Just Be, There's Nothing to Believe In!

What are beliefs?

A profound and legitimate question anyone in search of intellectual coherence should ask themselves before subscribing to any idea, in order to avoid falling into a new belief system.

So it all depends on what we call belief. Is it a working assumption we can test through experience? Or a dogma we adhere to without any checks?

A Christian, for instance, may ‘believe’ in God without actually seeing him; a scientist may ‘believe’ in quarks because some theory predicts them, even though they can't see them; a person experiencing some form of energy manipulation may feel a change, but can they prove what has happened?

So it's not a question of belief, but rather of testing and verifying. The real question should be: what makes a belief different from experimental knowledge?

So what's left if you don't believe in anything?

Who says you have to believe in order to exist? Do we need beliefs to be conscious?

Newborn babies don't believe in anything, yet they do exist. Animals follow no dogma, yet they can act and perceive reality. We are perfectly capable of existing without any beliefs.

Ask yourself what would be left of you if you were to remove all your beliefs and influences.

This will certainly lead you to question the meaning of existence without beliefs. Why should there be an imposed external meaning? What if the issue was the question itself? 

Looking for external meaning amounts to accepting an imposed mental framework.

Does life actually need to make sense or is it our mind that wants to make some? What if this search for meaning were some kind of programming in itself?

Now the million dollar question: if you didn't have any external pressure, would you still have the same beliefs you have today?

But the real question lies elsewhere: why is it that we need to believe? Why do the majority of human conflicts arise from the confrontation of belief systems rather than direct experience?

Our clashes with those around us are often the result of conflicting beliefs on both sides. Many prefer to keep silent so as not to rock the boat. There's a good reason for calling anything 'mainstream', dominant in French : dominant thinking, dominant media, dominant religion and so on.

But when you agree with others for the sake of peace, does it really work? Or does it always come back to hit you like a boomerang?

The truth is we may avoid conflict, but we can never escape our own truth.

It goes much further: are our choices actually our own or mere responses to external pressure (usually from family and friends)?

You may be perfectly rational and wise, but no less manipulable through vulnerabilities you may not even be aware of. Intelligence is absolutely no guarantee of freedom. A brilliant hacker, for instance, may still be hijacked because of an emotional flaw; a brilliant chess player may lose if they get distracted.

So, if you were a hacker, what would be your security flaw?

Let's take this a step further: if tomorrow you were to lose everyone you know now, what would be left of your choices? More specifically, if you spent a year on your own,  what would you do differently?

When belief wears off, consciousness emerges. Reality requires neither faith nor adherence. Just your presence.

© La Pensine Mutine. All rights reserved. Reproduction prohibited.

Share: