The nature of 'belief'

[Mithrae]

In Notachance's thread Can we at least agree on this? I've just mentioned a theory about the Egyptian plagues and Exodus, commented on the subjectivity inherent in our analysis and weighing of evidence, and made one of my frequent references to Hebrew Daniel (which age 17 was a turning point in my gradual dismissal of biblical inerrancy).

In thinking about Exodus, I was reminded of the time several years ago that I was reading the book and something went 'click' in my head; the contrast between four generations and four centuries mentioned in Genesis 15:12-16. Specifically (from Exodus 6), even if Levi's son Kohath was born just before the move to Egypt (cf Genesis 46), and Amram was born just before he died age 133, and Moses was born just before he died age 137, the Israelite's departure when Moses was 80 is still closer to 300 years in that absurd scenario than the 400 years mentioned in Genesis. Those four generations found in Exodus 6 (and Genesis 15 again) are far shorter than the 430 years of Exodus 12:40-41.

I'd read about the documentary hypothesis of the pentateuch's formation previously in Josh McDowall's apologetics, but it was the fact of personally noticing the two contrasting claims replicated in the two separate books which actually convinced me that there was something to the J and E sources, at least. (The traditions represented by the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah seems the simplest explanation, from what I know.)

Anyways, this reminded me of some other things I'd previously mused over regarding the process and nature of 'belief' which I think have considerable bearing on the various topics discussed in these forums, and regarding just how subjective our process of forming beliefs can be (relevant bits in purple, for those not interested in my ramblings ):

• Monday, 2 August 2004
  As seems so often to be the case in my life, I find myself sitting at a computer and writing in an attempt to straighten out my thoughts a bit. Writing in a coherent manner forces one to first put ones thoughts into a coherent order. Care must be put into consideration of format, content, intelligibility and, most importantly, plausibility. Moreover, the results are then preserved for future reference or, even if never looked back on, have been concreted in the mind by the process of deeper consideration and writing.
  
  However while my situation is in this respect familiar, in another sense it is quite different to any other Ive been in through my life. I write now to consider the strange matter of a world without Christianity; a world in which I no longer believe that which I formerly considered to be the very centrepiece of my worldview. To be fair, I had at times mused on whether it was this or my deeply rational attitude which I cherished more dearly; which, if it came to it, I would reject sooner. But ultimately Id always avoided that question on the grounds of what I considered to be its patent absurdity. How could Christianity, that model of sensibility, come into conflict with rational thought?
  
  Well, limited in scope though it may be, that conflict has come and I have found no reasonable, honest conclusion except that Christianity cannot be true. So now after nearly a month of what Ive called a transitional phase - doing whatevers pleased me at the time with only the occasional musing on what beliefs and principles I should now turn to - I must now begin to consider that question in earnest. Thus without further pre-cognitive ramblings, I should first ask myself what I consider to be appropriate grounds for any reasonable worldview.
  
  I once wrote that there were four grounds on which beliefs could be held; convenience of belief (such as following in the beliefs of ones parents), attractiveness of belief (choosing beliefs which hold a superficial appeal for whatever reason), reasonability of belief (believing that which has the strongest objective support) and spirituality of belief (following a path to belief which lies beyond the normal world). I reasoned that the transient circumstances dictating convenience and personal preferences determining attractiveness were no grounds on which to judge truths about reality. Of the latter two I could prove neither better than the other, save that spirituality is usually not subject to the same objective tests of reliability as the other.
  
  Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not these four categories are accurate or comprehensive enough, the simple fact is that for the moment I have no strong basis for any worldview from either of the last two areas. . . .

• Friday, 13 May 2011
  On Friday the 13th I'm watching, among other movies, The Cable Guy. I'm currently at the scene in Medieval Times where Chip fights Whatshisface, and even after half a dozen plus viewings it's still laugh-out-loud funny. Not from the scene itself, but thanks to my cousin - who, having watched the movie with my brother once or twice, was in the habit of staging just such a battle complete with Jim Carrey's sound effects.
  
