An Excerpt from Dempsey’s Book “Trump Again!? How Could America Let This Happen?”
Third Rails: Religion & Politics
It is not lost on this writer that faith-based discussions often land on “deaf ears” (or perhaps to keep the analogy I will say “blind eyes”). There is a reason why wise folks attest that in polite company it’s never a good idea to bring up either religion or politics. Why? The very reason these ideologies are so emotionally sensitive is because they are so closely linked to one’s personal identity and their faith.
If you were to argue with someone about the weather or the price of gasoline, these are objective facts that can be easily researched and clarified. Not so with religion or politics! These are metaphysical and philosophical topics that are richly imbued with deep meaning. As such, they carry a greater order of hierarchical complexity than other subjects. They are what life is all about; so, naturally, it is common knowledge to completely ignore such topics in polite company.
If your brother believes that it rained last Tuesday, yet you are quite certain it was sunny, then a simple search for the facts will reveal the truth. If the weather record revealed rain, you would likely apologize with a smirk and give your brother credit for having the better memory. Similarly, if evidence proved the weather was sunny, your brother would be just as likely to concede the point with no ill will.
Yet, if the conversation was to move to a faith-based subject such as religion, the situation changes immeasurably. Even if the argument was on a completely verifiable topic, there likely is no evidence one brother might reveal that will convince the other brother to concede the point.
The Faith/Identity Entanglement Problem
One primary reason for this phenomenon is the Entanglement Problem between one’s identity and their faith(s). A man’s faith in his core beliefs is incorruptible in his eyes and thus sacrosanct. One’s faith is part of who they are! It defines them. It is them.
Another’s wrong opinion or reasoned argument should not shatter your pure faith. If you lose your faith, you lose your identity; if that happens then who are you, really? You are a person without an identity—a person without faith. And most would rather die than lose a crucial part of who they are; their identity is what sustains them and grounds them. So, they hold onto their faith with a savage ferocity and eschew all those who dare challenge their righteous faith. This is why even well-intentioned discussions quickly become debates and then fierce arguments. You are not having your ideas challenged; you’re having your very identity attacked! It gets personal.
Differing Value Systems Problem
The second reason why arguments involving religion or politics rarely achieve constructive outcomes is due to l yardsticks and differing value structures. For example, with the disagreement about the weather last Tuesday, it is easy to come to a resolution because there is a common and well-established baseline: a set of assumptions and shared values at play. The vernacular is also understood in advance; terms like “temperature” can be used and the definition of precipitation is understood by both parties. There are no differences in core values with respect to what weather is or what it is not.
If one brother understood the freezing point of water to be 32F and the other believed it to be “when I feel really cold,” there would obviously be a misalignment and thus little opportunity for a reasoned discussion exists—at least until educational instruction was imparted and received.
Luckily this is not the case with most pragmatic topics. Ascertaining temperature or a specific precipitation is a straightforward exercise of empirical research. Indeed, probably the most controversial thing that could happen in such a debate would be finding that it was BOTH raining and sunny at the same time. And even in such a case, the facts would be met with bemusement and cordiality.
However, this is not so with faith-based topics. The yardsticks are, at best, individually defined and wildly subjective. And the value basis for discussions is often significantly different between two or more persons. You might spend 30 or 40 minutes discussing whether or not a particular Pope acted righteously in a certain situation, only to later find that your viewpoints on “righteousness” are diametrically opposed.
What is so interesting about such conversations is that the modality employed in conducting a faith-based conversation and an empirical conversation are extremely similar—on their face, at least. You can lay down all the “basics” at the beginning, agreeing along the way about timeline, historical events, familiar connections, even attributions of thought and emotions to certain actors. But as soon as the conversation swerves into the lane of value constructs or subjective reality, it will quickly veer off course. This, again, is largely because the faith-based yardsticks will not be the same size (or even employ the same metrics) between any two people on any value-based topic. Two people with opposing viewpoints will have a very hard time quantifying someone else’s truth. It would be akin to one person trying to use the sensation of taste to explain to a blind person the color purple or for an engineer to try to use mathematical formulas to explain the brilliance of a rainbow to a child.
