Seems to me it's not only possible but happens, and has since the beginning of Christianity (as distinct from Judaism).
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,2influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.
There's no indication here that the "abandoners" "didn't really believe" - but rather, they did have belief - which they abandoned - because they were "deceived." And isn't deceit the first sin we learn about, in the Bible? There's no news but old news.
It befits us all to gain new information, check facts as best we can, and evaluate the information and facts with the best critical thinking skills we can manage. That can lead us to change our mind on many issues. It's wise to gain further information from as many reputable sources as possible, not just stick to, say, only one or two news channels, only one or two authors/publishers/etc. Read widely, read divergent viewpoints, look at other cultures and their history etc. There are things that can be "taken for granted" because we have to have a starting point in this mass of information, but be prepared to evaluate those things taken for granted as well. Some "for granteds" aren't quite the firm foundation that they appear to be.
We also need to separate "religion" or "belief" from rites, rituals and dogma of any particular church denomination; perhaps from any particular religion at all.
The biggest thing to remember is that God cannot be contained in a box, and certainly not in the box of the human mind or imagination.
Have a review of Jeremiah 29, and in particular consider the context of this:
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a future and a hope
This is part of a letter to people in exile, in Babylon. "Settle down and be happy," says God. "I'll come and get you later." The promise was to be fulfilled decades later. Some of those in exile died there. Some were able to return. But there was still the admonition to settle down in the land of exile.
Perhaps some of those who have walked away from the faith will return to it. Perhaps they will die in their exile from the faith. God is not a vengeful God but will, I believe, still do what is possible to prosper those people and not allow harm. After all, "...your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Mt 5:45)
We can all have times of doubt in the wilderness of our minds (however well organised our thoughts may appear to be). Some do walk away; they might return. Some enter a different sort of spirituality; who are we to judge? It's God who is the searcher of hearts.
In western culture, which is primarily a Judeo-Christian based culture, it may be harder to really walk away, since very ancient tenets underlie our cultural norms. Is the walker-away then rejecting the "tat" surrounding religion, or is that person rejecting God? Upon what, then, does that person subsequently base his/her values?
It may be easier to turn one's back on Christianity completely if raised in a different culture altogether - say, in China (no gods, or Confuscianism) or India (plethora of gods), an Arab-speaking country (Muslim) or an animist culture such as Amazonian tribes or in Borneo (animist), or in an African country that wasn't overrun with missionaries. If one returns to these backgrounds, a rejection of Christianity is more easily to be seen. For people with those backgrounds, they might be said (perhaps) not to have fully believed in the first place: but then, they have huge obstacles (social propriety - including risk to life and family) to overcome that unless they were serious in the first place, they wouldn't have claimed to be Christians.
OldSkool's post on another thread encapsulates that "evaluation" I referred to above:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
I think one of the things I've learned to value the most since leaving TWI 13 years ago is people have the God given freedom to believe what they want to believe. Personally, I had several years where I simply was not an active Christian and spent most of my time in bars either working on getting drunk or maintaining my drunke[n]ness. Honestly, I simply didn't care any longer about anything related to the Bible, Jesus Christ, God, etc. Yes, I allowed TWI as an excuse in my life to go down that road, and not that they sent me there - that was my choice. Honestly, I used to hide who I was from people who didn't know me when I was way corps and all that jazz. I was ashamed of the fact that I got sold out to an abusive cult when frankly I should have known better.
As time went on I totally quit drinking, I won't touch even a drop, and I went straight back into the Bible with a fresh perspective. I can honestly say that I have a great relationship with God and am learning what it means to follow Jesus Christ. Now. Heres my point. Not everyone is going to go my route, and hopefully not since I did spend several years on a self-destructive binge. Whether or not people believe what I do, or live the way I do, no longer matters to me. I simply respect the God given freedom that God gave us to choose what we believe and why, and I've learned to respect others boundaries and do my best to not cross them...
Seems to me it's not only possible but happens, and has since the beginning of Christianity (as distinct from Judaism).
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,2influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.
There's no indication here that the "abandoners" "didn't really believe" - but rather, they did have belief - which they abandoned - because they were "deceived." And isn't deceit the first sin we learn about, in the Bible? There's no news but old news.
