• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Be Afraid

Free episodes:

To me the difference between good parenting and indoctrination is in encouraging your children to question things and in accepting the possibility that they may develop opinions that are contrary to yours. Believe it or not, I was raised in a religious household, I was in church every Sunday as a child, until I was old enough to make up my own mind. I started to question religion at a young age and by my teens I realized that it had no real answers to the questions I was asking. My parents supported me in this and let me make my own decision when it came to whether or not I wanted to believe in religious doctrine. They never took a dogmatic approach where I had to believe what they wanted me to believe. That's the difference between indoctrinating your children and letting them come to their own understanding ...

Excellent post Muadib. Thanks for sharing. To zero in a bit more now, and here is where the line gets fuzzy. Suppose the same exposure you had as a child had resulted in a voluntary belief to go by the way of faith for much longer? Would the absence of parental force mean that you weren't indoctrinated? Children tend to absorb a lot just from the behavior of the people around them, and it could be argued that simply being raised in a religious household serves to automatically indoctrinate children, and that you were simply fortunate enough ( or unfortunate enough depending on your perspective ) to go through a period of self-induced religious deprogramming. That process involved asking questions and seeking answers. At what point did you come to realize that you should ask questions and that the answers required evidence rather than faith? Was there a pivotal issue or moment for you that you can share?
 
Excellent post Muadib. Thanks for sharing. To zero in a bit more now, and here is where the line gets fuzzy. Suppose the same exposure you had as a child had resulted in a voluntary belief to go by the way of faith for much longer? Would the absence of parental force mean that you weren't indoctrinated? Children tend to absorb a lot just from the behavior of the people around them, and it could be argued that simply being raised in a religious household serves to automatically indoctrinate children, and that you were simply fortunate enough ( or unfortunate enough depending on your perspective ) to go through a period of self-induced religious deprogramming. That process involved asking questions and seeking answers. At what point did you come to realize that you should ask questions and that the answers required evidence rather than faith? Was there a pivotal issue or moment for you that you can share?

Thank you and you're welcome. I don't agree that simply being raised in a religious household automatically indoctrinates someone. Don't get me wrong, it can, and the more rigid the belief system you're exposed to, religious or otherwise, the higher the danger level of indoctrination. Like I said in my last post, it's when we refuse to adapt or modify our beliefs with what the facts and evidence show that we become indoctrinated. Take the story of Noah's Ark, which is a story that even small children have trouble believing represents a 100% factual account of the events described in the bible. It's a nonsensical story of one man and his sons collecting two of every single animal on the Earth (physically impossible) and then building a boat larger than the largest wooden boats we can build today (also physically impossible) stocking it with enough food and water to feed however many thousands of animals (physically impossible) and then surviving a world wide flood for 40 days and 40 nights that left no evidence and disturbed nothing that it should have (coral formations, sediment deposits, etc) So, you have to, if you're not indoctrinated, attempt to reconcile the physical impossibility of the story plus the lack of evidence with your faith in the accuracy of the bible. Many Christians do this without issue, the story of Noah is a fable, not a literal retelling of events and the lesson is what's important, not the story itself, but there are some that want to hang onto their preconceived notion that the bible is 100% literal, factual truth. That requires that we deny so many different lines of evidence that it becomes even more ridiculous than the story itself.

As for my own journey, some of it was similar to what I describe above. Many Christians don't read the entire book that they base their faith on, they get the cherry picked passages from Sunday School or the holiday stories or whatever, and that's good enough for them. The more I read the bible, the more I had to question the stories and whether or not I wanted to worship a being that was so bloody, petty and vengeful. Dawkins has said that the god of the Old Testament is one of the most unpleasant, tyrannical and frankly insane characters in all of literature and I have to agree with him. His values and mine were just so different, you can rationalize it all you want but the bottom line is that most of these so called values have no place in modern society and we see that in the way they're used to oppress people that are different historically and today. That feeling led me to question the origins of the actual bible itself, which lead to textual criticism, which lead to me realizing that the bible was nothing more than a product of it's times. It's been handed down from generation to generation and changed for political and social reasons at the whim of individual translators. We see the evidence of that in the text itself, contradictions, inconsistencies, and mistranslations abound. Once you realize all of that, it's not a large leap to the position I hold today, which is "I don't know, but if I had to guess, I'd say there's no such thing as a God and the bible is certainly nothing more than a very old book of various fables, stories and superstitions handed down over the years from early mankind."

