Complete Test on Metaphysical ASAP

iloveelvisfan

G140-Segment4.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >Complete Test on Metaphysical ASAP

Thomas Francis University • Course G140 • Segment 4

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEF

—Douglas R. Kelley, PhD, CH, CSL

Updated: September 28, 2015

Upon Completion of this Segment, You Will Know:

 The nature of belief.

 Denial and cognitive dissonance.

 How beliefs are created.

 The importance of scientific objectivity in metaphysics.

 Dealing with critics and naysayers.

 Beliefs and actions.

 What are your beliefs doing for you?

The word "belief" is a difficult thing for me. I don't believe. I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and when I know it, I don't need to believe it.

—Carl Jung1

elief is a fascinating anthropological study; in fact, cultural anthropology is the study of

culture and society, both of which are shaped by Belief. It is rather astounding to contem-

plate just how profoundly Belief affects each of us. Literally everything about our individual

lives is driven by our own, unique beliefs. This includes the way we drive to work to the way we dress

to the way we talk to our brand of religion (or lack thereof) to how much money we make and on and

on. The very fact that you are studying this course is a result of your beliefs; specifically, your belief

that there is more to the big picture of consciousness and existence, and your belief in the need for

education and personal growth.

Billions of dollars are spent by advertisers annually to manipulate you into believing that you

should trade your money for their products. The sole mission of sales people is to successfully manip-

ulate the beliefs of their prospects so that a sale is made. Relationships are gained or lost based on

individual beliefs, not to mention the quality of those relationships.

Millions of people seek out psychologists, therapists, counselors, coaches, and hypnotherapists

endeavoring to change their beliefs about themselves or others. Hypnosis can effectively alter one’s

beliefs; just watch a hypnosis stage show to see how willing participants will carry on a conversation

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxlZm2AU4o#t=1m27s.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

by talking into their shoe like a telephone or believe that they have forgotten the number “six” or

their own name. Hypnotherapists aid individuals to stop smoking, lose weight, build confidence, or

enhance a host of other issues by effectively managing the person’s self-belief.

Belief is arguably the most powerful and potent force in human behavior.2 Belief has started every

war fought in the history of humanity, and it is responsible for everyone’s success or failure in life.

Belief at one time killed many alleged witches, and, during the inquisition, many thousands of inno-

cent people with contrary “beliefs.” Belief once told us we could not fly, and then Belief told us we

could, so we did. John Stuart Mill, a 19th Century British philosopher, put it succinctly when he wrote,

“One person with a belief is equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.”

We are, indeed, the sum of our beliefs. Our beliefs either imprison or free us.

Since Belief is such a formidable force, serious metaphysicians cannot afford to underestimate the

extent to which the belief is involved in what they do whether engaging in coaching, counseling,

paranormal research, or in other metaphysical endeavors. Clients will come to you due to their be-

liefs—often disabling beliefs—looking for help and assistance. As a metaphysical coach or counselor,

your job, in essence, is to help the client manage and tweak his or her beliefs.

THE NATURE OF BELIEF

A belief is something accepted as true; it doesn’t necessarily have to be true, but it is perceived

as such by the person. The Encyclopedia Britannica (2008)3 expands on this by saying that a belief is:

a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intel-

lectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth. Believing is either an intellectual

judgment or, as the 18th-century Scottish Skeptic David Hume maintained, a special

sort of feeling with overtones that differ from those of disbelief. Beliefs have been

distinguished according to their degree of certainty: a surmise or suspicion, an opinion,

or a conviction. Belief becomes knowledge only when the truth of a proposition becomes

evident to the believer.

What the encyclopedia is saying is that belief is not quite the same as knowledge. Carl Jung said

the same thing in the segment quote above when he said “Either I know a thing, and when I know it,

I don’t need to believe it.” We’re splitting hairs a little bit here between the words “belief” and

“knowledge.” We may both “believe” and “know” something to be true, such as gravity, but techni-

cally speaking, our view of gravity is more provable knowledge than belief.

