Religiogenisis

Let me start by defining an acedemic term for doublethink that is more specific: cognitive dissidence (CD). In modern acedemic speak this was a term first used to describe the mental state of a doom-sayer the day after dooms-day. This person would be in a state of cognitive dissidence since his core internal beliefs were at odds with the real world (this is the difference from doublethink since doublethink can be two abstract ideas which are in contradiction). The person has predicted dooms-day on Dec 31, 1999 and it is now say 2pm on Jan 1. Another example is the cognitive dissidence a child experiences when they are abused by a parent: their biology gives them the belief there parent loves them but the facts are that the parent is hurting them.

One more clarification. Faith, as I will use it, is a belief based on nothing. Any belief has its roots in experience, reason or biological mechanisms but faith has none. It is a groundless assertion.

Ok now I need to briefly state my theory of religiogenisis.
Assert: All animals needs beliefs to survive (the sun will rise, the prey will run away, water is found there etc).
1) Humans pick one or more faith statements which satisfy their needs, hopes and desires.
2) Infer a system of behavior and beliefs from the faith statements.
3) (optional but common) Add ceremonies.

Example: Faith statement: The Montreal Canadians are the best hockey team. Ergo, all other teams are worse. Every game dress up and eat chips. CD example: we lost the big game. Solution: the ref was bought, this player was injured etc..

Ok, now the problem with this structure is that while the religion may end up being the same the reasons people join them are personal. The relative importance of the reasons one chose their faith statements is crucial.

One other key point before I continue: most religious people know very little about their faith (and not much about the ensuing religion). There are things like acedemic Anglicanism etc which are attempts to have intellectually rigorous philosophical constructs for the religion but they are only really for smart people to fool themselves. The average religious person simply repeats steps 2 and 3 at different times in their lives because of CD (like a child dies, tsunami etc). But unless something changes their reasons for the faith, the core remains. I've found most people of the same religion have very different #1's and what is "academically" accepted as #1 for the faiths is very often not what the sheep (in the non derogatory Christian sense) think.

If one wants to change a persona's mind about their faith/religion I have some thoughts based on the aforementioned hypothesis. I think discussing peoples religion is pointless since it is the effect and pointing out contradictions merely makes CD in the religious part and they will change their version or interpretation. Thus it's like trying to say what a cloud looks like. If you can challenge their faith statement(s) then you have some chance but this is hard and dangerous. These are very precious beliefs and most people become withdrawn or very defensive if you go near there. So one way if you are talking with a very smart and emotionally stable person is to get to the faith statement and get them to admit it is faith. That's usually a strong enough perturbation for most to redo #1 and a person like this may be able to reach atheism, breaking free of dogma and allowing themselves freedom of thought.

Proroguing parlamaent

Both sides have complained about things being undemocratic. Yet the decision is left to an unelected person who is our HEAD OF STATE! The idea of our system being democratic is thus purely moot. The fact that the decision was made by an unelected person is by definition undemocratic regardless of which way she decides. It seems Canadians are finally taking at better look at the system to which they are subscribed and not everything is sure of what they voted for. Hopefully this little exercise will inform more people of our system and maybe even precipitate the elimination of our undemocratic head of state.

Thoughts on the current Canadian political switch

I think the mistake the Conservatives are espousing is that people vote for a government or prime minister directly. In fact, they vote for a representative and the government is formed from the party with the most representatives or in combination with another party to make the most. The idea that a coalition is a subversion of democracy is a lie since we don't vote for the prime minister directly (as the US votes for the president). IF the leader of the liberal party in May(?) turned out to be a non-elected person, then that would be a better case.

I don't have strong feelings for either/any party, but I do find the current situation interesting. The best point was that if we had proportional representation we'd have had this situation anyways so it is, in that sense, democratic. On the sad side, we will likely get a cap-and-trade system instead of a carbon tax which was my preference.

See the problem is only one vote. That is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Did the majority vote against Harper, for continuation in the current turmoil etc. Having had the lowest turnout in an election in a long time can anyone say they have real democratic legitimacy when the population doesn't vote.