We Could Be Made to Believe In Anything

In the following documentary of North Korea we learn that the people are made to believe their leader has supernatural gifts [just before the 21 minute mark]. Yep, that's the nature of human nature. For this reason skepticism is always a virtue.


I put a poll in the sidebar. It doesn't exhaust the possibilities but which one do you consider the best form of government?

18 comments:

Piratefish said...

Though I think it's true, when you tell a christian about brainwashing they'll always say, "Well, we have the indoctrination, but where's the blocking out of information? Believers are free to roam around and mix with the world." I guess this doesn't explain away brainwashing but tells us why there are liberal and moderate christians, having believers exposed to the world caused a constant tug-of-war between their beliefs and new information.

PersonalFailure said...

could you add some form of socialism to the poll?

Anonymous said...

Marxist socialism?

Anonymous said...

Piratefish -

I wonder if christian brainwashing can be compared to sexual abuse, or really any abuse in that, the abuser has very effective ways of making the abused not turn in their abuser, or talk about the abuse.

Kids are molested, but out of fear from the abuser, and the fear that they think will come from society from finding out they were abused is enough to stop them.

Christian leaders threaten their flock with abuse for de-converting - by using the word HELL. And using it from a very early age. Thanks to how our minds work, what we're told at a young age is difficult to shake off, even as adults.

So while it may seem on the OUTSIDE that Christians aren't blocked from information (hey, the internet is right, there! Library is right down the street!) on the INSIDE of the Christian, in their brain, lies fear. Fear that looking at the info will send them to hell and fear that peers, friends, fellow congregants, and family may disown them for thinking critically.

jwhendy said...

@magnumdb: I could see this occurring (fear-based captivity). As a currently doubting Catholic, I want to present an alternative view, however. I have not questioned my faith for 6 years not because I feared hell for doing so, but because I literally had no desire whatsoever to question it -- I completely trusted it's validity and truthfulness.

This, I think, is the far scarier fact of 'brainwashing' or whatever we would like to call it. It's not that one is 'forced' to stay out of a fear driven stimulus, but that the 'captive' literally finds no desire whatsoever to question their captivity, nor are they even aware of their captivity.

This discussion reminds me heavily of a book I have not read yet, but very much want to read. While it does not correlate perfectly, the principles are extremely pertinent to this discussion.

Read the foreword to Neil Postman's, Aumising Ourselves to Death which may be found HERE. Consider the primary points:
- Orwell's 1984 proposed that we would be controlled by external force, by censorship, by a fear-driven system of consequences.
- Huxley's Brave New World proposed that no external control would be needed whatsoever. We would be so complacent (read 'brainwashed') that we would see no reason to pursue the truth in the first place.

Postman focuses his book on the hypothesis that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

So, some theists won't discuss contra-faith matters because of ingrained fear; this is the Orwellian model you brought up, magnumdb. But contemplate the proposed second control method. Individuals of faith (myself formerly included) become so satisfied and enamored with the concepts preached about their god that they find no reason to ever think critically about him/it in the first place... other than reading intellectual arguments for that god. Sure, there are some who may, say, pick up John's WIBA for the challenge and mind-expansion it would bring, but in most cases they are probably intending a refutation of his arguments before they even crack the cover.

This is the 'Huxley' proposition I want to make. It's not so much fear that captivates; instead, it's that they are so convinced that what they experience in worship, prayer, Christian community, and life matches exactly what they have been told about god to such a degree that they find no reason whatsoever to question.

Anyway, food for thought. If anyone agrees that the 'Huxley proposition' could be viable I think it has some explanatory power for any number of things:
- keeping the religion of your parents
- believing despite the wealth of information challenging belief/faith
- being ignorant of any number of contra-faith arguments
- being ignorant of most other religions, even 'sects' within one's own (I couldn't tell you the slightest thing about Protestant denominations other than Catholics emphasize 'this is my body' and Protestants emphasize 'do this in remembrance of me'!)
- lastly, facing catastrophically high-impact challenges to faith (problem of evil, for one) head-on without flinching; more than this... without really even realizing that it's a challenge to faith in the first place

To tie this up in light of magnumdb's practical example: this would be like a kidnapped child answering the door at his holding place to find a policeman standing there. He says nothing whatsoever about his captivity, not because his kidnapper has a gun to his head, but because he can't wait to get back inside and play with all the toys.

Piratefish said...

magnumdb>

oh I agree, it's just that christians are living among us makes them think that they're not being brainwashed, but the absence of a physical boundary is replaced by a psychological one.