Another website author includes experience in the mix:

Belief drives behavior, but often belief is not based on experience and so does not reach

or reflect the intimately lived dimension of human existence. Indeed, the very nature

of belief precludes the necessity of experience. Belief does not merely dispense with

the evidence of experience, it can go further and deny the evidence of experience. And

2 It might also be argued that Belief is the most potent force in the known universe. Even though there are powerful phe- nomena in the universe such as black holes and gamma rays, we cannot yet know if it is possible to understand and har-

ness such powers through advanced technology. If possible, such powerful phenomena would then be subject to the be- liefs, knowledge, and actions of the sentient entities that control them. This would put belief back at the top of the most

potent forces in the known universe. 3 belief.Dictionary.com. © Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

it often does. Therein lies the power of belief. Belief is motivation by reliance on an

assigned version of reality or an assigned version of what might be imagined. Ultimately,

the problem introduced by belief is not a matter of believing versus non-believing, be-

cause annulment of the will to believe is not possible. The true conflict here is between

believing and learning. "The unexamined belief is not worth holding." True enough, but

the examined belief may not be worth holding, either. A great many beliefs, once they

are examined, may prove to be worthless as indicators of truth or guides to experience,

although they may serve to define identity and confer a sense of belonging.4

This author is pointing out two other facets of belief, 1) our beliefs are based on our version of

reality (which may or may not be the real reality), and 2) we may continue to believe despite evidence

and experience to the contrary, in other words, denial. Nineteenth Century novelist, Samuel Butler,

wrote, “Belief like any other moving body follows the path of least resistance.”

DENIAL AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

The need to believe is so strong in human beings that denial can result. Denial is essentially the

unhealthy belief that, contrary to reality, something is either true or untrue (as the case may be).

Denial results when reality “denies” our need for some kind of personally perceived benefit or pay-

off (secondary gains). Denial is a natural coping mechanism and often results when any of our human

needs remain unmet. Due to the power of belief, we often lie to ourselves about reality in an effort

to believe that something is either really true or untrue (as the case may be). My definition of denial

is, “Lying to oneself to evade responsibility.”

An aspect of denial with secondary gains is something called “Cognitive Dissonance.” The word

“dissonance” means disagreement or conflict, and “cognitive” means your ability to think and reason.

Put the two words together and you get a conflict in reasoning. The dictionary defines cognitive

dissonance as the “anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise in-

compatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like.”5 When we are conflicted over something, we rationalize

it to feel better, usually due to secondary gains. Therefore, cognitive dissonance is essentially deep

denial because of secondary gains. When someone “gains” something, they don’t lose it. So cognitive

dissonance is often more about not losing something of perceived value (which is still secondary gains)

than gaining something.

One example of cognitive dissonance is when we want something we cannot have, and, once re-

alizing that we cannot have it, we “change our mind” (our belief) and criticize it. This frequently

happens in intimate relationships when one person is rejected and then “hates” the person who

rejected him or her.

Cognitive dissonance is a huge problem with religious adherents, especially cult members. Con-

sider this example from Wikipedia:

The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon

Festinger [who apparently coined the term in 1956] and others in the book When Proph-

ecy Fails. The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the

4 Author name unclear; http://www.trufax.org/general/beliefsystems.html. 5 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cognitive+Dissonance.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

world on a certain date…. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, be-

lieving they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and

passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the vic-

tim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose

to believe something less dissonant: the aliens had given earth a second chance, and

the group was now empowered to spread the word: earth-spoiling must stop. The group

dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy.6

The cognitive dissonance described above is prevalent in cults and exacts a heavy toll on the

person in terms of stress, confusion, discouragement, depression, heavy drinking or alcoholism, rela-

tionships, allergies, and other physical and mental manifestations. I myself attribute the chronic

migraine headaches with which I suffered for over 15 years to the cognitive dissonance resulting from

spending nearly 40 years in a cult. The migraines “miraculously” stopped as soon as I left in 1999.

Counselors and coaches, take note. Look for signs of “conflictedness” or cognitive dissonance in

your clients. It is a powerful form of denial. For some people in certain situations, coming out of

denial means they might have to change their entire outlook which, in turn, may impact professional

relationships and may even present an existential crisis. In their mind, friends and relationships might

fall by the wayside; they may be seen as a flake by their peers thereby losing their reputation, and,

depending on the situation, they may even have to reassess their entire world view. A change of this

magnitude would translate into a perceived “loss of control” and people resist change because they

fear losing control. Remember, “denial” means “Lying to oneself to evade responsibility.” Because

of the perceived high cost of changing one’s belief in this example, the person simply lies to them-

selves and, therefore, evades taking responsibility and changing. Never underestimate the human

capacity for denial, for it is astonishing.

