Irrational faith

[GeoMan]

I have been processing through this idea for some time, and I am sure that this post will not capture my entire thought. But I am interested to hear what you think anyway. Here goes:

The more I listen to arguments for or against the existence of God, the more convinced I am that we cannot know for certain. Now, I think that God does exist. I have recently come to the conclusion that most of my reasons for thinking so are subjective. My biggest reason is Jesus. As I have recently begun following him, I have seen my life and character change drastically. Jesus believed in God (to say the least) and I trust Jesus.

It really bothers me that God is invisible. But it bothers me even more to see Christians trying to prove his existence. Indeed, doubt is a huge part of my faith. I wonder every single day if God is real. But if he is real and chooses to remain invisible, I doubt he would allow himself to be revealed through simple rational thought. If he wanted us to have empirical evidence, he would have given it to us.

If I ever have to make the decision, I will abandon rationality before I abandon Jesus. Maybe I already have.

So, is faith inherently irrational?

[Aaron]

I have been processing through this idea for some time, and I am sure that this post will not capture my entire thought. But I am interested to hear what you think anyway. Here goes:

The more I listen to arguments for or against the existence of God, the more convinced I am that we cannot know for certain. Now, I think that God does exist. I have recently come to the conclusion that most of my reasons for thinking so are subjective. My biggest reason is Jesus. As I have recently begun following him, I have seen my life and character change drastically. Jesus believed in God (to say the least) and I trust Jesus.

It really bothers me that God is invisible. But it bothers me even more to see Christians trying to prove his existence. Indeed, doubt is a huge part of my faith. I wonder every single day if God is real. But if he is real and chooses to remain invisible, I doubt he would allow himself to be revealed through simple rational thought. If he wanted us to have empirical evidence, he would have given it to us.

If I ever have to make the decision, I will abandon rationality before I abandon Jesus. Maybe I already have.

So, is faith inherently irrational?

Hi GeoMan,

I don’t think faith is irrational, not even close. In fact I think in order for a person to truthfully use their powers of reasoning they must account for the source of that Reason and I think Christianity offers a great explanation .

On the other hand I personally do not believe in God because I’ve convinced myself through some simple rational thought as you’ve called it. No, my belief in God is a matter of the heart. My heart was in trouble and I knew I was guilty of sin, and when I finally understood for the first time that Jesus died to cover my sin and give me his righteousness I believed it like I’ve never believed anything else. I put my trust in him and I knew I would never be ashamed to call him Lord. I knew that God was real then more than I knew anything else.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is I think people who don’t believe in God are irrational for thinking they can wield their Reason around like its some sort of absolute truth discriminator without having an explanation for its existence in the first place. (Most people will probably just cite evolutionary theory as the source, but can we really trust that mindless old process to produce something like Reason? I don’t know, for when it all comes down to it our Reason is the final authority on any matter, if an explanation is found by our Reason to be faulty and inconsistent with reality then that’s what it is, faulty and inconsistent with reality. Reason is our final authority, we bind ourselves to it, and it seems gratefully so. So can something so absolute, so pure and so reliable come from something as inconsitent as ET? I don't know).

But then again maybe I don’t get it… but that’s okay too, I know my sins are forgiven!

[Kiwi]

Welcome to the forum Geoman. Nice, honest, introductory post. It does seem that you almost answered your own question. If you're going to say this:

I wonder every single day if God is real. But if he is real and chooses to remain invisible, I doubt he would allow himself to be revealed through simple rational thought. If he wanted us to have empirical evidence, he would have given it to us.

...then faith does seem to be inherently irrational.

I was a Christian for most of my life, a very passionate one at that. Although I no longer believe in God I don't think I'd ever suggest that faith is irrational per se. There are a lot of very rational believers who have very reasoned and well thought-through justification for what they believe.

Certainly I do think that aspects of people's faith are irrational. Where it gets annyoingly irrational for me is this, which I've seen Christians do time and time again: "It doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense ... Oh, screw it all, I'll just remind myself that it feels like it makes sense and carry on as though I never asked myself any hard questions in the first place."

To a lesser extent that's what you and Aaron have both done in your posts.

(But don't let that put you off the forum - Do stick around!)

[mitchellmckain]

So, is faith inherently irrational?

