How God Fits In, Part 2

This is the second post in a series, the topic of which is “how God fits in” with the content of The Catalyst of Confidence. If you have not read the first post, or the introductory post, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

In this post I will clarify the following specifics, which correspond to their respective lessons:

1. Knowledge of the origin of a belief does not affirm or negate the validity of that belief. (Lesson I: Perception and Belief)
2. The concept of morality can be understood as a goal. (Lesson III: Goals and Dreams)
3. Contemplation of that which is good invariably results in that which is good. (Lesson IV: Thought and Concentration)

1. Knowledge of the origin of a belief does not affirm or negate the validity of that belief.

It's possible that the knowledge of how one has come to believe that which they believe can be alarming. Primarily because it can be perceived that such understanding discredits the validity of a given belief (because a person could have easily came to believe something different through the same process). For example, the reason I am a Christian is because I was raised as a Christian. i.e., I was brought up in an environment which encouraged Christianity. In other words, my belief in Christianity resulted from being exposed to specific information. This information, in turn, underwent the process of perception and repetition in my mind, eventually culminating in my belief in Christianity. However, knowing the origin of my belief neither affirms nor denies the validity of Christianity itself. If Christianity is true, it must be true independent of my belief in it. This is why the responsibility of every individual to carefully consider the reasons they believe that which they believe cannot be overstated. Ultimately, having a mature understanding of how one's beliefs are created enables a person to choose one belief instead of another. See also: Rocks Have Souls?

2. The concept of morality can be understood as a goal.

If a person accepts the existence of God, then they are almost certain to accept the existence of objective moral values as well. Morality itself can be understood as a standard which mankind ought emulate to the greatest extent possible. Knowledge of this standard can easily be understood as a goal, in the sense that it directs one's thoughts and actions toward a defined end (the standard itself). However, such a goal cannot be attained temporally, but rather must be pursued ceaselessly by mankind. Having knowledge of this standard coupled with it being a point of consistent concentration (or focus) enables a person to better discern the methods of how they can adhere to the standards of morality. In short, the methods of achieving a goal or dream may also be used to better maintain a moral life. See also: Lesson III: Goals and Dreams in The Catalyst of Confidence.

3. Contemplation of that which is good invariably results in that which is good.

In the Selected Quotes section of Lesson IV: Thought and Concentration we find the following quote from Philippians 4:8: “Fill your minds with those things that are good, and that deserve praise: things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable.” As explained in the lesson, the information one concentrates upon determines their dominating thoughts. Dominating thoughts, in turn, largely affect one's actions and behavior. Hence, the contemplation of good things (things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable) will invariably result in good actions, which are more likely to produce external results which are also good.

Don't Burn Your Hands!

The following quotation appears at the very beginning of The Catalyst of Confidence, just prior to the Table of Contents:

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is

probably why so few people engage in it.”

-Henry Ford

One would not be wrong to assume—especially considering it is seen before anything else—that this quote carries some special meaning within the overall context of the book. Indeed, it does. For if The Catalyst of Confidence is a book is about anything, it is a book about thinking. But what exactly does it mean to think? After all, the term “thinking” is thrown around colloquially as though anyone and everyone engages in such activity. Yet Henry Ford himself, the great automotive visionary and industrialist, proposes that not only is thinking the hardest work there is, but also that so few people engage in it? It seems to be true that on a certain level—everyone thinks. And on yet another, demonstrably deeper and more analytic level, few people think. Though it may surprise some, it is this second, deeper and more analytic level of thinking with which The Catalyst of Confidence is concerned.

Thinking at this level is concerned with causal relationships. That is, examining the relationship between cause and effect—between action and result. If you place your hand on the heated coil of a stove, you're going to be burned. The act of “placing one's hand” on the stove would be considered the “cause” or “action” while the condition of “being burned” would be considered the “effect” or “result.” This is, of course, a rather simplistic example, but it serves the purpose of illustrating this concept quite nicely. Everything we do (action) produces a given effect or result. Some effects/results are good and desirable, and therefore we would do well to seek out the cause/action that produced them. Some effects/results are bad and painful, but we would do especially well, if we took the time to seek out the specific cause/action which produced such undesirable circumstances.

If you find yourself in any undesirable circumstance, particularly inner or personal circumstances, reflect on the cause/action which produced such circumstances. If you don't know the cause/action which produced it, concentrate on finding it, and eventually you'll figure it out. However, we must remember that it isn't enough to simply examine the relationship between a given cause/action and effect/result if we ultimately fail to correct it. In other words, in order to change the effect/result, we need to change the cause/action. Surely, no one wants to spend their life burning their hands?

