Ignoring the mind to make major life decisions.

[Realworldjack]

I think we can all agree there are a number of members on this site who were once Christian. Some of these folks will even admit to truly embracing the faith, with all their heart, and soul.

Moreover, these folks seem to insist, that they did not use the mind, (or as one member here insisted) "they did not use it properly" to make such a major life decision, and they would now like us to believe, that it was the use of the mind which caused them to reject the faith.

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

Seen through the eyes of realism, the decision is not, as you say, a major life decision.

Oh really? So you are attempting to tell me, that when a person decides to become a Christian with their whole being, to the point they live their lives in such a way as to attend church, everytime the doors are open, live their lives as though Christianity were true, and give thousands, and thousands of dollars to the church, that this would not be a, "major life decision?" I cannot imagine a decision that would be any more of a, "major life decision."

So then, I am not talking about the decision to reject Christianity, but rather the decision to embrace Christianity, and to go on to admit that one made such a decision, without the mind, or without using it properly, and you would like to say that, "the decision is not, as you say, a major life decision?" GOOD GRIEF!

In 1 Corinthians Paul says: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Right, and he was speaking of the gift of tongues. Moreover, Paul did not put away Christianity form his life, and we have evidence of this fact, well into his life. So then, I do not see a point here?

However, allow me to share with you something else Paul said in that very same letter.

if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless

He also went on to say,

If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

So then, it certainly seems as if Paul understood the stakes, and he was not placing Christianity among the things he, "put away as childish things", and realized that if he was in error, it would be a major error, and that he would have been a "pitiful person."

There may have been some element of this in the decision to discard a faith which was loud with sometimes nice but silly hymns: "Let us with a gladsome mind, praise the Lord for he is kind" or "Hobgoblin nor foul fiend can daunt his spirit."

Right? Whatever that means? But we are not talking about folks who were brought up in the Church, and became of age, (say around 18 to 20) and simply decided to themselves it seemed really childish, and they did not have to to waste on such things. Because you see, I would not have a problem with this in the least, other than I would not spend time on a web site debating such things, if all I had to offer was, I simply grew out of it.

Rather, we are talking about grown adults who admit to, either making the decision to embrace Christianity, or they continued on with the way they were brought up in the Church, without ever using the mind to determine, if there would really be any evidence to actually believe it.

I'm sorry, but there is a TREMENDOUS difference between what you are attempting to describe, (which I have no problem with), as opposed to what these folks are describing, who then go on to claim that, it was the use of the mind that lead them to reject, however their reasoning certainly seems to be no different than when they were Christians.

As a boy I believed and I don't regret that belief; it was satisfying and offered meaning.

Well guess what? As a boy, I believed in Santa, and I do not regret that belief, because when I became old enough to question such a thing, my parents did not go on to insist there actually was a Santa, but rather went on to assure me, that I was correct to question the existence of Santa.

However, if my parents continued to live in such a way, as to believe something were true, to the point that they were indoctrinating me into such a belief, and as a child I believed such things, until I became of age to understand that it was foolishness, and they continued to live in such a way as if it were true, against all evidence, then I will assure you, I would regret such a belief, because it would not have been like I was believing in, Santa, which we all know was intended to be fictional, in order to amuse children, but rather I would have been duped into believing something to be true, that was foolishness.

To make a long story short, I would regret such a belief, even if it gave me some sort of comfort, or meaning, because it would have been a false comfort, and meaning. In other words, I would be with Paul and say, "all of us who believed such garbage, are pitiful people."

Which again brings me back to the point that, the thinking of those opposed to Christianity, is not much different to the Christians they criticize, if one is under the impression that such beliefs are beneficial, simply because one may find some sort of comfort.

As a teenager I was attracted to questions of existence and in particular to the existence of God.

As a teenager, I was not attracted to such things. Rather, I was attracted to such things as baseball, football, basketball, the opposite sex, etc. I did not meditate on the things you describe as a teenager, because I had other things on my mind, which is why I simply stop attending Church when I became of age. because I had other interests.

Old rituals, old incantations, genuflections and pretend piety were things to be discarded.

I agree, because they would have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of Christianity being true, or false.

In the history of mankind there are better teachers than Paul;

Not only would I agree with you here, but I think Paul would have agreed, as well.

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

So then, Paul was not claiming to be a great teacher. No, Paul was simply claiming that the Resurrection was an historical event, which would not take a great teacher.