Paul and his acolytes were never big on the intellectual legitimacy of [anything, really, but especially] dissent, were they?
"Now the Spirit, being completely devoid of confidence and unable to hold its own in a rational discussion weighing the merits of its premises against observable facts, expressly states than in later times people who approach its claims honestly will scrutinize those claims and have legitimate reasons to conclude that they are, indeed, false, but unable to counter with facts we will demonize reason (and rationalists) as deceitful spirits, demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars and having a conscience seared with a hot iron. Because nothing like namecalling when you're almighty and STILL can't back up your claims with the facts."
Fixed the verse for Paul. He can thank me at the Bema.
Can a true believer truly change his mind and truly become an unbeliever.
Irrefutably, the answer is yes. But a lot of folks think it's more complicated than that. I am automatically suspicious of anyone who says "I was an atheist, but the evidence changed my mind." Reason being, a lot of believers like to claim they were atheist when they really weren't. They were believers all along.
But some people really were.
And some people really were Christians, baptized speaking in tongues hallelujah singing crying at the right times, praying in private not to show off genuinely Christians, only to later change their minds. I'm sure you suspect they weren't really, but no, really, we were.
So for those of us having trouble coming to grips with either change, what are your questions? How can believers and unbelievers help you understand that real change is possible, and it's not your place to deny us our journey?
3 hours ago, Twinky said:
(I'm sure T-Bone is going to weigh in bigtime on this thread.)
Twinky, sorry to disappoint – while I do find anything about how our minds work so fascinating – I don't see what the big deal is...I happen to agree with Raf's points: people can and do change their minds all the time. It's a simple fact of life.
Even from a biblical point of view – there's tons of passages that address the fickleness...changeability...irregularity...shortcomings of the mind...as well as prompts to develop our cognitive skills... we see people convert...sin...repent......vacillate...abandon their faith...modify their faith...their love in the faith grows cold...So people can and do change their minds – that's obvious. How that happens tends to be a little more complicated.
The phenomenon of changing minds is one of the least examined and – I would claim – least understood of familiar human experiences…from Howard Gardner in Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own Minds and Other People’s Minds
Maybe some folks who have issues with this stuff might still be harboring the false assumptions, logical fallacies and absolutism of wierwille: “...now you know, that you know , that you know...” now I know that's a whole lot of hogwash.
** ** ** **
DVD bonus feature – the following is an excerpt from an article “What actually is a belief? And why is it so hard to change?”:
"...Beliefs as energy-saving shortcuts in modeling and predicting the environment. Beliefs are our brain’s way of making sense of and navigating our complex world. They are mental representations of the ways our brains expect things in our environment to behave, and how things should be related to each other—the patterns our brain expects the world to conform to. Beliefs are templates for efficient learning and are often essential for survival...
...These shortcuts to interpreting and predicting our world often involve connecting dots and filling in gaps, making extrapolations and assumptions based on incomplete information and based on similarity to previously recognized patterns. In jumping to conclusions, our brains have a preference for familiar conclusions over unfamiliar ones. Thus, our brains are prone to error, sometimes seeing patterns where there are none. This may or may not be subsequently identified and corrected by error-detection mechanisms. It’s a trade-off between efficiency and accuracy...
...In its need for economy and efficiency of energy consumption, the default tendency of the brain is to fit new information into its existing framework for understanding the world, rather than repeatedly reconstructing that framework from scratch...
...Radically restructuring our belief system and creating a new worldview engages parts of the brain involved in higher reasoning processes and computation, and is consequently more effortful, time- and energy-consuming. The brain often cannot afford such an investment. This would explain why, when we experience cognitive dissonance, it is easier to resolve this discomfort by doubling down on our existing belief system—ignoring or explaining away the challenging, contradictory information....
...Science values the changing of minds through disproving previously held beliefs and challenging received authority with new evidence. This is in sharp contrast to faith (not just religious faith). Faith is far more natural and intuitive to the human brain than is science. Science requires training. It is a disciplined method that tries to systematically overcome or bypass our intuitions and cognitive biases and follow the evidence regardless of our prior beliefs, expectations, preferences or personal investment.
