# Being brainwashed into a belief is not a good reason to hold said belief. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 2, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920 "2006-10-02T02:22:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/601 "2006-11-05T16:09:57Z")
Kumbaya my… oh, sorry, didn’t notice you there. [QUOTE=badchad] Do you really believe this **Finn**? [/quote] Either that, or I was lying. Moreoever, you might want to quote the specifics of my faith that I posted above: > [@](#): > > I do need faith to believe that my fiancee will love me 'till death parts us. [QUOTE=badchad] […] you have at least modestly sufficient reason to trust/love/marry/whatever her and this is in no way based on faith (as cited by **cosmosdan** ) and is thereby not irrational. [/quote] But no data with which I can reliably _predict the future_. I can only have faith in a possible outcome. Just as trust is faith in a person’s character/future actions. Trust in future events may be based on certain objctive (or subjective) observations, but it is still an act of faith when one leaves the realm of probability and believes it as a certainty. “I know my best friend, and he would never do anything like that.” is an article of faith, not objective truth. Is it _religious_ faith? No. Nor is science a religion, as if often claimed by some apologists. But, neither is science or epistemology free from faith. One must, for instance, first have faith in the integrity of our senses, in the capacity of the human mind to know the Truth about things, or that Universe itself _can_ be understood in any great detail in the first place. Do with that what you will. **poly** and **dan** , I’ll work on a response in the next 24 to 48 hours and get back to you, thank you for your patience. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/602 "2006-11-05T16:13:31Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] It being your allegation here, and not my claims, that would be at issue, I would suggest that it is now incumbent on you to prove that my beliefs are the product of being “brainwashed since birth” and not arrived at rationally through examination of evidence. [/quote] As I recall you telling me you were born into a Christian family, later did some questioning, but never abandoned the core of you Christian beliefs. However, I can think of absolutely no rational examination of evidence (nor do I recall you ever citing any) that would lead you to believe in any of the Christian miracles or the divinity of Christ. > [@](#): > > If you can do this in a civil manner, I will likely respond. My comments don’t require you to respond, and due to our prior discussions I have my doubts that you will be any better able to substantiate your beliefs or be any better at explaining away your religious inconsistencies. > [@](#): > > In the interim, **badchad** , let me ask what your opinion is of **Bible Man** ’s arguments to date. I haven’t paid that much attention to him as of late. By citing a few verses of my own I was able to get **Bible man** to say he will no longer correspond with me, so in that, you are similar. You both cherry pick your bible verses but you do it much more selectively than he. You both claim you can back up your arguments, but really don’t. As such I think the two of you use similar methods but just come to different conclusion. [QUOTE=Polycarp] OK, **Finn** , you are correct in one issue: to put one’s trust in the Christian God and in Jesus Christ is most emphatically _faith_ in the same sense as putting one’s trust in one’s wife or another human being is. [/quote] Hardly. In putting ones trust in an individual, you are doing it based on behaviors you have observed and even then it is often tentative. What you are doing with faith in your god is putting complete, non-tentative, trust in a being that is wholly indistinguishable from an imaginary friend. > [@](#): > > With those early Christians, I feel it is an acceptable metaphor to say, “When we see Jesus, we see God.” So are you saying that Jesus is really a metaphor for god and not really god? Are you saying that when Jesus tells us to do things that today we, and you, don’t consider right or moral, that we are disobeying the will of god? > [@](#): > > As to why I came to put my trust in Him, and through Him in the God of whom He is simultaneously Son and Person incorporate in (and we can do Trinitarian theology at length later if you like), it came from a number of personal experiences that I have tried to subject to skeptical analysis and find difficult to explain as self-delusion – combined with the fact that my concept derived from them accords in large part with elements of the historical testimony of people who have had similar “theophanies.” Goddamn that’s only one sentence. Don’t you think the best skeptical analysis is that you survived a heart attack, and felt a euphoric feeling while singing a hymn in church would suggest that you just hung your “mystical” experiences on the belief system most proximal to you? Being as you are American, don’t you think that when you discussed your “theophanies” with others you were subject to even more cultural bias? > [@](#): > > In recent “bird” threads in GQ, **Colibri** comments on himself being one of less than a dozen observers to have sighted the rare and reclusive solitary eagle. On the other hand, it would not be hard to find people who claim to have seen cryptozoological creatures, had Close Encounters of various Kinds, etc. Why is **Colibri** ’s subjective account of his sighting so much more likely to be given credence than Joe Underbridge’s claim to have seen Bigfoot from Interstate 5? There are