  I'd also tonight watched Bad Eggs for what I believe is the second time - I bought it on DVD yesterday. Reflecting on it afterwards, there's a scene in it very similar in comedic effect to one in Galaxy Quest - but while on second viewing of Bad Eggs I again laughed for two or three minutes straight at the scene (upsetting the cat on my lap, I regret to add), since I've owned Galaxy Quest for much longer it's often now little more than a chuckle at a scene which originally was just as humorous.
  
  Bad Eggs initially spawned a few thoughts on the mechanics of comedy in the five or ten minutes before I put on the next movie; but Cable Guy has spawned some thoughts on the value of associating images with memories - in this case not even my own memory, but my brother's description of our cousin's antics. However, to this very day at times I'll hear a certain song or see a particular movie scene and be reminded of events, thoughts or feelings from way back in my childhood. By themselves, the songs or movies or whatever mean nothing; but as aspects of my personal history, they acquire additional meaning.
  
  Since I've been drinking, I'm not sure to what extent I originally expected to develop this line of thought - or whether I just intended to mention it and perhaps see if anything would spring from it, as is often the case. As it turns out, I want to get back to my movie, and the only thought of even marginal value which has occurred is this; the value of face-to-face, word of mouth communication. I can remember some online dialogues from years ago, but far more commonly and hopefully more clearly do I remember specific events and conversations in my immediate personal experience - indeed several I have mentioned in this very journal. Obviously, the priority of ideas encompasses also coherence and acceptability . . . . and it's just occurred to me that 'acceptability' could be judged by religious or social-worldview standards as easily as epistemological or 'evidence/logic' standards (which themselves vary from person to person).
  
  Perhaps then, approaching midnight on Friday the 13th of May in 2011, I'm approaching a better classification of belief than the one I recorded seven years ago (August 2nd), albeit conceived earlier. That classification, as recorded in the first entry of this journal, two days shy of a month after I'd lost my Christian faith, were as follows:
  • I once wrote that there were four grounds on which beliefs could be held; convenience of belief (such as following in the beliefs of ones parents), attractiveness of belief (choosing beliefs which hold a superficial appeal for whatever reason), reasonability of belief (believing that which has the strongest objective support) and spirituality of belief (following a path to belief which lies beyond the normal world).
  
  I'm not sure if or how well a corresponding (or perhaps alternative) 'priority of ideas' - based on acceptability, coherence and internalisation (for my current lack of a better word to describe the value of personal experience or event-memory in the preservation of thoughts) - might be worked into or over that frame-work. But it's a thought worth remembering for later.

In light of the discussions which occur on these forums - and assuming I'm not completely off the mark in my drunken ramblings above - I wonder how we might compare beliefs learned on our mother's knee with whatever scraps of cold hard evidence we might encounter and consider in later life. Or perhaps the more accurate comparison is between our upbringing as a worldview through which to interpret knowledge gained, compared with whatever philosophies and values we later gain and use to interpret knowledge.

Is there any such thing as objectively considering the 'evidence'?

I suspect that many folk will say that we can't be objective in our assessment (as indeed they have in the past). So more pertinently, I'd like to ask how we each consider the evidence, knowledge or factoids we encounter in our lives. And what are the similarities and differences from person to person?

I suspect it's a lot easier to acknowledge the impossibility of objectivity than to consider the areas (and perhaps depth) of subjectivity to which we're all prone.

[Flail]

Tenacity - We internalise beliefs from our upbringing, from our culture and from the kind of influences or patterns of thought we expose ourselves to (eg. debate forums). We also internalise beliefs or ideas in particular when they relate to our personal memories or to lessons which we have personally discovered or acquired. We're resistant to change in our established beliefs, and the more 'internalised' our beliefs or thought patterns are, the more resistant they'll be to change.

I agree this is the way it works, but I'll add that there are good reasons for this. Internalized beliefs become part of one's world-view, and a world-view is necessary in order to make sense of the world.