No it is not. However irrational the faith of many people may be that does not mean that faith is inherently irrational. Perhaps the real point is that human beings are not inherently rational.

Now what is important here is to clarify the meaning of rational and irrational. First of all what these do NOT mean is the following.
rational = that which follows from pure reason alone and nothing else
irrational = that which does not follow from pure reason and nothing else
These definitions are absurd to the point of being insane. Logic only takes one from premises to conclusions and so without premises to start with it can do nothing. Though truth be told, quite frequently, we use logic in the opposite direction to discover the premises from which our conclusions can be derived. We do this because it adds a system of logic to our conclusions which can check for consistency with other conclusions and with those premises we can extend this logic to draw further conclusions.

In any case, the correct meaning of rational and irrational is as follows.
rational = that which is consistent with the rules of logic.
irrational = that which is not consistent with the rules of logic.
A rational faith does not cling to that which is either internally inconsistent or to that which is inconsistent with what can be objectively observed but it most certainly does not restrict one exclusively to what can be objectively observed and nothing else.

The more I listen to arguments for or against the existence of God, the more convinced I am that we cannot know for certain. Now, I think that God does exist. I have recently come to the conclusion that most of my reasons for thinking so are subjective.

Excellent! Accepting this truth is actually what I think is the most important step towards a faith that is rational.

My biggest reason is Jesus. As I have recently begun following him, I have seen my life and character change drastically. Jesus believed in God (to say the least) and I trust Jesus.

Yes this is subjective but it is emminently rational. In fact, frankly speaking, it is a rejection of this experience which would be irrational.

YET, the realization of the subjective nature of this can help you to understand that because not everyone shares your experience, means that you cannot rationally expect everyone to share your conclusions.

It really bothers me that God is invisible. But it bothers me even more to see Christians trying to prove his existence. Indeed, doubt is a huge part of my faith. I wonder every single day if God is real. But if he is real and chooses to remain invisible, I doubt he would allow himself to be revealed through simple rational thought. If he wanted us to have empirical evidence, he would have given it to us.

Aside from you being bothered that God is invisible, I could not agree more with what you say here. In fact, for me the truth of what you say after the first statement is so obvious and undeniable to me that it would be a visible God rather than an invisible that would bother me. But I guess I carry this a bit further than you do to an understanding of the very nature of what is physical and what is spiritual.

If I ever have to make the decision, I will abandon rationality before I abandon Jesus. Maybe I already have.

As much as I can understand and sympathize with what you are saying here. I could not abandon rationality for any belief. A belief that is not rational is incoherent and meaningless. On the other hand, I don't believe that it is even possible that I would ever have to make any such decision regarding a belief in God -- I know the limitations of reason. However, some of the other details of Christian belief is another matter.

[gary_s]

The more I listen to arguments for or against the existence of God, the more convinced I am that we cannot know for certain.

Geoman, I think this is the only truly intelligent and rational conclusion one can make regarding "god".

Now, I think that God does exist. I have recently come to the conclusion that most of my reasons for thinking so are subjective. My biggest reason is Jesus. As I have recently begun following him, I have seen my life and character change drastically. Jesus believed in God (to say the least) and I trust Jesus.

Not to minimize your experiences, Geoman, but I reject this reasoning as evidence for the power or existence of Jesus, god or any deity. It is true that if you practice Christianity, you will likely begin to represent it, so long as you put real effort into it. But this is true of any spiritual modality, to the extent to which people make an honest effort. This is why I cannot agree with those who say that Christian beliefs are more valid than those of the Buddhist. Any belief can change a person if they devote themselves to it. I wonder if what you are really demonstrating is the power of "belief" itself.

If I ever have to make the decision, I will abandon rationality before I abandon Jesus. Maybe I already have.

To me this is the most disconcerting statement any theist can say. In some ways this may be good - say when a sacrifice is made for a stranger, but taken in another way, it can lead to men flying planes into skyscrapers. I think rationality must always be within arms reach, regardless of belief.

[gary_s]

I don’t think faith is irrational, not even close. In fact I think in order for a person to truthfully use their powers of reasoning they must account for the source of that Reason and I think Christianity offers a great explanation .

I don't see any truth to this statement. This is like saying the source of all truth and reason is the Christian god, which I don't see any reason to believe. This smacks me as mere self-righteousness.