So then, if you were thinking that the goal would have been for Paul to be one of the greater teachers of all time, I'm a thinking you would be mistaken.

better genealogies than those that traced Jesus through David back to Neanderthal man, with nomenclature provided.

No argument here from me. But I can't quite figure out what the point would be?

I am still fascinated by those people who are highly intelligent and embrace Christianity.

I am not fascinated by "those people who are highly intelligent" who reject Christianity, but rather it is a reason for me to have pause, because I understand that there are folks far more intelligent than myself, who would both embrace, and reject Christianity.

The point is, I do not simply assume that I must, and have to be right, because although there would be, highly intelligent folks who would agree with me, there would also be those who are highly intelligent who would disagree.

What I find fascinating is, those who are highly intelligent, and assume they must, and have to be correct, when they have not, and cannot demonstrate what it is they claim to believe.

Because you see, all you are really doing is making comments, but you have no facts, nor evidence to back such comments up. In other words, it would be no difference in me saying, "I am still fascinated by those people who are highly intelligent and reject Christianity." There would be no substance whatsoever to my comment, just as there is no substance to yours, I'm afraid. Unless of course, you would like to demonstrate how your comment, would have more substance to mine, even though I am intelligent enough not to make such a comment.

I have no doubt that Muhammad has his genius supporters too.

I would say so as well, but I am not insisting that there would be no reason to believe the claims of, "Muhammad" since I couldn't care less, and have not investigated the evidence in order to determine such a thing.

If you have come to the conclusion that there would be no evidence to support the claims of "Muhammad", then I can only imagine you have investigated the claims. Or, you would be one who is under the impression that you have no need in determining the evidence for, and against certain claims, because you possess the ability to determine what would be true, or false, without any sort of evidence.

After reading many of your posts, it certainly seems to me to be the latter, because you certainly make many comments, as if they are obviously true, without any evidence, or facts to back such claims, just like you do here.

Reason tells me that Christianity is not for me.

Well, please allow me to explain what, "reason tells me." "Reason tells me", Christianity is either true, or it is false. With this being the case, I am not asking myself whether it, "is for me" or not, rather, I am asking myself whether it may be true, or not.

If you have come to the conclusion that, "Christianity is not for you" then I have no problem with this in the least. What I would have a problem with, is if you were to insist that Christianity must, and has to be false, simply based upon, "it not being for you."

It's not a decision that has changed my life in any remarkable way: nature is still nature, death still a hazard ahead.

I do not recall Christianity claiming to cause nature to be anything other than nature, and I especially do not recall it claiming, "death would be a hazard Christians would avoid."

This brings me back to your comment, about being fascinated, because it fascinates me how highly intelligent people, can simply assume they know something.

At any rate, as we look back at what you have said, all you have done is to make comments, with absolutely no substance whatsoever. All you have done is to share with us your feelings, opinions, and beliefs, just like many Christians do. Moreover, you have not answered the question of the OP.

This brings me back to the point that, the thinking of many who are opposed to Christianity, is really not that much different, if any, to the thinking of the Christians they criticize.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 4 by Jagella]

Many apologists greatly exaggerate the impact religious beliefs might have on people.

Correct! And some folks seem to be under the impression that if there is no, "great impact" say like, "nature becoming something other than nature" or death being avoided", then this somehow has an impact on whether Christianity would be true, or not, when it does no such thing.

As far as I can tell, Christians live lives much like unbelievers do.

Other than things like attending Church, etc., again you would be correct. So then, other than that, what would give you the impression that the lives of Christians would be any different, and how would this have anything at all to do with Christianity being true, or false?

They don't seem any better off or happier than atheists are.

And again correct, and I will assure you that if I were under the impression that as a Christian I would be happier, I certainly would have rejected Christianity a long time ago, because it certainly has not worked out that way, but I am still struggling to see your point?

Unless of course, when you were a Christian, who admits to "not using the mind properly", you were duped into believing you would be happier, and when things didn't work out that way, then this was evidence for you that, Christianity must be false.

Perhaps because of this lack of difference that religion might make on a person's life, some people have coined the term "apatheist" to describe people who just don't care if the claims of religion are true or not.

This may be true, and I have no problem with this in the least. However, there are those of us who understand that the truth of Christianity would not rest upon how Christians are impacted, or how they may live their life.

To them Christianity is just a lot of nonsense that's not relevant to what they need to do to get by.

Christianity was never intended to be something people would "need to get by." You continue to make these comments, as if they would have some sort of bearing, but I fail to see any relevance?

