'Believers'...

 

"I believe what I believe cuz I believe it!"

“Let’s just say; that if and if and if and if and if…”

The Monkee’s hit song plays in my mind; ‘I’m a Believer’. It’s occurred to me that Believers believe in the utter nonsense of the ‘Wholly Bobble’ because to do otherwise would destroy their world view entirely. To admit that the whole purpose of the godly, gallant and gory sacrifice of Jesus to his ‘father’ was a bust, a fiction, a devious bit of subterfuge and crafty marketing, all for naught and unsubstantiated by single scrap of evidence would be devastating to the ‘Believer’. 

The kinder rationale by which I try to understand the Believers’ position is this: they are fearful. They generally feel untethered from their mistaken understanding of life, the universe and everything if they perceive that they are approaching disbelief. They glimpse the abyss and shudder back in fear. Their ties with their social group are also at risk by their investigating the verisimilitude of their ill-held and ill-defined belief in god and their adherence to a religion.

The less sympathetic take on Believers is that they are ignorant. Their ignorance may be willful or it may be for lack of education or for the lack of mental ability to internalize the necessary information. For example, the inability to understand the most rudimentary, foundational precepts of evolution or the Big Bang or abiogenesis. 

In the intellectual, colloquial understanding of ‘believe’, it is a choice, based on a presentation of sufficient evidence whether or not one believes in the Bible, but if one commits to holding on to ‘Belief’ in the Bible as an emotional anchor, the choice is then one that is forced upon the ‘Believer’. This state of ‘forced Belief’ is the feet of clay of the state of Faith.

“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” - Saint Augustine

 

I find it preposterous that Believers claim to receive messages from god. They might cite a pithy Snapple cap or a poignant fortune cookie as a message from ‘god’. Often they’ll claim to have a message from god to pass on to non-Believers. The message often is simply, ‘god loves you very much.’ That strikes me as being right out of a junior high school study-hall when a love note is passed along on through a Miles Standish stand-in. As an all-powerful god, how is it that he/it must rely on feeble, mundane messages passed on by go-betweens? 

To address a more salient point; how can Believers actually take on Faith that being a human is intrinsically sinful and worthy of eternal damnation? Even if one were to take the ‘word of god’ as true that god made man in his/its image, then why the fuck would that resultant being, made in the likeness of god, be inherently sinful and an abomination in the sight of the ‘Lord’? 

 

‘Sin’ is the answer to that, btw, for those keeping score.

 

So, we come to crux of the biscuit for Christians; ‘Salvation’ from the curse of the ‘original sin’, the fall of humanity into eternal perdition and damnation, etc. Something I will call ‘he ‘Battered Believer Syndrome’; ‘God loves me even though I’m wicked. I deserve to be punished for my transgressions against him/it because he/it loves me. After all, I hurt him/it, too, by being a sinful, wicked human believer. But if I pledge to love and serve him/it then I will be rewarded in heaven after I die!’ Talk about sleeping with the enemy. Some serious psychiatric counseling is in order here.

 

The ‘Battered Believer Syndrome’ might be rephrased as ‘Yes, he’s a monster but he’s my monster and I believe in him ‘cuz I was so bad to him that he had to suffer and die for me so that he could forgive me of the horrible things that mythical characters did to him in a fictional, mythical past.’

 

What a load of sh!te!

 

In her book, ‘The Battered Woman Syndrome’, Lenore E. Walker says most women who are battered exhibit four characteristics:

 

1.   They believe the violence is their fault.

2.   They can't place the blame for the violence on anyone else.

3.   They fear for their lives and their children's lives.

4.   They believe their abuser is everywhere and sees everything.

(my emphasis, btw…)

 

How is this any different from being a ‘Believer’ in a god which is a monster? A Batterer of Believers, of humans, a destroyer of humans?

The short answer is, it’s NOT. 

 

1.A Believer accepts punishment from god because they believe that they are sinners.

2. Believers place the blame on themselves and believe that they deserve it.

3. Believers fear for themselves and their loved ones in the eternal torment and eternal punishment in Hell.

4. Believers believe that their abuse (god) is everywhere and sees everything.

It’s cognitive dissonance all the way down for ‘Believers’. When a Christian Believer is backed into a corner to provide some bit of evidence for any single part of the Jesus story, they deflect and change direction. They might squirm and blurt out ‘Well, Socrates (or Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, etc.) isn’t very well documented either.’ 