On the other hand I personally do not believe in God because I’ve convinced myself through some simple rational thought as you’ve called it. No, my belief in God is a matter of the heart. My heart was in trouble and I knew I was guilty of sin, and when I finally understood for the first time that Jesus died to cover my sin and give me his righteousness I believed it like I’ve never believed anything else. I put my trust in him and I knew I would never be ashamed to call him Lord. I knew that God was real then more than I knew anything else.

This is a nice story, but again, it only demonstrates the power of "belief". If you had lived in Iraq and had these same thoughts of unholiness, you would be touting the power of Allah right now. And I can name a thousand other people with a thousand different conclusions. This speaks to the subjective nature of belief and the power it has to allow people to overcome their weaknesses. It seems as if people don't believe they have the power to change themselves; they need an outside source to lead them. I'm more of the notion that this power resides within them and people simply don't have enough faith in themselves to wield it.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is I think people who don’t believe in God are irrational for thinking they can wield their Reason around like its some sort of absolute truth discriminator without having an explanation for its existence in the first place.

Now you are beginning to sound like Tony and his self-congratulatory self-righteousness. This is a mistake in my opinion. You are making broad assumptions and generalizations and while I cannot guarantee that you are 100% wrong, I can assure you that you are mostly wrong, based on my knowledge and personal experiences with non-believers. For the most part, their (our) reasoning does not follow the statement you just described. What you should be doing is asking non-believers and not telling them why they don't believe. But if you want to congratulate yourself on having such wonderful powers of perception, then go ahead. I can assure you of one thing, though. This approach to non-believers will get you zero credibility. Just consider that when you are approaching an atheist or agnostic with evangelism in mind.

(Most people will probably just cite evolutionary theory as the source, but can we really trust that mindless old process to produce something like Reason? I don’t know, for when it all comes down to it our Reason is the final authority on any matter, if an explanation is found by our Reason to be faulty and inconsistent with reality then that’s what it is, faulty and inconsistent with reality. Reason is our final authority, we bind ourselves to it, and it seems gratefully so. So can something so absolute, so pure and so reliable come from something as inconsitent as ET? I don't know).

My guess is that you would be better served by reading some serious books on Evolution or discussing the topic with an expert in the field. I doubt there are any laymen on this forum with enough knowledge to provide any real guidance on that last question.

[gary_s]

Wow, lotta spam hitting the board now. I think the administrator should revoke those accounts.

[GeoMan]

Thank you all for your responses. Reading my post again today, I think I accidentally mixed together two concepts.

First, I think that faith might not be so irrational as super-rational. I believe in a God external to the universe. Naturally, such a thing cannot be measured from within. I think Kierkegaard had something to say about that; I've mostly only studied Camus.

Second, when I say I would abandon rationality, I do not mean that I would keep believing in Jesus if his life/resurrection were proven to be a hoax. I simply mean that I think I would be willing to do something ridiculous if that's what it takes to follow Jesus.

If I ever have to make the decision, I will abandon rationality before I abandon Jesus. Maybe I already have.

To me this is the most disconcerting statement any theist can say. In some ways this may be good - say when a sacrifice is made for a stranger, but taken in another way, it can lead to men flying planes into skyscrapers. I think rationality must always be within arms reach, regardless of belief.

This is a good point. The only thing that I would say to this is that following Jesus means loving God and loving people. If I do anything contrary to those purposes, rational or otherwise, then I'm not following Jesus.

[Aaron]

I don't see any truth to this statement. This is like saying the source of all truth and reason is the Christian god, which I don't see any reason to believe. This smacks me as mere self-righteousness.

No I'm not saying the source of all truth and reason IS the Christian God, I'm only stating that Christianity offers a good explanation for the source of our Reason (at least it does for me). What I really wanted to say was I think it would be proper for a person who really wants to delve deep into metaphysical things to try and find an explanation for the source of their Reason, (I suggested an answer might be found in ET for example).

Now you are beginning to sound like Tony and his self-congratulatory self-righteousness. This is a mistake in my opinion. You are making broad assumptions and generalizations and while I cannot guarantee that you are 100% wrong, I can assure you that you are mostly wrong, based on my knowledge and personal experiences with non-believers. For the most part, their (our) reasoning does not follow the statement you just described. What you should be doing is asking non-believers and not telling them why they don't believe. But if you want to congratulate yourself on having such wonderful powers of perception, then go ahead. I can assure you of one thing, though. This approach to non-believers will get you zero credibility. Just consider that when you are approaching an atheist or agnostic with evangelism in mind.