Another type of conflicted belief is one introduced by Yale Professor, Tamar Gendler, in 2008

called an “alief.” Wikipedia explains what it is:

Alief is a concept used by philosophers and psychologists to refer to an automatic or

habitual belief-like attitude, particularly one that is in tension with a person’s explicit

beliefs…. for example, a person standing on a transparent balcony may believe that she

is safe, but alieve that she is in danger. A person watching a sad movie may believe that

the characters are completely fictional, but his aliefs may lead him to cry nonetheless.

A person who is hesitant to eat fudge that has been formed into the shape of feces, or

who exhibits reluctance in drinking from a sterilized bedpan may believe that the sub-

stances are safe to eat and drink, but may alieve that they are not. And a person who

believes in racial equality may nonetheless have aliefs that cause her to treat people of

different racial groups in subtly different ways.7

HOW BELIEFS ARE CREATED

So, if beliefs are not the same as knowledge, how do they come about? In his essay, A Note on the

Concept of Belief,8 Nicolas Berggren, PhD offers a compelling answer:

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance. 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alief_(belief). For more information, see Professor Gendler’s article, Alief and Belief, at

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~tgendler/documents/aliefbeliefjphilfinal.pdf. 8 http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/belief.htm.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

(1) We begin by adopting a set of criteria for determining whether fact claims (i.e., claims

that a certain thing exists in some specified manner) are true or false.

(2) We are then presented with a fact claim.

(3) We evaluate the fact claim by using the criteria we have adopted for judging them,

and in doing this, we make use of all available empirical knowledge pertaining to the

fact claim in question.

(4) We arrive at a conviction - a belief - with regard to the level of truth of the fact claim

presented to us. It is also possible not to have such a belief after steps (1)-(3), if we

think that no convincing evidence has been presented.

To exemplify:

(1) We begin by adopting the set of criteria for judging fact claims given by the scientific

method.

(2) Then someone says to us: "Trolls exist in the forest" (a fact claim).

(3) We consider this claim according to the scientific method, both in methodology (i.e.,

we investigate matters systematically and logically) and in using all known information

regarding trolls.

(4) We end up believing or not believing that trolls exist.

To avoid confusion, let me stress at this point that it is generally not possible to prove the

non-existence of a certain thing. However, some things are proposed to have certain proper-

ties which may be logically inconsistent, and hence these things can be proved not to exist,

and also judgments with reference to existence of a proposed thing are not binary but rather

continuous. Thus, one may launch an inductive, probabilistic argument against the existence

of a proposed thing, after having gone through steps (1)-(4) above. But even in the absence

of a positive belief that trolls do not exist, it should be stressed that the natural default

position is one of unbelief, unless convincing evidence supporting the fact claim have been

brought up.

What is clear from this explication is that holding a certain belief is not the result of a

direct choice. When someone presents us with a fact claim (e.g., "Trolls exist in the forest")

we just cannot choose to believe or disbelieve it; rather, we cannot avoid holding a certain

belief or unbelief on the basis of steps (1)-(3) above. If, on the basis of the example of the

trolls, we are committed to scientific reasoning, and if all available evidence gives no indica-

tion whatsoever that there are any trolls around, then we cannot believe that there are trolls,

even if we would wish for them to exist. [Italics his.]

Dr. Berggren points out in the text above that once we have been presented with two or more

sides of an issue, we “cannot avoid” adopting a belief one way or another if we hold to the scientific

method. This may be true for mainstream science and even with people in general, but it is not

necessarily true in every case. It is entirely possible and even desirable in some cases to not hold a

belief one way or the other (unbelief) pending further research or data (no preconceived notions),

for example, was the universe created, did it evolve, or was it a case of both? The broad metaphysical

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

field has precious few concrete answers and we must be careful not to believe in something without

compelling and grounded reasons.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY IN METAPHYSICS

In a sense, all metaphysicians are metaphysical researchers whether directly engaged in research

or engaged as a metaphysical practitioner. Whether coaches, counselors, anomalous researchers,

holistic healers, or some other metaphysical specialization, we grow in our knowledge of human na-

ture and the inherent implications on consciousness and existence. It is necessary, then, that we

maintain an open, balanced, and objective mind toward new concepts and hypotheses that shed light

on who we are as a species.

