Skip to main content

Anchoring Beliefs to the Real World Instead of Just Arguing About Them

Beliefs are memes and memes only exist in the neural networks of brains. When people talk about their beliefs, they often do it as if their beliefs are facts that anyone can see.
Facts are things that can be sensory perceived by anyone.

● The Statue of Liberty and the Rocky Mountains exist. That’s a fact. They can be sensory perceived (seen, felt, smelled, tasted) by a group of people with very different belief systems.  

● The Trinity and Original Sin are beliefs. They cannot be sensory perceived (seen, felt, smelled, tasted). They are not real for people with different belief systems.

In order to view beliefs in the evolutionary contexts required to evaluate them, we must anchor them to the world outside the brain. We do this by anchoring them to times, places and people. This is very useful and scientists do with facts all of the time. Below is an example using the Statue of Liberty.

● mid.1865 – In an after dinner conversation, Édouard René de Laboulaye, president of the French Anti-Slavery Society is supposed to have said to Frédéric Bartholdi, a sculptor, "If a monument should rise in the United States . . . .”

07/1884 -- Construction of the statue completed in France.

● 06/17/1885 -- The crates holding the disassembled statue on board arrive in New York on the French steamer Isère.

● 10/28/1886 – The Statue of Liberty dedicated.

We now understand how the idea of the Statue of Liberty originated in a conversation in 1865 and follow its dedication in 1886. We can dig deeper to understand it better by gathering more facts and fill in the gaps between the dates above.

We use the same model for understanding beliefs. Let’s take a look at the belief called “The Doctrine of the Trinity.” Below is a brief overview:

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (d. 326 or 328) gave a sermon stating the similarity of the Son to the Father.

Arius (256-336), a priest in Alexandria, argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."

Bishop Alexander called a council of bishops. They decided against Arius’s position and excommunicated Arius and his supporters.

Arius continued to teach and Arianism spread to many other places.

05/325 -- The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great and charged with investigation of Arian controversy. Archdeacon Athanasius argued “Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father.” Arius argued “God the Son came after God the Father in time and substance.” The two sides argued and debated for about two months, with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. The Council ruledthe Son is true God, coeternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance.”

Late 320sBishop Athanasius develops the doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit.

● 335 –First Council of Tyre ruled in favor of AriusChrist was completely human and only a man, not God. It fully restored Arius to his position and by 350 the Arians were almost completely triumphant.

07/359Council of Rimini reverses the decision of First Council of Tyre and ruledthe Son was true God, coeternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance.”

381 - Council of Constantinople called to deal with the question of the whether or not the Holy Ghost is to be worshipped. The Council ruledthe Person of the Holy Ghost is to be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.” However, this sparked a debate about who and what the Holy Ghost is in relation to the Father and Son.

10/08/451 -- Council of Chalcedon ruled “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all of the same substance.”

11/07/675Eleventh Council of Toledo ruled -- "For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance"

Beliefs about the Trinity evolved through a series of conflicts from the 4th to the mid-5th century -- and it is still being debated in 2019. It didn’t exist at the time Jesus and he did not teach it. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t known by Christians for centuries after him.

Instead of endless arguments over whether a belief is true or false, using the model above has proven to be a much better use of time and energy – and it also results in new friendships and relationships between those involved too.

If you found this blog useful and informative, please let us know by “Liking”  the Biblical Heritage Center Facebook Page by clicking here.

Consider Helping us to do this work by “Donating.”
Click Here to donate online or for other options.

Your Amazon Purchases Can Help Too!
Click on the link below when you login to Amazon --
Amazon will donate a percentage of what you pay to BHC.


Popular posts from this blog

Madison's Warnings About Creating Political Parties

While doing some research today I came across the "Federalists No. 10" written by James Madison on Thursday, November 22, 1787. Madison warned his readers about the dangers of the formation of political parties and allowing them to become involved in government. 
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the founders thought of political parties as "factions," acting only for their own selfish interests rather than the public good. The founders saw instances in history when factions resorted to assassination and civil war if they failed to get their way. The writers of the Constitution believed that political parties would play no formal role in the new government. The Constitution made no mention of them.

Even in electing the president, the founders assumed the absence of political parties. The Constitution established an Electoral College, which called for a small number of electors—elected or appointed in the states— to meet, deliberate, and choose the best perso…

Why did they lay their coats at Saul's feet?

The witnesses, laying their coats at the feet of Saul, were the men that would cast the first stones at Stephen in Acts 7. Why did they all lay their coats at Saul’s feet? The Talmud contains a very interesting account of the act of stoning that may provide the answer.
“When the trial was over, they take him [the condemned person] out to be stoned. The place of stoning was at a distance from the court, as it is said, ‘Take out the one who has cursed.’[i] A man stands at the entrance of the court; in his hand is a signaling flag [Hebrewsudarin = sudar, ‘scarf, sweater’]. A horseman was stationed far away but within sight of him. If one [of the judges] says, ‘I have something [more] to say in his favor,’ he [the signaler] waves thesudarin, and the horseman runs and stops them [from stoning him]. Even if [the condemned person] himself says, ‘I have something to say in my favor,’ they bring him back, even four of five times, only provided that there is some substance to what he is saying.…