I'm not an apatheist. Religion does have a big impact on our lives and often in a harmful way. I care enough to speak put against that harm.

Religion, has caused harm to folks such as the crusades, flying planes into buildings, and other such things, and I certainly speak out against this as well.

However, if you are talking about the harm it does to those who, "do not use the mind properly" to embrace such a religion, then I am afraid that the one who admits to, "not using the mind properly" to embrace that religion, would be the only one to blame for such harm, unless you can demonstrate how one was forced to accept such things in some sort of way.

In other words, as long as no laws are broken, we are all free to proclaim anything we wish, and it is the responsibility of the individual to use the mind in order to determine if they choose to believe such things, or not.

Of course, I understand this sort of thing will not work for those who claim they cannot decide what to believe, because their beliefs, POOF, "just happens to them."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 6 by PinSeeker]

Don't we all think things (possibly with what we think is certainty at that point) and then come to change our minds at some later point? Yes, we all do that with all kinds of decisions, major and life-changing or not.

No, I am afraid I do not operate in such a way. In other words, there are certain things I am certain about, because I believe I can demonstrate these things one way or the other. If I find that I was in error, this is not a change of mind, but would rather be an understanding of error.

On the other hand, there are any number of things I cannot in any way demonstrate one way, or the other, and with these sort of things, I may hold certain beliefs based upon the information I may have, but I do not insist to have certainty, in that I could not possibly be wrong.

With these sort of things, the mind may change as new information, or facts arrive, but I still cannot have certainty in that I can demonstrate what it is I now believe, and I certainly cannot have certainty that what I once believed was in error.

What you seem to be describing is preferences.

It's really more a matter of the heart, or the absolute center of the person... who you are at the core of your being.

I really do not get this sort of thinking? What would any of this have to do with truth? You seem to be saying, "what is true to me, is true? And if I change my mind, the truth changes with my mind?"

Now, with your mind, you can, in a manner of speaking, fool yourself (unintentionally of course) for a time as to what your heart really is concerning a matter, right? But you're heart is still what it is, whether you understand it correctly or not.

Again, you seem to be saying that what is in my heart is truth, and someone else can have a different heart, and that would be true for them?

1. If you decide against something with your mind, you may realize at a later point that at the core of your being, you were mistaken in deciding what you decided... and thus change your mind to what it once was.

No, I can assure that I do not think like this. Because you see, at "the core of my being" I would rather Christianity not be true, but I do not make decisions in this way.

2. If you decide for something (again, with your mind), you may realize at a later point that at the core of your being, you were never truly there at all... and thus change your mind and reject what you once decided for.

Again no! I do not attempt to get in touch with "the core of my being" in order to determine what actually may be true, or false.

As an example, let's take the Resurrection. If I am attempting to determine the truth, or falsehood of such a claim, how would what may be in "the core of my being" (whatever that is) assist me in such an endeavor? You seem to be saying, "just go with what your heart is telling you."

3. You may know what your heart is concerning a matter, but for at least one of many reasons decide to go against your heart for a time.

Let me tell you what I know. I know, I know nothing in my heart. I feel certain things in what some call the "heart", but I have come to understand that it is not wise to make decisions based upon what your heart is telling you.

In summary, one is who/what one is. In any case, your real self will sooner or later prevail. Once cannot -- for long, anyway -- be untrue to oneself.

GOOD GRIEF! I hope you are in error, because if I were "true to myself" I would be all about self.

One cannot run, either unintentionally or intentionally, from himself/herself -- speaking from a Biblical standpoint, who God made him/her to be -- for very long. Because of that, we are all (or should be, anyway) examining ourselves all the time. Time and truth are on the same side.

Can you please reference the Biblical passage you are referring to? And why should we be "examining ourselves all the time" if "Time and truth are on the same side", and, "One cannot run, either unintentionally or intentionally, from himself/herself?" It sounds to me as if, it's all gonna work out in the end, according to your logic.

And concerning Christianity specifically, this is exactly what John (and thus God) is saying in his first epistle:

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)

What this sounds like is, those who follow the heart.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Realworldjack]

Some people's thinking matures as they grow older.

It's not surprising that some will leave childish beliefs behind in the process.

Correct! But we are not talking about those who may have been brought up in Church, and when they become of age, (18 to 20) they decide it is all childish, and move on.

Rather, we are talking about those who freely, and readily admit to embracing Christianity with all their lives, as an adult, and go on to admit they did such a thing without the mind.