Spoiler Alert: yes, they are. 

If one challenges a ‘Believer’ to produce any evidence that supports the ‘resurrection’ as fact, their heads explode; gibberish and obfuscation are the ejectamenta. One can bank on preposterous nonsense ensues such as; ‘There are lots of scientists who say that the Bible account is historically accurate’ 

Evidence, please…

Those ‘Believers’ who don’t claim sheepishly that the story of Adam & Eve is metaphor will offer to refute Darwinian evolution with a long-winded statement based on an embarrassing lack of understanding of the basis of biology. 

Another typical, misguided effort to sidle out of the corner a ‘Believer’ has painted themselves into is to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as being wholly unverifiable and, moreover, unable to prove the beginning of life. 

A ‘Believer’ would crow, ‘Nothing can come from nothing!’ as if that deepitie offered an astounding insight. Such pithy twaddle doesn’t pass the ‘Embroidered Silk Pillow Test’. IMHO.

I Believe I Believe 'cuz I Believe!

 

Valerie Tarico, PhD, in a section of her piece in called ‘I Know because I know’ in the ‘Christian Delusion’ edited by John Loftus, “Many a free-thinker has sparred a smart, educated fundamentalist into a corner only to have the believer utter some form of ‘I just know’. This ‘knowing’ is what ‘Believers’ take as ‘belief’ and ‘Faith’. Their personal experience of ‘gnosis’ cannot be taken as evidence but that ‘knowing’, that ‘belief’ is the strongest proponent of their ‘Faith’. 

People ‘Believe’ in part because believing makes them feel special. This has been posited as the reason for ‘conspiracy theorists’ believe in their nonsense. Ironically, they feel special being a part of a larger group of ‘Believers’. One common thread is that each is a Believer because they have been touched by god; they have received a personal revelation from god. Most typically, the revelation comes in the form of what they interpret as a cryptic message or an inner voice which provides a message felt by the receiver to instruct them at a crucial point in their life or is insightful and vaguely meaningful to them. 

One question which Believers will ask plaintively when all deflections are deflected, all diversions re-diverted, all prevarications stymied, all back-pedaling brought to a halt by the looming walls of the corner in which they’ve illogically backed themselves is; ‘Why would so many martyr themselves if Christianity wasn’t True and Jesus wasn’t the Lord and Savior, god of the universe? Why?’ 

The emotional, disparate tone of the question is disarming. Why would so many thousands give their lives for their belief in this Jesus of Nazareth and his bloody self-sacrifice?

Why?

One ponders the horror.

Then, one recalls the thousands who were murdered, tortured, imprisoned by the various inquisitions and ‘cleansings’ of heretics, pagans, ‘Believers’ in other gods. Why die for Allah? Why die for Zeus or Athena or Minerva, Osiris, Mithra, Ba’al? Why die for Agrippa the Skeptik? Why die for possessing a papyrus of Lucretius? Why did they die in the thousands for Arianism, Catharism, Pelagianism, Hussitism? Or Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague and a raft of heretics through the ages who proclaimed a version of the message from the Loving Christ that was unapproved by the authorities.

Why?

One answer might be gleaned from the books by Charles MacKay, ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions’ and ‘The Madness of Crowds’; an encyclopedia of mass delusions which captivated the rich and the poor for centuries; stock ventures based on lies, alchemists feeding on the greedy and the gullible, vendors in elixirs of eternal life and the philosopher’s stone. This telling of sustained madness which permeated the populations of countries and continents does not deal with murder or genocide, but one might easily amend the compendium with those who died for their delusions of god, Christ, eternal life and salvation for wrongs done to an invisible, all-powerful Creator.

Could ‘belief’ (in the ‘Believers’ technical sense of ‘Faith’) be chemically based? Might not the ‘rush’ of the Holy Spirit – the peace, calm, joy, ‘connectedness’ – all be part of a chemically induced euphoria? Might not the self-induced delusion of god, amplified by the stress of the occasion of testimony, the pressure to conform to the zeitgeist of the rest of the congregation cause a release of endorphins? Serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin are famously happy hormones that promote positive feelings like pleasure, happiness, and even love. All those emotional states have been cited as the rush of feelings when one is ‘filled with the Spirit’ or sense the presence of god. 