Thanks.

Matt said...

Everyone is "brainwashed" even if only by his own opinion.

I am a Christian and I can see this sort of unreasonable defense of one point of view in people of other faiths. So am I brainwashed? I know that once I've chosen to believe something, I will have a tendency to believe it rather than disbelieve it. But that doesn't mean I never thought about it, or that I don't continue to think about it. There are reasons to believe or disbelieve most things.

So for me the next natural question is, is truth discernable? If there are reasons to believe or disbelieve everything, how can one come to terms with truth? I believe you can, and it isn't using our own understanding and experience of the universe (science and logic, or skepticism).

jwhendy said...

mgd583 said: "So for me the next natural question is, is truth discernable? If there are reasons to believe or disbelieve everything, how can one come to terms with truth? I believe you can, and it isn't using our own understanding and experience of the universe (science and logic, or skepticism)."

So... what is the means by which we 'come to terms with truth', then? Prayer? The voice within? Conviction in the heart?

You may have made a fatal flaw, but I'm not as familiar with epistemology as I would like to be, so I could be wrong. I was under the impression that to even begin to tackle the question of truth in any area (philosophy, science, etc.) we need to at least accept the a priori argument that our own understanding and experience were 'really real.' To say that we don't come to the truth through our own understanding and experience... seems to leave one open to the dog-chasing-its-tail scenarios of a potential dream or matrix on one hand (since I can't know truth through understanding and experience, I have no ability to discern this from the matrix) or complete, utter relativism on the other (since I can't know the truth from understanding and experience, it must be something else revealed 'from without'? This means anytime someone tells me, 'I know x because y revealed it to me' I have to accept their truth as equally viable).

I may have mis-interpreted you, though. Even if I didn't you only stated a negative assertion about experience and understanding and I think at least owe some type of hypothesis about how we do come to truth, then. I feel left in the dark!

zenmite AKA Marshall Smith said...

"I believe you can, and it isn't using our own understanding and experience of the universe (science and logic, or skepticism)."

Sorry, there's no getting out of relying on your own experience and understanding. Even if you are relying on the word of the bible, that is still your own decision based upon your own understanding. If you rely on some experience of the holy spirit, it is still 'your' experience and understanding (and interpretation). Your very decision to not trust your own understanding is part of your own understanding. I don't assert this as some dogma, just reflect on it a bit and you'll see.

Matt said...

"Even if I didn't you only stated a negative assertion about experience and understanding and I think at least owe some type of hypothesis about how we do come to truth, then."

I think that's because I am still thinking it through. I do take the Bible at face value, and, it says things like:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
   "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
      the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]
 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Is this a carefully crafted religion to say, "You don't have to think - just believe"?

I don't think so. For one, it is not that there aren't reasons to believe. I try to think through the arguments I come across against the existence of God, and for me they aren't good enough. The Bible is set in a historical context that is more confirmable than not, I think. And I think the nature of our world does reflect a creator. So it isn't that I think the Bible is true regardless of reason.

But I don't think we are masters at understanding our own existence. Our knowledge is limited, and our experience is limited. We will never be masters of our existence - at understanding it or coming to terms with it.

I don't know why God set things up as he did, so that "the world in its wisdom" wouldn't recognize him. I don't know exactly why God hides his face from the world, ever since the fall of man into sin.

As far as how we can come to truth apart from only our own reasoning:
Maybe it is a combination of evidence and relationship. I believe what my parents have told me about how they grew up because I trust them, and because there isn't substantial evidence against what they say.

How can we trust a God we don't know? Maybe that's were revelation comes in - God has shows who he is through the Bible. And we come to know God ultimately through the life of Christ. And of course there are other faith claims. And these can be investigated because I think truth is discernable.

Matt said...

zenmite:
Yeah, you are right. Of course I am limited by my reasoning. And how I view the world is based on my reasoning.

I am not sure I thought through what I said there.
But I still think truth is discoverable, even though reasoning can be misled. (?)

zenmite AKA Marshall Smith said...

mdg, that was a great quote list from the bible exemplifying why Christianity, for the most part, has been hostile to science and reason. From the burning of the library at Alexandria to Galileo's persecution to present-day efforts to teach creationism as science, there is a long tradition of Christian anti-intellectualism based upon just such verses.

Suppose I tell you that I have supernatural powers, can move objects with my mind and levitate at will. I can show you how to do these things but you must believe what I tell you without question.

