Religion, like science, is only noteworthy when it emphasizes a matter of what is true rather than whose belief is greater or lesser or which deity works for whom. Sincere religion and tested science are similar in that their assertions can be argued logically and objectively; otherwise, we get false cults and babble.
The cult thrives on maintaining strict harmonious beliefs in attitude, opinions and behavior; discord and dissonance are adverted at all costs to maintain a false dogma; truth propels the group deeper into pseudo-beliefs and truth-telling is defamed; the result β cognitive dissonance.
To comprehend climate change, one must be educated and enlightened by the scientific evidence; those in disbelief follow the mantra of their tribe and cult for they lack resources to acquire an independent position.
Itβs easy to obtain safety with the majority or join the cult on false pretenses, one convinced themselves to believe; but the strongest among us stand on principle and wisdom; alone when necessary.
Some people with DID present their narratives of sadistic abuse in a quite matter-of-fact way, without perceptible affect. This may sometimes be done as a way of protecting themselves, and the listener, from the emotional impact of their experience. We have found that people describing trauma in a flat way, without feeling, are usually those who have been more chronically abused, while those with affect still have a sense of self that can observe the tragedy of betrayal and have feelings about it. In some cases, this deadpan presentation can also be the result of cult training and brainwashing. Unfortunately, when a patient describes a traumatic experience without showing any apparent emotion, it can make the listener doubt whether the patient is telling the truth. (page 119, Chapter 9, Some clinical implications of believing or not believing the patient)