As for voluntary or involuntary, I don't think it matters whether you indoctrinate yourself or you are indoctrinated by others, you're still indoctrinated. You can keep your faith and still not have to deny concrete evidence that's right in front of your face, many early scientists who were essentially Christians investigating the world around them did this, it just requires that you adapt your beliefs in light of the facts. If you can do that, whether you come out believer or skeptic, in my opinion, you're not indoctrinated.
 
... You can keep your faith and still not have to deny concrete evidence that's right in front of your face, many early scientists who were essentially Christians investigating the world around them did this, it just requires that you adapt your beliefs in light of the facts. If you can do that, whether you come out believer or skeptic, in my opinion, you're not indoctrinated.

Your assertion, "You can keep your faith and still not have to deny concrete evidence that's right in front of your face ..." doesn't not seem rational. Logic would suggest that every time one accepts a fact that was previously contradicted by faith, one's faith must be eroded by that same degree. Therefore as more facts are accepted, faith becomes increasingly inconsequential until it can be abandoned it altogether. This seems exactly like the kind of process you have described for your own self-deprogramming. Logic also suggests that although some people might claim they are able to maintain their faith in the face of contrary evidence, either they are lying for the sake of maintaining social status, or they are in a state of denial, the latter of which typically involves a lot of backpedaling and goalpost moving. Or am I missing something?
 
Your assertion, "You can keep your faith and still not have to deny concrete evidence that's right in front of your face ..." doesn't not seem rational. Logic would suggest that every time one accepts a fact that was previously contradicted by faith, one's faith must be eroded by that same degree. Therefore as more facts are accepted, faith becomes increasingly inconsequential until it can be abandoned it altogether. This seems exactly like the kind of process you have described for your own self-deprogramming. Logic also suggests that although some people might claim they are able to maintain their faith in the face of contrary evidence, either they are lying for the sake of maintaining social status, or they are in a state of denial, the latter of which typically involves a lot of backpedaling and goalpost moving. Or am I missing something?

No, I agree with you for the most part, what I was saying is that you can still maintain your faith in some kind of higher power or even a Christian interpretation of God even though you would have to admit, based on the extensive evidence, that the bible is neither inerrant nor 100% true. People maintain that perspective all the time, they recognize the bible for what it is, a bunch of ancient stories, but still have faith that there is some degree of truth in it. It's not my personal opinion but I don't think I have enough authority to say that it's wrong or right. It's up to the individual, ie your faith that the bible is 100% unarguable truth can be eroded while your overall faith in a deity still remains. It may not be the path you or I chose but plenty of people do choose it. In other words, you don't claim logic as your reason to believe, but faith that there is some modicum of truth to the overall scheme of things presented in the bible or whatever your religious interpretation happens to be. It's not what you or I would call rational but it is a far cry from "the bible is 100% true in all matters of history and science" when we can plainly see from the evidence that this isn't the case. That, to me, is textbook indoctrination, a refusal to look at facts and evidence and modify your beliefs accordingly.
 
No, I agree with you for the most part ... In other words, you don't claim logic as your reason to believe, but faith that there is some modicum of truth to the overall scheme of things presented in the bible or whatever your religious interpretation happens to be. It's not what you or I would call rational but it is a far cry from "the bible is 100% true in all matters of history and science" when we can plainly see from the evidence that this isn't the case. That, to me, is textbook indoctrination, a refusal to look at facts and evidence and modify your beliefs accordingly.

As you say, it's not what you or I would call rational, and therefore I would submit that there remains some vestige of indoctrination. For example imagine someone agreeing with almost everything rational about Christmas, but still holding onto a belief in Santa Claus. How is that really any different in principle from believing almost everything science tells us is fact, but still believing in Jesus?
 
As you say, it's not what you or I would call rational, and therefore I would submit that there remains some vestige of indoctrination. For example imagine someone agreeing with almost everything rational about Christmas, but still holding onto a belief in Santa Claus. How is that really any different in principle from believing almost everything science tells us is fact, but still believing in Jesus?

I can agree with that. Like I said, for some, faith isn't based on logic or rationality so one could say that some degree of indoctrination or just an idealized view of the way they want things to be remains.
 
I can agree with that. Like I said, for some, faith isn't based on logic or rationality so one could say that some degree of indoctrination or just an idealized view of the way they want things to be remains.

OK, so now for the part that I really have a tough time understanding. What about all the converts? People who were otherwise rational and had never been indoctrinated suddenly going off the deep end and joining a religion or cult? How do we explain that?
 
OK, so now for the part that I really have a tough time understanding. What about all the converts? People who were otherwise rational and had never been indoctrinated suddenly going off the deep end and joining a religion or cult? How do we explain that?