Hopefully, you would find my claims questionable and you'd be a skeptic as to my powers. I explain that I can do these miracles by manipulating invisible chakras and auras. You might attempt to discern whether any of my claims are valid by using logic, reasoning or scientific observation.

To which I tell you: "My ways seem foolish to ordinary people. Intellectuals and philosophers will never understand my wonderful powers because their wisdom is a stumbling block for them. My foolishness is greater than your wisdom. The world can never understand how or why I do the things I do because your knowledge and experience are so small and limited compared to mine."

It's all very convenient. God could be a monster, even a devil and by applying this sort of reasoning you'd never be able to tell. If I block all attempts at logic or reason by saying that your very logic and reasoning powers are limited compared to mine you must either choose to accept my outlandish claims and hope I'm correct or go on questioning and using logic and reason to determine for yourself if my claims are real.

Similarly, if I claim the only objective source of morality is the bible, I have no way of judging whether the biblical god is good or evil or pathetic. By my definition, everything he does is 'good'. If he kills babies, it's good. If he tortures people for eternity for not believing in him, he's good. But this same claim could be made for any other god or holy book. If by definition, everything Moloch does is 'good' because Moloch does it (and who am I with my limited mind and experience to question Moloch?) then good and bad lose all meaning....exactly the same sword believers attempt to impale atheists upon.

"As far as how we can come to truth apart from only our own reasoning:
Maybe it is a combination of evidence and relationship"

How credible would you judge my claims if I said I know that Hanuman (the hindu monkey god) is real because I have a relationship with him? Elvis? Aliens? The Easter Bunny?

jwhendy said...

@mdg583: First off, how has 'god made foolish the wisdom of the world'? Other than your intended meaning of this verse, namely 'god has baffled the intellectually studious such that they find it difficult to believe in him', how has god made the intellectual advances foolish in other ways? Has god shown us scientific answers which kept us previously stumped? Has god predicted a natural disaster successfully to save thousands where scientific models have completely failed? I think this sentence is engineered to make skeptics feel bad. We should instead reject our intellects and be saved by being 'stupid in the world.'

Moving on...

"I don't know exactly why God hides his face from the world, ever since the fall of man into sin."

Let me unpack this statement a little.

1) Presumably you believe in evolution, correct? There is a substantial amount of evidence refuting the idea that we were created, in our present state, 6-10,000 years ago. Instead, it appears that we evolved just like everything else slowly and gradually since the earth was created 13.5-14 million years ago. I believe the first human-ish species was perhaps 7 million years ago? In any case, assuming evolution:

1a) When did man receive a soul? At what point did god decide to infuse a soul into a primitive human baby born of an ape. Given evolution, this is the only option. Man (with soul) was born from ape (without soul).

1b) When did man gain reason and will? Since these are the 'god given gifts' that separate us from all mammals, we must have received them at a given point in the evolutionary timespan. Also, reason and will are necessary to 'turn against god', for without them we have no faculties with which to compare 'god's ways' with 'our ways' and choose the latter. If you answered 1a, you are free to use the same point in time for both questions.

1c) At what point in time do you suppose the world went from it's perfect state (man in communion with god, walking together in the cool of the day, etc.) to the state it is in now, that being a state filled with pain, evil, and death? As far as I know, Christians do support the idea that man 'fell' from relationship with god through an act of sin and this is the point at which man was made to kick at the head of serpents, endure pain in childbirth, and toil the field for food. There must be a point in time at which the world went from awesome to slightly miserable.

1d) Assuming you support that this shift happened (from perfect to imperfect), what evidence do you suppose should be available for observance of this shift? 'Evidence' you ask? Yes -- for if the world was previously perfect, there should have been no flesh eating bacteria, natural disasters, etc. There should be physical evidence for a 'perfect world' which existed before the current state.

1e) Assuming you answered all of the above questions with something like, 'Well, that's not how it happened' or 'There was no transition like you claim', then here is my last question: do you support the idea that god made the world with death, pain, and evil? I see these as the only two choices. Either sin entered the world at a specific time and place and with a particularly pivotal primate who just made it past the 'ape' definition of god's standards... or god made the world in it's presently imperfect form.

Or evolution didn't happen... although I actually think you'll have an easier time coming up with answers for 1-1e than disproving evolution.

Continued below...

jwhendy said...

Continued...