of course a number of elements to the answer, including reputation of observer, nature of claim, likelihood of claim being valid given other evidence, etc. This is simple. The more extraordinary the claim, the more and better, evidence is necessary to rationally believe it. The more a witness has displayed a history of being reliable, the more we should trust him, but I dare say that no witness is so reliable that we should believe him regarding all claims. In this case it is also worth mentioning that your subjective testimony that says you experienced god, is of the same kind as when you told us that Jesus had already returned and was an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune. > [@](#): > > Yes, Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except _kata_ me.” (Awkward preposition to translate: through, by, with all will work to accurately render the Greek.) But it’s important to note that (1) He said this as **reassurance** to a disciple worried about His announced imminent departure – **not** , as the evangelicals would have it, as an elitist “Jesus is the Only Way” claim… Would you have us believe **Polycarp** that as you go out of your way trying to prove that said verse does not mean what it says, that you completely forgot that Jesus was even more clear in other verses and that these verses very much do say what the evangelicals suggest? \*“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but **he that believeth not shall be damned.”** Mark 16:16 “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but **he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”** John 3:18 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and **he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”** John 3:36 “Enter by the narrow gate; **for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.** For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14\* > [@](#): > > The studies for answered prayer and such are valueless because… I think if the studies for the answering of prayer actually showed it worked, you would consider them of great value. > [@](#): > > I think it’s safe to say that, if there is a God and if that God answers prayer, He answers the prayers He chooses to answer in a pattern that makes sense, if at all, only to human hindsight (or rationalization, something I must not rule out). This is akin to saying; that we have no reason to think prayer works but rather than admitting as much we just define the concept in such a ways as to pretend we can’t tell if prayer works. > [@](#): > > If anyone decides it deserves a scathing response because in his opinion there is no God or decides to tear it apart for whatever reason, probably Biblical in nature, I will gladly sit back and watch them do so, probably without responding For the record, knowing a criticism is coming, in no way insulates you from it. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/603 "2006-11-05T16:52:07Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] I do need faith to believe that my fiancee will love me 'till death parts us. Moreoever, you might want to quote the specifics of my faith that I posted above: [/quote] Sorry, I missed the above part. Regarding your fiancée, I would have to ask if you have any reason/evidence to think she will love you till your death? Also, based on this do you consider your belief in this love till death a certainty or a probability? If you respond that you don’t have much reason/evidence for your belief and yet you hold it as a certainty that your belief is true, then I would agree that it is faith you are using and the trust you put in your fiancée is irrational. I think one would be incorrect, however, to imply that all people do this in their relationships. > [@](#): > > Trust in future events may be based on certain objctive (or subjective) observations, but it is still an act of faith when one leaves the realm of probability and believes it as a certainty. I agree. Given the frequency (divorce, infidelity, lying, etc.) in which people are wrong in their assessments of others desires, particularly in the long term, this certainty, is particularly irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Subway\_Prophet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Subway\_Prophet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subway_Prophet)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/604 "2006-11-05T21:24:29Z")
[QUOTE=Bible man] If you had true Bible knowledge [/QUOTE] I have nothing to add to this _ahem_ dialogue, but this phrase reminded me of [Real Ultimate Power](http://www.realultimatepower.net/), which got me thinking about totally flipping out and killing kittens… Now I can’t think about **Bible Man** , or **badchad** , without giggling like a schoolgirl. Seriously. I’m all for creating a True Bible Knowledge website. Who’s with me? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/605 "2006-11-06T00:49:49Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] I hate interrupt this Kum By Ya session with some buckets of cold water but here it goes. [/QUOTE] Don’t over estimate you posts > [@](#): > > I think you do the same **Dan** Unlike you or **Bibleman** I have repeatedly admitted to interpreting the scriptures. > [@](#): > > Yes, but problems here are that Jesus was supposed to be incarnate with the man who wrote the law, and the law was made pretty clear at the time, with punishments of death abounding. Jesus did also endorse every jot and tittle of the law on the Sermon on the Mount. Heck, below you even cite the verse where Jesus says that those who don’t do god’s will not see the kingdom of heaven. So what is god’s will if it isn’t a collection of his laws and commandments? Thats exactly the question I’m trying to answer and the point you continually miss. > [@](#): > > And you do this too, **Dan** I’m a fan of sarcasm as a form of humor in a discussion. That wasn’t the point of my comment to\*\* Bibleman\*\* > [@](#): > > Can you not see the irony of you posting this verse in a thread, where it is pretty clear that all the “Christians” here admonishing **Bible man** follow a very watered down version of scripture which does not, very much, seem to follow the will of god as written in either the OT or NT? I’m aware of your opinion and interpretation. You seemed to have completely missed the point of my posts. It’s not the first time. > [@](#): > > Does this mean you use the word only metaphorically and you don’t really believe in god, or are you a pantheist/deist rather than a theist? You do realize when you say this you are rejecting a very large portion of what Jesus taught, and while I think that is great, you seem very partial to touting Jesus as an authority figure. Please see previous sentence. > [@](#): > > What do you mean by “kingdom of heaven” and why do you think the citation of Jesus here is specifically fruitful, when it conflicts with so much other stuff that Jesus said? Again, It’s in my posts. If you don’t get it or don’t find it meaningful I’m okay with that. IMO If you comprehended the posts you wouldn’t ask that question. > [@](#): > > I completely disagree. While faith has different definitions, most often the term “faith” that is criticized by rationalists is believing, with more or less certainty, in things for which there is no good reason to believe, and often a lot of good reason not to believe in, generally only because the believer has been told to believe them and/or because he hopes they are true. There is no reason to equate the reasons I trust my friends or significant others (based on behaviors I have observed) with the faith one has in the resurrection of Christ or any other miracles where there is insufficient reason to suggest they happened and a lot of good reasons to think they really didn’t. Equivocation of these terms only leads to confusion, or more diabolically, the ability to criticize others for holding the same types of beliefs, when in fact they don’t. I pointed out in another thread that you yourself holds certain beliefs without evidence and presented them as true. That’s the point I’m presenting here. > [@](#): > > Why hold up Jesus as this icon. Why not someone else who said better things that Jesus and did not say all the stupid/hateful things that Jesus said? Again it appears you missed the point > [@](#): > > But that’s a stupid quote. Why should you be sure of things you hope for? If you knew your Francis Bacon, you would know to be specifically skeptical of things you hope for. Also why be certain of things you don’t see? Don’t you think it would be a much wiser policy to be more certain of things you see and less certain of things you don’t? Certainty of things we don’t see can do terrible things, and makes up what was most probably the justification for the 9/11 terrorist mindset. You seem pretty certain of your opinions. Can you see them? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2006, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/606 "2006-11-06T06:32:01Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] K But no data with which I can reliably _predict the future_. I can only have faith in a possible outcome. Just as trust is faith in a person’s character/future actions. Trust in future events may be based on certain objctive (or subjective) observations, but it is still an act of faith when one leaves the realm of probability and believes it as a certainty. “I know my best friend, and he would never do anything like that.” is an article of faith, not objective truth. [/QUOTE] Faith in the future seems far different from faith in the present, which is what religious faith is. Since none of us can know the future, planning based on what the future is going to be like requires some degree of expectation of what will happen - but I’m sure you admit the possibility, however small, that things won’t work out. If you had religious-like faith in the future, even if things didn’t you wouldn’t admit it, and I’m sure you’re not like that. So I think the faith you’re talking about here is one we all have more or less, and which doesn’t have a lot to do with religion or religious faith. Hinckley’s faith that Jodie Foster loved him is more like that faith. 🙂 (That’s a joke, son.) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2006, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/607 "2006-11-06T10:33:24Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Faith in the future seems far different from faith in the present, which is what religious faith is. Since none of us can know the future, planning based on what the future is going to be like requires some degree of expectation of what will happen - but I’m sure you admit the possibility, however small, that things won’t work out. If you had religious-like faith in the future, even if things didn’t you wouldn’t admit it, and I’m sure you’re not like that. So I think the faith you’re talking about here is one we all have more or less, and which doesn’t have a lot to do with religion or religious faith. Hinckley’s faith that Jodie Foster loved him is more like that faith. 🙂 (That’s a joke, son.) [/QUOTE] Other than **Bibleman** and a few others don’t you suppose most people religious faith would admit they don’t really know with 100% surety. I think if we focus on whatever the emotional and mental mechanism is that makes up belief in something we can’t be sure of, rather than what that something is, it is pretty much the same faith. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/608 "2006-11-06T16:03:26Z")