Their rejection is not said to be, "putting away childish beliefs", but rather is a claim to have believed something they now claim that there would be no reason to believe.

With this being the case, what you have to say, would not apply.

[Mithrae]

Edit: This post is fairly relevant to the topic of why people make such 'major' life decisions as going to church or later ceasing church attendance, but perhaps not as on topic as RWJ would like; responses might be best in the new thread I've re-posted it in.

As far as I can tell, Christians live lives much like unbelievers do.

Other than things like attending Church, etc., again you would be correct. So then, other than that, what would give you the impression that the lives of Christians would be any different, and how would this have anything at all to do with Christianity being true, or false?

You mean... what would give that impression, besides virtually all of the NT insisting that Christians should be starkly distinguished from the world? Indeed that the world would hate Jesus' followers just as it hated him?

• John 15:16 You did not choose me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in my name he may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another. 18 If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent me.
  
  1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. . . . 16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

There is so much poverty and need in the world, while most people in countries like Australia and the US have more wealth than we reasonably know what to do with. How can any Christian claim that the love of God abides in them if they're spending money on houses, cars or a fancy sound system for the building they attend once or twice a week? Jesus not only told his followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor, he even emphasized this as a truly fundamental aspect of the kingdom of God; that retaining treasures on earth or working for money was akin to blinding yourself entirely:

• Luke 12:29 And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying. 30 For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. 32 Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
  
  Matthew 6:19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. [You cannot work for God if you're working for money.] 25 For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

According to Jesus' standards, by dividing up their time and spending far more effort working for money than serving God, refusing to trust in him for their daily bread but instead retaining earthly treasures year by year, most Christians are showing that they despise God despite professing him as another master.

Does that have anything to do with Christianity being true or false? Why would anyone imagine it to be true, if even the folk professing to be followers of Christ ignore his teachings? Certainly that hypocrisy and the comfortable irrelevancy of churchianity was one of major reasons why I walked away from "the faith" altogether. Jesus preached a deeply compelling but incredibly difficult message. It may be that Christians' determined efforts to bury and ignore that message do not invalidate it; perhaps even that the ongoing availability of that message despite seventeen-plus centuries of church efforts to subvert and undermine it is a testament to its power. But at least superficially the fact that Christianity as widely practiced looks like little more than a social club, the fact that not even Christians follow Christ, is a constant advertisement implying that there's nothing much to see there.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

Jesus not only told his followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor, he even emphasized this as a truly fundamental aspect of the kingdom of God; that retaining treasures on earth or working for money was akin to blinding yourself entirely:

He also liked having expensive perfume poured on him, instead of selling it and giving the money to the poor. Just check Mark 14. I guess Jesus is exempt from all this giving and tithing business!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by Realworldjack]

Rather, we are talking about grown adults who admit to, either making the decision to embrace Christianity, or they continued on with the way they were brought up in the Church, without ever using the mind to determine, if there would really be any evidence to actually believe it.

Oh for Pete's sake...I'm not going to talk regarding Jagella, but it WAS usage of my mind that broke the hold Christianity had on me. The first major clue, the first kick in the pants, was at my Confirmation, and during the ceremony, the bishop said something along the lines of "You are now filled with the Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Spirit is now among you", only I stood there dumbfounded, in silence, realizing that there's nothing happening. I notice nothing I could even remotely begin to describe as divine/holy.
I said to myself "This bishop hasn't got a clue what it is he's saying...he's making it up".
How could I have come to a realization like that, without using my mind, RWJ, as you allege? I'm sitting here thinking about it, wondering how that situation could play out for anybody if they didn't think.

it was the use of the mind that lead them to reject, however their reasoning certainly seems to be no different than when they were Christians.

As I mentioned to you in the other thread, you can't actually know this for surety. You knew neither Jagella nor I when we were Christians. All you have to go on is what we now, as atheists, describe what our thinking is like, which would necessarily be coloured by both our current state of mind and the years since then.

As a boy, I believed in Santa, and I do not regret that belief, because when I became old enough to question such a thing, my parents did not go on to insist there actually was a Santa, but rather went on to assure me, that I was correct to question the existence of Santa.

Same here. However, when I was in school and opined to my school chums that I don't believe in God any longer...they acted shocked. People looked at me funny, like it's weird not to believe there's an invisible bearded man who can fly through the sky dispensing gifts (three guesses as to who exactly I'm referring to!).