The Cognitive Bias Problem
The third reason why faith-based conversations “go off the rails” so quickly is perhaps the most important reason to grapple with and understand: reduction & duality. It is human nature to simplify complex, nuanced problems into smaller, manageable pieces that better fit into one’s worldview. Faced with a lack of sufficient time (or data) to fully understand a topic, the human brain has great difficulty grappling with multi-layered complexity and nuance. So as a “coping” mechanism, it simplifies. It reduces a big problem into a far smaller and more manageable problem.
In short, the brain draws clear dividing lines separating black from white—even when the real situation is very “gray,” or even a full spectrum of color! In this way, a bifurcation of two (2) opposing sides takes shape in the mind, even when the situation is far more complex—or multiple perspectives in reality. However, instead of BOTH sides being a little right—or both sides being entirely wrong—the brain forces one side to be comprised of cartoonish evil villains and the other side constituted as pure, unblemished angels.
The more troubling issue with this modality is how deep the poisoned well goes. With insufficient data to form a nuanced, multifaceted viewpoint, these ‘black & white’ opinions are formed quickly and then cemented in the brain to near permanent tribal-level beliefs, identity, and even memory itself. Thus, even when new data is later presented which contradicts the binary, self-prescribed, faith-based narrative, this evidence is outright rejected! Because, as stated above, such information contradicts the ideas now conflated with the person’s identity.
What’s so pernicious is how “sticky” these newly formed boolean viewpoints become. With little or no empirical data, an opinion is quickly formed positing that one of two binaryoptions exist for a complex issue; this belief then permeates the conscious and subconscious. The insistence of binary truth (e.g. “this thing is good; that thing is bad” ) will endure in the belief structure even when additional information is later understood as true and verified.
This ability for the mind to quickly form stark opinions, and compartmentalize evidence that contradicts those opinions, is a phenomenon I first learned about in my undergraduate class Psychology 101. In one of the early chapters, the textbook explained that this “feature” (or is it a bug?) of the human brain causes prejudices and biases to form. Here is a short excerpt from the course material:
Bias can take many forms. You might be most familiar with bias in the context of prejudice or discrimination against certain groups of people based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. However, you can also be biased toward a certain idea or option. For example, confirmation bias can cause us to favor information that fits with our existing beliefs. This mental shortcut can lead [one] to overlook information that contradicts [their] preconceptions, like ignoring scientific research that disproves a health remedy [they] believe in.
While certain cognitive biases can help us make decisions more efficiently, it often hurts our ability to make decisions that are fair, rational, and favorable—for ourselves and everyone around us. The important thing to remember here is that humans will always hold bias. Since we can’t really change how our brains work, learning to recognize bias in its various forms can help us become more aware of it and take steps to reduce negative consequences.” (Warje)
This wisdom has stuck with me. I often catch myself reading a news story or listening to friends discuss a complex topic and feel a visceral desire to quickly form an opinion.
The Palestinians killed how many innocent people? They must be subhuman monsters!
Putin invaded an innocent country without being provoked? He must be a madman!
A gay, black man was attacked in downtown Chicago by Trump supporters? MAGA supporters must be racist and homophobic!
Without complete information, the mind desires resolution. It seeks a solution to a problem. It hungers for equilibrium. It is uncomfortable to live in a state of uncertainty—even for a short period of time. And our brains are not simple computers either; they are capable of millions (perhaps billions) of computations every second! But without sufficient information, the brain is frequently asked to make decisions quickly in order to take an action—such as form an opinion. This process is not a trivial exercise.
As a species, we are social creatures, of course. And part of living in a society is forming opinions that allow us to fit in and respond to situations as a group. So, opinion-formation is a critical action that the brain is asked to do over and over again—and usually with only a limited amount of data. As a coping (read: defensive) mechanism, the brain forms biases and rushes to sort through complex information quickly.
Perhaps this is a modern miracle of evolution. Think of the alternative: with limited information, the brain shuts down and cannot form thoughts or opinions until further information is provided. If our brains worked like this, it’s likely that protohumans never would have made it out of their caves. Biases towards new (unknown) foods allowed us to avoid being poisoned. Biases towards new (unknown) people allowed us to avoid being killed. These biases and prejudices are defensive in our cultural evolution for a reason. Our species is tribal. When a new tribe entered the area, it was wise to fear and loathe them on sight. If we were overly trusting, we likely would have had our food and shelter stolen.