Analysis - When we encounter new information we consider it in light of our existing values or thought processes. The information acquired from the performance of a Hindu 'miracle-worker,' for example, will almost certainly be interpreted in very different ways by a child, by an adult Buddhist and by a professional magician. We tend to subject information which fits poorly into our existing worldviews to greater scrutiny or interpretation than information which fits well. Different people also apply different criteria in assessing information; for example some people show a preference for anecdotal evidence from those they know in forming their view of the world, whereas others seek broader and less personal grounds for a worldview through which they filter their perception of individual experience. (I'll need to think about this one a lot more, I suspect.)

I agree. You're describing the elements of subjectivity, and these are the obstacles to objectivity. If we at least understand this, then we can strive to overcome them.

I'm not sure how important it is to overcome subjectivity. And I'd say these are elements of objectivity too. What's particularly interesting to me is which bits are the 'nuts and bolts' of our thought processes, so to speak. Would it be fair to say that we accept thoughts which offer the best fit between our core values, our reason and our feelings? (Or might that be expanded even further along Myers-Briggs lines?)

If so, what does this 'reason' entail and how do we apply it to new information?

Evaluation - As above, different people hold different thresholds at which they'll consider views or thoughts worthy of entertaining or ultimately accepting. These are not necessarily always consistently applied. Some people will happily entertain theories of UFOs, ghosts and Atlantis, while others remain dubious about a link between smoking and cancer or carbon emissions and climate change. This is related to 'tenacity,' in that our thresholds for considering evidence persuasive will obviously be higher when it potentially conflicts with our existing views.

I completely agree, but again these are elements of subjectivity. The more of these we can identify, the more we can strive to overcome so that we can strive toward the grand goal of objectivity.

I'm not sure it's possible (or desirable) to try to apply objectivity here - an agreed-on 'threshold' of evidence or reasonability at which we should entertain or accept new ideas. It's probably often the people who are willing to accept and push ideas before they're reasonable which bring about changes (good and bad) or advances in society. And on the flip side of the coin, we need people who are resistant to accepting new ideas no less. It's the requirements for a certain 'standard of evidence' presented in the name of reason which concern me when applied inconsistently. I think this is more an area to examine one's subjectivity, but ultimately to accept it.

---

In light of the discussions which occur on these forums - and assuming I'm not completely off the mark in my drunken ramblings above - I wonder how we might compare beliefs learned on our mother's knee with whatever scraps of cold hard evidence we might encounter and consider in later life. Or perhaps the more accurate comparison is between our upbringing as a worldview through which to interpret knowledge gained, compared with whatever philosophies and values we later gain and use to interpret knowledge.

Is there any such thing as objectively considering the 'evidence'?

I suspect that many folk will say that we can't be objective in our assessment (as indeed they have in the past). So more pertinently, I'd like to ask how we each consider the evidence, knowledge or factoids we encounter in our lives. And what are the similarities and differences from person to person?

I suspect it's a lot easier to acknowledge the impossibility of objectivity than to consider the areas (and perhaps depth) of subjectivity to which we're all prone.

Subjective: based upon or influenced by personal feelings, tastes and opinions; dependent on the mind and individual perception.

Objective: not influenced by personal opinion; not dependent on the mind and feelings when examining and considering things purported as fact; actual.

By definition then, as human beings every single contemplation we have emanates from the subjective. All things objective are merely goals for a collective understanding that requires a constant conversation and a willingness to go along without the necessity of insisting on a truth, testing and retesting everything as we evolve. All of which makes fundamental theistic 'truths' into the ridiculous inventions of indoctrination. To my mind, if there exists an ultimate, omnipotent, omniscient 'God', such a being would expect more from us than the invention of superstitions based upon unfounded imaginings and then insisting they are truths.

There's a lot of merit in avoiding fundamental truths and indoctrination, but I wonder whether we can't take the "grand goal of objectivity" too far?