A scientific study of this phenomena would not (could not) substantiate or verify the presence of ‘The Lord’ or the ‘Holy Spirit’ but such a study could be undertaken to measure endorphin levels in the blood of those testifying to the power of the ‘Spirit’, could it not?

In fact, the University of Utah School of Medicine, did such a study in 2016, and published a report. The lead author was Michael Ferguson, who carried out the study as a bioengineering graduate student at the University of Utah. The researchers ‘set out to determine which brain networks are involved in representing spiritual feelings in one group, devout Mormons, by creating an environment that triggered participants to "feel the Spirit."’ 

The study was conducted using fMRI scans but did not measure brain chemical release. Neuroscientists suspect that a key player in mystical experience is the serotonin system. The neurotransmitter serotonin affects the parts of the brain that relate to emotions and perceptions. Chemically, peyote, LSD and other psychedelics look a lot like serotonin, and they activate the same receptor

What they found was that the subjects’ brain-reward circuits were stimulated by thoughts of Jesus, as a savior, thoughts about being with their families for eternity, thoughts about their heavenly rewards’ and feeling ‘the Spirit’. The subjects described feelings of peace and physical sensations of warmth accompanying the thoughts of religious experiences. 

(See the section on psychedelics)

Could it be that the mystics of the Bible and those ‘Feeling the Spirit’ are and were simply addicted to their own brain chemistry?

It might seem that this discourse has strayed too far afield but it has not. The point made at the beginning citing the casual, colloquial use of the terms ‘believe’ and ‘belief’ is a sound one. When, in discussion of science versus religion, wayward use of those terms becomes the sticking point, as Mr Hovid demonstrated when he cited the use of those terms to set up his straw-man argument equating science with religion. 

 

That misuse, that acyrologia, can also be a stumbling block in sensible discussions of every-day matters. For example, in an informal conversation with a friend about this rather pedantic misuse of the terms of faith and the word ‘believe’, the friend asserted that in order to sit on a chair one must have faith that the chair would support one’s weight. The simple, ordinary act of taking a seat was an act of faith, therefore. He was using the same ragged line of logic used by Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort.

 

The counter-argument offered was that while one may commonly assume that a chair could support one’s weight, that assumption could be nullified by evidence that the chair was too feeble or ill-made. If, as one sat, the chair wobbled or creaked or gave some other sign that it was structurally unsound, then one would take another chair. 

Hypothesis: the chair can hold my weight.

Evidence: the chair is unsound structurally. It wobbles.

Revised hypothesis: the chair can’t hold my weight.

Conclusion: choose a different chair.

 

Sad to say, my friend was adamant in his erroneous assessment that taking a seat required ‘Faith’. In this way, he mistakenly conflated the colloquial, informal use of ‘faith’’ as a synonym for ‘confidence’; another bit of slovenly rhetoric exploited by ‘Believers’ like Mr. Comfort. Faith is not required in taking a seat. Faith is not required for mundane tasks. Faith is not required in the natural world. Stating that one believes it will rain a profession of Faith. Confidence is NOT faith. Assurity is not Faith. Faith is the reason given when there is no good reason.

 

As might be assumed by this point, I am a skeptic. Perhaps I lean a mite heavily into being cynical about some things. I am less prone to believing what cannot be substantiated by evidence. I’m not one to give the benefit of the doubt quite as freely as I once was. By that I mean, with experience, one learns to discern details and extrapolate from them and compose a more complete picture than those details alone convey.

 

As an analogy, being able to recognize if the lion has already eaten is as valuable as recognizing the signs of the presence of the predator. Seeing the unsteady gate of the lion might indicate that it is on the verge of sleeping off a meal. A slight drooping of its eyes may support that inference. If its stomach is distended, one should not have to actually witness a bloody muzzle to assume the lion has fed recently and therefore would not present the usual danger of wanting to feed on you. 

 

Away from the savannah, in the company of modern human predators, a glib verbal delivery of smooth non-sequitur plus a glad-handing demeanor might warn of a con-man or a politician, or a life insurance salesman, not to slice too fine a hair.

 

If your brother, who doesn’t normally speak to you, suddenly gets chummy, you can count on being asked for a loan. If your child sidles up with a sheepish grin, you know that disturbing news may be delivered. The list of examples in most relationships is endless. One learns to read the room.