Of all people, one would think that scientists would have the most open of minds, but this is often

not the case. Fortunately, more and more scientists are showing a more open mind to the metaphys-

ical aspects of human nature.

These days, scientists in general must play the political game if they are to be eligible for grants

or to get published in “respected” scientific journals. All too often, scientists in general have to

balance true open-mindedness with concerns of tenure, job promotions and pay raises, acceptance,

and academic stardom. To be sure, many scientists do believe in the potential metaphysical and

anomalous aspects of reality. However, to admit this belief publicly might often mean the death-

knell to their careers. To these open-minded scientists, I understand your predicament, and I applaud

you for not mentally succumbing to the “old school” beliefs of the last two centuries that will die out

as science progresses. You may have to play the game for now, but you don’t have to sacrifice your

soul; things can and do change. For example, up until the early 1990’s, it was not scientifically fash-

ionable to search for planets outside our solar system. But that all changed when the first extrasolar

planet (or exoplanet) was confirmed in 1991-1992. With hundreds of exoplanets having been discov-

ered so far and over a thousand candidates waiting for confirmation (as of this writing), it is now a

hot area of scientific discovery.

During the 19th Century when the Darwinian theory of evolution began to take hold, mainstream

science made a concerted effort to distance itself completely from anything that even hinted at

religion. A case in point is the concept of a global deluge, or the Flood of Noah’s day. Strong evidence

exists that the earth suffered widespread and regional flooding, although the story of Noah building

an Ark that could feed, water, and care for thousands of animals does not stand up to deductive

reasoning, nor is it logically feasible.9 Nineteenth Century science categorically denied any and all

evidence of a flood because if a biblical flood was proven by science, then the Bible “would be proven

by default,” and science would not hear of such “heresy.” Therefore, any scientist at the time who

published or promoted the idea of widespread historical flooding could say goodbye to his or her

career. Science had taken on its own brand of religious repression. Fortunately, this repressive notion

lightened up in the 20th century, but its by-product of closed-mindedness still persists.

In our efforts to discover whatever truths exist, we must abandon the closed-minded belief systems

of mainstream science and return to the true scientific method, which is “The open-minded search

to discover and explain reality, whatever that means and wherever that takes us.”

9 For more information on the infeasibility of Noah’s Ark, visit http://www.skepdic.com/noahsark.html.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

In her article, “Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism,”10 Philosophy

Professor Susan Haack wrote:

The genuine inquirer wants to get to the truth of the matter that concerns him, whether

or not that truth comports with what he believed at the outset of his investigation, and

whether or not his acknowledgement of that truth is likely to get him tenure, or to make

him rich, famous, or popular. So he is motivated to seek out and assess the worth of

evidence and arguments thoroughly and impartially. This doesn't just mean that he will

be hard-working; it is a matter, rather, of willingness to re-think, to re-appraise, to

spend as long as it takes on the detail that might be fatal, to give as much thought to

the last one percent as to the rest. The genuine inquirer will be ready to acknowledge,

to himself as well as others, where his evidence and arguments seem shakiest, and his

articulation of problem or solution vaguest. He will be willing to go with the evidence

even to unpopular conclusions, and to welcome someone else's having found the truth

he was seeking. And, far from having a motive to obfuscate, he will try to see and

explain things as clearly as he can.

During the Dark Ages, Galileo’s life was all but ruined by the Catholic Hierarchy because he dared

to publish his scientific findings that the sun (and not the earth) was the center of the solar system.

Human arrogance has plagued our species for millennia, and whether that arrogance states that we

are the center of the universe, or whether it is politically incorrect in the scientific world to study

metaphysics and anomalous phenomena, it is still arrogance.

True Science is open to all possibilities and methods. True Science is about discovery. True Science

does not arrogantly approach unexplained events with preconceived notions. True Science endeavors

to find explanations that fit all reported activity.

“Skeptics” and “Debunkers” are also joined at the hip with the religion of science, or “Scien-

tism.”11 To be fair, the words “skeptic” and “debunker” are often used loosely and interchangeably,

and can convey different shades of meaning with different intensities depending on the context.