As a teenager, I was not attracted to such things. Rather, I was attracted to such things as baseball, football, basketball, the opposite sex, etc. I did not meditate on the things you describe as a teenager, because I had other things on my mind, which is why I simply stop attending Church when I became of age. because I had other interests.

I'm unlike you, and like marco describes himself. Indeed, on the walk to and from school, I'd have deep ponders as to existentialist questions. I had, and have, no interest in sports, and during my youth, I was at the "cooties" stage of attitude towards girls.

I agree, because they would have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of Christianity being true, or false.

Except that Christianity, in their holy book, insist on these things. We're told which exact prayers to say, which exact words, told to recreate the last supper and to do it in remembrance of Jesus.

What I find fascinating is, those who are highly intelligent, and assume they must, and have to be correct, when they have not, and cannot demonstrate what it is they claim to believe.

I think the exact same thing, only regarding theists. Odd that? Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and yet, (from what I heard at least) his belief in a triune God is based upon him...seeing a waterfall in three parts.

[Realworldjack]

There are many folk who identify as being 'Christian' who also proclaim that 'the mind' is not a good thing to be engaging with in relation to faith-based beliefs which have become nonnegotiable. This nonnegotiability stems from the idea that thinking logically about what one puts their faith in, is dangerous to that very faith and thus should be avoided.

You may be correct, and I would not be shocked to find out there would be Christians who thinks this way. However, I cannot imagine believing in something, that I could not think about, because in may endanger what it is I believe.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 9 by rikuoamero]

Your question seems to me, at least, to require one to have mind-reading powers. How can I guarantee to you that my mind is now engaged, if all I say to you is that I've changed my mind, even supposing it is?

It does not require mind reading. The question is simple, and the answer is obvious. Simply because I claim to have believed something, without the use of the mind, changing my mind would NOT in any way be a guarantee, nor any sort of evidence that the mind is now engaged.

In other words, if there are those who would make such a major life decision, without the use of the mind, then they surely demonstrate by their own admission, that they are the type of person, who would make such decisions without thinking about it, and I am simply pointing out the fact that, simply because they have changed the mind, would not in any way demonstrate that they are now using the mind, and from the posts I have supplied, it certainly seems to be the case, that the mind is thinking just like it did, when was a Christian mind.

So again, you do not have to read minds, to know that a change of mind would not guarantee, the use of the mind, nor would it demonstrate that what one used to believe, and now has rejected, would be incorrect.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 10 by rikuoamero]

Nope, not what I meant at all. I said something on the order of "to show he's able to speak their language", without me putting a negative connotation on it. I may be misremembering but didn't I say something about not immediately putting to these "mindless" Christians (I only use that word here in context of the OP, not as a pejorative) a logical thesis, given the unfamiliarity these Christians will have with thinking like that?

Okay, well let's go with this, because you did in fact say, "to show he's able to speak their language." Well my friend, this is an admission on your part that the reasoning used in the post, would have been no different than Christians who do not use the mind.

You then go on to argue that this could have been intentional which again is, and admission on your part, that he was indeed using the same thinking that Christians who do not use the mind would use.

Next, you go on to admit that, you would not do what was done in the OP, because you use, reason, evidence, and logic, which is another admission on your part, that reason, evidence, and logic, were not used in the post.

Moreover, the author of this post has had every opportunity to explain his intent, and has replied to a number of things since then, but has not given us an intent, that would verify, your assumption, and this would be very easy for him to do, which causes one to wonder. In fact, as far as I can remember, he has not even given a defense of the things I had to say.

And again, on top of all of this, we had another member who came along, who freely admits to becoming a Christian without the mind, and "look and behold" he is using the same exact logic, (if it can be called logic).

Okay...so let's look at Hypothetical Christian Jim. Jim was, for the first twenty years of his life, a fundamentalist Christian. In that he believed and taught a literal reading of the Bible. His mode of thinking is "If it's in the Bible, it's true, no ifs, ands or buts".
You lose contact with Jim for a few years. You eventually meet up with him again, only to find he's now dropped the religion. He now doesn't have a religion, he says that what he once believed in is now more likely false, he says he was greatly mistaken before.
Would you describe him as still having the same way of thinking?

What you are saying here, does not even compare in the least. If Jim was a Christian, only the first 20 years of his life, then he would have been a child most of this time, and would have been influenced more than likely by his family.

If Jim, at the age of 20, (which would be around the coming of age) came to the conclusion that what he was taught as a child, and what he thought he believed is now foolishness, then this would not come close to comparing to those who admit they spent years of their life as an adult, believing something with all their heart, without using the mind.