We've barely scratched the surface—more to come!

How God Fits In, Part 1

This post is the first in a series, the topic of which is “how God fits in” with the content of The Catalyst of Confidence. If you have not read the introductory post, Does God Fit In?, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

Question: "How does God fit in with the things you talk about in The Catalyst of Confidence?"

Upon being asked this question I am always reminded of a story I once heard. It tells of an elderly man of God, who lived in a city by the sea. Although the area was known for hurricanes, the man was never frightened. “God will protect us” was his motto and he had lived through many storms. One day, the makings of a massive hurricane were spotted on radar off the coast of the city where the old man lived. The population of the city held their breath, waiting in angst for the news of it's status. It was soon reported that an enormous hurricane had formed, perhaps the largest the area had ever known, and consequently the entire area was ordered to be evacuated by the authorities. The city where the old man lived would surely be destroyed. But the old man was a man of God, and holding fast to his belief that “God will protect us,” he vowed to stay in his home. It wasn't long before the old man's family arrived at his house, pleading with him to come away with them, where they would all be safe. But the old man refused, stating that he would never abandon his home and that “God will protect him.” The winds soon began howling, the clouds darkening, and the hurricane was closing the distance to the coastline, when word reached the rescue squads that the old man was still in his home. Desperate to rescue him, they made their attempt in the face of the incoming tempest, and as luck would have it they arrived in time. But again the old man, becoming quite agitated, refused. “God will protect me!” he said. “Have you no faith at all!” Time was running out, and the rescue squad was forced to abandon the old man. When the storm finally hit the coastline, it did so with a fury never known to the population of the area, laying waste to all in it's path. When the old man saw the face of God, he knew that he had died in the storm. But he was puzzled: “God! I put my faith in you—I trusted you—I thought you would protect me!” In response, God said: “I made sure you saw the news report about the largest storm in your city's history where they warned you to evacuate the area; I made sure your family came to take you with them to safety; I even sent a rescue squad to come save you before it was too late—what did you do?”

This simple story illustrates the point I wish to begin with. Namely, that humans have a part to play in the world. Though God sustains the contingent existence of mankind, man still holds an active role in the drama of creation: man must act. More than any other characteristic of being human, the proposition that “man acts” is an ultimate given. For it is only through the process of acting that man can do God's will. As mentioned in the previous post, Rah-Rah-Rah, The Catalyst of Confidence explains and analyzes the facts of being human. Just as God has created the universe, which is subject to certain laws (such as the laws of physics), so did God create mankind, which is not only subject to the laws of nature, but also to certain conditions which are inherent to the human person.

That being said, at it's most basic and fundamental level, The Catalyst of Confidence explains to the average person the “inherent conditions of being human” which radically influence their ability to act. Some examples from the book itself have been listed below:

• A person always acts in accordance with what they believe.
• A person has the ability to choose something rather than something-else.
• A person's life is directed by their goals and dreams.
• A person's dominating thoughts determine their attitude and behavior.
• A person's actions, when performed consistently over time, become habits.
• A person's fears can paralyze them or help them grow.
• A person's failures provide them with feedback to learn and succeed.
• A person's deceptions limit their potential.
• A person's emotions are powerful forces in influencing their behavior.
• A person's actions have consequences.

The aforementioned statements reveal some of the “inherent conditions of being human.” Conditions which, whether we acknowledge them or not, affect our lives all the same. I would like to submit to the reader that these conditions are a definite part of who we are as human beings, and that the better we understand these conditions, the better we are able to do that which we ought.

Does God Fit In?

I have noticed a trend among those asking questions which pertain to the content of The Catalyst of Confidence. Specifically, the question “how does God fit in with all this?”

Many may assume, perhaps because God is not the central theme of the book, that The Catalyst of Confidence indirectly posits that one does not need God in order to better oneself, solve problems, or accomplish something. I would like to clarify that this assumption is unwarranted. Other books may assert such things, but in terms of the content espoused in The Catalyst of Confidence, there is no reason to assume this is true.

This post serves to announce that, in the near future, I will begin releasing a series of articles which explain my perspective on “how God fits in” with the content of the book. I will not be detailing arguments for the existence of God at this time. That is a task beyond the scope and intention of this blog as it currently exists. Therefore, for the purpose of these articles, I will assume that God exists and that the reader already believes in Him. For those who may not be in this category, I believe you will find the articles stimulating nonetheless.