Suppose we take it as axiomatic that it's best to accept a new concept only on the basis of sufficient reason/evidence. Does that mean that we should pretend our minds are a blank slate, or does that mean that a theist should require sufficient reason/evidence before accepting the concept that their religion is wrong? I'd suggest that we can't all start out from Descartes' first meditations - and if we did we like Descartes would probably start having trouble after "I am."

To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

As adults we should throw out all the unfounded crap and start over with our thinking in areas that are obviously philosophical. The problem lies in the mainstream renditions of religions as 'truths' when, in fact, none of them are 'truths' but rather philosophical considerations and ideas. If we could drop all the garbage put forth as literal emanations from some supposed supernatural being, perhaps we could begin to consider some of the wonderful teachings in all religions and use those to get to know and understand one another. We should stop wasting our time worshipping God and turn toward each other instead.

[Mithrae]

There's a lot of merit in avoiding fundamental truths and indoctrination, but I wonder whether we can't take the "grand goal of objectivity" too far?

Suppose we take it as axiomatic that it's best to accept a new concept only on the basis of sufficient reason/evidence. Does that mean that we should pretend our minds are a blank slate, or does that mean that a theist should require sufficient reason/evidence before accepting the concept that their religion is wrong? I'd suggest that we can't all start out from Descartes' first meditations - and if we did we like Descartes would probably start having trouble after "I am."

To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

As adults we should throw out all the unfounded crap and start over with our thinking in areas that are obviously philosophical. The problem lies in the mainstream renditions of religions as 'truths' when, in fact, none of them are 'truths' but rather philosophical considerations and ideas. If we could drop all the garbage put forth as literal emanations from some supposed supernatural being, perhaps we could begin to consider some of the wonderful teachings in all religions and use those to get to know and understand one another. We should stop wasting our time worshipping God and turn toward each other instead.

Doesn't "all the unfounded crap" start with the existence of things outside our minds? Isn't the point you're making here "obviously philosophical"?

To be honest I'm not really sure what you're saying. Do you believe that when someone hits puberty, or turns 18 or 21 or just whenever they're ready around that time, they should abandon their religions, political philosophies, analytical methodologies, morals and so on, so they can start from scratch to form a truly valid perspective on life?

[Flail]

There's a lot of merit in avoiding fundamental truths and indoctrination, but I wonder whether we can't take the "grand goal of objectivity" too far?

Suppose we take it as axiomatic that it's best to accept a new concept only on the basis of sufficient reason/evidence. Does that mean that we should pretend our minds are a blank slate, or does that mean that a theist should require sufficient reason/evidence before accepting the concept that their religion is wrong? I'd suggest that we can't all start out from Descartes' first meditations - and if we did we like Descartes would probably start having trouble after "I am."

To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

As adults we should throw out all the unfounded crap and start over with our thinking in areas that are obviously philosophical. The problem lies in the mainstream renditions of religions as 'truths' when, in fact, none of them are 'truths' but rather philosophical considerations and ideas. If we could drop all the garbage put forth as literal emanations from some supposed supernatural being, perhaps we could begin to consider some of the wonderful teachings in all religions and use those to get to know and understand one another. We should stop wasting our time worshipping God and turn toward each other instead.

Doesn't "all the unfounded crap" start with the existence of things outside our minds? Isn't the point you're making here "obviously philosophical"?

To be honest I'm not really sure what you're saying. Do you believe that when someone hits puberty, or turns 18 or 21 or just whenever they're ready around that time, they should abandon their religions, political philosophies, analytical methodologies, morals and so on, so they can start from scratch to form a truly valid perspective on life?

No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is they ought to begin to understand that BibleGod or KoranGod (or whatever verse based supernatural being has been thrust upon their childhood) be 'outed'...as an allegorical, mythical, metaphorical consideration conjured by the ancients as a context within which to philosophically consider our human natures; our fears, our selfishness, our hopes and dreams and ideals...and that the notion that these 'Gods' actually exist or the notion that there is some absolute truth involved in any of it is but more indoctrinated nonsense from the folks that gave us Santa.

