Why Should Believers Take the OTF? Because Control Beliefs Control.
Richard Dawkins provides a great example of how control beliefs control how believers see the evidence. They are indoctrinated (or brainwashed) to believe from birth and that's it. Watch him below:
Dawkins is referring to Kurt Wise's chapter in this book: In Six Days.
The OTF stands for the "Outsider Test for Faith."
HT: Common Sense Atheism
Dawkins is referring to Kurt Wise's chapter in this book: In Six Days.
The OTF stands for the "Outsider Test for Faith."
HT: Common Sense Atheism
17 comments:
I think Prof. Dawkins' use of the term "imprinting" is apt, and might be better than "indoctrination" or "brainwashing." It's a metaphor that deserves exploring at least.
I agree that we all have lenses through which we interpret reality. I wasn't indoctrinated at an "early" age to believe in Christian doctrine. For me it started out at the age of 16 when I attended a non-denominational church where I "recieved Jesus into my heart" or "gave my life over to Christ." I then moved to the word of faith teachings and from there I heard Hank (the Bible answer man) teaching against the "Word of Faith" theology. It was from there that I became a hardcore Calvinist while atending A.A. Because of this blog and your books I can say that today I'm open to other viewpoints on SOME issues. I still believe in God though because I have no hope without it. It keeps me humble and at peace today. Not that I'm perfect but I'm making progress. Moreover, I think that the Big Bang is a solid piece of science and therefore it must have been created by a Creator.
Jesus Himself acknowledges the influences of our surrounding communities. He does this when He addresses the seven churches by geographical location and describes each in accordance to the prevailing trends of the areas they are in.
However, He also acknowledges that the beginning of faith arises inwardly, in a heartfelt desire, a thirst for righteousness --- a desire for something powerful that is not abusive, but of salvation. There are ppl who desire to be set free from victim/victimizer roles, who desire to have something other than cruelty and territorial mindedness to be the the main formative influences of their lives. Some desire grace instead of punishment and condemnation. This is a heartfelt desire that transcends the lines of demarcation set by mankind in geographical, religious, political, social, economic, cultural, gender, etc. categories.
There are some who desire to unsettle the status quo of territorial mindedness, who are willing to sacrifice and challenge these boundaries that keep us from viewing humanity the way God does.
Jesus exemplifies and shares the spiritual insight of divine power that releases ppl from appeasement and territorial thinking. Whether or not a person has heard about the name of Jesus, they will certainly recognize Him when they do.
Jesus also acknowledged that there are some who will reject peace/grace.
I'll play devil's advocate here though please note that I am not on the other side on this issue.
Presuppositionalists would simply counter that we all have "control beliefs" that determine how we perceive the world. That there is no rational means of choosing which "hat" to put on.
Should we wear the "nature and it's laws are uniform because we say so" hat or should we wear the "nature and it's laws are uniform because god says so" hat? Although even that isn't as extreme as Dawkin's example because the above at least assumes that god's laws are co-equal with the laws discovered by science.
I think that the Kurt Wise example does show just how powerful early childhood religious education is. But I don't see how one escapes that charge that scientific education does much the same thing. One might think that drawing a distinction between indoctrination and education would help but I am not sure that it does. In their eyes scientific education really is no different than religious indoctrination. Each camp points their finger at the other camp and there really doesn't seem to be any higher authority that can definitively decide which is right.
For me Pragmatism is how I choose. In other words, my justification for believing empirical evidence over sacred texts is that the former works while the latter does not.
COle,
You said "I still believe in God because I have no hope without it". What hope does God give you? A hope for eternal life in the company of all those evangelists ? For ever?... That sounds more like Hell to me! Take responsibility for your own life and your own decisions. It is much healthier, and you will be happier in the long run. When you die, you will go to sleep and not wake up, just like any other animal. What is so scary about that? It is sickness that is scary-not death.
Clare wrote, "When you die, you will go to sleep and not wake up, just like any other animal."
Whoa! Hold on --- what makes you think animals won't be in heaven? Did you by any chance inherit that notion from some of the bible literalists who make that claim?? Just wondering. (They must have not noticed where the riders of the Apocolypse get their horses when they ride out of heaven....) I know many animals who are more godly than some people.
Then Clare said, "What hope does God give you? A hope for eternal life in the company of all those evangelists ? For ever?... That sounds more like Hell to me!"