 

So, when a slyly grinning numpty asks if I ‘believe’ in the ‘Big Bang’, or ‘Darwinism’, it’s certain that my hackles will rise and my conversation will be couched in snark. It is certain that the ensuing conversation will be baited with non-sequiturs and false equivalencies which will each require a detour from the main topic in order to address and debunk what the ‘Believer’ believes; what the ‘Believer’ takes on Faith.

 

To quote another pop song, ‘But what a fool believes he sees

No wise man has the power to reason away.’

Enter Kent Hovind

 

If you don’t know who Kent Hovind is, count yourself lucky. Think: ‘Ken Ham’, the schmuck who built the Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky for ‘True Believers’. That’ll bring you into the ball park. 

 

Mr Hovind is a Creationist and a Bible literalist. He’s a promulgator of ‘Intelligent Design’.(Now, there’s an oxymoron worth its salt.)

 

Mr Hovind has been on a very extended quest to debate noted atheist, Aron Ra, on the verisimilitude of the Theory of Evolution. In one YouTube posting, Kent decided to build his straw man out of the words of non-scientists found in a Google search. Kent chose some quotes in which the word ‘believe’ was used colloquially, informally. (e.g. ‘Science believes that the universe started from a singularity.’) 

 

From there, Kent set his straw man on fire with the errant declaration that ‘Science is a belief. Ergo: science is a religion’. This is one of his primary assertions; science is faith-based because – get this! – since the concepts of black holes, the Big Bang, cosmogony, evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are not completely understood, then they are therefore accepted as articles of faith and are ‘believed’ by scientists. And this is where the technical connotation of the ‘B’ word is smuggled in by the ‘man of Faith’. That is; these theories are ‘believed’ (i.e. taken on Faith) and therefore are indicative of religion. 

 

‘Science is a religion!’, he proclaimed.

Q.E.D.

 

Balderdash.

 

Science is NOT a belief system. Science is the exact opposite of a believe system as science is based on evidence. Are there dogmas in science? NO, there aren’t. There are theories which are accepted and tested and re-tested. To reiterate, a theory in science is the highest grade of veracity; a theory is not just a good guess or a passing thought. There are conjectures, proposals and hypotheses which are considered, examined and challenged before the notion of scientific theory is attached to a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must first be demonstrated and must give repeatable results which provide a dependable, foreseeable outcome. From that point, the hypothesis is checked, cross-checked and peer-reviewed. In a nutshell, peer review is the concerted attempt to disprove and debunk a hypothesis by competent experts. 

 

That’s the difference between science and religion; the theories and hypotheses of science are meant to be rigorously challenged by experts whereas the tenets of Faith are not to be challenged by the slightest whisper. In fact, challenging articles of faith is forbidden and anathematized. 

 

Think ‘The Spanish Inquisition’. 

 

To re-emphasize: science is not a faith-based system. Nothing proposed by scientific method is ‘sacred’. Even the most established, accepted theories are subject to change as verifiable evidence is presented supporting that change. Consider the Theory of Gravity. Just recently, evidence of ‘gravity waves’ were observed and verified. The theory was amended to include the new data and findings.

 

Dogmas, on the other hand, are not amended. Changes to dogma are branded as heresy. They are stamped out. Or a new sect of the religion is formed incorporating the heresy as dogma. Try challenging the dogma of ‘Virgin Birth’ or the ‘Resurrection’, for example, and watch heads explode amongst the ‘Faithful’. Contrarily, challenge ‘The Big Bang’ and prepare to be engaged in weighty conversation. Is the ensuing discussion passionate? Of course, it is, but it is not considered blasphemous or heretical to question science. If one were to challenge the Creation Myth, or Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Jesus, fur would fly. Such dogmatic matters must be taken on faith. One must simply ‘believe’ (in the technical connotation) in the articles of ‘Faith’. Facts and evidence don’t – and must not - enter into it.

 

In matters of ‘Faith’, the word, ‘belief’, becomes a mighty touchstone which professes the acceptance of religious tenets. That acceptance, is based on an emotional commitment rather than the logical acceptance of evidence. The word ‘belief’ takes on a more technical definition specific to the matter of ‘faith’, much as the word ‘theory’ is a technical term when used in discussions about science. However, ‘belief’ in the technical sense requires a deep emotional commitment. This emotional commitment is very often based on what is known as a personal revelation, sometimes called a vision. It is this ‘revelation’ that is the foundation of ‘belief’ in the technical sense.

