Topics Not Tenets: Impact of Politics & Religion

I'm Brian Heller and welcome to the B Spot! Join me for a discussion about these two taboo topics we are trained not to talk about. This is NOT political or religious, but rather a rational look at how and why we are so uncomfortable talking about both of these topics even though they are so influential in our lives. Let's desensitize and let's talk about it!

Transcript

So I don’t know how it was or is in other parts of the country, but here in NC, where I grew up, there were two subjects that I was told explicitly that I was absolutely not supposed to bring up in conversation. I came to understand that the reasoning for this was that people were both private and very sensitive about their beliefs on these two topics. Over the course of my life when I have tried to have discussions in these areas, I’ve found that there are very few who can do so without emotions taking over. Think about that. We know that emotional reasoning often runs counter to rational reasoning yet rather than challenging ourselves and others with rational reasonable discussions, we are made to believe, either explicitly or implicitly that these topics are still not allowed. 

Some become so flustered by rational and reasonable challenge to their belief system that their emotions well up so intensely they lose the ability to be rational. Their emotions shut them down. They walk away from the table, either physically or emotionally. And this is a dangerous state of mind because when we can’t accept rational truths that contradict our set of beliefs, we become unwilling to change, and willing to overlook all sorts of negative things as long as our side is winning. I mean I get it, if I really wanted Kool aid in the cafeteria, and someone tells me they will provide it as long as I’m ok with 5 people going without lunch, I’d feel tempted. Kool aid is really good, but what about those 5…or 10? Where do I draw the line of what I will and won’t accept in order to get the thing I want? And here we have taboo topic number one, politics.

I have no interest in pushing any particular ideology or political point of view. This is not a political podcast. This is a podcast about rational thought though so I will be pushing that. Now, unfortunately, some beliefs don’t allow room for rational thought because they rely on faith. Here we get into the second of the two no nos, or taboo topics, religion. I will not challenge any particular religion but I kind of hope to challenge them all, or at least their exclusivity and divisive aspects. I want to challenge them not to tear them apart but rather to find the commonalities among them all, AND the many other philosophies on life.

If your faith is important to you, I think that’s great and healthy, and likely serves as an enduring and supportive guide through life. But, when anyone imposes their belief system on another without their consent, and chooses to apply the aspects of their approach that line up with controlling what they fear, then I think it needs to be examined. So, this is likely why I was warned growing up that talking about politics and religion will make others uncomfortable and will lead to trouble. But, one of the benefits of being an adult is that I get to do the things I was always told not to. So, let’s talk about it.

Let’s start with politics. How uncomfortable did that just make you? What happens when I mention the word Democrat, or Republican? What if I mentioned that guy’s name? Or the other guy’s name? Did your brain just jump to an us vs them mentality? We are so emotionally invested in our position on the political spectrum these days that just the mention of a word with political associations can elicit a stream of thinking and powerful fears. And, as we know, fear opens the door to anger. Anger is rarely, if ever a primary emotion. Anger is the result of one of those other, less powerful feeling emotions, like fear, or guilt, or shame. So, when words can elicit powerful emotions, those who are uncomfortable with vulnerability, with those less powerful feeling emotions,  are going to express their fears as anger because that feels safer.  And this is why it’s important to have these difficult conversations because I don’t know if you’ve noticed how much anger there is in our world right now, but when I see all that anger, I see fear. And one of the best ways to push through fears is to talk about them. To bring them out into the light to be examined. When we become unwilling to talk about our fears, they grow and they can morph into hate, either by our thoughts or our actions. So let’s start desensitizing ourselves to model for our children that anything can and should be discussed. That while emotions are a healthy part of the human experience, they rarely leave room for the perspectives of others, and must be tempered with logic. And for the most part, that’s what we’re talking about, perspectives based on experiences. It is realistic and reasonable to think that based on the wide variety of influences and experiences among humans, there will be differences in perspectives. That’s OK. When we stop telling ourselves we’re on opposite sides of a bitter rivalry, we start looking for solutions rather than enemies. Compromises rather than control. 

A person’s political position is often fluid and exists on a spectrum. Not all the people on the other side are against all the things you believe. The breakdown of political positions is well represented by the Bell Curve, which looks like a little like a bell but more like a mountain with equal slopes on both sides. As you draw a line down the middle, you separate exactly one half from the other and the middle 47.5% on each side, while having different views and perspectives, are mostly willing to compromise to some degree in order to reach solutions that work well enough for all. The problem comes with that last 5%, which is divided equally between the two sides, and represents extreme views and beliefs, that are primarily emotion driven and very difficult to change. So the middle 47.5% on each side, hears the extreme views of the 2.5% on the other side, and feels threatened by the emotional and often unreasonable views expressed, and therefore they slide farther away from the middle in order to protect what they believe to be critical to their belief system, which they now believe is threatened by the other side.. But the 2.5% only represent 2.5%! The problem is that the issues debated by these 2.5%s are extremely loaded issues with lots of strong opinions and big implications. These are the deal making and deal breaking issues for people on both sides, that the middle 95% cannot ignore. And now with the internet that gives everyone a voice, and a platform to stretch the contextual meaning of the first amendment, we all have access to all the opinions all the time. We see it, and we feel offended by it, and become more entrenched in our position and less willing to be open to rational challenges. The division increases.