2) I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that god has been hidden since when 'the fall of man into sin.' God did not even hide directly after banishing Adam and Eve for he spoke directly with Cain and Abel! Anyway, continuing:

2a) Do you consider good examples of hidden-ness to be god having conversations with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, having quite the saga with Moses (remember, the plagues, Exodus, 40 years in the desert, etc.), winning bloody battle after bloody battle for his people, turning back the sun, opening someone's eyes to see the 10,000 angelic troops there to defend them, sending his only son into the world to do miracles specifically so we would believe as the result of miracles (don't make me quote scripture to defend this statement), raising his son, blasting his son off into the sky in front of others, sending down his holy spirit as wind and 'tongues of fire', making the apostles to speak in a bunch of languages at once, and healing people through the apostles' shadows? If so, please explain how god 'hid' through these actions.

2b) If you do not consider the previous summary to be hidden-ness, then please provide any coherent explanation for the fact that as intellectual ability and analytical skill has grown, miracles have conclusively diminished. When was the last time a serious miracle was thought to have happened? I couldn't tell you any. By serious I mean confirmed cripple walking, dead risen, etc.

2c) Assuming you can't think of any miracles that are unambiguous, either... why do you think this is? Why is it only things like 'god helped me find my car keys' and 'I've been praying and praying to do well on this test and did well' (I could give you more examples of where prayer earned someone exactly the grade they deserved based on their study habits...) or 'I prayed to have a good day and it was'?

2d) Lastly, why can't we expect an answer to prayer? Why do we glorify god when he supposedly answers prayer but chalk it up to divine intellectual superiority when he doesn't (aka, god knows better than you)? I see no evidence scripturally (since you believe the Bible) to support the idea that Jesus only answered prayer 'when he knew best.' Sure, you will cite me when he did not heal 'because of their lack of faith'... but I can easily cite Mark's gospel where the father says 'if you can do this', Jesus admonishes him, and then he said 'I believe help my unbelief' and the kid is healed. Even more so, I can cite scripture where the blind man was made to see and the Pharisees ask him again and again how he was able to see. They even bring in his parents to verify that he was actually blind. They find no reason to disbelieve empirically and they throw him out. I would hope I would not be that stubborn. My point, though, is that this is exactly what I would expect today. Someone is 'healed' or needs healing and we are going to ask Jesus to heal them. So... we bring in their parents to verify the previous health status, presumably we consult their family doctor and look at some x-rays... then Jesus does his thing, we look at x-rays after and then could be made to believe. What scriptural evidence do you have to support Jesus not allowing scientific studies of the miracles he wanted to continue to do through those who believe (for these signs will accompany those who believe in my name: drink poison and live...)?

So... there's a peak inside the mind of an current doubter. I've been talking to plenty of my theological elders and friends and have yet to hear arguments for god that are 'good enough' (to use your words).

Matt said...

I actually do believe in creation, and I don't believe in evolution.

One reason for this is that evolution is oposed to biblical revelation (see all the reasons you gave). Also, evolution is far fetched. It is one of those things that would need undeniable evidence to be considererd, and none of the evidence I've seen has been undeniable. I can't make sense of evolution. But I suppose I could study it more to see if it is any more sensible than I've thought in the past. For instance, I don't see evolutionists thinking about probablitities, and the ammount of time is should reasonable take for species to evolve new charecteristics. My reasoning is that it would take an immense amount of time, and even then it goes against the natural order of things. And you would expect the entire earth-wide ecosystem to have failed a good number of times along the way. Evolution is pretty unreasonable, and only makes sense to me if you absolutely must have a theory without God in it. Even then it is a far stretch.

Another thought about evolution: How quickly do things like fruitflies reproduce? If we can contain a few million/billion fruit flies, and if their reproduction is significantly faster than people/primates, we should be able to watch evolution of entire new species (of fruit fly), or at least significant bodily changes, without too much difficulty, even if over the space of a few decades. (assuming the number of reproductions among your fruit flies for those few decades can be made to rival the number of reproductions among primates for the last 20 000 or so years.) But my understanding of this stuff isn't that great. Also, I think we should be able to model macro evolution in computer simulation - and if this is too difficult, it is only a testament to the complexity of DNA and cell operation (the core structure of reproducing life), which evolution needs to explain without the use of gradually increasing complexity.

And on a side note about probabilities, I don't get the impression people actually think this through. When Nasa scientists talk about the possibilities of life on mars, that sounds totally absurd to me. Twice in one universe seems almost impossible, according to the evolutionary model. Twice in one solar system? Some people aren't thinking things through.