[Mithrae]

Doesn't "all the unfounded crap" start with the existence of things outside our minds? Isn't the point you're making here "obviously philosophical"?

To be honest I'm not really sure what you're saying. Do you believe that when someone hits puberty, or turns 18 or 21 or just whenever they're ready around that time, they should abandon their religions, political philosophies, analytical methodologies, morals and so on, so they can start from scratch to form a truly valid perspective on life?

No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is they ought to begin to understand that BibleGod or KoranGod (or whatever verse based supernatural being has been thrust upon their childhood) be 'outed'...as an allegorical, mythical, metaphorical consideration conjured by the ancients as a context within which to philosophically consider our human natures; our fears, our selfishness, our hopes and dreams and ideals...and that the notion that these 'Gods' actually exist or the notion that there is some absolute truth involved in any of it is but more indoctrinated nonsense from the folks that gave us Santa.

Ah... and from what you're saying it sounds as though they're supposed to just understand all this intuitively? That's certainly another approach to the topic of belief, I suppose.

I'm curious why the concepts being 'verse-based' is relevant though - does writing them down make them less plausible? Would someone raised in a conservative Christian mould but without a bible be excluded from the mystical enlightenment you appear to be proposing?

[Flail]

Doesn't "all the unfounded crap" start with the existence of things outside our minds? Isn't the point you're making here "obviously philosophical"?

To be honest I'm not really sure what you're saying. Do you believe that when someone hits puberty, or turns 18 or 21 or just whenever they're ready around that time, they should abandon their religions, political philosophies, analytical methodologies, morals and so on, so they can start from scratch to form a truly valid perspective on life?

No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is they ought to begin to understand that BibleGod or KoranGod (or whatever verse based supernatural being has been thrust upon their childhood) be 'outed'...as an allegorical, mythical, metaphorical consideration conjured by the ancients as a context within which to philosophically consider our human natures; our fears, our selfishness, our hopes and dreams and ideals...and that the notion that these 'Gods' actually exist or the notion that there is some absolute truth involved in any of it is but more indoctrinated nonsense from the folks that gave us Santa.

Ah... and from what you're saying it sounds as though they're supposed to just understand all this intuitively? That's certainly another approach to the topic of belief, I suppose.

I'm curious why the concepts being 'verse-based' is relevant though - does writing them down make them less plausible? Would someone raised in a conservative Christian mould but without a bible be excluded from the mystical enlightenment you appear to be proposing?

Some do understand the mind numbing effects of indoctrination intuitively (common sense) once removed from the indoctrination environment and into the world. Education and maturity helps; and being around people of different indoctrinations can lead one to come to the understanding that all of them are wrong.

Verse-based was just my way of describing the source...Bible or Koran. I think it is fantastic that we have both of these books and find great value in both of them as philosophy and food for thought; as allegory and fable. It's the literalism and inerrancy that I find ridiculous. I am not proposing any mythical enlightenment, but rather an actual understanding of indoctrinations when viewed and examined openly and logically by unfettered mature minds.

[Mithrae]

Ah... and from what you're saying it sounds as though they're supposed to just understand all this intuitively? That's certainly another approach to the topic of belief, I suppose.

I'm curious why the concepts being 'verse-based' is relevant though - does writing them down make them less plausible? Would someone raised in a conservative Christian mould but without a bible be excluded from the mystical enlightenment you appear to be proposing?

Some do understand the mind numbing effects of indoctrination intuitively (common sense) once removed from the indoctrination environment and into the world. Education and maturity helps; and being around people of different indoctrinations can lead one to come to the understanding that all of them are wrong.

Verse-based was just my way of describing the source...Bible or Koran. I think it is fantastic that we have both of these books and find great value in both of them as philosophy and food for thought; as allegory and fable. It's the literalism and inerrancy that I find ridiculous. I am not proposing any mythical enlightenment, but rather an actual understanding of indoctrinations when viewed and examined openly and logically by unfettered mature minds.

I'd say that it's rather fallacious to conclude from one of the methods used to spread a belief system - indoctrination in this case - that the belief system itself is wrong.

