Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

  • The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor.

    The outcome is whatever avoids the feeling of shame, unless the person is emotionally intelligent enough to recognize it happening. It absolutely can and will affect your logic.

    The response is not just to physical threats, it is trying to avoid negative emotions. That may be the shame from recognizing your actions, or realizing your belief is illogical.

    I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision

    Emotion is the initial decision. The rationalizations are just an attempt to pretend is reasonable.

      • That’s what I was just doing, but I guess I’ll expand upon it.

        Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.

        They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren’t in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.

        There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you’ve given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.

        To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you’ve mentioned is this unconscious process.

        A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.

        When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

        I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.