...The increasing application of the scientific method in the last four centuries ushered in unprecedented, accelerating progress in humanity’s quest to understand the nature of reality and vast improvements in quality of life. Discovering just how mistaken we collectively were about so many things has been the key to sensational societal progress...
...Faith is based on belief without evidence, whereas science is based on evidence without belief. "
I happen to agree with Raf's points: people can and do change their minds all the time. It's a simple fact of life.
Well... I must parse that thought somewhat. Individual adults RARELY change their minds about the big questions (such as this). That's a simple (behavioral) scientific fact.
Adult humans (for the most part, I will grant that there may be exceptions) only change their values and deep seated beliefs when confronted with significant emotional events. Of course, Paul's conversion in the Book of Acts would most certainly qualify as a significant emotional event.
Wouldn't the real question on this subject be whether or not a believer who loses his/her faith lose what Romans 10:9-10 refers to as "being saved?"
Well... I must parse that thought somewhat. Individual adults RARELY change their minds about the big questions (such as this). That's a simple (behavioral) scientific fact.
Adult humans (for the most part, I will grant that there may be exceptions) only change their values and deep seated beliefs when confronted with significant emotional events. Of course, Paul's conversion in the Book of Acts would most certainly qualify as a significant emotional event.
Wouldn't the real question on this subject be whether or not a believer who loses his/her faith lose what Romans 10:9-10 refers to as "being saved?"
Feel free to parse away, Rocky - I’m cool with that… I was merely speaking in very general terms…as far as it being rare of people changing their minds on the big questions unless through some big emotional event - I agree with you -(btw, good article in your link) - I was merely stating the fact that people can and do change their minds - I was not addressing what it takes to change their minds or what type of issue they are changing their minds over.
I’m familiar with Raf’s journey “seeing the dark” and know he did not come to that decision lightly - I imagine it was accompanied with some of that emotional turmoil you talked about.
I may be wrong - but I didn’t think this thread was about losing salvation…for that matter I might have to disqualify myself since I have no definitive answer or belief on what Romans 10 means exactly. Perhaps salvation is one of the big questions I’ve changed my mind on since I left TWI…for 12 years of TWI-involvement I was absolutely convinced I was going to heaven, saved , I spoke in tongues…
BUT -
leaving TWI was one of the most emotional and stressful times in my life - which caused me to reevaluate everything.
After years of processing my experience and realizing wierwille jerked me around on just about everything - - and realizing I had faked speaking in tongues - I wound up parsing my belief system.
I believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit but also think I have a very shallow view of them…I’ve spent enough of prayerful study time focused on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament to realize wierwille did not know what the hell he was talking about. His analogy of the holy spirit (lower case) being like a car battery that empowers the manifestations was absurd !
wierwille was like a shady used car salesman who didn’t know the first thing about cars - but he tried to impress others who didn’t know the first thing about cars - telling them “oh yeah this car has 300 horsepower under the hood”. … Dumba$$es like me would ask how do you fit 300 horses under that hood? I don’t see them…he’d say “they’re real small and invisible “ and I bought into that bull$hit !!!!!
…so some questions may be really important to some folks but not others…I once accepted wierwille’s definition of salvation- not anymore. I’m not sure about a lot of things…I’m still mulling over a lot of the big ideas in Bell’s “Love Wins” book. That book has my belief system in an even greater state of flux (talk about changing my mind)…it’s not like all my assumptions have been wrong - it’s more like there’s a whole lot more going on than I thought - there’s some interconnectedness about it all…I’m not really worried about my salvation anymore…I’m more concerned about how small minded I tend to be - afraid I’m going to miss the big picture - it’s sort of my search for the theory of everything philosophically speaking …how we’re all connected in some way regardless of one’s religion or lack of religion.
I may be wrong - but I didn’t think this thread was about losing salvation…for that matter I might have to disqualify myself since I have no definitive answer or belief on what Romans 10 means exactly. Perhaps salvation is one of the big questions I’ve changed my mind on since I left TWI…for 12 years of TWI-involvement I was absolutely convinced I was going to heaven, saved , I spoke in tongues…
I don't believe anyone has any definitive answers on salvation anyway.