Another force working against greater unity in our country, in our world, is the combination of confirmation bias and the internet. As you may remember, confirmation bias is the result of our desire to be right all the time. This bias causes us to seek out, remember, and believe viewpoints that confirm our previous beliefs and to discredit, disbelieve and dislike viewpoints that suggest our preconceived notions are not accurate. And now with the internet having become a place where anyone can look like an expert by putting on a suit and standing in front of a green screen, it’s not hard to find someone, who looks or sounds reputable, who’s saying what you want to hear, what you want to believe, what you already believe. The internet is the place where news networks have been given creative control with the disclaimer “for entertainment purposes only.” That argument was actually used successfully in court by a major news network to avoid liability for people acting based on things that were said by that news network. In court, they actually said that the things they say can’t be taken seriously. What???! Never before have people been able to so easily find what appears to be “evidence” to support whatever belief system they have, no matter which side of the aisle one sits. And so, people are less willing to change than ever because they can so easily prove to themselves they are right.  

The internet is the place where once the algorithms have determined what headlines keep you clicking, you are fed a stream of “news” that reinforces what you already thought to be true. Don’t believe me, try clearing your browser history and signing out of your google account and then see what your news feed looks like. You will likely notice lots of news you weren’t aware of because now you are relatively anonymous and the search engines are still trying to figure you out. Search engine companies know that we like to feel good about ourselves. We like to be right and when we see things that confirm our wisdom, we are more likely to continue searching and surfing and reading and playing and staying hooked in, which of course is the main goal, no matter what your views. Remember, you are the product the content producers are working to seduce. 

So it’s not hard to see why we are divided and it’s not hard to understand how the contrasting points of view have formed, but are those points of view all nurture, based on environment and experiences, or is there some nature involved there? Interestingly, there’s been a good amount of research about whether there are fundamental differences in the brain, based on, or possibly due to, one’s political persuasion. Guess what they’ve found? There are!

When exposed to risk, liberals and conservatives have significantly different brain structure, with liberals showing increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, and conservatives showing increased gray matter volume in the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats. 

In fact, this model is a better predictor of partisanship than the well-established model based on influence and party identification of one’s parents. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk, and that makes a lot of sense when you think about the stated priorities of both sides. 

On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. 

Another major difference between the conservative and liberal perspectives is whether the world’s resources are thought of as scarce or abundant. Think about how important that distinction can be in a person’s brain as they assess the best course of action in any given situation. It makes sense that conservatives would believe resources are scarce and therefore must be protected by any means, and that liberals, with a belief that there is enough for everyone, would endorse policies that offer more assistance to those with fewer resources, and a push for greater equality. It makes sense that some aspects of equality could be thought of as threatening if one is operating from a core belief that there isn’t enough for everyone. “If you get yours, will I still get mine” kind of thing.

As we transition from politics to religion, it’s important to note the overlap. Each is it’s own circle for sure but where they cross in the middle causes a lot of the conflict and division we see in this country. In that overlap sit people with power and strong religious beliefs, beliefs so strong that they keep them from compromise if that compromise threatens their beliefs. It’s problematic. Opinions are across the board on what role religion should have in government. We say we have separation of church and state, but is that really possible when the two are so intertwined throughout our history? Belief in God, and in  Christianity, were so central to the foundational ideals of this country and the philosophies and expectations imposed on it’s people, that trying to unravel those things is more challenging than one might expect. 

While the U.S. Constitution does not mention God, nearly all state constitutions reference either God or the divine, and God also appears in the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and on U.S. currency. 

Nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults (73%) say religion should be kept separate from government policies. When asked if teachers should be allowed to lead students in any kind of prayer, democrats were twice as likely as republicans to say that would not be ok. 

Religious beliefs are often used as justification for other beliefs that impose restrictions on others. Religion is often the driving force behind major hot button issues like gender, women’s rights, gay rights, human rights. Religion can provide a footing on which to stand and judge the actions and beliefs of others. To assume that one religious perspective has everything correct feels short sighted, and to use that belief to criticize and control others works against the goodness of religious philosophies. The positive messages they provide. I’m not saying your religion, or any religion, is all wrong, I’m just saying none of them are all right because how could they be, leaving so many others just wrong?. And it’s interesting to me that even with our supposed separation of church and state, religious issues have the power to significantly influence our political choices. It becomes another one of those Kool aid situations where people are willing to overlook all sorts of things as long as they perceive their larger needs or values are being met and respected. 