Technically, to “debunk” means “to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims

of” a particular issue, and “skeptical” means “marked by or given to doubt; questioning.”12

I like the following summation: “‘Skeptic[al]’ means to question, and ‘Debunk’ means to expose

while ridiculing.” Taken within the intended context and for all intents and purposes, “skepticism”

is a healthy approach for it implies that a person is open-minded and undecided, but is trying to prove

it one way or another based on available evidence. To debunk implies that the person possesses

preconceived notions from the outset and is trying to prove it one particular way regardless of any

evidence to the contrary. Debunkers are no different than religionists in that they approach the issue

with faith, which is belief absent of evidence, or in this case, belief based on denial of evidence.

Total skepticism is not healthy at all.

10 As published in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, November/December 1997 issue. http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/preposterism.html 11 “Scientism is the belief that the assumptions, methods and even the speculations of science are equally appropriate, if not essential,

for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion. Scientism explicitly denies both the special revelation of truth and the existence of a sovereign, supernatural and eternal being. In the religion of Scientism, the Cosmos (matter, energy, time and space) is believed to be eternal and the only ultimate reality. Scientism teaches that all things have their being and origin in the intrinsic properties of nature. It follows that if gods were to exist, they too would only be a part and product of nature. The social and philosophical implications of Scientism for man are embodied in the religion of Secular Humanism.” — David N. Menton, Ph.D, Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism, Copyright (c) 1991 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/sagan.htm 12 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

There will always be close-minded naysayers in the world, and frankly, we have no time for them

if we are going to make inroads into explaining and understanding the true nature of consciousness

and existence. In his book, Cryptozoology —Science and Speculation, Chad Arment cites a remark by

historian, Bertrand Russell:

Scepticism [sic], while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is

an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.13

Arment then makes a crucial point:

Skepticism… is a belief-driven philosophy creating the illusion of scientific neutrality

while adopting practices of disbelief. Skepticism is not the half-way mark between be-

lief and disbelief.1 [Italics added]

I have written and spoken much about the impact of belief in recent years, especially in the field

of anomalous research. Arment’s quote that “Skepticism is not the half-way mark between belief and

disbelief” crystallized in my mind the importance of being neither a skeptic nor a believer when

conducting scientific, metaphysical, or anomalous research. Arment also adds:

Belief and disbelief are two sides of the same coin….14 Those who hold to a philosophy

of disbelief… have no intellectual impetus to investigate anything, which impedes sci-

entific progress.15 [Italics added]

Again, the first sentence helped to crystallize an important concept in believing and disbelieving

in my mind. How? You cannot be a disbeliever without also being a believer. Hard-core skeptics and

disbelievers still believe in something, namely, the opposite of the “believers.”16

Debunkers should consider the fact that science still cannot prove where the “mind” actually

resides, or if it even exists. Furthermore, as discussed in Course G60: Advanced Metaphysical Con-

cepts, evidence suggests that the mind is non-local. But do we deny that we have a mind simply

because it cannot be proved? To all the debunkers and hard-core skeptics I say, “Until you can prove

scientifically that you have a mind, stop bitching.”

We simply cannot afford to approach metaphysical research with preconceived notions or beliefs—

one way or the other. Therefore, be neither skeptic nor believer; approach your metaphysical re-

search and work with an open and neutral mind. See what the evidence tells you before you make up

your mind about it. And make sure you can support your conclusion with solid facts or, at the very

least, strong circumstantial and grounded evidence lest your reputation and credibility suffer or is

damaged beyond repair. And by the way, open-mindedness includes not rejecting evidence contrary

to any pet theories you may have.

13 Cryptozoology —Science and Speculation by Chad Arment, page 32. 14 Ibid, page 29. 15 Ibid, page 31. 16 I am not referring to “unbelief,” but to “disbelief.” Unbelief is the lack of believing one way or another whereas disbe-

lief is still believing the opposite.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

DEALING WITH CRITICS AND NAYSAYERS

So what does one do if attacked by critics and debunkers? Simply put, don’t waste your time.

There is usually nothing to be gained by acknowledging or answering any attacks made by unreason-

able people. Critics are not usually interested in a fair and reasonable debate; they are usually only

interested in attacking and tearing down others. In rare instances there may be a solid reason for

responding to critics, but use good judgment and discretion. Of course, if the critic is open to mutually

beneficial discovery and a better understanding of the topic at hand, feel free to engage them.