 

A severe confusion - a cognitive disconnect -  arises when a person of faith asks ‘Do you believe in science?’ (or evolution, or the Big Bang Theory). The person of faith would understand the word in the formal, more emotionally anchored connotation rather than in the informal, more colloquial meaning. Scientific theories do not require faith, nor do they require an emotional component; they do not require ‘belief’.  Thus, a secularist would answer in the affirmative, as, intellectually, he has been convinced by a preponderance of evidence. Whether or not you ‘believe’ in gravity, you’ll fall.

 

It has been claimed that one does not choose one’s belief. This would be true if one thinks of ‘belief’ in the sense of ‘being convinced’. One either is or isn’t convinced of a proposition. If more evidence is required before this point of conviction is met, then one isn’t convinced. One does not accept the proposition as true or supportable. In an informal usage of the word ‘belief’ yet mean convinced. 

 

However, in a discussion about religion, the word’s connotation changes with the more formal context; ‘I believe in the Bible’ indicates that that book is a basis for a deeply held religious tenet. There is a distinct emotional component which does not exist in the informal connotation of the word. One is convinced that the Bible must be considered as fact. This conviction is anchored in emotion. In the formal context, ‘belief’ indicates an emotional commitment to the proposition. (In the context of ‘faith’, the word ‘belief’ might very well be devoid of intellectual underpinning except as a secondary rationalization of the emotion.)

It is a choice in the intellectual understanding of believe whether or not one ‘believes’ in the Bible but if one commits to holding on to the emotional anchor supplied by the more formal, technical connotation there is no choice. The ‘Believer’ asserts that ‘Faith’ is written on his heart by ‘god’. Through revelation, as a blessing, belief is bestowed on the ‘Believer'.

This is, perhaps, the primary argument produced as ‘proof’ or evidence of a ‘higher power’, a ‘creator’ or an almighty ‘god’. It is a fact that many ‘Believers’ assert to experiencing a prodigious religious experience which they purport to be a direct revelation from ‘god’ or the ‘Holy Spirit’. 

Paul/Saul’s epiphany on the road to Damascus is a prime example of this assertion. Roman Catholics cite the children at Fatima or Bernadette of Lourdes as revelations which prove ‘god’, the Trinity or the continued existence and power of the Blessed Virgin. More mundane revelation comes in the form of adherents ‘speaking in tongues’ or being ‘possessed by the Holy Spirit’ or immunity to poisonous snake bite as evidence of godly revelation and protection. 

As these are all personal, intimate experiences, there can be little to offer to disprove the claims that the experiences happened. There can be little to disprove that the hallucinations of schizophrenics or psychedelic adventurers happened either, but few take such hallucinations as being ‘divine’ or revelatory of deeper truth. 

On the other hand, when a snake-handler dies of a snake’s venom, it’s rationalized; the victim didn’t ‘Believe’ hard enough.

To be clear, none of these internal experiences should be considered as evidence, no matter how epiphanous or revelatory the claim may be. The verisimilitude of peyote eaters or magic mushroom eaters as proof of another dimension would then, by necessity, be lumped in with the stories of being ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’. This cannot be done without substantial bolstering evidence that a ‘spiritual realm’ exists. That would be appealing to a mystery to solve a mystery. That is special pleading writ large and should be discounted by a rational skeptical observer.

Belief!

Warning: Heavy sledding ahead...

Cogito ergo, god? Huh?

 

“You can believe in the unbelievable… I think it’s kind of sad that you people can’t accept that.” - ‘Luther’ calling ‘The Atheist Experience’ (hosts: Dillahunty & Harris; Nov 22, 2014) 

 

“…the standard word "belief" tends to distort and camouflage some of the most interesting features of religion. To put it provocatively, religious belief isn't always belief.” - Dan Dennett; ‘Breaking the Spell’ 

“For many reasons, religious beliefs are usually under-girded by a strong feeling of knowing.” - Valerie Tarico, PhD

“We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.”  – Bertrand Russell

 

 “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” - W.K. Clifford

 

 “it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty”- T.H. Huxley

 

The plea must be made; the plea to tighten up and formalize and limit the use of the words ‘believe’ and ‘belief’. I’ve mentioned it before and seen eyes glaze over and roll back. It’s the same look I give when confronted with an insurance salesman on the make.