Well thanks for the advice, and just to be clear I would never say that to someone, usually all I'm after when "evangelizing" is trying to get the other person to explain what they think about stuff and if after they've finished thier explanation they ask me what I think then I'll tell them. But I think again you missed what I was trying to say. If someone were to call my faith irrational then I might respond, "Well how have you justified the use of your Reason? What it your explanation for its source?" and if they have an answer then all well and good, but if they've never considered how they know they can trust thier Reason to be the rational thing they've always believed it to be then I think theres a problem there.

(Most people will probably just cite evolutionary theory as the source, but can we really trust that mindless old process to produce something like Reason? I don’t know, for when it all comes down to it our Reason is the final authority on any matter, if an explanation is found by our Reason to be faulty and inconsistent with reality then that’s what it is, faulty and inconsistent with reality. Reason is our final authority, we bind ourselves to it, and it seems gratefully so. So can something so absolute, so pure and so reliable come from something as inconsitent as ET? I don't know).

My guess is that you would be better served by reading some serious books on Evolution or discussing the topic with an expert in the field. I doubt there are any laymen on this forum with enough knowledge to provide any real guidance on that last question.

Yeah, maybe someday when I have more time. But what do you think? Does ET provide a satisfactory explanation for Reason? (although there seems to be an element of circularity here since we would be using our Reason to determine if it is actually reasonable, if that makes any sense... but what choice do we have right)

[gary_s]

No I'm not saying the source of all truth and reason IS the Christian God, I'm only stating that Christianity offers a good explanation for the source of our Reason (at least it does for me).

When you put it that way it can only make sense. The operative part of that is "for me".

If someone were to call my faith irrational then I might respond, "Well how have you justified the use of your Reason? What it your explanation for its source?" and if they have an answer then all well and good, but if they've never considered how they know they can trust thier Reason to be the rational thing they've always believed it to be then I think theres a problem there.

I think that's the wrong approach. That's no different from an atheist trying to convince you there is no god. He would say something quite similar. What you are missing is just what you've already alluded to. It doesn't matter that your reasoning is different from mine. What matters is what speaks to you. Like Mitch says, the subjectivity quotient of faith is irreducible. What means something to you may not be reasonable for someone else, no matter how you slice it with logic. So, if someone challenges your faith as unreasonable, I don't think there's any traction to be gained in raising this question of where reason comes from, but rather keeping the perspective on how and why something is important to you. By asking someone what the source of reason is, I just think you are opening yourself to the very same scrutiny, and you really have no answer other than, "because I just believe it". To be honest, this is exactly how I changed my beliefs, by questioning the reasoning I was taught and had internalized from childhood. My reasoning works for me, though I wouldn't presume that it would make any sense to you.

Now, I could probably pick and choose many of your positions, political and religious, as irrational or unreasonable, and I could make some very persuasive arguments for support, but if I were to attack your very faith as irrational, then I really have nothing to stand on other than my own personal beliefs. It would be akin to me attacking your love of your dog as irrational. If I told you that my dog often relieves himself in my house, refuses to eat, barks at odd hours, refuses to obey me and has the constitution of a snail, but that I still love him, I wouldn't expect you to think I'm being rational.

Yeah, maybe someday when I have more time. But what do you think? Does ET provide a satisfactory explanation for Reason? (although there seems to be an element of circularity here since we would be using our Reason to determine if it is actually reasonable, if that makes any sense... but what choice do we have right)

I think for one thing that this question is probably much too large for a forum post. But in a nutshell, I can see how many of our traits are evolutionary, and all we have to do is study the animal kingdom for evidence of this. But of course, I'm a material skeptic, so I don't believe in magic. I believe there is an explanation for nearly everything, though we may not have the capacity to understand much of it. So, within this context, I don't see this human characteristic called "reason" as any different than, say aptitude for art. Both can be explained through evolution even though the true survival value of both seems a stretch at times.

[humanguy]

It really bothers me that God is invisible.

Why?

[GeoMan]

It really bothers me that God is invisible.

Why?