I don't think there is a simple explanation for something like that, it could be due to any number of factors. You might as well ask why people turn to drink or drugs, it's different for everyone.
 
I don't think there is a simple explanation for something like that, it could be due to any number of factors. You might as well ask why people turn to drink or drugs, it's different for everyone.

OK let's go with that ... if we compare it to drug or alcohol addiction we're dealing with biology and brain chemistry.

"The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes. The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are:
(1) Spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements.
(2) The underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable.
(3) Part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2.
(4) This gene acts by altering monoamine levels.
(5) Spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical and psychological level."
I find it particularly ironic that "Spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection" .
 
OK let's go with that ... if we compare it to drug or alcohol addiction we're dealing with biology and brain chemistry.

"The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes. The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are:
(1) Spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements.
(2) The underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable.
(3) Part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2.
(4) This gene acts by altering monoamine levels.
(5) Spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical and psychological level."
I find it particularly ironic that "Spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection" .

I'd completely disagree that when talking about addiction we're dealing with strictly biology and brain chemistry, yes it's part of the puzzle but I don't think these things can be simplified into easy to digest tidbits. There are many factors to consider when dealing with addiction or religious/cultist conversions.

As for the rest of it I'll need some time to study his proposal and the response of the scientific community to that proposal. I'm not going to do it all tonight but just looking at the criticism on the Wiki page, it's based on one unpublished, unreplicated study so I hardly think it qualifies as definitive.
 
I'd completely disagree that when talking about addiction we're dealing with strictly biology and brain chemistry, yes it's part of the puzzle but I don't think these things can be simplified into easy to digest tidbits. There are many factors to consider when dealing with addiction or religious/cultist conversions.

As for the rest of it I'll need some time to study his proposal and the response of the scientific community to that proposal. I'm not going to do it all tonight but just looking at the criticism on the Wiki page, it's based on one unpublished, unreplicated study so I hardly think it qualifies as definitive.

Agreed. But still interesting. Perhaps there are also endorphins and seratonin influences involved in religious activities that induce a feeling of well being similar to that induced by drugs. Perhaps if we look at ways that addicts free themselves of drug addiction and apply those principles to religious addiction, we might find an opening. Ironically ( once again ) breaking an addiction often involves some sort of "program" with a religious foundation. I remember an old t-shirt from the 70s that said: "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I'm all messed up on religion." Indeed there do seem to be parallels between religion and addiction. The need for a religious fix ( worship ), peer pressure ( congregation ), and denial ( blind faith ) are all part of the syndrome. Is it fair to call religious belief a "syndrome"? Here's another off the wall article called The Jerusalem Syndrome:

"The Jerusalem syndrome is a group of mental phenomena involving the presence of either religiously themed obsessive ideas, delusions or other psychosis-like experiences that are triggered by a visit to the city of Jerusalem. It is not endemic to one single religion or denomination but has affected Jews, Christians and Muslims of many different backgrounds." Wikipedia Article
 
Agreed. But still interesting. Perhaps there are also endorphins and seratonin influences involved in religious activities that induce a feeling of well being similar to that induced by drugs... The need for a religious fix ( worship ), peer pressure ( congregation ), and denial ( blind faith ) are all part of the syndrome. Is it fair to call religious belief a "syndrome"? Here's another off the wall article called The Jerusalem Syndrome:

"The Jerusalem syndrome is a group of mental phenomena involving the presence of either religiously themed obsessive ideas, delusions or other psychosis-like experiences that are triggered by a visit to the city of Jerusalem. It is not endemic to one single religion or denomination but has affected Jews, Christians and Muslims of many different backgrounds." Wikipedia Article

I'm glad you brought up the brain chemistry intersection, with somene's belief system and then what has been labelled as delusional or psychotic experiences. The same language gets used with abductees, and witnesses of a variety of paranormal phenomenon. I wonder where the objective line is in all of this?

So many paranormal and UFO phenomenon often involve contrasting sensory experience reports, as some see and even hear the virgin Mary in a ball of light and others just see a ball of light, while others see a spaceship. The devout get Jerusalem Syndrome: the intensity of the experience I'm sure surpasses drug induced rock-concert personal transformations and can see how easily hallucinations could follow.

Perhaps experiencing reality is about context and point of view? Beliefs, history, indoctrination, brain chemistry and unique external stimuli must radically alter our experiences; I think they do this all the time. My version of objective reality may look similar to many in the crowd most of the time, but in other contexts may get me locked up and injected with chemistry to alter my version of reality to be part of the crowd's shared belief again.

