Is the Only Thing to Fear Is "Fear, Itself"?

One of America's Presidents encouraged our country at the beginning of the Great Depression with the statement; the "only thing to fear is fear itself". But, is the only thing to fear is" fear, itself"?I heard today that when one has "lost everything", then fear dissolves, because you have nothing to loose. The presumption was that one only fears the loss of the material. This is true for some, but it is too broad a generalization.

Fear can be ingrained in response to pain. One can fear the dentist or the doctor because of a painful experience or their high sensitivity to physical pain. Or one can fear the emotional pain of loving again after a painful loss. So, fear is a human response to stimuli, whether present situations or past experiences.

Fear can be bred, when one experiences the unexpected. Trust is the opposite of fear, in this regard. Rules of behavior, written or unwritten code of social "norms" are values that protect us from "fear of the unexpected". These "norms" are built on trust and are the basis of human relationships.

Today's "talk" posed courage as the opposite of fear. This is true, as courage is about fearlessness, but courage that is baseless irrationality, which disregards past experience, one's personal propensity to pain, whether physical or emotional, or the trustworthiness of one's present community, are all rational considerations in evaluating whether fear is justified. Fear is not necessarily bad. It is an emotional response to pain. It serves as a warning. So, should we always disregard such fear and act in the face of fear? Some would regard acting in the face of fear as courageous, while others would think it the height of presumption and foolishness!

Courage is built when fear is faced, acknowledged and addressed. Sometimes the fear is an entrance into "self-knowledge", while other times it is a call to courageous acts.

One cannot be too simple in understanding human emotion.

Brain, Mind, Emotions, and Memory Response and Living in the Real World

Last night my husband and I watched a movie with Morgan Freeman. His moives usually have some meaning or message, and they are usually good. We thought we might be "headed to see" some B rated movie, as we'd gotten several movies from Sam's Club for under $5. But, we were delightfully surprised!

The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.

To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.

In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".

I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.

My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.

Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.

I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.

This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.

And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.

Law Is the Boundary Between Reason and Revelation

I have been thinking about the extremes of faith apart from reason and reason apart from faith. One cannot ignore the "fall-out" of these two extremes. The casualties are of rationale and mystery.

Reason without faith leave one making decisions arrogantly, because what is known is all that should be known. But, faith without reason is no less arrogant becasue it dismisses any knowledge that one can gain in the world and makes foolish mistakes.

Laws protect us from these irregularities because our nation is based on "equality under the law". Law protects from the "sins" of tresspassing. Americans live in peace because we do not have to fear government interference or individual indiscretions. But, if we have occasion to experience such atrocities, then we have recourse, "under law".

Law protects us from the arrogant.

There Is No More Christian Experience

Human experience is the universal affirmation of all beings. Human experience does not have to define things in religious ways, although, it can. Experience is about life and all that makes life in this world. It has little to do with life in the here after, as we just don't know about that kind of life.

In reading today, one blog site that I subscribe to, talked about the Founding Fathers and their faith. Their faith had a range between orthodoxy and Deism. The middle ground was called theistic rationalism, or Unitarian. It was a middle way between the naturalism of Deism and the supernaturalism of orthodoxy. This is palatable for me personally, at least, at first glance.

What is a theistic rationalist? A rationalist believes in reason as a guiding force for one's life, while theism affirms a "god" beyond natural forces, and causal influences. The part that I struggle with is the personability of "god". I just don't see that this is the case in reality.

Circumstances are interpreted from a certain veiwpoint. Bias, or faith, is what predisposes one to the interpretation. Reason seems to be more plausible in discerning how one will understand reality, not faith alone.

If Faith supplements reason, then, how do we know if this is our posture, that our faith is just a "trust" about the "mystery", which may or may not be "god"? Providence is not something that I find reasonable. There are too many questions about evil and suffering to forego them for "faith" in the providence of "god". So, I don't think that commitment to a "god" that is to be believed in spite of rationale is not a promising prospect of "hope".

Is There Such a Thing as Historical Christianity?

I have alluded to the fact that some of the things I have been learning have led me to question whether there is a real beginning to Christianity. This is what many in the scholarly world seek to prove.

In fact, it seems that even the roots of Christianity, the Jewish tradition, is also of various opinions and theories. This leaves little room for rational faith. And this is the point of the radical. Radicalism is the 'leap" where reason leaves off. But, what if one is not willing to trust the dark as "God's hand"? Does that person "die in their sins"?

I find it hard to believe or think that any God worth serving is "bound to anyone's service" , "duty", or understanding. Service must come from the person's desire to do "good" and their voluntary giving of themselves in their personal value system and not from any outside source or authorial demand. This is why I wonder and question about people of radical faith.

As faith has been based on many things, what is truly "real faith"? Faith in a rationale for life is no less faith. Why does anyone suppose that faith has to look "the same" or believe the same things about life in this world, as faith is living out one's life based upon one's understanding of life. Everyone has faith, just not in the type of 'god" you might suppose, by faith.

A Radical's Call to Faith

Radicals, of all kinds, understand themselves as "special emmisaries" of one sort or another. They believe that they have "special revelation" that supercedes all other kinds of knowledge. These people are not rational, as they believe that faith is the "lone" and "sole" reason for life itself. They believe that they "know God" in some mystical experiential way or in some "specially revealed text". These people are malinformed and are not open to any "different" information. Their "world" is already determined by their "world", so any "evidence" that contradicts their "understanding" is dismissed. Their very identity is tied up into their "world". These have no "self", as "self" has not developed beyond the dependent stage of a child.

This is Not saying that people of faith are all "wackos" or not mature people. No, the ones I am identifying are those that have an unhealthy need to understand their "world" as "absolute" and imposing upon others. People of faith can be reasonable and rational, while understanding that how they understand their "world" is a "fill in the gap" way of formulating things that are beyond our ability to really "know". It is mystery.

These radicals are filled with fear of everything from what they think, and read, to what they wear. These are superstitous people. They fear imposing and imminent danger if they do not "cross" their t's and dot their i's. They live in a very narrow and dark place, where ghosts and goblins exist and might any moment take their life.

I find that radicals are determined to "prove" their loyalty by sacrifice and service of many kinds. They believe that this proves something to God, others and themselves. They fear that they might not have faith, so they become obsessive and defensive about their faith. Challenging such people only leads them to personally attack their "assailant", or plan for 'revenge".

These radicals not only seek to "prove" faith but they are also competitive. They long for the accolades of honor for their faithful service and will kill themselves in carrying out heroic attempts at attaining "top dog" status. They truly believe Hebrews, when it says to run the race, as if only one will win. They want to win at all costs.

Although I have reservations, if not outright abhorrence, in some regards to these radicals, at least they are willing to be consistent to their commitments, and ideals. For this, they can be applauded. I just don't think that being so OCD is healthy.