 

Which leads me to reveal why I’ve taken up the task to address the problem when discussing science with ‘believers’. That confusion – at least in part – stems from the casual use of the words cited in inverted commas above. Might I suggest the use of deduce or guess or surmise or conjecture or conclude or suspect or speculate or presume in place of ‘believe’; all are wonderful words to use in the place of ‘believe’ for the simple reason that ‘Believers’ (those of Faith) have adopted and utilize a technical use for the word, ‘believe’.

 

Like many words in English, there is more than one meaning for this word. That plurality of meaning stems from context. Consider that the word ‘belief’ has two connotations; one formal and one informal.  If the word is used in an informal conversation, the word 'belief' might only mean ‘notion’ or ‘speculation’. 

 

As in the banal sentence; “I believe it’s going to rain.” 

 

When one says “I believe it’s going to rain”, one senses the moisture in the air, sees low, heavy clouds, feels the cooling breeze and concludes from that evidence that there will be precipitation. This phrasing may sound sophisticated but such informal use of the word in other expressions might well cause confusion when said in the presence of a ‘Believer’ as it is not expressing a ‘belief’ in the more technical sense. Sensing impending rain is not a matter of belief. There is not a deeply held conviction. There is no proclamation of a deeply held, integral tenet. It’s just an opinion based on a commonplace observation regarding an ordinary meteorological event. 

 

(By the way, the term ‘petrichor’ pertains to the smell of rain, impending rainfall and the ‘freshness’ of the air after a rain.)

 

The intention, here, is not to belabor a pedagogic point. The intention is to reveal a common malapropism as a stumbling block to intelligent discourse about science, religion and matters of everyday life with ‘Believers’.

 

The word 'belief' is the sticking point in many discussions between non-believers' and those of faith. I strongly advise the use of 'contend' or 'surmise' or 'accept' in the place of the informal 'belief'. 
To a 'believer', use of the word ‘belief’ indicates blind faith. When a ‘Believer’ asks if atheists 'believe' in science or evolution, the ‘Believer’ is asking if atheists have blind faith in science.

 

It must be clearly understood that a person of Faith (a Believer) has a technical use of the noun, ‘belief,’ and the verb, ‘believe’. The technical aspect of ‘belief/believe’ is as an iron-clad synonym for ‘Blind Faith’. ‘Belief/believe’ are common words with a high rate of usage in informal, colloquial speech. (e.g. ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’ Or ‘Do you believe the luck?’)  Neither of these common examples – like ‘believing it’s going to rain’- deal with the technical term utilized by ‘Believers’ but the ‘non-believer’ must be aware of the technical usage when discussing matters of ‘Faith’ with a Believer.

 

Believers toss the ‘B’ word into conversations to ‘poison the well’ and to muddy already murky waters with questions such as ‘Do you believe that your bank is secure?’ This can be answered as a toss off; one is assured of a banks security based on factors that can be produced as evidence of the bank’s security. This seemingly innocuous question puts ‘belief/believe’ into an informal context. However, if the Believer then asks ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ the connotation of the word belief/believe’ changes to the technical usage. The Believer has surreptitiously introduced the technical aspect of the word ‘belief/believe’ - synonymous with ‘Blind Faith’ – into the conversation. This is a common equivocation used by ‘Believers’ in conversations on matters of ‘Faith’.

 

Apologists such as Ray Comfort assert that confidence and trusts are the very same as ‘Faith’. Under the specific rubric of the ‘Faithful’, the word ‘belief’ is synonymous with ‘Faith’ and therefore belief is synonymous with trust and confidence. This demonstrates an immense arrogance of the apologist; taking the lexicon of a language and hijacking it for your own technical usage while denying (or willfully ignoring) the common usage and understanding of that lexicon. It is a grand display of grasping at straws in an effort to bolster an untenable position. In casual conversation, an individual of ‘Faith’ might conflate ‘faith’ with ‘trust’ but an apologist asserting that the conflation of terms is an argument for the ‘Faith’ is not acceptable.