BUT -
leaving TWI was one of the most emotional and stressful times in my life - which caused me to reevaluate everything.
After years of processing my experience and realizing wierwille jerked me around on just about everything - - and realizing I had faked speaking in tongues - I wound up parsing my belief system.
I believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit but also think I have a very shallow view of them…I’ve spent enough of prayerful study time focused on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament to realize wierwille did not know what the hell he was talking about. His analogy of the holy spirit (lower case) being like a car battery that empowers the manifestations was absurd !
wierwille was like a shady used car salesman who didn’t know the first thing about cars - but he tried to impress others who didn’t know the first thing about cars - telling them “oh yeah this car has 300 horsepower under the hood”. … Dumba$$es like me would ask how do you fit 300 horses under that hood? I don’t see them…he’d say “they’re real small and invisible “ and I bought into that bull$hit !!!!!
…so some questions may be really important to some folks but not others…I once accepted wierwille’s definition of salvation- not anymore. I’m not sure about a lot of things…I’m still mulling over a lot of the big ideas in Bell’s “Love Wins” book. That book has my belief system in an even greater state of flux (talk about changing my mind)…it’s not like all my assumptions have been wrong - it’s more like there’s a whole lot more going on than I thought - there’s some interconnectedness about it all…I’m not really worried about my salvation anymore…I’m more concerned about how small minded I tend to be - afraid I’m going to miss the big picture - it’s sort of my search for the theory of everything philosophically speaking …how we’re all connected in some way regardless of one’s religion or lack of religion.
Ok, first, we're looking at two things here that are very different.
One: Can a person with a deeply held belief change his mind about it?
Second: What would be the consequence of such a change from a particular theological framework? That is, can salvation be lost?
The second question is clearly doctrinal, which is fine, but it is outside the scope of this thread, unless you want "nothing: salvation is a made-up solution to a made-up problem" to be within the realm of answers. Just kidding. But it is off topic for this thread (and possibly for this subforum).
Back to question one, though: What would it take for someone with a deeply held belief to change his/her mind about it? I personally do not believe a "significant emotional event" is required, as there are [I suspect] too many exceptions to make the rule meaningful. I would more readily concede that such an event would easily work as a catalyst rather than a cause. I don't recall a specific catalyst in my life, but I can point to dozens of debates and discussions that caused me to be in a state of constantly "proving all things," which is to say, putting all things to the test.
For me, the breaking point came after I could no longer reasonably accept a literal Biblical Adam and Eve in any meaningful sense, couldn't reconcile a regional flood with the Biblical account of Noah, couldn't find any evidence for Exodus that did not accept the account as true a priori, etc. This is personal to me and may in fact be a straw man, but I used to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was the best way of explaining why First Century believers, given the choice between renouncing their faith and death, chose death.
Now, I know some people are willing to die for a cause I do not believe to be true. But I know of no one willing to die for a cause they know to be false. I mean, seriously, the majority of you would renounce my existence if the alternative was death, and you know I exist! So to tell a witness of the resurrected Christ to renounce it or die, and have him choose death, was always taken by me to be the strongest proof of the resurrection I could imagine.
Except it never happened.
And when I realized that, there was no turning back.
Again, I'm oversimplifying it, and yes, there is a certain strawman element involved (which is why I am being clear that I am speaking for myself and my journey, not raising this is my "gotcha" evidence to persuade YOU of anything). However, if you want to go in depth on why I'm not persuaded by "what about the empty tomb?" I would be more than happy to engage on a separate thread.
My bottom line is, none of this journey had anything to do with a significant emotional event. We ALL have traumatic significant emotional events in our lives, and they don't all result in a change of faith. Ad hoc, ergo procter hoc is a fallacy for a reason.
What about when that person got sick and we all prayed and she died the next day?
Or my kid's autism diagnosis?
Or that other guy whose kid obviously had Down Syndrome but no one wanted to admit it?
Or my sister's ALS diagnosis?
Or my brother's sudden death?
All traumatic. And some coincidentally close to my "deconversion." But catalysts at most. Certainly not causes.
Shifting a worldview is a little more traumatic than realizing you like La Bamba better than West Side Story.