[QUOTE=Bible man] I almost missed your post, [/QUOTE] Whew! That was close! Had you NOT spotted it at the last minute… why… I might never have gotten an answer from you. _ **Thank you!** _ * * * True Blue Jack ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/609 "2006-11-06T18:17:27Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Other than **Bibleman** and a few others don’t you suppose most people religious faith would admit they don’t really know with 100% surety. I think if we focus on whatever the emotional and mental mechanism is that makes up belief in something we can’t be sure of, rather than what that something is, it is pretty much the same faith. [/QUOTE] The difference is that all of us must act with some faith in the future - if just that the world will still be here tomorrow. We have lots of evidence that our faith is not misplaced - that our plans from the past have worked out, that the wife we married decades ago still loves us, etc. Some people, like someone whose wife did not love him, might lose some of this faith. None of us needs religious faith, not really. I’d also say if measured by the same criteria as faith in the future, religious faith falls short, at least in this life. For every instance of god providing there is one of god not providing, and the result is the non-falsifiable belief that whatever happens is gods will and for the best just because it is. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/610 "2006-11-07T03:07:51Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The difference is that all of us must act with some faith in the future - if just that the world will still be here tomorrow. We have lots of evidence that our faith is not misplaced - that our plans from the past have worked out, that the wife we married decades ago still loves us, etc. Some people, like someone whose wife did not love him, might lose some of this faith. None of us needs religious faith, not really. I’d also say if measured by the same criteria as faith in the future, religious faith falls short, at least in this life. For every instance of god providing there is one of god not providing, and the result is the non-falsifiable belief that whatever happens is gods will and for the best just because it is. [/QUOTE] Hmmmmm I don’t think I agree. I don’t think there’s a need or not need that applies to everybody. Isn’t some peoples religious faith their faith for the future? Not only a belief in an afterlife but a belief that effects their day to day choices? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/611 "2006-11-07T05:14:44Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Isn’t some peoples religious faith their faith for the future? Not only a belief in an afterlife but a belief that effects their day to day choices? [/QUOTE] I agree that for some people their religious faith tells them what their future will be like - sometimes to absurd levels, like the people who let their pastor convince them not to pay their mortgage. But not even these people consult the Bible on the need to go shopping to buy food for the week - which involves some sort of faith that we won’t keel over dead, or that Jesus won’t be coming back before the food is used up. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/612 "2006-11-07T05:20:04Z")
> [@](#): > > **badchad** : The more extraordinary the claim, the more and better, evidence is necessary to rationally believe it. So who gets to determine when a claim is “extraordinary”? Aren’t there certain scientific standards for presentation of evidence? I don’t believe that the person presenting the evidence is responsible on some sliding scale. Am I mistaken? Of course, the person receiving the evidence may be rational or irrational, open-minded or close-minded. That is not the responsibility of the presenter of the evidence. > [@](#): > > **badchad** : For the record, knowing a criticism is coming, in no way insulates you from it. Speak for yourself! Lots of things can insulate people from the sting of criticism. Emotional intelligence helps. What someone thinks of me is none of my business even when they tell me. And what I think of other people is none of their business. We don’t have to buy into others’ opinions of us. > [@](#): > > **badchad** : …all the “Christians” here admonishing Bible man follow a very watered down version of scripture which does not, very much, seem to follow the will of god as written in either the OT or NT? The Christians here have suggested different things. Primarily they have asked him to get his factual information straightened out and to practice the things that he says he believes in. > [@](#): > > **badchad** : If you knew your Francis Bacon, you would know to be specifically skeptical of things you hope for. If you knew “your” Sir Francis Bacon, you would know how devout he was. He certainly wasn’t skeptical about God or the value of faith and religion. (Besides, why not “inquire within” rather than depend on Francis Bacon to instruct you upon the value of hope?) I don’t care for Bacon very much, but these three quotations do speak to the discussion here: > [@](#): > > They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see nothing but sea. > > Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God. > > Atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man. As for his thinking on “hope,” he knew that you couldn’t live endlessly on hope alone, but he did recognize it for the comfort that it provided