Perhaps man is right to be immediately defensive (and even a tad barbaric) at times. Think of our past. To summarize the history of our species, a group fights to take control and gain dominance over its peers. Then others step in and take dominance over that group. Man has lied, stolen, cheated, plotted, raped, tortured, and killed to gain superiority over other men. It is no mystery that “stranger danger” has worked into our lizard brains and become permanently ingrained into our amygdala. Bias is evolutionally sound and justified.
That all said, the question becomes: “what, if anything, can we do to prevent unhealthy bias?” Can we put our lizard brains on hold in a contemporary sense and seek to process information rationally and logically? Yes, I think so. But it isn’t painless; and it certainly isn’t “normal.” Because a simple, false story is infinitely easier for our brains to process than a complex, true one. But with enough militant faith, many believe they can coerce the simple story to be true.
We can at least try to understand our own motives, passions, and prejudices, so as to be conscious of what we are doing when we appeal to those of others. This is very difficult, because our own prejudice and emotional bias always seems to us so rational.”
– T. S. Eliot, The Aims of Education
“Normal” Thinking
Normality is binary thinking. It’s reacting quickly to situations and subconsciously processing information into two distinct camps—just as our brain has been programed to do over millions of years of evolution. Normality is to hate quickly, empathize little, and put logical reasoning on hold.
Normality is to go with the flow and give into groupthink. Normality is focused on survival, as opposed to living and enriching the world around us. Normality is easy. “Complex thinking” is difficult and takes work. And people, on the whole, hate to work.
It is so easy and “normal” to analyze a situation and then with limited (or no) information, immediately bifurcate it into binary viewpoints. Cementing this axiom, our emotions are easy to manipulate and used to further drain out the monochromatic blacks and whites from an otherwise diverse color spectrum. Given a situation that is nuanced, complex, and multi-faceted, nothing cuts through to “the heart of the matter” (or so we tell ourselves) like emotional appeal. This is why propaganda and emotionally charged slogans work so well!
For example, in the case of the draft during the Vietnam War: the conversation wasn’t around the nuances of forced labor and conscription, but instead became all about “national pride” and “signing up to serve your country.” Those who chose to disobey the demand for compulsory enlistment quickly became “draft dodgers,” “unpatriotic,” and even “enemies to their country.”
Bifurcation is easiest when emotion can be used to aid in propaganda.
In the case of whether to mandate a Covid-19 vaccine circa 2021, the national conversation for the decision centered not around bodily autonomy, tyrannical government control, efficacy concerns, or resultant injuries due to prematurely rushing a vaccine’s release; rather, the emotionally charged narrative centered around pithy one-liners such as “killing grandma,” “following the guidelines,” “being in this together,” “trusting the Science™” and “doing your part.”
The ability for humans to fit complex topics into neat-and-tidy packages is a “feature” (not a bug) of evolution. What is a bug, however, is the inability to process new information after it’s available and use it to amend the original programming. And the most significant problem with this paradigm is that once the dividing lines are drawn, they are rarely erased. The other side becomes the literal devil; and “your side” consists entirely of virtue paragons.
Sadly, no amount of evidence to the contrary will allow a person who has formed a cognitive bias to fully understand the multifaceted complexities once they’ve convinced themselves the matter is binary; their brain has turned off the ability to see the diverse rainbow of colors in the palette.
There is only white and black—only good and bad; only evil and righteousness exists. All “middle ground” goes out the window and fades away— all because the brain is defensive of its identity and its faith-based opinions.
What is sadder still is that the more important the subject, the more fiercely the human mind will defend its limited and myopic viewpoint. Once the Capulets and the Montagues start feuding, there is very little to be said to convince one who has taken sides to see it from the other’s perspective; as such, little headway can be made to stop the bloodshed. One who advocates for ‘Team Black’ cannot cognitively see White’s perspective, and one who is on ‘Team White’ cannot cognitively put themselves in Black’s shoes. Forced, and even violent, duality of perspective is perhaps the human condition.