But if one person's, or even shared hallucinations are part of just a subjective, contextual reality, where's the line, I wonder, where objective reality begins? It seems to me that 'frames of reference,' when talking in general on this forum about unique, anomalous experiences, play a big role in determining the acceptability of these strange occurrences.
 
... The same language gets used with abductees, and witnesses of a variety of paranormal phenomenon. I wonder where the objective line is in all of this ... Perhaps experiencing reality is about context and point of view ... My version of objective reality may look similar to many in the crowd most of the time, but in other contexts may get me locked up and injected with chemistry to alter my version of reality to be part of the crowd's shared belief again ... It seems to me that 'frames of reference,' when talking in general on this forum about unique, anomalous experiences, play a big role in determining the acceptability of these strange occurrences.

All valid points and observations. Figuring it out is also a big part of "separating the signal from the noise". Your observation regarding context is IMO a primary facet of the process. If we don't know what context we're working in, even a single false assumption can lead to massive confusion. A prime example is the topic of the recent Paracast Newsletter ( time travel ). I rarely encounter anyone who has an internally coherent view of it, let alone anyone who actually has it figured out. However knowing how to determine whether or not someone's claim is internally coherent provides evidence that is suggestive of either truth or deception. This is where I draw the "objective line". When it becomes apparent that someone is fabricating technobabble or sci-fi, my skeptometer starts to ping pretty loud.
 
OK let's go with that ... if we compare it to drug or alcohol addiction we're dealing with biology and brain chemistry.

"The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes. The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are:
(1) Spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements.
(2) The underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable.
(3) Part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2.
(4) This gene acts by altering monoamine levels.
(5) Spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical and psychological level."
I find it particularly ironic that "Spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection" .

Good thread. I had one of those "aha" moments the other day while listening to another podcast discussing a deal cut by movers and shakers in the entertainment industry involving many billions of dollars. So we are talking about institutions wielding world class power and wealth and the ability to alter world views.

What do the following multi-billion dollar institutions all have in common: 1) Organized religion 2) the mass media entertainment industry 3) the illegal drug cartels ?

Viewing the question broadly: They all offer human beings a mental or psychological escape from this often painful and thing constrictive we call reality. Religions do this by juxtaposing this life, historically nasty brutish and short, against a promised (or threatened) afterlife in which all is eventually made right by human standards. Mass media offers a temporary but increasingly powerful virtual reality that numbs pain and satisfies cravings--often one and the same process. The third avenue is obvious. Drugs may either directly alleviate human physical and mental suffering by numbing and disassociation (alchohol), by giving the user a sense of power and control over causes of human suffering (cocaine, amphetamines ) Or, as in the psychedelics, they may transport the user to a kind of alternate reality altogether. I will defer to others on the specific experience of psychedelics as this is a complex subject. But I take it that drugs like DMT and LSD transport the experiencer in search of healing wisdom or outright escape to other realities where these may or may not be found.

Some would regard ufos and other paranormal phenomena as yet more examples of such avenues of escape. For many, this is undoubtedly true. But I would still maintain, based (again) on the sheer number of credible witness reports, that more is going on here. (more, in fact, may be going on with religion) Neither are these two views incompatible. The ufo and other paranormal phenomena may indeed represent something real we do not yet understand, and also serve as a kind of emotional escape mechanism. Science and technology have long played such a dual role, producing real and tangible manipulations of nature while promising to lift humanity out of its traditional place in nature as just one more species grubbing for daily survival.
 
... The ufo and other paranormal phenomena may indeed represent something real we do not yet understand, and also serve as a kind of emotional escape mechanism. Science and technology have long played such a dual role, producing real and tangible manipulations of nature while promising to lift humanity out of its traditional place in nature as just one more species grubbing for daily survival.

Excellent post Boomer. Let's look a little closer at the issue. It turns out that the point you make can be applied to almost any activity. There are people who use leisure activities to escape ( sports, videos, hiking, etc. ) and there are people who use work activities to escape ( workaholics ) and when we're not doing that we're sleeping, which is another escape. So to frame something in the context of an escape without some further justification is essentially nothing more than a demonization tactic. The real question is when does participation in one thing or another cross the line from something desirable to something undesirable. This question can be highly subjective and prone to bias. The obvious exceptions are when some sort of substance abuse is involved, but in the absence of that, then we are left to consider elements of general health and welfare, self-sufficiency and interpersonal relationships. So long as those are all within tolerable margins who are we or anyone else to cast judgment?
 
Ufology--Darn it--Now you have me thinking, a very painful activity.

. It turns out that the point you make can be applied to almost any activity.