As always, your feedback is welcome and encouraged.

Constancy or Rationalization?

It seems the concept of “uprooting bad habits” may require some further elucidation. At first glance, the process of conquering a bad habit is intellectually understood without much difficulty. Functionally, however, it largely remains a mystery to many people. (Perhaps this is because most people have acquired the habit of assuming they understand something, when in fact they only understand it in an intellectual sense.)

Everyone at some point has developed bad habits, a relatively simple feat. Getting rid of them, on the other hand, is another story. When a destructive habit has been identified it cannot simply be “willed” to disappear, but rather, must be replaced with another habit (hopefully a beneficial one).

Though habits are generally performed subconsciously, they are still actions. So, to clarify the language, a bad habit is simply a bad action, albeit performed subconsciously. To replace it, a different action must take it's place. In other words, an individual must consciously act differently, consistently over time, in order to replace a destructive action with a more beneficial one. So far so good. But when it comes to actually doing this, many people find themselves in the dark, opting to conclude that such things are great “in theory” but ultimately not very practical.

So how can someone actually do this?

Consider a person who has developed the habit of watching television in the evening after work. This isn't necessarily anything destructive, but let's say that the said individual would prefer to be more active, as they don't get any exercise during the day, nor would they mind losing some weight. So what can they do? Since the “bad habit” (action) has already been identified, a new habit (action) must be decided upon to take it's place. So the question is what can they do instead of watching television at the time when they would normally sit down and watch television? Suppose this person decides that they can go for a walk. Great, but how can they implement this?

At the point in time when they would normally sit down and watch television, they get up and go for a walk—period. (This is so simple that many of us don't understand it at first.) Notice, I didn't say that they get up and go for a walk “if they feel like it” that day. They get up and go for a walk whether they feel like it or not. If it's raining, they get an umbrella. If it's cold, they put on a jacket. They deal with it, because that is the only way to develop a new habit. That is, if the said individual can maintain constancy in their decision to “go for a walk” instead of watching television, then they will, over time, replace watching television with walking. In short, they will reach a point in time when, rather than wrestling with the urge to sit down and do nothing, they will go for a walk without even thinking about it. Walking will become the new norm.

What traps most people, of course, is a process of rationalization. For example, they may decide “to go for a walk” instead of watching television, but when it comes time to actually “go for the walk,” they come up with some rationalization for why they would be better off “going for the walk,” starting tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, they miraculously have another “good reason” for forgoing the walk (surprise!), and conclude that they'll get to it as “soon as the weekend is over.” Over time, instead of developing the habit of walking instead of watching, they develop the habit of “rationalizing why they will walk some other time” immediately prior to sitting down and watching television!

Brilliant, wouldn't you agree?

Self-Interest and Football

The concept of self-interest is popularly associated with terms such as selfishness and greed. When we say a person pursues their own “self-interest” we generally mean that they are wholly devoted to their own desires while ignoring others, perhaps completely. While this is the popular understanding of the phrase, I nonetheless believe it to be not only incorrect, but also incoherent.

Consider, for instance, a married couple, where the husband spends a majority of his free-time ignoring his wife and directing his attention toward other things, such as (to hazard a popular stereotype) a football game. Assuming, of course, his wife doesn't care about football, it could easily be said that the husband is pursuing his own self-interest. Yet, over time—if the husband continues to ignore his wife in favor of the glamor of his television—this could cause tension and eventual problems in their relationship, a circumstance which is not in the husband's self-interest.

So the husband, while pursuing his self-interest, acts contrary to his self-interest. But this is impossible. He cannot pursue his self-interest if his actions are against his self-interest. In other words, what he may initially believe to be his self-interest is actually contrary to his self-interest, in which case it cannot truly be his self-interest. Hence, my understanding of this concept as being “incoherent.”

In the Lexicon of The Catalyst of Confidence, the concept of self-interest is defined as one's ultimate good. i.e., that which is good for oneself. It is not defined as “what someone thinks is good for oneself” because such things may not be conducive to one's actual good. Just as a husband's activity of habitually ignoring his wife in favor of some other thing is not conducive to his actual self-interest.

Thus, it seems we can conclude that if a husband develops the habit of doing such things, he may be acting selfishly or carelessly, but he is not acting in terms of his self-interest.