Clare, it sounds to me as though you may not be aware of the personality profile of the ones Jesus identified as Satan's closest relatives, the sons of hell.....again, just saying....
take care,
3M
About the OTF -- there are ppl, who, like Abraham, inspite of the prevailing trend to view the divine as one who must be appeased by human sacrifice(bloodthirsty, demanding, condemning, egomanic, immature) know that the contrary is true of the divine. This happens inspite of cultural, religious, etc. indoctrination. God supercedes our territorial limitations and does not desire to create outsiders as we are in the habit of doing.
3M
3MMM
"inspite of the prevailing trend to view the divine as one who must be appeased by human sacrifice...know that the contrary is true of the divine."
Browse through your New Testament and find the more than 30 references to the "blood" of Jesus having the purpose of atonement and forgiveness.
Matthew 26:28--"for this is my blood of the covenant, wich is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Gosh darn! There's just nothing like a little blood sacrifice to make me all teary!
Hi Kilo ---- You wrote, "Gosh darn! There's just nothing like a little blood sacrifice to make me all teary!"
Bloodthirstiness exists -- some ppl demand it, but that demand is not from God. Jesus gave up His life to appease that demand so that ppl could see their heart preferences actualized.
Kilo, it seems to me your understanding is that God demands blood sacrifice, which is not uncommon to perceive divinity in this way. But God demonstrated through Jesus that that He doesn't need us to appease Him or sacrifice to Him - that not only do we not need to make sacrifices to Him to appease an image of an angry god, but that He is willing to sacrifice for us...a total paradigm shift. This is done so that ppl can receive enlightenment/grace/forgiveness and be set free from acting out of their former experiences with corrupt empowerment. This is why it is called "good news".
MMM
Jesus gave up his life to appease that demand(for blood).
And who was demanding a blood sacrifice for the atonement of mans sins? Umm, lets see, oh yes that would be your loving God. What a sweetheart.
Kilo wrote, "Umm, lets see, oh yes that would be your loving God. What a sweetheart."
Guess again...
By your interpretation, (which is idolotry BTW) the "good" news meant that humanity must be subjugated into behaving ourselves or be condemned (and you seem to want to hold to that characterization of God rather than challenge the religious dogma you were indoctrinated into --- admittedly it can be scary to challenge that face to face with the ones who embrace it).
But Jesus said He came to set the captives free --- free from appeasing this image of the divine/ supernatural/condemner.
There is a parable in which Jesus spoke of those who held to the condemning god image -- He said they would be able to have it their way ---
Kilo referenced this scripture: "Matthew 26:28--"for this is my blood of the covenant, wich is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
You seem to want to corrupt this scripture to say, "for this is my blood of the convenant, which is poured out for many to appease the wrath of god."
But by shifting the image of a deity that demands blood to one that is willing to give His blood, we can come forward safely to God and allow subliminal/hurt/pain come to light for healing -- there is no more need to keep it in the ulterio/hidden mode from a god we do not know or love. We can be set free from image maintenance/fear of mockery/scorn/hatred, etc. etc. and be full life, human hearted beings.
At any rate, Kilo, your interpretation and understanding of the divine is not uncommon but many respect authority that they must appease and put on a show for. It gives them something to do with their life.
Hi MMM,
How would you interpret Ephesians 5:2
And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
What does it mean for Christ to be a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God?
Hi Cole =-- You quoted this scripture, "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
One of the most difficult paradigm shifts that ppl must make in relating to the divine is that God does not require sacrifice from us. In this scripture we learn that sacrifice is letting go of egotistical, immature, demands of one another - we "sacrifice" our territorial and egotistical ways to increase our capacity to love. Jesus set the standard for this by loving even those who put Him to death.
At any rate, as I've said many times before, some ppl really do prefer a blood thirsty demanding god, because they themselves are harboring condemnation (whether on a conscious or subconscious level).
Take care!
3M
Cole, Postscript here: You understand that the only way to set ppl free from appeasing this image of a bloodthirsty god was for Jesus to put an end to that image -- it was a sacrifice to do so, but one well worth the effort if it brings about the spirit and image of God to humanity.
Thank you MMM for your help. I've been thinking along those lines myself. I was thinking that at the cross God shows His wrath by permitting evil men to have their way with Christ. In this way, Christ removed God's wrath from my vision so that I could gaze at and behold His beauty.
Post a Comment