And what about the role of faith? I mentioned earlier that faith can be a healthy, enduring support for people, but can it be rational? I’ve often joked that if relgion were anything other than…religion, it would be classified as a mental health disorder. For better or worse, it’s kinda delusional. Doesn’t faith require a willingness to act as if something is true, based on belief, not evidence, while also refraining from gathering evidence for the purpose of checking whether it’s true? Because checking implies the absence of faith. Faith can be a harmful, and even scary idea both to those who have it and those who don’t. 

Lara Buchak, a philosophy professor at Berkeley has an interesting perspective on this. She says, The way that religious faith is sometimes talked about in the larger cultural conversation can be harmful to everyone who is trying to find out the truth in religious matters and how they should live their lives. There's a naïve idea that faith requires believing against the evidence, or in the absence of evidence. When this idea is adopted by atheists, it can allow them to dismiss all religious faith as irrational by definition, without considering what the evidence is for particular religious claims. When this idea is adopted by religious people, it can allow them to think that believing against the evidence is a virtue, which is harmful to the pursuit of truth – it can also be psychologically harmful to try to believe something you think you don't have evidence for.

Don’t fall for it!

But can it be rational?

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D talks about there being different starting points from which perspectives grow.

The starting point is different. Secular people start with the faith that they can trust their sensory experience. Religious people start with conceptions of the divine. Yet, after each starting point, both seek to proceed in a rational logical manner.

In his opinion, what religious people and what non-religious people fear about each other is the same thing. The non-religious look at the religious and say God could ask them to do anything... scary. The religious look at the non-religious and say without God they could do anything... scary. What do you think? Is he right? 

I think it makes sense to a point because belief, or lack thereof, is so deeply ingrained in who we are because it ties us to our childhood and reminds us of our most powerful influencers, our most powerful memories, and there’s usually plenty of emotion there, so, many people are very easily threatened when challenged on their beliefs. They desperately want to believe that they are the ones who have found the truth and they find questions or criticisms threatening. I think we all know on some level that there are many more questions and theories than facts when it comes to religion or philosophies on life, and so there is always a chance we’re wrong. That can be a scary proposition, especially if your life, and understanding of life, are built around your religious beliefs. But, should those religions or philosophies influence the rules and laws imposed on us all, or only on those who believe that religion or philosophy?

Look, I’m not here to challenge your political or religious beliefs. I’m here to challenge your discomfort talking about these things. I’m here to challenge the notion that these things are better left unsaid, unexamined, hidden in the dark recesses of your mind never to be challenged or explored because you’re afraid you just might be wrong. And that’s why I’m trying to help by telling you that your religious philosophy is likely both right and wrong. Every human everywhere since the beginning of time has been trying to understand what in the world we’re doing here, how we live, why we die, how we exist within the universe, and how we can coexist among each other. These fascinations have led to the formation of the world’s religions. 

Religions also help maintain Social order, which is important for large groups to exist peacefully and for power structures to remain in place, and we all know the powerful like to stay powerful. I get why we have religions and I’m not saying we shouldn’t. I think that religious beliefs can be great, unless they are used as justification to restrict, or violate another person’s right to liberty, freedom to make their own decisions. We each have the right to make our own decisions about most things,  up to the point where it impacts others. It’s the whole “stay in your lane” idea. As long as the spikes from your wheels don’t come into my lane and create danger for me, party on.  Religious principles and beliefs can’t be used as an excuse to violate the rights of others.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m well aware that these are sensitive subjects and I appreciate your willingness to hear this discussion. We must talk about these things and I hope you go out and have these conversations to help us all work through our discomfort. The intention behind talking about these issues shouldn’t be to change minds, the intention should be to gain understanding, to open the dialogue, so that we all can remember how much more similar we are than different. If hearing me ramble on these topics has offended you, and you’re still actually listening, please know that my intention is not to offend, but rather to push the barriers of discomfort around important issues that need to be discussed so that we can work toward repairing the spirited divisions around these topics. Ultimately, we really are all part of the same team here. We’re all making decisions that we believe will work best for us and the people we love. I guess maybe the problem is that we don’t love enough people. 

Thanks for joining me for another session of almost therapy but not quite therapy at the B Spot. Remember, you can email me with any thoughts, questions, concerns, or any issues that you would like for me to discuss. That email is bhellercounseling@gmail.com. If you’re wondering what I’m going to talk about in the next session, you aren’t alone, I’m wondering as well. Until then, be well!