I don't regret going back to FAIR to respond to Juliann's egregious distortion not only of the Bromley text, but of the statements I made on Z, but I won't go back.
I'm becoming less and less interested in even reading the apologetics produced over there. It's like a song stuck in a groove, endlessly repeating the same phrase.
The place is a textbook case of confirmation bias - which is ironic because, on the apostate thread in the open forum, Nighthawke mentioning just recently reading about the phenomenon, and Juliann asked for more information. I know I've mentioned confirmation bias many times in numerous conversations, without clarification, because I always assumed a sort of baseline level of background knowledge about the world and how it works. I was literally stunned to see these two apparently so clueless about such a basic component of understanding the human mind. How does someone get to a graduate level of education without at least a cursory awareness of something so basic?
Go look at Dan Vogel's thread on inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon for more evidence. Why subject yourself to this?
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=20670
or go read my long argument with Ben, one of the nicest apologists for whom I have a great deal of respect, regarding postmodernism and and Mormonism.
http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =513.topic
I think that for the past several years I've had some sort of notion that discussing these issues with believers would help me understand religion, and how one continues to believe, and the human mind, and my own past, better - but it's just too frustrating, and ultimately an exercise in futility.
“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.
It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.
Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.
Eric Hoffer