When criticized, remember the empowering words of Abraham Lincoln:

If I were to try to read, much less to answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop

might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how—the very

best I can; and I mean to keep on doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all

right, then what is said against me won't matter. If the end brings me out wrong, then

ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.

Therefore, do not get discouraged because of the naysayers of the world. Practice your metaphys-

ics in an honorable and professional manner, make sure you have a compelling basis for anything you

posit or believe, and always be mindful of the profound role that Belief plays in human nature.

BELIEFS AND ACTIONS

In this discussion on belief, it is a given that some kind of action must be taken for a belief to

realize its full power. Belief without action is largely impotent. However, beliefs—especially strong

beliefs—will be acted upon in some fashion, even if in small ways. All our actions are driven by our

beliefs.

This begs the question that if a belief is nothing without action, is it not action that is the most

powerful force in human behavior? After all, we can sometimes act on instinct without thinking (and,

therefore, without belief). While I certainly agree that action is required in order for a belief to be

realized, I can argue that human beings—especially adults—do not act solely on instinct. Even the

instinctive fight or flight response invoked in dangerous situations is influenced by belief because

different people will react differently to the same situation. In fact, individuals in certain occupations

such as law enforcement and the military are trained to deal proactively with dangerous and intense

situations so that they do not potentially react poorly resulting in the loss of life or property. This

underscores the fact that training is really nothing more than belief management.

Another important point is that we can effectively act by not acting; therefore, belief still drives

actions. For example, many cases have been reported in the news and elsewhere where a person is

being harmed in front of onlooking bystanders who did nothing to stop it because they did not want

to get involved or were afraid. Their inaction was in reality an action derived from their beliefs. Fear

is nothing more or less than a belief.

One other argument that might seem to support the idea that actions are more powerful than

beliefs is that of professed beliefs, such as religious beliefs. Since people often act contrary to their

religious beliefs, isn’t action more powerful than belief? Actually, no. I contend that a person never

acts contrary to his or her beliefs. One’s true inner beliefs are not necessarily the same as their

outward professed beliefs. This is why we sometimes say that a person showed his or her “true col-

ors.” It is not a matter of “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Belief always precedes action.

Segment 4: The Psychology of Belief

The process of human action and why certain actions are taken is especially important to students

who are specializing in Spiritual Counseling, Holistic Life Coaching, or Metaphysical Hypnosis. If you

are getting a degree in one of these areas, then you will learn in Course A60: Transpersonal Counsel-

ing and Coaching that human action is preceded by observation, then thought, then previous bias,

then belief (in that order). This can be represented as: Observation  Thought  Bias  Belief 

Action.

Another area of consideration is the question of whether beliefs are limited to our conscious minds

or whether they can also be part of our unconscious minds. This is easily answered with habits. When-

ever we learn how to do something new (such as a job skill), we go through several phases before we

can competently perform the skill. In the beginning stages, we really have to think about what we’re

doing, but once we’ve learned how to do it and practice it enough, we can do it without even thinking

about it. And because we can be trained to do something the right way or the wrong way, belief

comes into the picture. We literally live our lives following habits. In fact, we could not do much of

anything if it were not for our ability to form habits—we would have to learn how to do something all

over again each time we did it.

Additional proof that our beliefs can reside in our unconscious minds is that of psychological issues

such as low self-esteem (them-esteem) and other baggage we pick up in our lives (especially while

growing up). A poor self-concept (self-belief) and other unconscious fears can and do rule our behav-

iors (actions). People see psychologists, spiritual counselors, life coaches, and hypnotists to overcome

deep-seated issues that hold them back from successful lives and relationships.

WHAT ARE YOUR BELIEFS DOING FOR YOU?

All TFU courses are largely about Belief, specifically, helping you to reassess your beliefs about

yourself, others, and existence in a healthy way. As stated, Belief is the most powerful force in human

behavior, and your beliefs about yourself determine your level of success or failure. This is why it is

crucial for you to examine your beliefs about the world in general, and your beliefs about yourself in

particular to make sure they are grounded, positive, and healthy. Indeed, if you want things around

you to change, all you have to do is change your beliefs.