Actually, there are many studies that show the contrary. Many people with high self-esteem claim achievements (better relationships, career success, etc.) but they're usually exaggerating. There doesn't seem to be any connection between self-esteem and performance in any field, from what I understand.
From what I understand, the positive correlation between self-esteem and accomplishment exists up to a point on the self-esteem scale; from that point on, high(er) self-esteem seems to become counterproductive.
Of course, performance and accomplishment can be difficult to measure in a meaningful and objective way. Many studies on self-esteem and accomplishment are done on students by measuring their accomplishment in terms of academic success that seems to be easy enough to measure.
How relevant those results are is another matter.
But I think we can all agree that a certain measure of self-assurance, self-confidence, self-esteem of however we wish to call it, is necessary to have interactions with other people that the person themselves experiences as meaningful and successful.
I wasn't sure if you were speaking of self-esteem in this practical sense, or in some grander, "I'm having an existential crisis" way. You've clarified, but here's why I'm still confused: you seemed to infer that you lack the self-esteem to make judgments based on evidence, yet you have no problem in making a strong claim ("it's no mystery...") about something which you gleaned through mere assumption. This is a contradiction. Clearly you have enough self-assurance to say, essentially, "This is how I perceive something, so this is how it must be," so I don't understand why you can't (or why you think you can't) take an objective view of religion and draw a conclusion based on what you find.
Then this is how it seemed to you.
Clearly you have enough self-assurance to say, essentially, "This is how I perceive something, so this is how it must be,"
No. This is your conclusion.
so I don't understand why you can't (or why you think you can't) take an objective view of religion and draw a conclusion based on what you find.
I consider declarations of certainty to be:
1. Rhetorical maneuvers,
or
2. Manifestation of extremely high-self-esteem,
or
3. Expression of factual certainty.
In actual communication, it is often hard to tell which is which and how to reply to a person who has made a declaration of certainty. (Do they actually know and should be trusted, or are they just boasting?)
Often, factual certainty would require nothing less than omniscience.
Arguably, people often make declarations of certainty as a rhetorical maneuver that allows them to get the upper hand in the communication or relationship, and many other times as a matter of presenting and maintaining a particular self-image in the presence of others.
Limiting declarations of certainty only to factual certainty would leave people very little to say, and with little means to get the upper hand in communication/relationships.
