18 May 2015
11 July 2013
The Ignorance of Religion: Applying the 80/20 Rule
But in real life, too many times, the situations that result are far from comedic: Families torn apart, relationships severed, communities uprooted, lives destroyed, even war. Imagine how much conflict could be avoided in relationship at work, politics, even international affairs, if the rush to judgment would be replaced with patient discernment? This is the basis for the 80/20 rule to World Peace.
The 80/20 rule to World Peace implies that 80% of world conflicts can be resolved if everyone accepted a 20% chance that they COULD be wrong.
Have you ever been in an inter-personal conflict and NOT think to yourself, “I’m right.” Have you ever continued conflict thinking, “Maybe, I’m wrong?”
The problem with conflict is everyone believes they are right, or everyone else is wrong, which is, in fact, true, from their own perspectives. Everyone believes they are right because that is the basic way we know how to interact with our world. Every decision we make is a reaction to what we believe to be true. So not only are each of us right, but everyone does what they believe to be in their best self interests.
Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews all are right from each of their own perspectives. Russians, North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and Americans; conservatives, liberals, progressives, each believe likewise.
The “I’m right,” culture leads to a world of absolutes causing people to stop listening, stop learning, and refusing to look at other perspectives. This leads to ignorance, intolerance, and eventually conflict.
Therefore the 80/20 Rule to World Peace asks that since EVERYONE is right, in order to give peace a chance, simply adopt an attitude towards conflict that accepts a 20% chance that MAYBE you’re not. Or, for the especially proud, like myself, an adjustment to the rule would be to accept a 20% chance that MAYBE you don’t have all the information.
From a psychological perspective, people are uncomfortable with lingering questions. We prefer to live in conclusions and certainty. Therefore judgment is quickly made based on the information that is known or perceived. The information that is not known or even in conflict is then assumed to be what is the most common or logical based on our experience so a conclusion can quickly be made. And because we are “always right,” those conclusions usually become beliefs. This is what causes misconceptions, misperceptions, and miscommunication. This is what draws out our impulsive physical and emotional reactions to events.
By consciously acknowledging a lack of information, “Huh?” and a willingness to linger in uncertainty for a little while, we avoid the automatic judgments, “I can’t believe you did that,” which then turns on the inquisitive side of our psyche, “What the hell are you doing?”
It is the difference between trained and untrained, mature and immature, educated and uneducated. It is, or should NOT, be the difference between primarily logical and emotional decision-makers. But it should be included at the base of curriculum principles within ALL formal learning.
Should everyone accept the 20%, the result is at least 80% of the world’s conflicts could be resolved or even avoided from playground arguments, to marital conflicts, even world wars.
Most conflicts occur from one of three reasons: Pride, Desire, or Resources, translated into, “I’m right,” “I want,” “I need,” or any combination thereof, and each of them driven by absolutes.
What this is NOT is an abolishment to faith. Rather it is a willingness to accept an attitude of humility that MAYBE I don’t know everything. This provides the opportunity for an openness to seek further information, to gain a broader perspective, and to make more informed decisions.
The truth is, conflict will always exist. But reducing it would be a huge help. With discernment comes a life where conflict, like a comedy, can be a lot more laughable. But, don’t take my word for it, there is a 20% chance I could be wrong…
18 June 2013
Folly of Faith: Reaching Through the Darkness
12 June 2013
Folly of Faith Part 2: Faith vs. Religion
Recently, a friend of mine asked if I was religious. I mentioned that was not religious, but I was a was a person of faith. He was confused and asked again, looking for a simple yes or no. So I asked if he wanted to know if I was a part of a church, or what I believed in. He as many have equated the two to be one in the same. But there is a dramatic difference between faith and religion.
At one point during the ministry of Jesus, he and his disciples got into a boat to cross the lake. Tired from the journey, Jesus fell quickly asleep as the fishermen for once took control. Soon afterward, without warning, a storm came so that the waves swept over the boat, tossing it back and forth at will. The disciples, including the professional fishermen panicked. They rushed to Jesus and woke him saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown.” Jesus got up and reprimanded them saying, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then rebuked the wind and the waves, and all was calm.