Realizing consciously that you're never going to pray again, coming to grips with the meaning of mortality, recognizing that [motives and intentions aside] prayer is a meaningless gesture... these are things that change how you live and how you approach your friends in need. It magnifies your appreciation for those who "give all" or risk all, especially those who do so with no expectation of eternal reward [news flash: there ARE atheists in foxholes].
So yeah, a change in "thought" can be a seismic event.
I'm assuming everyone here has shifted a major worldview at least once or twice in their lifetime. Probably more.
It is my understanding events are neutral. Our interpretation of them, our beliefs about them, our thinking of them . . . then lead to emotions, or emotional trauma.
There are many ways to view prayer. Your mind either came wired or you wired it at some point to not assign meaning to prayer. You have consciously chosen that it is a practice that is not in your best interest.
You believe your view of death and mortality gives a greater appreciation, a greater experience, of life.
So yeah, a change in "thought" can be a seismic event.
I disagree. A change in VALUES and beliefs can be a "seismic" event. Changing a thought, not necessarily.
At minimum, a change in values and beliefs would, imo, require changing more than a thought. Rather, changing how one interprets or gives meaning to a series of thoughts.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
11
13
31
Popular Days
Aug 3
15
Aug 2
13
Aug 5
12
Aug 4
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
Rocky 11 posts
T-Bone 13 posts
Bolshevik 31 posts
Popular Days
Aug 3 2021
15 posts
Aug 2 2021
13 posts
Aug 5 2021
12 posts
Aug 4 2021
9 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
oh you can take a lot of credit my friend – you are definitely in the small handful of articulate, thoughtful and thought-provoking Grease Spotters that have had a huge influence on me...I appreciate
Raf
Ok, first, we're looking at two things here that are very different. One: Can a person with a deeply held belief change his mind about it? Second: What would be the consequence of such a cha
Raf
Bolshevik mentioned something about how atheists value life. I try not to quantify such things, but economics 101 tells you scarcity increases value. No atheist ever flew a plane into a building
Twinky
Seems to me it's not only possible but happens, and has since the beginning of Christianity (as distinct from Judaism).
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, 2influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.
There's no indication here that the "abandoners" "didn't really believe" - but rather, they did have belief - which they abandoned - because they were "deceived." And isn't deceit the first sin we learn about, in the Bible? There's no news but old news.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It befits us all to gain new information, check facts as best we can, and evaluate the information and facts with the best critical thinking skills we can manage. That can lead us to change our mind on many issues. It's wise to gain further information from as many reputable sources as possible, not just stick to, say, only one or two news channels, only one or two authors/publishers/etc. Read widely, read divergent viewpoints, look at other cultures and their history etc. There are things that can be "taken for granted" because we have to have a starting point in this mass of information, but be prepared to evaluate those things taken for granted as well. Some "for granteds" aren't quite the firm foundation that they appear to be.
We also need to separate "religion" or "belief" from rites, rituals and dogma of any particular church denomination; perhaps from any particular religion at all.
The biggest thing to remember is that God cannot be contained in a box, and certainly not in the box of the human mind or imagination.
Have a review of Jeremiah 29, and in particular consider the context of this:
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a future and a hope
This is part of a letter to people in exile, in Babylon. "Settle down and be happy," says God. "I'll come and get you later." The promise was to be fulfilled decades later. Some of those in exile died there. Some were able to return. But there was still the admonition to settle down in the land of exile.
Perhaps some of those who have walked away from the faith will return to it. Perhaps they will die in their exile from the faith. God is not a vengeful God but will, I believe, still do what is possible to prosper those people and not allow harm. After all, "...your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Mt 5:45)
We can all have times of doubt in the wilderness of our minds (however well organised our thoughts may appear to be). Some do walk away; they might return. Some enter a different sort of spirituality; who are we to judge? It's God who is the searcher of hearts.
In western culture, which is primarily a Judeo-Christian based culture, it may be harder to really walk away, since very ancient tenets underlie our cultural norms. Is the walker-away then rejecting the "tat" surrounding religion, or is that person rejecting God? Upon what, then, does that person subsequently base his/her values?
