Confidence in Ignorance

In this post, I’m exploring the reasons behind religious people’s confidence, despite their lack of evidence.

Or rather, the oft quoted line:
“Believe as a child.”

Why do religious people (from here on referred to as Christians) think it is a good thing to trust in something you have absolutely no idea about?
Example:
“I believe that when I die, I will go to heaven.”
“What makes you think this is true?”
“I have to believe like a child.”
“Yes... but what made you believe this in the first place?”
“Jesus himself said that (bible quote)”

So... the only way to get into heaven is to believe without proof. What this implies is that there is no proof, no assurance or even any reason to believe in heaven (or God or Jesus). When I was in Sunday school, they used very effective and imaginative stories to tell us that we have to believe in Jesus/God/Heaven, even though we can’t see him. The church indoctrinated us to believe in things even if, no, especially if there is no proof.

I cannot believe I (and many others) did not realise this sooner. If they teach us:
“God is unknowable. We don’t know what he/she/it is like. There is no way to understand God; therefore we won’t. That’s it people. Oh, and we help people and teach manners and life lessons.” I would probably see the benefit of such a church. I wouldn’t mind attending a service or two for inspiration, and maybe donating money. But the problem with this “church” is that it won’t last very long and it won’t be able to control people as well as a Christian or Muslim church.

The reason that the most powerful religion in the world is Christianity is because of a kind of evolution. Survival of the fittest.

Think about it this way:

If there is a church which has good ideas, but does not control its flock (call them sheep, because it complements their mindset) very effectively, this church will fail in a short period of time. A church with bad ideas (think about any cult) which is good at controlling its sheep, will probably last longer then the one with good ideas.

Christianity and Islam are very similar. The reason for this is that the recipe they are following is very effective:

Draw the sheep with stories about being nice to others
Indoctrinate the sheep to think that lack of proof is a good thing
Control the sheep with somewhat obvious laws
Mix in a few stupid laws which increases your control over them
Justify everything by saying that it came from a holy book
Accuse all non-sheep of being wolves out to kill the sheep

It’s slightly more complicated than that, but I think you should get the idea at this point. Christianity and Islam and other major religions did not survive and spread so effectively because any of them is the “one true religion.” They survived because they are good at controlling their sheep.

And this joins with my first question:

Why do Christians think it is a good idea to trust in something they have absolutely no proof of?

And this is the most obvious answer I can think of:

If Christians weren’t sure about themselves, despite their lack of evidence, they would not have survived. The Christians who had questioned their beliefs or was uncertain, probably “died out.” The Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Catholic Church in general helped a lot on this subject. They literally tortured any person who was unsure. They guided the “evolution” and strengthened faith.

This belief in something without proof is what people call faith. Without faith, a Christian is not a Christian.

“Believe as a child,” is a very simple summation of religion.

till, I cannot get my mind around this concept.

People think that you should not only believe that there is a God without question (that idea I can understand) but also the story behind the Ark, Moses, Mary, etc should not be questioned. In fact, anything a reverend or bible says is right. And if someone or something seems to contradict the reverend, then the reverend is right. I’m surprised there aren’t more corrupt reverends who abuse their power for personal gain. I suppose the 7 year course in ethics and philosophy and bibliophily helped them fear divine retribution for such heinous crimes.

Reverends are people too. They might claim that God speaks directly through them, but they still prepare speeches and quotes from the bible and examples and sometimes make mistakes. If God was speaking through a reverend, I doubt he would make a language error.

I’d just like to finish this post with a very appropriate quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

- Epicurus