in times of difficulty. Pax ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/613 "2006-11-07T11:48:38Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] So who gets to determine when a claim is “extraordinary”? Aren’t there certain scientific standards for presentation of evidence? I don’t believe that the person presenting the evidence is responsible on some sliding scale. Am I mistaken? Of course, the person receiving the evidence may be rational or irrational, open-minded or close-minded. That is not the responsibility of the presenter of the evidence. Speak for yourself! Lots of things can insulate people from the sting of criticism. Emotional intelligence helps. What someone thinks of me is none of my business even when they tell me. And what I think of other people is none of their business. We don’t have to buy into others’ opinions of us. The Christians here have suggested different things. Primarily they have asked him to get his factual information straightened out and to practice the things that he says he believes in. If you knew “your” Sir Francis Bacon, you would know how devout he was. He certainly wasn’t skeptical about God or the value of faith and religion. (Besides, why not “inquire within” rather than depend on Francis Bacon to instruct you upon the value of hope?) I don’t care for Bacon very much, but these three quotations do speak to the discussion here: As for his thinking on “hope,” he knew that you couldn’t live endlessly on hope alone, but he did recognize it for the comfort that it provided in times of difficulty. Pax [/QUOTE] Your quote from Francis Bacon is a quote from another human being,I would hardly consider him an authority on a religion anymore than any person. Faith. Religious or other, is born out of desire. We believe what we want to be, A person can believe their spouse is faithful when it is not, What ever brings us peace. Faith is a choice. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/614 "2006-11-07T12:40:10Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I agree that for some people their religious faith tells them what their future will be like - sometimes to absurd levels, like the people who let their pastor convince them not to pay their mortgage. But not even these people consult the Bible on the need to go shopping to buy food for the week - which involves some sort of faith that we won’t keel over dead, or that Jesus won’t be coming back before the food is used up. [/QUOTE] The believer or non believer may have misplaced or irrational faith as well. I think I know what you mean about nobody needing religious faith to function on that moment to moment basis. I just think it’s so ingrained in some folks you couldn’t separate what they need from what they don’t. It would be great if they would actually take the time to think about it. When I think of our common subjective faith I think of what moves us to make moral and ethical decisions. Not just the big ones but ones like how do I respond when someone pisses me off. When do I confront others and in what manner? When do I go out of my way to help? When am I butting in? Much of it may be subconscious but if we think about it isn’t it a part of our subjective faith that a certain course of action from us will lead to better results? Do we choose kindness because of how we want to view ourselves or because we have faith that in our society it is the best course of action? ---
**Author:** ![pauliusthegod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a587f6/32.png) [@pauliusthegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pauliusthegod)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/615 "2006-11-08T18:18:48Z")
the difference between faith and reality this: faith in something may affect you if you believe in it enough. reality will affect you regardless of whether or not you believe it. ---
**Author:** ![pauliusthegod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a587f6/32.png) [@pauliusthegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pauliusthegod)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/616 "2006-11-08T18:36:27Z")
the difference between knowledge and faith is this: if a person experiences an event that he remains conscious throughout, that person knows what has transpired. Any person that he tells may choose to believe or disbelieve his account for they were not there and did not share in that experience so therefore cannot **know** what happened. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/617 "2006-11-09T15:41:00Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Unlike you or **Bibleman** I have repeatedly admitted to interpreting the scriptures. [/quote] Well, my accusation wasn’t that you interpret scripture but that you, as you put it: “cherry pick the scriptures to fulfill your needs with little regard for the truth as far as I can see.” I guess now that I think about it, what you have called “interpreting scripture” and this cherry picking as you describe, are pretty much one and the same. > [@](#): > > Thats exactly the question I’m trying to answer and the point you continually miss. Ok, no answer, that’s fine. > [@](#): > > I’m a fan of sarcasm as a form of humor in a discussion. That wasn’t the point of my comment to\*\* Bibleman\*\* Ok, so when **Bible man** is sarcastic, it’s a bad quality and disappoints Jesus, and when you do it, it’s all well and good. Since you asked **Bible man** how snide sarcastic comments fit with being a representative of Jesus, how do you think yours do? Also how do you think Judging **Bible man** by a standard, that you don’t think you need to follow, sits with Jesus? > [@](#): > > I’m aware of your