Because I cannot be sure that he exists. Now, I know that my perception of reality is incomplete. I'm colorblind; I have a lot of difficulty perceiving the color red. Redness is a basic physical property that some objects have. If I have trouble perceiving a basic, physical, empirically-measurable property of things in the universe, I can be reasonably sure that there are other more complicated realities that I cannot perceive. I'm comfortable with that concept. It does not bother me that my perception is incomplete. It bothers me that I sometimes eat nasty green bananas; it bothers me that I must rely on another person to choose the right colored pencil; it bothers me that I sometimes believe falsehoods. I wish that I did not need to take a leap of faith. Does that make sense?

[NH Baritone]

It really bothers me that God is invisible.

Why?

Because I cannot be sure that he exists. Now, I know that my perception of reality is incomplete. I'm colorblind; I have a lot of difficulty perceiving the color red. Redness is a basic physical property that some objects have. If I have trouble perceiving a basic, physical, empirically-measurable property of things in the universe, I can be reasonably sure that there are other more complicated realities that I cannot perceive. I'm comfortable with that concept. It does not bother me that my perception is incomplete. It bothers me that I sometimes eat nasty green bananas; it bothers me that I must rely on another person to choose the right colored pencil; it bothers me that I sometimes believe falsehoods. I wish that I did not need to take a leap of faith. Does that make sense?

I believe I understand your dilemma. Because your eyes are different, you have to trust that those on whom you rely for fashion advice accurately and consistently perceive red and green. That requires a certain amount of faith that they catch something that your biology misses. And I bet that your faith in their retinal rods and cones usually pays off.

But when you apply that same question to perceptions about God and Jesus, how do you know whom to ask for accurate and consistent advice? The world, the country, or heck, the square mile surrounding you is filled with such contradictory ideas about God's nature, God's wishes, & God's plans, the choice of whom to believe is entirely random.

Do you trust the Calvinists that say God predestines folks for their fates? Do you adhere to Catholicism, with their focus on the church as God's instrument on Earth? Do you find Islam's reliance on the Quran for God's message compelling? Or do elements of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, or Wicca give you the best depiction of God? No matter which you choose, most of the people on the planet will disagree with you. Often vigorously.

Just as your eyes lack enough sensors to differentiate red and green, if any god exists, humans apparently don't have the capacity to differentiate God from the background sensory input. But if you grow tired of eating unripe bananas, it is understandable you would look for some formula that would signal you they were ready to eat.

It seems to me that this is a formula for the creation of superstition. Humans grow weary of life's challenges and try to find patterns and solutions in the randomness of existence.

I have no doubt that you feel there has been some improvement in your life since you changed your focus. But others have found similar improvements on entirely different paths. Remember that human perception & interpretation includes the placebo effect. And consequently, it is rational to have enough doubt in your own conclusions that you avoid turning yourself into their salesman. After all, those ideas may very well be snake oil.

[gary_s]

NHB has done an excellent job of describing the agnostic dilemma, better than I ever have anyway. The analogy of color-blindness is terrific. Lacking the ability to perceive a particular color, one must rely on others in order to understand and deal with this concept and how it might impact their life. This is exactly the problem with god/religion. Despite our best efforts, most of us cannot perceive "god" in a way that truly satisfies our doubts. At times I think we believe we've perceived it; at other times we are not so sure, and sometimes we are certain we don't know anything at all. So this leaves us with a quandary. Are we to ignore our doubts? How are we to deal with all the conflicting proponents of a god that doesn't match our perception of god? who the heck are we to trust? I think the answer is that the majority of people simply do not wish to devote much time and effort on this. Those people tend to take the shortest road, the easiest path. Whatever the most common denominator is, that's what they accept. But for a small portion of the population, that is simply not enough. People inflicted with this brand of skepticism cannot be mollified by easy answers, and the kind of brow-beating one gets from people like Tony is just insulting. We tend to seek understanding on a much deeper level and have a very low tolerance for conflicting information. So, NHB's comment about the viewpoint of multiple religions is key here. It's easy to satisfy yourself that they are wrong and you are right in those situations, but just how do you know? I have my ideas, but how do I know for certain? And how am I going to take those things into consideration?

From most Christians I know, I think this is going on inside any religion. People may commit themselves to a particular religion, but that doesn't mean they accept every aspect of it. They pick and choose the components they find appealing or valid and ignore or outright protest the components they object to. This is really no different from what agnostics do, just on a different scale.