I'd further suggest that familiarity with other traditions of 'indoctrination' is likely to shed light on shared themes and elements amongst them, which to many folk may well suggest a basis in a common truth understood from different perspectives.

Essentially it sounds as though you think everyone should share your views on religion simply as a matter of 'maturity.' You don't seem to have provided any actual reasons why that perspective on religion is so compelling, nor any general principles by which we might hope to see folk growing up and discovering this approach to religion but not to politics, morals and so on. So far, it is looking more along the lines of a 'mystical enlightenment' kinda deal than anything else - which, as I've said, is certainly an approach to belief and learning in its own right.

[notachance]

Hi Mithrae,
I think that true objectivity in evaluating evidence is obviously unattainable by subjective humans. No groundbreaking news so far.

But I think that a common wrongful thought process made by some is this:

"True objectivity is impossible, everything is subjective, we can't be sure of anything, therefore everything is equally uncertain, therefore the evidence in favor of the universe being billions of years old can be disregarded as subjective, therefore it's just as likely that the universe is 6000 years old."

The best answer to this fallacious thought process comes from Sam Harris. He makes the analogy that there isn't an objectively perfect healthy diet. But be that as it may, not knowing for sure whether drinking tomato juice is good for you or not, does NOT mean that it's equally likely that drinking battery acid might be good for you.

In short, my point is that although we can never attain perfect objectivity, we can get pretty darn close, and that by adopting a skeptical, evidence based outlook on reality, we can overcome our unjustified attachment to non-evidence based opinion we learned while sitting on our mother's lap.

Just my two cents.

[Mithrae]

Hi Mithrae,
I think that true objectivity in evaluating evidence is obviously unattainable by subjective humans. No groundbreaking news so far.

But I think that a common wrongful thought process made by some is this:
"True objectivity is impossible, everything is subjective, we can't be sure of anything, therefore everything is equally uncertain, therefore the evidence in favor of the universe being billions of years old can be disregarded as subjective, therefore it's just as likely that the universe is 6000 years old."

I agree that it's absurd to believe the universe is 6000 years old, though I'm not sure how many people follow that exact line of reasoning. If someone asked me how I know the universe is billions of years old, the only reasons I'd have off the top of my head are radiometric decay and light from distant stars. And I don't actually know about them, never done any experiments myself, I've just read lots of things which say that they do show the universe is very old.

Odds are there's plenty of folk out there, religious and not, who wouldn't even know the concepts behind radiometric dating or light from distant stars. They 'know' the universe is very old because that's what scientists tell them. Or more accurately not even that most of the time; they 'know' it because that's what their junior high textbook a few decades ago and shows like Big Bang Theory claim as scientific knowledge, and they assume they'd hear otherwise if it weren't so.

Against that rather shaky foundation of general knowledge in society, some Christians are raised and largely live surrounded by people who believe as they do, or who don't generally raise scientific debates in general conversation. I suspect that for many people the reason for believing in a young earth is not so much based on epistemology and a conscious rejection of that area of science, as simply "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." The final belief may be very obviously wrong, but the 'reasoning' is not much worse than "My high school textbook said it and I believe it."

As far as more intellectual types go, like our friends down at Answers in Genesis, the question is rather more complicated and I'm not sure I know the answer. Some of those folks are very intelligent, logical and well-educated. It's worth noting that our measurements based on radiometric dating and light from distant stars assume that the speed of light has been constant across these millions of years; an exponential increase in the speed of light in the past could allow for a much younger universe, if those are the only two proofs for an older world. Our Christian friends no doubt have their responses to any other lines of evidence, and arguments of their own (rate of salt build-up in the ocean leaves a 60 million-year absolute maximum age is one that I've read, for example). Obviously debating that issue isn't the point of the thread. But while YEC apologists certainly would use reasoning like your example above as part of their arsenal, I don't think that's the whole of the issue.