opinion and interpretation. You seemed to have completely missed the point of my posts. It’s not the first time. Great, so you accuse **Bible man** of not following the will of god, and even cite a verse demonstrating it’s necessity to reach heaven, and then when challenged that you, and others, neither know the will of god, nor put much effort into following it, you come back with this weak answer. I guess your warning to **Bible man** didn’t mean much then. > [@](#): > > Please see previous sentence. Right, if didn’t want admit I had a good response, I’d clam up in such a way too. > [@](#): > > Again, It’s in my posts. If you don’t get it or don’t find it meaningful I’m okay with that. IMO If you comprehended the posts you wouldn’t ask that question. Cite, where you have defined what this “kingdom of heaven,” in this context, means? I will admit that much of your posts are incomprehensible, that’s why I’m asking for further clarification. > [@](#): > > I pointed out in another thread that you yourself holds certain beliefs without evidence and presented them as true. That’s the point I’m presenting here. Actually you just asserted that I hold certain beliefs evidence. But now it seems you are simultaneously trying to say that I was wrong for doing so, while defending that holding beliefs without evidence is good. > [@](#): > > You seem pretty certain of your opinions. Can you see them? My opinions are merely statements about my beliefs. [QUOTE=cosmosdan] Other than **Bibleman** and a few others don’t you suppose most people religious faith would admit they don’t really know with 100% surety. [/quote] This is your citation defining faith **cosmos** … > [@](#): > > In that lies the true courage of faith as described in Hebrews 11:1"Now faith is being **sure** of what we hope for and **certain** of what we do not see." when we act on those subjective beliefs. … I bolded the parts that indicate 100% surety seem to be necessary. Also it has been my experience that most Christians, while they will occasionally admit doubts, do give considerable lip service to being 100% certain of their beliefs in god. > [@](#): > > I think if we focus on whatever the emotional and mental mechanism is that makes up belief in something we can’t be sure of, rather than what that something is, it is pretty much the same faith. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. Regardless of what emotional or mental mechanisms might make up belief, some beliefs are reasonable and rational, and some are ridiculous and irrational. Those beliefs commonly appealed to under the name of faith (as you defined in your Hebrews verse) generally fall into the latter category. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/618 "2006-11-09T16:08:45Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] So who gets to determine when a claim is “extraordinary”? Aren’t there certain scientific standards for presentation of evidence? I don’t believe that the person presenting the evidence is responsible on some sliding scale. Am I mistaken? [/quote] I’m not sure what you mean by your questions. I would say that assessing the rationality of believing claim is more in the eye of the beholder than in the person making the claim. One can claim anything they wish and then back it up as best they can. Whether the claimant can back up his claim well enough to make impartial observers believe it, is another matter. I would say the extraordinariness of claims is on a sliding scale. > [@](#): > > Speak for yourself! Lots of things can insulate people from the sting of criticism. Emotional intelligence helps. I was speaking for myself. Polycarp’s knowing my criticisms were coming did not make them less meaningful. I wasn’t referring to his emotional ability to handle them. > [@](#): > > The Christians here have suggested different things. Primarily they have asked him to get his factual information straightened out and to practice the things that he says he believes in. I’m not sure what you’re refuting, but it doesn’t look like anything I said. I just said the Christian’s (criticizing Bible man) follow a pretty watered down version of scripture. > [@](#): > > If you knew “your” Sir Francis Bacon, you would know how devout he was. He certainly wasn’t skeptical about God or the value of faith and religion. Well, as I recall he was Anglican, and I did not in anyway say he wasn’t. I was just referring to his comments about (from memory) “what a man wishes were true he more readily believes.” > [@](#): > > (Besides, why not “inquire within” rather than depend on Francis Bacon to instruct you upon the value of hope?) I’m really waiting for you to criticize me on something I have actually said. Since you seem to be having difficulty with that it really looks like you are reaching. As for why I would cite Bacon? Well if I didn’t someone might, and you did, try to criticize me by making the claim that I’m not well read. > [@](#): > > I don’t care for Bacon very much… To each their own, from what I know of him, I like him. I make certain amount of theistic allowances for some of the pre-Darwin philosophers. Voltaire’s my absolute favorite and he wasn’t an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/619 "2006-11-10T01:32:50Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] Well, my accusation wasn’t that you interpret scripture but that you, as you put it: “cherry pick the scriptures to fulfill your needs with little regard for the truth as far as I can see.” I guess now that I think about it, what you have called “interpreting scripture” and this cherry picking as you describe, are pretty much one and the same. [/QUOTE] There is a difference. I’m willing to