It may be easier to turn one's back on Christianity completely if raised in a different culture altogether - say, in China (no gods, or Confuscianism) or India (plethora of gods), an Arab-speaking country (Muslim) or an animist culture such as Amazonian tribes or in Borneo (animist), or in an African country that wasn't overrun with missionaries. If one returns to these backgrounds, a rejection of Christianity is more easily to be seen. For people with those backgrounds, they might be said (perhaps) not to have fully believed in the first place: but then, they have huge obstacles (social propriety - including risk to life and family) to overcome that unless they were serious in the first place, they wouldn't have claimed to be Christians.
Edited by TwinkyGrammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
(I'm sure T-Bone is going to weigh in bigtime on this thread.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
OldSkool's post on another thread encapsulates that "evaluation" I referred to above:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know about TBone, but it's an open invite to TLC to ask honest questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Paul and his acolytes were never big on the intellectual legitimacy of [anything, really, but especially] dissent, were they?
"Now the Spirit, being completely devoid of confidence and unable to hold its own in a rational discussion weighing the merits of its premises against observable facts, expressly states than in later times people who approach its claims honestly will scrutinize those claims and have legitimate reasons to conclude that they are, indeed, false, but unable to counter with facts we will demonize reason (and rationalists) as deceitful spirits, demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars and having a conscience seared with a hot iron. Because nothing like namecalling when you're almighty and STILL can't back up your claims with the facts."
Fixed the verse for Paul. He can thank me at the Bema.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Twinky, sorry to disappoint – while I do find anything about how our minds work so fascinating – I don't see what the big deal is...I happen to agree with Raf's points: people can and do change their minds all the time. It's a simple fact of life.
Even from a biblical point of view – there's tons of passages that address the fickleness...changeability...irregularity...shortcomings of the mind...as well as prompts to develop our cognitive skills... we see people convert...sin...repent......vacillate...abandon their faith...modify their faith...their love in the faith grows cold...So people can and do change their minds – that's obvious. How that happens tends to be a little more complicated.
The phenomenon of changing minds is one of the least examined and – I would claim – least understood of familiar human experiences…from Howard Gardner in Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own Minds and Other People’s Minds
Maybe some folks who have issues with this stuff might still be harboring the false assumptions, logical fallacies and absolutism of wierwille: “...now you know, that you know , that you know...” now I know that's a whole lot of hogwash.
** ** ** **
DVD bonus feature – the following is an excerpt from an article “What actually is a belief? And why is it so hard to change?”:
"...Beliefs as energy-saving shortcuts in modeling and predicting the environment. Beliefs are our brain’s way of making sense of and navigating our complex world. They are mental representations of the ways our brains expect things in our environment to behave, and how things should be related to each other—the patterns our brain expects the world to conform to. Beliefs are templates for efficient learning and are often essential for survival...
...These shortcuts to interpreting and predicting our world often involve connecting dots and filling in gaps, making extrapolations and assumptions based on incomplete information and based on similarity to previously recognized patterns. In jumping to conclusions, our brains have a preference for familiar conclusions over unfamiliar ones. Thus, our brains are prone to error, sometimes seeing patterns where there are none. This may or may not be subsequently identified and corrected by error-detection mechanisms. It’s a trade-off between efficiency and accuracy...
...In its need for economy and efficiency of energy consumption, the default tendency of the brain is to fit new information into its existing framework for understanding the world, rather than repeatedly reconstructing that framework from scratch...
...Radically restructuring our belief system and creating a new worldview engages parts of the brain involved in higher reasoning processes and computation, and is consequently more effortful, time- and energy-consuming. The brain often cannot afford such an investment. This would explain why, when we experience cognitive dissonance, it is easier to resolve this discomfort by doubling down on our existing belief system—ignoring or explaining away the challenging, contradictory information....
...Science values the changing of minds through disproving previously held beliefs and challenging received authority with new evidence. This is in sharp contrast to faith (not just religious faith). Faith is far more natural and intuitive to the human brain than is science. Science requires training. It is a disciplined method that tries to systematically overcome or bypass our intuitions and cognitive biases and follow the evidence regardless of our prior beliefs, expectations, preferences or personal investment.