But since we can't achieve complete objectivity (or complete knowledge of raw data), it does raise an interesting question. If we think of a degree of subjectivity as essentially equivalent to a margin of error, how much more 'certain' of something would we need to be to at least rule out its alternative? Even if the YEC arguments aren't quite as good as the 'secular/scientific' rebuttals, is it possible that they might be good enough to be worth considering as the less likely of two not-wholly-objective positions? (They're probably not, but without debating the specifics of that issue too much - and recognising that 'good enough' is even more subjective than the arguments involved - is it possible?)

In short, my point is that although we can never attain perfect objectivity, we can get pretty darn close, and that by adopting a skeptical, evidence based outlook on reality, we can overcome our unjustified attachment to non-evidence based opinion we learned while sitting on our mother's lap.

Well that kind of goes back to what I was asking Flail earlier; even if we take that kind of approach as axiomatic, surely there's still some measure of direction involved, so to speak?

• There's a lot of merit in avoiding fundamental truths and indoctrination, but I wonder whether we can't take the 'grand goal' of objectivity too far?
  
  Suppose we take it as axiomatic that it's best to accept a new concept only on the basis of sufficient reason/evidence. Does that mean that we should pretend our minds are a blank slate, or does that mean that a theist should require sufficient reason/evidence before accepting the concept that their religion is wrong? I'd suggest that we can't all start out from Descartes' first meditations - and if we did we like Descartes would probably start having trouble after "I am."
  
  To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

[Flail]

Ah... and from what you're saying it sounds as though they're supposed to just understand all this intuitively? That's certainly another approach to the topic of belief, I suppose.

I'm curious why the concepts being 'verse-based' is relevant though - does writing them down make them less plausible? Would someone raised in a conservative Christian mould but without a bible be excluded from the mystical enlightenment you appear to be proposing?

Some do understand the mind numbing effects of indoctrination intuitively (common sense) once removed from the indoctrination environment and into the world. Education and maturity helps; and being around people of different indoctrinations can lead one to come to the understanding that all of them are wrong.

Verse-based was just my way of describing the source...Bible or Koran. I think it is fantastic that we have both of these books and find great value in both of them as philosophy and food for thought; as allegory and fable. It's the literalism and inerrancy that I find ridiculous. I am not proposing any mythical enlightenment, but rather an actual understanding of indoctrinations when viewed and examined openly and logically by unfettered mature minds.

Mithrae wrote:

I'd say that it's rather fallacious to conclude from one of the methods used to spread a belief system - indoctrination in this case - that the belief system itself is wrong.

Agreed. But teaching children that God was born of a virgin to save them from themselves and that some supernatural being with particular characteristics is looking out for them and saving them and singling them out for special treatment is wrong regardless of how its done.
Mithrae wrote:

I'd further suggest that familiarity with other traditions of 'indoctrination' is likely to shed light on shared themes and elements amongst them, which to many folk may well suggest a basis in a common truth understood from different perspectives.

Agreed. I think comparative religion should be a required course in high school and college.
Mithrae wrote:

Essentially it sounds as though you think everyone should share your views on religion simply as a matter of 'maturity.' You don't seem to have provided any actual reasons why that perspective on religion is so compelling, nor any general principles by which we might hope to see folk growing up and discovering this approach to religion but not to politics, morals and so on. So far, it is looking more along the lines of a 'mystical enlightenment' kinda deal than anything else - which, as I've said, is certainly an approach to belief and learning in its own right.

Absolutely wrong. I'm not saying anyone should adopt my view on God. I don't even know what a God would be. I am saying that teaching children literalism and inerrancy from any book, Bible or Koran, as to supernatural beings (Gods and Demons and Virgin births etc) is wrong. I think it would be far wiser to offer teenagers a broad based approach to the religions of the world so they can glean the good stuff from them, form their own philosophies of life and realize that all religions are simply attempts to understand, not 'answers' and that when it comes to supernatural beings, are philosophical and metaphorical...and that instead of being all wrapped up in saving themselves they become more concerned with the plight of their neighbors....and that no one is going to 'Hell'