admit other interpretations may be reasonable even if I don’t agree. I don’t offer my interpretations as “proof” of anything other than just that. They are _a_ reasonable interpretation, but not _the only_ interpretation. \*\* Bibleman \*\*presents his as the only valid interpretation and the will of God. You simple deny that you interpret which , IMHO, is just as wrong and just as goofy. > [@](#): > > Ok, no answer, that’s fine. No answer that you understood or bothered to think about. > [@](#): > > Ok, so when **Bible man** is sarcastic, it’s a bad quality and disappoints Jesus, and when you do it, it’s all well and good. Since you asked **Bible man** how snide sarcastic comments fit with being a representative of Jesus, how do you think yours do? Also how do you think Judging **Bible man** by a standard, that you don’t think you need to follow, sits with Jesus? I repeat “That wasn’t the point of my comment to **Bibleman** ” > [@](#): > > Great, so you accuse **Bible man** of not following the will of god, and even cite a verse demonstrating it’s necessity to reach heaven, and then when challenged that you, and others, neither know the will of god, nor put much effort into following it, you come back with this weak answer. I guess your warning to **Bible man** didn’t mean much then. Call it weak then. It was accurate. You missed the point. You still do. > [@](#): > > Right, if didn’t want admit I had a good response, I’d clam up in such a way too. You might want to rethink that sentence. > [@](#): > > Cite, where you have defined what this “kingdom of heaven,” in this context, means? \*\* I will admit that much of your posts are incomprehensible\*\*, that’s why I’m asking for further clarification. [bolding mine] incomprehensible by you. Another poster accused you of not listening to those you spar with. You assured them that you do listen. IMO you don’t. It seems you’re not trying to understand their point but only trying to find fault with it. If you can’t find any clear fault you discard it and refer to it as meaningless or incomprehensible. That’s not what I call listening. > [@](#): > > Actually you just asserted that I hold certain beliefs evidence. But now it seems you are simultaneously trying to say that I was wrong for doing so, while defending that holding beliefs without evidence is good. Is that what it seems like to you? Really? Look again. I pointed out that while repeatedly criticizing others for being irrational and illogical and believing things without evidence , just because they wanted them to be true, you were doing exactly that. It wasn’t the believing that I implied was wrong, but your constant criticism of others. See the difference? It’s really quite obvious. > [@](#): > > My opinions are merely statements about my beliefs. I see. You indicated yours are rational while the beliefs of those you love to criticize are not. Do you now admit not all of yours are rational? > [@](#): > > This is your citation defining faith **cosmos** … > > … I bolded the parts that indicate 100% surety seem to be necessary. Also it has been my experience that most Christians, while they will occasionally admit doubts, do give considerable lip service to being 100% certain of their beliefs in god. Bold the part that says _subjective_ and think about that for a while. > [@](#): > > Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. Regardless of what emotional or mental mechanisms might make up belief, some beliefs are reasonable and rational, and some are ridiculous and irrational. Those beliefs commonly appealed to under the name of faith (as you defined in your Hebrews verse) generally fall into the latter category. I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. I’m not sure irrational is the right word for the common type of faith shared by believers and non believers. If it is then it’s something all humans do. Those who think they are all about being reasonable and rational need to at least recognize that they are not…all the time. Those who think faith means never seriously questioning what their church taught them need to realize that true faith means having the courage to look within and decide what you believe as an individual regardless of tradition. I like **Finn** s idea of a third realm. Finding a common ground of respect and consideration between believers and non believers doesn’t seem irrelevant to me. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/620 "2006-11-12T15:31:38Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] There is a difference. I’m willing to admit other interpretations may be reasonable even if I don’t agree. I don’t offer my interpretations as “proof” of anything other than just that. They are _a_ reasonable interpretation, but not _the only_ interpretation. \*\* Bibleman \*\*presents his as the only valid interpretation and the will of God. You simple deny that you interpret which , IMHO, is just as wrong and just as goofy. [/quote] I don’t care how you justify it. The fact is that you accused **Bible man** of cherry picking the scriptures to fulfill his needs with little regard for the truth. You do the same. That you may protest that you are less sure in your “certainties” does not change the fact that you cherry pick according to your selfish needs with little regard for truth, at least as far as I can see. > [@](#): > > No answer that you understood or bothered to think about. If you can’t articulate, or rather don’t have a consistent belief system, don’t go blaming others for failing to understand it. > [@](#): > > I repeat “That wasn’t the point of my comment to **Bibleman** ” Oh, I’m sorry, so you were criticizing **Bible man’s** use of sarcasm for