...The increasing application of the scientific method in the last four centuries ushered in unprecedented, accelerating progress in humanity’s quest to understand the nature of reality and vast improvements in quality of life. Discovering just how mistaken we collectively were about so many things has been the key to sensational societal progress...
...Faith is based on belief without evidence, whereas science is based on evidence without belief. "
from: Psychology Today: what is a belief? why is it hard to change?
if you have the time - read the whole article - a lot of interesting stuff in there!
Edited by T-Boneas an editor I changed my mind on this post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Nah, T-Bone, I knew you'd write a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well... I must parse that thought somewhat. Individual adults RARELY change their minds about the big questions (such as this). That's a simple (behavioral) scientific fact.
Adult humans (for the most part, I will grant that there may be exceptions) only change their values and deep seated beliefs when confronted with significant emotional events. Of course, Paul's conversion in the Book of Acts would most certainly qualify as a significant emotional event.
Wouldn't the real question on this subject be whether or not a believer who loses his/her faith lose what Romans 10:9-10 refers to as "being saved?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Feel free to parse away, Rocky - I’m cool with that…
I was merely speaking in very general terms…as far as it being rare of people changing their minds on the big questions unless through some big emotional event - I agree with you -(btw, good article in your link) - I was merely stating the fact that people can and do change their minds - I was not addressing what it takes to change their minds or what type of issue they are changing their minds over.
I’m familiar with Raf’s journey “seeing the dark” and know he did not come to that decision lightly - I imagine it was accompanied with some of that emotional turmoil you talked about.
I may be wrong - but I didn’t think this thread was about losing salvation…for that matter I might have to disqualify myself since I have no definitive answer or belief on what Romans 10 means exactly. Perhaps salvation is one of the big questions I’ve changed my mind on since I left TWI…for 12 years of TWI-involvement I was absolutely convinced I was going to heaven, saved , I spoke in tongues…
BUT -
leaving TWI was one of the most emotional and stressful times in my life - which caused me to reevaluate everything.
After years of processing my experience and realizing wierwille jerked me around on just about everything - - and realizing I had faked speaking in tongues - I wound up parsing
my belief system.
I believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit but also think I have a very shallow view of them…I’ve spent enough of prayerful study time focused on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament to realize wierwille did not know what the hell he was talking about. His analogy of the holy spirit (lower case) being like a car battery that empowers the manifestations was absurd !
wierwille was like a shady used car salesman who didn’t know the first thing about cars - but he tried to impress others who didn’t know the first thing about cars - telling them “oh yeah this car has 300 horsepower under the hood”. … Dumba$$es like me would ask how do you fit 300 horses under that hood? I don’t see them…he’d say “they’re real small and invisible “ and I bought into that bull$hit !!!!!
…so some questions may be really important to some folks but not others…I once accepted wierwille’s definition of salvation- not anymore. I’m not sure about a lot of things…I’m still mulling over a lot of the big ideas in Bell’s “Love Wins” book. That book has my belief system in an even greater state of flux (talk about changing my mind)…it’s not like all my assumptions have been wrong - it’s more like there’s a whole lot more going on than I thought - there’s some interconnectedness about it all…I’m not really worried about my salvation anymore…I’m more concerned about how small minded I tend to be - afraid I’m going to miss the big picture - it’s sort of my search for the theory of everything philosophically speaking …how we’re all connected in some way regardless of one’s religion or lack of religion.
Edited by T-BoneParsing the post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If a child can be a believer is there any choice in the matter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think Rocky could have been a little more generous than he was with the "there may be exceptions" observation.
I know a good many people who changed their minds absent a specific "significant emotional event."
For me, for example, the change WAS the significant emotional event.
At some point, a person may decide to confront a degree of cognitive dissonance that had been building up for years.
More tk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Perhaps we could get Vince F to weigh in on this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, first, we're looking at two things here that are very different.
One: Can a person with a deeply held belief change his mind about it?
Second: What would be the consequence of such a change from a particular theological framework? That is, can salvation be lost?
The second question is clearly doctrinal, which is fine, but it is outside the scope of this thread, unless you want "nothing: salvation is a made-up solution to a made-up problem" to be within the realm of answers. Just kidding. But it is off topic for this thread (and possibly for this subforum).