[mitchellmckain]

Because I cannot be sure that he exists. Now, I know that my perception of reality is incomplete. I'm colorblind; I have a lot of difficulty perceiving the color red. Redness is a basic physical property that some objects have. If I have trouble perceiving a basic, physical, empirically-measurable property of things in the universe, I can be reasonably sure that there are other more complicated realities that I cannot perceive. I'm comfortable with that concept. It does not bother me that my perception is incomplete. It bothers me that I sometimes eat nasty green bananas; it bothers me that I must rely on another person to choose the right colored pencil; it bothers me that I sometimes believe falsehoods. I wish that I did not need to take a leap of faith. Does that make sense?

I am also partially color blind and I too have to ask others about colors, though I don't have your trouble with bananas. But I cannot say that it bothers me all that much. Everyone has limitations and some are very different. I can also do and see things that other people cannot. I think that limitations and abilities are sometimes connected, and I have never wished to be anyone but myself.

Since I don't believe in the design of living things, I don't think there are any design specifications that say what is complete perception for human beings. There is no complete or perfect when it comes to finite living beings. We do what we can with what we have, and this impulse to uniformity that says that everybody has got to do this or that in order to be OK is not something I can agree with.

The world, the country, or heck, the square mile surrounding you is filled with such contradictory ideas about God's nature, God's wishes, & God's plans, the choice of whom to believe is entirely random.

No it is not. That is not the case with colors and it is not the case with God either. When I studied Quantum Field Theory, I looked at many textbooks explaining it in many different ways. Just because something is explained in many different ways does not mean that it is random -- only that it is more abstract and difficult to understand and explain. It does not mean that it is random.

It seems to me that this is a formula for the creation of superstition. Humans grow weary of life's challenges and try to find patterns and solutions in the randomness of existence.

Yes indeed, children and even adults get impatient with things that are difficult to understand and often just decide that it is stupid and not worth their time and effort. So yeah they often just make up irrational beliefs like how most people are just stupid and delusional for studying and giving their time to things that they have decided is worthless.

The analogy of color-blindness is terrific. Lacking the ability to perceive a particular color, one must rely on others in order to understand and deal with this concept and how it might impact their life. This is exactly the problem with god/religion. Despite our best efforts, most of us cannot perceive "god" in a way that truly satisfies our doubts. At times I think we believe we've perceived it; at other times we are not so sure, and sometimes we are certain we don't know anything at all.

Indeed I that sounds like a problem related to dealing with existential questions when the question of what the thing is remains unclear. If people claimed for the color red, some of the outrageous things that they claim about God, then a lot more people would wonder if they are color blind too.

So this leaves us with a quandary. Are we to ignore our doubts? How are we to deal with all the conflicting proponents of a god that doesn't match our perception of god? who the heck are we to trust? I think the answer is that the majority of people simply do not wish to devote much time and effort on this. Those people tend to take the shortest road, the easiest path. Whatever the most common denominator is, that's what they accept. But for a small portion of the population, that is simply not enough.

Or you accept that certainty is an unrealistic expectation and start learning to live in a world where diversity of perception and belief is a reality.

People inflicted with this brand of skepticism cannot be mollified by easy answers, and the kind of brow-beating one gets from people like Tony is just insulting. We tend to seek understanding on a much deeper level and have a very low tolerance for conflicting information.

Skepticism and a low tolerance for complexity or diversity are not the same thing. Skepticism is not an affliction but a very useful tool. And if you see the limitations of skepticism and can distinguish it from impatience and laziness, then it does not have to be an obstacle to learning to live with diversity. You can let go of these impulses to uniformity and nice neat black and white answers to everything, to accept that the world is quite probably a lot weirder and more complicated that you imagine.

From most Christians I know, I think this is going on inside any religion. People may commit themselves to a particular religion, but that doesn't mean they accept every aspect of it. They pick and choose the components they find appealing or valid and ignore or outright protest the components they object to. This is really no different from what agnostics do, just on a different scale.

And no different from what atheists do either -- and I don't think there is any real difference in scale either. The only differences I see really is between those who have done it the lazy way of buying their truth in packages (where others have done the picking and choosing) and those who do their own research to make their own choices about what to put their faith in and what not to. And then it takes a bit of pretending and self deception to support the lie that all this is an easy or obvious choice.