It is then no real irony that we have divided our own human races into groupings based on literal color. We quite consciously choose to pit “blacks” or “browns” against “whites.” Bizarrely, instead of ameliorating these divides and seeking a salve for the wounds, Postmodern society—with brazen, woke, spiritual fervor—chooses to fan the flames of racial tensions and hyper-focus on what separates us vs what makes us the same. As such, the Woke God willingly chooses to bifurcate the world by skin color, not because she should, but because she can. And our lizard brains tend to win out every time against reason, logic, truth, and reality. Why? Because humanity feeds on turmoil and blind faith. Our faith in our own biases – no matter how impure or how empirically inaccurate, guides our path.
The Golden Idol
As mentioned, faith is a precious currency that demands to be spent. Man seeks for God but resurrects idols instead. He thirsts for meaning, but instead chokes down lies spread by charlatans. In either case, we mortal men and women consume faith like fire consumes oxygen. We ferociously devour the promises that faith and allegiance to a god avows. We require it to sustain our souls. Submerged below the waves of uncertainty, faith is a paper straw we use to desperately suck air into our lungs. It is a reflex action for our breathing soul; we can no more turn off our need to spend the coin of faith than we can choose to cease breathing. Unfortunately, the object of our faith seems almost inconsequential compared to the desire to spend our faith.
Like a drug addict, mankind desperately seeks a high; the drug itself to get us there is unimportant. This is why when Moses descended from Mount Sinai after communing with the Supreme Being and brought down the commandments of God manifest on rock tablets, he found when he returned not a pious and reflecting people hungry for the fruits of the Lord—but rather a people driven mad without a proper outlet for their righteous faith. They had grown so inpatient waiting for Truth they sought to satiate themselves with a golden idol: a self-made, physical manifestation of their meaning crisis. They rejected God to instead employ a blind faith vis-a-vis a cheap manifestation of God.
Their faith was what mattered most—far more than Truth. Leaderless, their faith persisted and demanded release, like an insatiable itch to be scratched or a throbbing, sexual desire. Absent a physical vessel in which to direct their faith, the Israelites erected their own: a golden calf. If the story of Exodus is to be believed, this was a people who had JUST exited Egypt—after no fewer than ten plagues were laid upon the land by God Himself. This was a people who had just seen the Red Sea part by the hand of God as they escaped oppression and slavery. This was a people whose faith would expectedly be visceral and strong. Nevertheless, in the absence of religious leadership, the curse of human weakness had them abandon the object of their faith and quickly take up another. For the laws of faith are perhaps like the laws of energy – it cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed into another shape or directed at another object.
In the case of the Israelites, in the space of around forty days, their faith transformed from faith in Yahweh to a faith in an idol made of gold. As transcribed in the Bible:
“[This calf] is thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 32:8) [emphasis added].
In other words, fearing Moses would not return, the Israelites lost no time declaring the golden calf to BE their God—the very God that delivered them from Egypt a few weeks earlier. Their faith didn’t leave them; it just mutated and then transfixed into a physical form. The idol was present; Moses was not. The golden calf could be felt; God could not.
Metamorphosis of Faith
Our current Postmodern culture now finds itself facing a similar crisis of faith—or at least a metamorphosis of faith. The faith in our religious institutions and our past God(s) are crumbling. But the faith void does not stay empty for long.
Faith in a new Church of Wokeism has been taking shape since 2014 and quickly gaining ardent disciples. It is a new religion, so its aims are still developing, and its tomes still being written. But just like the religions of old, this new religion requires awesome faith, devotion, supplication, obedience, and conformance to the wills of a jealous and capricious god. This new religion of Wokeism thirsts for golden coins of faith—and demands that they be spent with fevered abundance. They are to be melted down and turned into a great and glorious new idol to worship.
Our immortal souls thirst bitterly for truth and for meaning – and religious faith is the conduit for such divine desires. The soul’s need for faith cannot and shall not be denied. But is prayerful faith in the Woke God one that best serves mankind, or preys on it?
Let us explore that question together…
(read more in my 2024 book “Trump Again!? How Could America Let This Happen?” available on Amazon or wherever books are sold.)