About God hiding his face, I meant that in the garden humanity clearly saw God and knew for sure he was real. Now, God doesn't explicitely reveal himself to everyone all the time, though yes he does reveal himself. There is such a thing as faith: believing what you can't see. (And this was exercised by those people who saw miracles directly as well.)

About miracles of today, true they are fewer in the North American church. But whether or not they happen depends on who you ask. Again, I think God leaves room for faith - not that God doesn't do the unambiguous miracles, but to ask for a confirmable miracle for the sake of evidence doesn't help, in my impression.

I have seen God at work enough times for this not to be an issue for me. But to base your faith on miracles is never a good thing.

"They find no reason to disbelieve empirically" - but wouldn't you say they didn't believe anyway?

I believe that God honors faith in himself. (And I think faith and hope are related). If we go to him in real faith, we will see him work. And not in the "oh, I guess that was God" way - in the way that we can be sure it was God at work.

Also:
- there are times God does miracles without prayer or faith
- there are times God doesn't answer prayer. Such as when we are holding on to a grudge with another person or when we are asking for the wrong reasons (James 4:3) or when we aren't excersising faith (Mat 17:20) and possibly other reasons. But the principle is that God honors faith in himself.

jwhendy said...

@mgd583:

Re. Evolution
First of all, regarding evolutionary thought, you are by far opposing almost unanimous scientific opinion. While 'opinion' is not a guarantee, usually in the scientific realm, a theory which manages to approach unanimous agreement is fantastically unbelievable. I don't know if you've noticed, but tons of far less significant issues are heatedly debated by anyone and everyone who knows anything about the matter. The best part is that it's done with evidence so whoever has the best evidence wins and whoever does not... loses.

Check this statement from the wikipedia page on 'evolution': "Nowadays, the fact that organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists.[12] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[239]" The sources 12 and 239 can be found HERE and HERE.

So... do you have a different proposal or do you simply stand by the conviction that since evolution makes a lot of theological things difficult (as you pointed out in the last post), it must not be true? What evidence do you have for any kind of a by-god creation of any kind whatsoever? You'd need to amass quite a big box of evidence to counter the currently standing fossil records and evidence already established.

A quick reference to a PBS statement about evolution may be found HERE.

Re. God's Hiddenness
I just don't understand this at all. In no point in time (scripturally) has god announced his retirement from personal, dynamic interaction. To the contrary, god consistently did works through people, spoke to people,etc...and even said, 'Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' Where do you come up with a logical explanation for hiddenness?

Re. Miracles
Jesus specifically did miracles so we would believe in him and his relationship to the Father. To say that believing in miracles is shaky ground is absurd. You would not be a Christian today if the early followers did not actually believe Jesus did miracles (including the resurrection).

Re. answers to prayer
Do rest on James 4:3 you have to defend the position that whenever any Christian asks for something the need (healing, forgiveness in a relationship, money to pay the bills, a job, etc.), they are asking for the wrong reasons. I can simply rest on the statement 'things will happen as they were going to happen regardless of your prayers -- they will not affect the future.' You have to defend the position that god sometimes acts and sometimes he doesn't. I think if you took the position that either all Christians in the world did not have faith or were asking for selfish reasons you might run into a problem. Tell your pastor or elder or whatever that this is why his prayers aren't regularly answered and see what he thinks.

Anyway, the main take home message I would focus on is the first part. I don't care if you even respond to the last one. I think the best thing you could do is to research the evidence for evolution and think about if the creation accounts even hold up figuratively in light of the support of evolution anymore.

Please, please, please don't take this as a fight. I'm poking at you a little because I think there's virtue in sharpening one's debate and critical thinking skills. The only way we will ever open our minds is to be forced (in many cases) to see our current beliefs in a different light. All I'm inviting you to do is take an experiment in thought :)

Matt said...

"lease, please, please don't take this as a fight"
Don't worry, I don't. And I hope I don't come accross that way either.

I will look into getting a better understanding of evolution. Though I obviously don't hope to change my opinion. I am okay with disagreeing with all of established science. I wish what science said about these things didn't seem so unreasonable, but it does.

jwhendy said...

@mgd583: cool :)

I will look more myself as well; I was just talking to someone this morning who raised significant questions regarding the conditions required to produce, say, the first amino acid and how he finds significant issues with a completely natural explanation for evolution satisfactory given this as well as perhaps unexplained transitions from the ape to the man in the fossil record.

I was perplexed and had not heard things as he described them. I don't know as much as I think!