Back to question one, though: What would it take for someone with a deeply held belief to change his/her mind about it? I personally do not believe a "significant emotional event" is required, as there are [I suspect] too many exceptions to make the rule meaningful. I would more readily concede that such an event would easily work as a catalyst rather than a cause. I don't recall a specific catalyst in my life, but I can point to dozens of debates and discussions that caused me to be in a state of constantly "proving all things," which is to say, putting all things to the test.
For me, the breaking point came after I could no longer reasonably accept a literal Biblical Adam and Eve in any meaningful sense, couldn't reconcile a regional flood with the Biblical account of Noah, couldn't find any evidence for Exodus that did not accept the account as true a priori, etc. This is personal to me and may in fact be a straw man, but I used to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was the best way of explaining why First Century believers, given the choice between renouncing their faith and death, chose death.
Now, I know some people are willing to die for a cause I do not believe to be true. But I know of no one willing to die for a cause they know to be false. I mean, seriously, the majority of you would renounce my existence if the alternative was death, and you know I exist! So to tell a witness of the resurrected Christ to renounce it or die, and have him choose death, was always taken by me to be the strongest proof of the resurrection I could imagine.
Except it never happened.
And when I realized that, there was no turning back.
Again, I'm oversimplifying it, and yes, there is a certain strawman element involved (which is why I am being clear that I am speaking for myself and my journey, not raising this is my "gotcha" evidence to persuade YOU of anything). However, if you want to go in depth on why I'm not persuaded by "what about the empty tomb?" I would be more than happy to engage on a separate thread.
My bottom line is, none of this journey had anything to do with a significant emotional event. We ALL have traumatic significant emotional events in our lives, and they don't all result in a change of faith. Ad hoc, ergo procter hoc is a fallacy for a reason.
What about when that person got sick and we all prayed and she died the next day?
Or my kid's autism diagnosis?
Or that other guy whose kid obviously had Down Syndrome but no one wanted to admit it?
Or my sister's ALS diagnosis?
Or my brother's sudden death?
All traumatic. And some coincidentally close to my "deconversion." But catalysts at most. Certainly not causes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You could experience a traumatic event because you changed your belief. Usually avoiding that is why beliefs are held onto.
(I don't think this is unique to doctrinal)
Makes the phrase "Law of Believing" even funnier. . . . Conform or else!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Get your thoughts word and actions in alignment and parallel . . . see changed your beliefs . . . now you feel all warm and fuzzy!
Edited by Bolshevikediting deeply held belief so I feel better
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Or, as I mentioned, the change in belief can BE the traumatic event. Which is why so many keep it to themselves for so long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So thoughts are like events now?
hmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Flow chart is usually EVENT --> THOUGHT --> EMOTION
I would think BELIEF = THOUGHTS Or changing thinking different than changing belief?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Shifting a worldview is a little more traumatic than realizing you like La Bamba better than West Side Story.
Realizing consciously that you're never going to pray again, coming to grips with the meaning of mortality, recognizing that [motives and intentions aside] prayer is a meaningless gesture... these are things that change how you live and how you approach your friends in need. It magnifies your appreciation for those who "give all" or risk all, especially those who do so with no expectation of eternal reward [news flash: there ARE atheists in foxholes].
So yeah, a change in "thought" can be a seismic event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm assuming everyone here has shifted a major worldview at least once or twice in their lifetime. Probably more.
It is my understanding events are neutral. Our interpretation of them, our beliefs about them, our thinking of them . . . then lead to emotions, or emotional trauma.
There are many ways to view prayer. Your mind either came wired or you wired it at some point to not assign meaning to prayer. You have consciously chosen that it is a practice that is not in your best interest.
You believe your view of death and mortality gives a greater appreciation, a greater experience, of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why would that even be debatable? Anybody can change his/her mind about anything.
The issue has been subjected to psychological examination and research.
Why or how would a person NOT be allowed or authorized to change one's mind about anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I disagree. A change in VALUES and beliefs can be a "seismic" event. Changing a thought, not necessarily.
At minimum, a change in values and beliefs would, imo, require changing more than a thought. Rather, changing how one interprets or gives meaning to a series of thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.