[
Replying to Diogenes in post #254]
Most probably do not think critically about such things. Acceptance is the path of least resistance.
Do you really believe that most folks never think critically at all about the faith they inherited? I would think that most all folks have faced some sort of doubt about what it is they have inherited. In fact, I would suggest that most folks have asked themselves the same questions, and, or objections which are posed on this site. The problem is, many of these folks simply suppress these doubts, instead of attempting to resolve them one way or the other. As you say, "acceptance is the path of least resistance" which means one does not have to wrestle with what it is they claim to believe.
At the very least these facts demonstrate that people of whatever faith pledge allegiance and claim to believe because of tradition, not because of the demonstrated truth of those beliefs..
I am not thinking this is "at the very least". Rather, I am thinking that this is all that it demonstrates. It certainly does not have anything at all to do with the belief being true or false. This is the problem I have with those who want to bring this sort of thing into the conversation. You have many on this site who seem to want to proudly proclaim they were convinced Christians at one time, who did not use the mind in order to be convinced, and it is when they begin to use the mind which was the cause of their rejection of Christianity. I have no doubt they were once a convinced Christian, and I have no doubt they did not use the mind in order to be convinced. I can tell they did not think very much when they were a Christian, simply by reading what they have to say about Christianity. In other words, it is clear they did not have a very good understanding of Christianity, more than likely because they simply took the word of others, who took the word of others, and you end up with a whole bunch of Christians who have no idea what it is they believe, nor why they believe it. But the thing is if one did not use the mind in order to be convinced of something of such magnitude, then it very well may be the case that it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to reject what one had been taught. In fact, it seems to me many times, that most of these folks reject Christianity simply upon the grounds that they never really used the mind in order to be convinced, and they realize most Christians do not use the mind, and this somehow convinces them that this would have something to do with the claims of the resurrection being false, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
These folks then come to sites like this, and begin to make the most elementary arguments, which are arguments any thinking person at all would have already thought through. Examples of this would be to compare Christianity to other religions, and to make the argument that most folks adhere to the religion of their location, and how lucky one is to have been born into the region of the world which just so happens to have the correct religion. The thing is, they will make such arguments as if they are powerful arguments, and they act as if they are the first to think of such a thing, when I cannot imagine any thinking person at all not thinking through such a thing. I also cannot imagine any thinking person even attempting to make such an argument, because it really is no argument at all, and has no bearing upon the truth of the matter. This goes as well for the point that "people of whatever faith pledge allegiance and claim to believe because of tradition, not because of the demonstrated truth of those beliefs". This is a fact which I agree with 100% but I fail to see any point being made other than, "people of whatever faith pledge allegiance and claim to believe because of tradition, not because of the demonstrated truth of those beliefs". It certainly does not have any sort of bearing upon whether said belief is false. It is like the argument is, if I say, "I believe the sun is stationary", and someone were to ask me why I believe this to be the case, and I go on to say, "because this is what I was told", this would only demonstrate that I really have no good reasons to believe as I do concerning the sun, but what I believe is still correct. The point is, simply because one may not have good reasons to believe as they do, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no good reasons to believe as they do.
My thing is, it does not matter to me whether one is a Christian or not, there is no way one can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims of the resurrection to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing there are some sort of easy answers. If one can do such a thing, then this sort of demonstrates one who is not using the mind. It is like, when they were Christians, it was all so easy then, and now that they have rejected Christianity it is still all so easy. Again, there is no way one can sit down in order to understand what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing it is all so simple, other than a simple mind.
This is the exact reason I have no problem with those who doubt, and, or do not believe. The problem comes in when these same folks want to insist there are no reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection, and, or there is no evidence in support. Such a one must be in an alternative reality, or they are simply choosing to believe what it is they would rather believe. In other words, there is no difference between such a one, and the Christian who simply chooses to believe what they would rather believe, for whatever lame reason they choose to believe it.
