On Humility and Entitlement

A common attack on the character of Atheists and self- pronounced secular people has to do with their lack of humility, otherwise labeled: arrogance. The arrogance to defy the God that gave them everything (wished for or not); the arrogance to trust their own human mind to grasp reality, to make “right” and “wrong” judgments, to criticize religious teachings and religious authority.

Non-believers are hence accused of feeling entitled to those verbalizations and behavior for which they do NOT deserve according to the devout. 

Which made me wonder about the kinds of entitlements “humble piety” entails: 

Those who win the lottery, who get out alive from car accidents, shootouts,  wars, calamities involving casualties, feeling that they are “better” people, hence more entitled to have been saved than the less fortunate; 

Creationists who believe that the universe was created for them, other forms of life being mere instruments for Man’s pleasure;

Nations and sects feeling entitled for a preferential treatment by God as ”chosen people” entitled to guide and control other lives, define their roles, their diet, sex and family-life;

Or entitled to God’s blessing (“God Bless America”, or “god bless my team, not the other”);

Fundamentalists who feel entitled to a piece of land, to a “holy” city, or  to take lives and blow away building and school-buses of those who are not entitled to live or to own that land or city;

Huge real estate properties feeling entitled to public services without paying their share of the cost (taxes);  

The list is longer, but above all I am impressed by the devout entitlement to claim that the above conduct is in line with TRUE morality, without having to provide any reasoning or shred of evidence beyond stating the entitlement as a fact.  

                                      THE PLAUSIBILITY OF RELIGION

How do religious belief systems continue to survive in spite of their groundless claims? 
How do any weird ideas last in today's world of Internet explosion of information, scientific knowledge and technology?
Peter Berger, a sociologist who extensively studied religious institutions, found that belief systems must be rooted in a plausibility (or believability) structure. They must be nested within a social/affiliative community.
The community of believers makes the difference between an idiosyncratic spoof or delusion and an established religion.
 People willingly accept bizarre ideas as long as enough other people do.
 They especially look to others to define ambiguous and uncertain situations. 
 The 'meaning of life', 'the beginning and the end', 'good and evil' are taken by sacred belief systems, as well as 'what's right and wrong' and 'relationships to others'.
 The absoluteness attributed to religious beliefs gives special relief to those who can't tolerate a high level of  complexity and uncertainty.
Plausibility is reinforced by "sacredness" and by tradition. music, rituals and a variety of highly arousing emotional experiences act as 'absorbants", or as hypnotic means to enhance a sense of realism or "truth"and mystery at the same time.
Tradition and rituals are repetitive experiences which make those beliefs increasingly familiar, therefore believed as true.   
Once those belief systems are "hammered" into one's mind, they take a strong hold, reinforcing themselves with persistent inertia.
 They will hold on to validating explanations and company, will defend their closed boundaries and will reject unfamiliar data that may challenge its absoluteness.
And finally, the shepherd and the sheep. If the belief system defines the "self" and the community becomes ones collective- self, religion gets the strongest assurance to its survival.