I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.
But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.
I guess my own example as stated above applies somewhat. Luckily, I was young, had the time to think about it, was able to hold a conversation with myself, and did not rely on debating others to figure it all out. When the internet came about, (what a wonderful invention!), I was then able to confirm my understanding. There was vast volumes of data I can read through and hear all about different views and learn basically anything that anybody in the world was willing to put out there. I still have this enormous fascination with the internet, to the point where some may claim addiction. I am pretty much a recluse when it comes to anything else.
I have tried to have this and other debates with my mother, but she tries desperately to avoid it and can not explain why she believes what she does. I am not a parent myself, but I could imagine that if one were to teach their children in a religion (worldview and morals included), and then come to the realization it was all wrong, and that they had set their children back and made judgments on their children based on wrong morals--that would be psychologically impossible. I think for someone in my mother's position, it is too late. There is a fear or basic instinct to not change.
Now this is perfect – you’ve made a statement about your personal testimony, as opposed to a vague person or group of people. Well done, you, for your advanced communication, and the courage to be personal online.
I completely understand the difficulties you may have had with your family; often, those closest to us are the most difficult to reach. If I could draw a cheeky parallel here, it was in Jesus’ home town that he actually had one of his worst receptions, as his extended family listened to him speak, and then said to one another, “That’s no great prophet! I saw him growing up, peeing in my rose bushes and throwing rocks on my roof with his friends.” Roughly speaking, anyway. It loses a bit in translation.
My mother-in-law is similarly difficult to debate with. She displays a strong degree of conflict avoidance, and so desperately tries to steer away from any topic which may be controversial, and papers over differences, with a general kind of “each to his own” philosophy. I am a parent myself, and I believe that more important than teaching my children what to think is teaching them how to think. That isn’t to say I’m not also imparting my own views; once again, I’m back to my earlier statements about theory and practice. I teach them a rule, or ideal, and then try to show them how I myself interpret, enact and pursue it. So of course, my lessons to them will be from my perspective, and my bias. But I don’t think there is anything to be ashamed of in that. I know that whatever I teach them, it will be tested on day, sooner or later. And depending on how well I have taught them to analyse and reflect will probably be a key factor in whether they abandon their philosophy up to that point, or else integrate it into their psyche even more strongly.
Parents, teachers or leaders who present a school of thought, and upon having it question, reply with “Because I told you to!” will never be truly successful in passing the seed along. It is like the difference between understanding the mechanics of quadratic equations, versus memorizing a list of answers by rote. One day, you may get thrown a curly question you haven’t seen before, and the whole thing begins to come unstuck.
I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.
And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.
I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.
I can understand what you are saying here, but I could also turn that statement around on you. If you see a difference between them, then you have already discounted gremlins and faeries. There are people to this day (and you can find their testimony all over the web) that do believe in faeries. There was a time when that was a wide spread belief. There was once a time when slavery was justified by the majority of people. If you say that belief in faeries is not as likely to be true as a deity are you not insulting those who believe in faeries?
I am trying to be as honest as I can in this conversation and I am trying to find out why people believe the things they do. I am not trying to make anybody pissed off or feel inferior. When you ask if I really, really do not see the difference, I am saying that I do not. If you say that a majority of the world believing in something lends some creedence to the belief, I have to say you are wrong. Look at the history of the world, and you will see countless ideas that were held by the majority of people at the time as being right and that we now know are wrong. If there is something more to that argument, then I am not recognizing it, so please point it out for me.
In this conversation you are seeing why I hold the view that I do, or at least I hope you are. If something doesn't make sense logically to me, I will say so. You can't say some parts of the conversation are immune to logic or discussion, because then we are no longer examining ideas, but just two TVs turned on and pointed at each other. If your intention is to minimize venom or offensiveness, then great. What I get offended at is when someone asserts something as true without rationality behind it--that is the textbook definition of bigotry. Since we are all still here conversing, that means we are all open to learning from each other. So when I say something that looks like my intent is to belittle or incite--why I am actually saying it is because that is how I understand it to be.
Gracie: I'd go with you but...
Jack: I know, there's a problem with your face.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, my primary point was about delivery. I’m all for honesty – more of it, I cry! – but one should strive to deliver honesty with grace, humility, respect and tact. You can tell a fat person that they are fat, and you will be being honest, factually correct, and even possibly well-intentioned, but you will still probably hurt their feelings.
I’m afraid I do see a very big difference between gremlins, faeries and God. Yes, fey folk were once genuinely believed in, but mostly by credulous, simple folk, or earlier than that, by various animistic pagan faithful. I am not aware – although my awareness is limited enough to prevent me from stating it as a fact – of any present, genuine faiths which include gremlins and faeries, as we know them. Whereas many highly intelligent, clear-headed, enlightened people have professed to have a belief in God. In my comment, I was not stating the truth about one view or another, but rather, that one conclusion was far more
likely than another.
It is possible to examine different views, subscribing to none of them yourself, and still state that one is more possible, or more likely, than another. Picture a crime scene, with a dead body, stab wound in the neck. As a detective, you may believe that it was actually a domestic dispute, and the killer was the spouse. Another detective theorises the killer was a burglar, surprised in the act, while a third officer claims it was actually a ninja. It is quite sensible for you, the detective, to retain your original theory, and still say that it is far more likely for the killer to be a burglar than a ninja. You are not compelled to say that because you don’t think it was either, they are both just as ridiculous as one another.
And yes, my chief goal previous was to minimize venom and offence, as I have unfortunately seen far too much of it here. Not by you, Smuglapse, I might quickly add, but by others. I do understand you are trying to be primarily honest and open; I don’t believe any offence you may cause would intentional. It is the inadvertent offence which trips us up, when we can make a statement that we have no problem with, but cuts another deeply in ways we may not be aware of.
We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn’t we, Wang?