The disciples were fully devoted loyal followers of Jesus. Not only were they first-hand witnesses to his teaching and miracles, they were participants. They had broken bread, passed out fish, carried the sick, and led the crowds. Yet, when as soon as they seemed to be out of sight of their master, as soon as it came to relying on another sense than tangible reason, they lost control. All that teaching, all that experience, all they had learned was still overcome by panic and fear.
Faith is not just a tradition, not just what happens on the day you attend church, but something that affects the very being of who you are. As mentioned in the previous article, faith is about believing in something to the point of action. I plop on my bed, ride in a car, eat Mom’s food without hesitation, without questioning, without fear. Faith is how we make decisions. Without it, we couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. How we act, react, our perceptions, feelings, and reactions are all results of our faith.
Religion is about a set of actions to build, perpetuate, support or most often demonstrate an assumed “faith.” Religion creates a predetermined set of actions for members and if you are a “member” your faith and the extent of that faith is defined by your adherence to to actions.
The disciples in the story followed Jesus, did what he said, did what they did because they believed it was the right thing to do. They believed in the actions. But when it came to core beliefs, that which affects our decisions and reactions, they failed. And in the end, their "good deeds" proved to be useless and ineffective in influencing their faith.
Sure, according to religion, we should believe in certain things, and to demonstrate that, we do certain things. But that’s the point. Religion is a set of actions or acceptable behavior we do to demonstrate or express beliefs, whereas faith itself determines our behavior.
This is another example of a problem of labels. I remember walking into a church one hot summer day and hearing members whisper to each other, “He sure doesn’t love the Lord.” This was pretty conservative church, and apparently, my dedication to my beliefs was expressed in wearing pants, rather than commitment to love, charity, and the other virtues I thought were paramount.
Truth starts with observation, Religion starts with assumption.
It is the Religious that prefer tradition over trust, ritual over reality, and liturgy over love.
But this is more than churches, it is the organization of any belief: Political parties, social groups, movements. All share the fundamental adherence to express belief by a predetermined set of actions. And followers of those specific beliefs are faithful, when they follow those traditions.
But if it is real faith, why would someone need to tell you what actions you should do?
Is there any wonder that a majority of the world claims faith in some god, but most of the developed world prefers to remain secular? Society has lumped religion and faith into one category and therefore, either you accept the traditional form of religion, either you fit into the right boxes, either you do what is expected and accept the tenants associated with your label, or you don’t believe in God.
After finding the following traditions fruitless, I decided to explore faith on my own terms. I started with the tenants of my faith: the existence of God and the Bible as his word. If God promised it, I would allow the boat to sway and trust Him for the outcome whatever that would be. For some reason, among the spiritual leaders of my church and even family, that was radical and extreme, so much so that one of the Pastors from confronted me and told me I was being irresponsible and would live to regret it.
Funny, being “good” was acceptable, following “faith” was not. Following the traditions, was tolerable; behaving according to beliefs was radical.
To those who are sincerely searching, to those looking for more, refuse to stay in the comfort of traditions, and explore your own faith to take you on the adventure of your life. And when the winds take you beyond your control, you’ll start to see what’s really there.
07 June 2013
The Folly of Faith
21 August 2012
A culture of crabs
18 December 2009
An American Identity Crisis
One of the purposes of this blog is to present various sides of issues so we can see different perspectives, and from that insight, hopefully, become better decision makers.
Below are two popular perspectives recently posted by Bruce Walker posting on the American Thinker.
“…Some believe that America is a unique nation, a nation built upon extraordinary and good moral values, and a country which is a microcosm of what the world should be. These people need not be Americans. Churchill, for example, was an unabashed admirer of America.
Other people believe that America is simply a very arrogant country, a nation inhabited with bumpkins who believe too much in God, and because of its religious faith and confidence, the antithesis of what the world should be. This animus flourishes outside America, but it also has a strong camp following in America.”
It certainly explains the differing approaches in policy we’ve seen over the years, including foreign affairs, economic policy, national defence, even on issues of health care.
Which one reflects our current leadership?
Which are you?