To some extent it can. But which activities further engage us in physical reality, and which serve to move us further from it? Which are self-actuated and which are passively absorbed? Which are tightly controlled or jealously guarded or defended, and which are not? With the possible exception of some recreational drugs, the line between engagement and escapism is not clear cut. My emphasis is on the distinction between institutionalized and pre-packaged escapism vs more self-actualized diversions that may or may not be "productive". Can drug cartels be loosely regarded as institutions? I think so. They are certainly well organized. Membership at higher levels is extremely exclusive, albeit often short lived, another indicator of the tremendous power at stake.

My purpose is not to cast moral or ethical judgement on any particular means of dealing with life. Although some are obviously life-affirming and others life-denying. My focus is on the overwhelming social and economic power attained by individuals who have the means of providing millions of humans with intrinsically powerful means of pleasurably dis-engaging with this life, be it ancient priesthoods, purveyors of illegal drugs, or Hollywood movers and shakers. The common denominator amongst them is one of social power, not moral turpitude.
 
I will defer to others on the specific experience of psychedelics as this is a complex subject. But I take it that drugs like DMT and LSD transport the experiencer in search of healing wisdom or outright escape to other realities where these may or may not be found.

Some would regard ufos and other paranormal phenomena as yet more examples of such avenues of escape. For many, this is undoubtedly true. But I would still maintain, based (again) on the sheer number of credible witness reports, that more is going on here. (more, in fact, may be going on with religion) Neither are these two views incompatible. The ufo and other paranormal phenomena may indeed represent something real we do not yet understand, and also serve as a kind of emotional escape mechanism. Science and technology have long played such a dual role, producing real and tangible manipulations of nature while promising to lift humanity out of its traditional place in nature as just one more species grubbing for daily survival.

Those altered psychedelic experiences are very interesting in terms of how they relate to assisting individuals directly with ending personal psychological blocks. Currently mushrooms are being given to cancer patients so they can better confront, process and eliminate their fear of death. Ayahuasca is being used to help people end their narcotics addiction (many report reliving and understanding how specific moments in their life led to their addiction) and anyone who has taken acid can relate to the notion of how it can 'clean your head' and help you to make better decisions about current personal problems or conflicts. I think this intense personal, contextual insight can offer further insight into what is regarded to be significant paranormal experiences - the high strangeness event.

I think those that use the paranormal as an escape mechanism are willing participants in what is probably as delusional as believing that drugs or a god will save them. But, those frequent stories of high strangeness suggest to me that altered brain chemistry & the hallucinations that follow are connected to these heightened moments. I'm not saying that what people report experiencing during these highly excitable events are false, but that they are very slippery experiences of what we call reality and consciousness.

I agree that proving time travel can be a very objective process, but ghosts, monsters, ufo's, demons etc. may stay slippery because it involves far too many malleable variables such as personal & biological contexts. What is very, very odd is that those who take DMT, the miracle molecule, report very similar experiences to CE3's. Is this the finite human brain responding to parallel stimuli, or is it allowing us to see a more expanded, accurate view of reality? Either way I can see how these become life changing, unforgettable experiences in the same way psychadelic trips can create profound changes in a person's life.
 
BurtState, sounds like your head is screwed on pretty straight. I have mixed feelings about the use of psychedelics as a path to inward tranquility. Perhaps we need the one thing we are legally denied: Stringently controlled research. Ain't much of that happening in broad daylight with the schedule I stuff. My understanding at least. And even with the benefit of more and better
research trials, it might still come down to an issue that is too inherently individual to categorize.
 
... My purpose is not to cast moral or ethical judgement on any particular means of dealing with life ...

I think you've hit on something very relevant there, that being the concept of using an activity ( whatever that may be ) as a means of "dealing with life" as opposed to participating in it. In other words if the activity is being used to cope with a situation by providing a means of avoidance rather than a solution. Grant it that avoidance can also serve as a solution in some circumstances. Generally I would suggest that we would agree that avoidance would become escapism when it leads us away from performing the usual tasks we would otherwise perform in order to maintain our healthy daily existence.
 
Generally I would suggest that we would agree that avoidance would become escapism when it leads us away from performing the usual tasks we would otherwise perform in order to maintain our healthy daily existence.

Yes, I would agree. This turns out to be a trickier topic than it seemed during my 'aha' moment. The point I was attempting to make is that most humans, for whatever reason, have a natural and deep seated need to escape this reality. And wherever there is great need there is also opportunity for great profit and power. I would also turn the argument around and say that the history of such great profit and power is evidence of this need.
 
Back
Top