone else will]
"Because nice [or intelligent or liked or etc.] people don't do that."
"Because a police-person [or any other bogey person] will get you."
And so on.
Answers like these do not explain the prohibition. This is true even when parents (and others )think that is what they are doing. The effect such answers have is to teach the child to feel bad at certain thoughts, and good at certain other thoughts.
In due course the child internalises the beliefs and feelings. Thereafter (s)he may do what (s)he has been taught to do. We could say that the child has developed a conscience about this matter.
It is important to recognise what is being created by this approach. The child has taken in a mental construct -- a "meme" or belief transmitted from generation to generation.
The mental construct has both belief and feeling components. The beliefs tells us what to do. In other words, they provide the direction. The feelings are what reward us for being "good" or punishes us for being "bad". They provide the energy to act.
Beliefs without associated feelings have less influence on behaviour. A few years ago I heard a doctor talking on talk-back radio about how to quit smoking. One caller asked..."What is the easiest way you know to give up smoking?"
to which the doctor replied..."Have a coronary!"
The belief that smoking is harmful may not, of itself, be enough to bring about a change. A coronary attach, on the other hand, demonstrates that mortality is more than an empty concept. The risk of death provides the emotional component. Quitting is then more likely to occur.
The form of conscience mentioned earlier is an echo of the parental voice which told us what to do, or a nonverbal equivalent. The feeling component is provided by the parent's approval or disapproval. It need not be said out loud -- it is often conveyed by the parent's tone of voice, or other non-verbal behaviour.
Note that I am not saying that such beliefs are necessarily wrong. The point is this: beliefs without reason, and with feelings, shape our behaviour.
And here is the important implication... Giving reasons for changing the behaviour may not have any effect.
When you want to change a belief, you may well need an enabling belief which will replace the old one.
Be careful with these, making them realistic and not setting yourself up for disappointment. It can be more effective, for example, to believe that you can do public speaking than to immediately believe you are world-class at it. If you lack a skill that needs to be learned, believing you now have it is likely to lead to problems. It is better to believe you are able to learn (which is one of the most empowering beliefs you can have). Believing 'I can' can be more powerful than thinking 'I am'.
In a similar vein, if you thought yourself stupid, notice the different between thinking you are not stupid as opposed to being intelligent. There is a difference between 'Not A' and 'B', both of which may initially seem to be the opposite of 'A'.
The trick is to consider where the belief will take you, what will it let you think and do, and what evidence will it create, as in the next step.
Not-Knowing excerpt from ↑
In daily life, when we see, hear or touch something that we don’t recognise, we are instantly at our most alert. In that condition of ‘not-knowing’ we are in a state of alive, lithe awareness: asking questions, inviting input, open to learning, looking for significance and meaning…
These essays, most by practising psychotherapists, some of them Buddhists, take as their starting point the idea that not-knowing is fundamental to conscious reflection and the desire to know must always arise in the first instance from the self-awareness of not-knowing.
Another Internet search query from the site's logs:
Query: what is the riddle about Socrates that was spoken to Chairephon? Socrates is the wisest, and yet Socrates claims he has no wisdom.
That is the Socratic paradox, the riddle posed by Apollo's oracle at Delphic, and it is about wisdom in philosophy. Plato explains the paradox this way: Socrates' wisdom is that Socrates doesn't think he is wise when he is not. For when the people Socrates questions are shown that they don't know what they think they know, they go on thinking they do anyway, whereas Socrates is at least wise enough to know when he doesn't know (Apology 21d). His entire wisdom in philosophy according to Plato is this, that Socrates doesn't think he knows what he doesn't know, and, as Plato's dialog interprets the oracle's words, that is the only wisdom any human being can have (Apology 23b).
And so the form of expression is contradictory, but its meaning of course is not (It is akin to an oxymoron). Socrates has no wisdom other than the wisdom that he is not wise, and so he is both wise and not wise, in different senses of the word 'wise' of course.
The Socratic paradox, namely that the wisest of men has no wisdom beyond knowing that he is not wise, might also be called the Apollonian irony.-
This episode in the Meno highlights the philosophical and historical importance of Socratic ignorance. Western philosophy and science only get going when people begin to question dogmatically help beliefs. The best way to do this is to start out with a skeptical attitude, assuming one is not certain about anything. This approach was most famously adopted by Descartes (1596-1651) in his Meditations.
In actual fact, it is questionable how feasible it is to maintain an attitude of Socratic ignorance on all matters. Certainly, Socrates in the Apology doesn’t maintain this position consistently. He says, for instance, that he is perfectly certain that no real harm can befall a good man. And he is equally confident that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
Radical Openmindedness - How To Break Free Of Dogma & Beliefs
Leo talks of " No Knowing " in this video
excerpt from ↑
You can use the Socratic method to show someone that they are wrong, or at least imprecise, by getting them to agree with statements that contradict their original assertion. Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. Accordingly, this method focuses not so much on proving your point but on disproving the other person's point with a series of questions (elenchus), resulting in their aporia (puzzlement). Law schools use this method to teach students critical thinking skills. It is also popular in psychotherapy, management training, and in other classrooms.
I think Socrates , may of been trying to convey, " See all as a child.never seeing a thing before thus, ignornant,and when not knowing of a thing,topic,etc take the ego-less role of a child,,and say,simply "I don't know,explain please ".-me
The longer one holds a certain belief,the less likely one can break free from it. most likely.
Morality and group living
Frans de Waal and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Although morality awareness may be a unique human trait, many social animals, such as primates, dolphins and whales, have been known to exhibit pre-moral sentiments. According to Michael Shermer,
-the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
- attachment and bonding,
- cooperation and mutual aid,
- sympathy and empathy,
- direct and indirect reciprocity,
- altruism and reciprocal altruism,
- conflict resolution and peacemaking,
- deception and deception detection,
- community concern and caring about what others think about you,
- and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.
De Waal contends that all social animals have had to restrain or alter their behavior for group living to be worthwhile. Pre-moral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, a lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of a group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.
All social animals have hierarchical societies in which each member knows its own place. Social order is maintained by certain rules of expected behavior and dominant group members enforce order through punishment. However, higher order primates also have a sense of fairness. In a 2008 study, de Waal and colleagues put two capuchin monkeys side by side and gave them a simple task to complete: Giving a rock to the experimenter. They were given cucumbers as a reward for executing the task, and the monkeys obliged. But if one of the monkeys was given grapes, something interesting happened: After receiving the first piece of cucumber, the capuchin monkey gave the experimenter a rock as expected. But upon seeing that the other monkey got grapes, the capuchin monkey threw away the next piece of cucumber that was given to him.
Chimpanzees live in fission-fusion groups that average 50 individuals. It is likely that early ancestors of humans lived in groups of similar size. Based on the size of extant hunter-gatherer societies, recent Paleolithic hominids lived in bands of a few hundred individuals. As community size increased over the course of human evolution, greater enforcement to achieve group cohesion would have been required. Morality may have evolved in these bands of 100 to 200 people as a means of social control, conflict resolution and group solidarity. According to Dr. de Waal, human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in primate societies. Humans enforce their society's moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. Humans also apply a degree of judgment and reason not otherwise seen in the animal kingdom.
Psychologist Matt J. Rossano argues that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever-watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups. The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival. Rossano is referring here to collective religious belief and the social sanction that institutionalized morality. According to Rossano's teaching, individual religious belief is thus initially epistemological, not ethical, in nature. - wikipedia
There is no Common Religion known,
Thus a certain Religion has to be Socially constructed, it isn't presented by Nature, no Religion is a Common human
Yet to try to Form a " Idea of " the Unknown most likely is.