You Can Be Pro Facts and Truth But Not Anti-Religious

Be Pro Facts and Truth Not Anti-Religious

If you champion facts and truth, it does not mean you are anti-religious.  Some religious traditions help preserve and protect the tools of consciousness development.  But some are not.  Some are mythology and superstition.  Do you know the difference?

Just because you value evidence and facts does not mean you are anti-religious.  We are thankful for those religions that developed and preserved the methods for exploring consciousness.  These insightful pioneers give us the tools we call spiritual technologies.

Be Pro Facts And Truth

We are creatures who love to explore.  So, it is only natural to explore the inner world of consciousness.  Many ancient civilizations spent a lot of time and effort studying the inner realms of awareness.  We are thankful for their research and diligence.

“We should not discount the wisdom within the stories of Krishna, Mithra, Apollo, Zeus, or Jesus.  The analogies and metaphors within these mythologies point us to the transcendent. They implore us to create our own path using those tools that expand awareness and consciousness.” — Guru Tua

Pro facts not anti-religious support the traditions promoting Consciousness development

We begin by clarifying the fundamental differences between the practice of processes and the belief in mythology and superstition.  You don’t need to believe in mythology or superstition to use methods for exploring consciousness.  We need to learn how to use myths and stories as examples to show us how to create a path of our own.

Pro Facts Not Anti-Religious

We must be careful not to get caught in the mind trap of faith and belief.  Religious tradition, mythology, and superstition should never supersede science.  Mythologies are analogies and metaphors for the spiritual experience.  We should not use these as anchors that overshadow evidence and truth.  But as we discussed before, legends can be tools for enlightenment if used correctly.

“I am proud to be pro facts but not anti-religious.  I am thankful for the religious traditions which preserved the knowledge of consciousness development tools.   Unfortunately, to communicate the knowledge of these tools, they use stories.  These stories became myths and eventually, some myths became religions.” — Guru Tua

One way to tell which traditions are healthy is to test them with science and logic.  The scientific method favors evidence on which to base conclusions.

We think everyone should use tools to enhance their critical thinking skills.  Rational thinking and common sense are essential for a well-rounded spiritual path.

These are the skills that help you determine the facts from fiction.  They help keep you on track with personal development instead of becoming distracted by superstition.

“Nonbelievers are not anti-religious, they are anti-fraud and anti-deception.” — Steve Fowler

It is the traditions that stand up to scientific scrutiny that we champion.  These storehouses of tools for changing consciousness stand up to scientific scrutiny.  The fact is, these tools don’t need religious mythology or superstition for them to work.   It’s one sign they are safe and effective.  This assessment and scrutiny do not make us anti-religious.  We merely uncover the facts that expose ineffective and harmful religious mythology and superstition.  When you use these processes, you will be pro facts and truth.

Pro Consciousness Development

You’d think employing methods to develop our potential would be something that religions would embrace, but you’d be wrong.  It’s just the opposite.  Organized religion doesn’t want you to become a freethinker.   They certainly don’t want you to research and compare their mythologies with others.

Many religions discourage the use of any tools which improve your critical thinking skills.  They don’t want their customers to practice meditation.  Nor do they want them to use other methods which expand awareness.  Why do they discourage these helpful practices?  These kinds of pro-consciousness development techniques make you harder to control.  You will be less susceptible to their propaganda.

The Observer is the person you talk to inside your head.  This person has the potential to see beyond the boundaries of myth and superstition.  All you need are the right tools that help you remove the barriers of religion.  The path of development focuses on learning tools to free your consciousness.

Everyone has spiritual gifts locked away in their DNA.  Using the right tools will unlock these gifts, setting our spiritual walk into motion.

The Approach and Obstacles to Finding Facts

The PEW research institute (1) conducts research into opinions and behavior.  One topic they looked at was how people deal with information overload.  They want to find out how people find data.  The survey data showed the common obstacles to finding facts, providing three takeaways.  The data also showed how people could be grouped by how they seek information.  Here are the factors that affect the ability to seek the facts and truth:

  • What is their level of interest, from casual to intense interest?
  • What time and resources are they willing to exert to determine and understand the facts?
  • How much do they trust the sources available?
  • Are they ready to learn something that contradicts what they believe?
  • What other things are competing for their attention?
  • Do they have access to a variety of sources of information?
  • What level of education is required to understand the issue and data?

The more restrictive a culture, the fewer independent resources.  If the information challenges the status quo, there may be no independent voices.  Two factors stand out in the PEW research data.  Enthusiasm for the opinion and the level of trust in the source.  These factors underscore why political rhetoric with religious overtones can sway voting.