what reason? > [@](#): > > Call it weak then. It was accurate. You missed the point. You still do. It was accurate? How so? You challenged **Bible man** for not following the will of god, but you don’t even know what the will of god is. As much as god’s will is put down in the bible, you and other Christians here profess to follow it to a much lesser degree that **Bible man** from what I can tell. So what point am I missing? > [@](#): > > incomprehensible by you. > Another poster accused you of not listening to those you spar with. You assured them that you do listen. IMO you don’t. It seems you’re not trying to understand their point but only trying to find fault with it. If you can’t find any clear fault you discard it and refer to it as meaningless or incomprehensible. That’s not what I call listening. I’m sorry but again I think you are either being very inarticulate at describing a coherent belief system, or more likely from what I can tell, your belief system is incoherent. You describe yourself as a non-Christian and what you say suggests the existence of a non-personal god that we are all equally part of, which I would say most resembles pantheism, though I don’t know if you consider inanimate objects, animals, etc. as part of god as well. However, sometimes you point to some outside “source” as being god or most of god which sounds mostly like deism. However what screws this up is that you have made a lot of conflicting comments about Jesus, him being no more godly then us, and also of him being above us in some way. You also seem to hold that his teachings are of inordinate value as compared to other humans, which I think is not only irrational from my perspective, but should be to yours as well, since the vast bulk of Jesus’ teachings are commands to worship a personal god, who you claim not to believe in and describe as a metaphor. You can pretend I’m not listening, and maybe even think that others understand you just fine, but I would wager money that no other doper could characterize your beliefs much better than I just did. > [@](#): > > Is that what it seems like to you? Really? Look again. I pointed out that while repeatedly criticizing others for being irrational and illogical and believing things without evidence , just because they wanted them to be true, you were doing exactly that. It wasn’t the believing that I implied was wrong, but your constant criticism of others. See the difference? It’s really quite obvious. Well regardless of what you thought you were pointing out, I believe what I believe, because of evidence and reasons, not for what I wish is true. If I were believing something just because I wish it were true, then you should be criticizing me for that because I already got you to admit that believing something just because you wish it true is irrational here… [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7732841&postcount=119](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7732841&postcount=119) …and as such you yourself refute half of your Hebrews quote defining faith on your own. > [@](#): > > I see. You indicated yours are rational while the beliefs of those you love to criticize are not. Do you now admit not all of yours are rational? I might hold an irrational belief and am unaware of it. For the most part, my beliefs and opinions if stated, and definitely if argued, have been pretty well thought out and are held based evidence, logic, etc. > [@](#): > > Bold the part that says _subjective_ and think about that for a while. The “subjective” part is the part that you tagged onto the end of the verse and not what any Christian reads when they open their bible. Certainty is what is called for in matters of faith to Christians be it objective or subjective. You seem to be arguing that by applying this to only subjective beliefs that this certainty is necessary, but I would argue again that even for subjective stuff (whatever you mean by that) that certainty in belief where evidence is lacking is still dumb. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. I’m not sure irrational is the right word for the common type of faith shared by believers and non believers. I don’t either. This “common type of faith” that you describe here seems most in line with what I would describe as tentative belief in things based on a given number of reasons, which is not irrational at all and does not fit with the definition of faith as put forth in the bible. That is why I would say we should not call this stuff faith, else we side track our conversation trying to make two differing concepts similar, and then different again, when more precise terminology, as I have called for, would have eliminated the confusion that **you** are having. > [@](#): > > Those who think they are all about being reasonable and rational need to at least recognize that they are not…all the time. I don’t think anyone would argue that they are always reasonable or rational all the time. > [@](#): > > Those who think faith means never seriously questioning what their church taught them need to realize that true faith means having the courage to look within and decide what you believe as an individual regardless of tradition. Believing without or in spite of serious questioning is **faith** , as is taught in the bible, and as most Christians will grudgingly admit. Questioning and changing beliefs based on evidence and logic is **reason**. They are different. > [@](#): > > Finding a common ground of respect and consideration between believers and non believers doesn’t seem irrelevant to me. YMMV I do not seek a common ground with ignorance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920.md?page=32)