Rhetoric with religious overtones heightens emotions and makes people more enthusiastic and motivated to act.  If the data comes from a trustworthy source, they are more likely to agree with their argument.  It doesn’t matter if the argument is false.

The survey information they obtained shows how these factors affect people.  The data show three partitions along the continuum, from substantial interest and trust to those with low interest and trust.  Here are the three main takeaways.

1) The strong interest and trust group accounts for 38%.  They show relatively strong interest and trust in information sources and learning.  Not surprisingly, those with extremist religious views, especially those considered conservative and far-right, come from this group.  But, they are also highly influential with those in the other two groups.  So, if they “believe something,” it can translate into a belief that the other two groups pick up regardless of its basis in fact.

2) The next are those who make up almost half of the sampling 49%.  This group is disengaged and not enthusiastic about gaining more insight, especially when navigating digital information.

3) Another 13% occupy a middle ground.  They do not particularly trust information sources but show a higher interest in learning than those in the more information-wary groups.

Here are the groups for U.S. adults:

The Ready and Able—22%

On one end of the continuum are those with the highest interest and trust in their sources, making them the most motivated to act.  They have confidence in their sources’ accuracy but lack digital literacy.  More than half of this demographic are minorities.  31% are Hispanic, 21% are black, and 10% are from other racial and ethnic minorities, leaving 38% white.

The Trustworthy—16%

Along with the ready and able group, they are the most trustworthy.  Nearly one-in-six Americans have a high interest in and trust in their information sources.  This group is also confident in their digital skills.  The demographic of this group is primarily white, with high educational and socioeconomic status.  Nearly one-third of the trustworthy group (31%) are between 18 and 29, the highest share in this age range of any group.

The Curious But Somewhat Skeptical—13%

The category has a strong interest in current events but is somewhat skeptical of national news outlets, banks, and the government’s accuracy.  They have a strong distrust of some news organizations, like Fox News.  They learn new digital skills and have high social and digital technology knowledge.  The demographics of this group mirror the general population average, except that this group has slightly lower educational and socioeconomic status.

The Highly Skeptical—24%

Those highly skeptical of national news and information are less interested in current events than the groups above.  They typically have busy schedules, affecting their ability to research data.  The highly skeptical is in the middle-aged groups 35 to 50 and tend to be college graduates, white above average in their economic status.

The Extremely Skeptical—25%

At the far end of the continuum are those who are incredibly skeptical and the least interested in current events and news in general.  They are the least engaged with any social sources outside of employment.   Because of their lack of interest, they have low digital literacy and motivation to acquire information.  It distances them from other Americans.  Interestingly, this group is the most motivated by extreme religious beliefs and controversial theories.   The demographics of this group are predominately male (59%), and one-third are 65 or older.

The Implications of these Typologies

Typologies help us understand the culture and the forces which shape society.  They add insight into common demographic data by showing how people behave because of specific influences like religious indoctrination, propaganda, and conspiracy theories.

The data above proves that religious and political propaganda has an overall negative and oppressive effect on the health of everyone in the culture.

Information from the surveys shows the disparity in the ability of people to navigate digital technologies.  The lack of digital literacy makes some groups prone to follow inaccurate advice, presenting health concerns and culture.

On the side, some people are interested in building digital skills and information literacy.  On the other side, almost half of adults align with those who are skeptical of all digital technologies and information.  They depend on a small group of biased resources to gather information.

These are only the tip of the iceberg in analyzing this data.  However, it underscores the need for tools and technologies to help people upgrade their thinking and develop their potential.  What is hopeful is that these tools are readily available.

Tools for Expanding the Mind

There are many different methods for developing your potential; you don’t need to join a religion to use them.

We divide these tools into four major categories:

In Conclusion

It turns out that exploring consciousness is like exercise for the mind.  Consciousness development has nothing to do with religion.  But, if you are not anti-religious, this doesn’t mean you should be tolerant of dangerous religious doctrine.  One must learn to be for facts and truth.  Go upstream against the current of sectarianism pushed by the three most popular religions are the home to the most harmful bias and prejudice.   They justify everything from discrimination to genocide.

Mythology and superstition become more harmful when their superstitions become laws and regulations.  Everyone is entitled to have an imaginary friend or imaginary enemy.  But we should never make mythologies and superstitions the laws that govern others.

Being “pro facts, not anti-religious” is healthy.  It is the same as the difference between using tools and believing in myths.  It means we base decisions on evidence rather than mythology.

References

(1) How People Approach Facts and Information, The Pew Research Center. 

 

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply