• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do believers believe what they believe?

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Most people 'round here ignore evidence. So it's rare to find someone who has room to gripe. The worst among them seem to be bible-critics.
Yet, most all of us gripe. But I like Bible critics. To me, they are like the kid that saw the King had no clothes. But when it comes to the Bible, I think it is usually the Christian use of the Bible that is being criticized. And that is because they preach it as the infallible Word of God. But what they really mean is their interpretation of the Bible and their NT is the Word of God. That Jesus is the only way and without him, a person will burn in hell for their sins. Yeah, what choice do some of us have? Believe that or find some reason to cast doubt on those Christian beliefs.

With all these Baha'i threads, it is the same thing. Believe them? That a new prophet of God has come and he has brought new teachings that is necessary for all of us to believe and follow, or... find some reason why their claims are not true. And really, it's not that hard to find things. Like, by using the Bible, where does it say there will be four Messiahs? Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah? If it's there, then fine. But where?

Then even with Christianity... I don't understand how the writer of the gospel of Matthew takes one verse, Isaiah 7:14. and makes if a prophecy about a virgin born Messiah? So very out of context, and it ignores the context of what this boy does. I don't see how it describes anything to do with Jesus. But now we have and "established" fact, at least for Christians, Jesus was born of a virgin. But... not only Christians, Islam and the Baha'i Faith support this belief in the virgin born Jesus.

I doubt that the virgin birth is true. It is something that could have easily been made up. By the time the NT was written, who knew how Jesus was really born... or where. But if it is a made-up teaching, then not only is Christianity believing in something false, but so is Islam and the Baha'i Faith. They all fall and crumble. But we can't have that, so the Bible critics must be wrong. Or... those religions are as naked as can be and people dress them up with imaginary clothes.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yet, most all of us gripe. But I like Bible critics. To me, they are like the kid that saw the King had no clothes. But when it comes to the Bible, I think it is usually the Christian use of the Bible that is being criticized. And that is because they preach it as the infallible Word of God. But what they really mean is their interpretation of the Bible and their NT is the Word of God. That Jesus is the only way and without him, a person will burn in hell for their sins. Yeah, what choice do some of us have? Believe that or find some reason to cast doubt on those Christian beliefs.

With all these Baha'i threads, it is the same thing. Believe them? That a new prophet of God has come and he has brought new teachings that is necessary for all of us to believe and follow, or... find some reason why their claims are not true. And really, it's not that hard to find things. Like, by using the Bible, where does it say there will be four Messiahs? Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah? If it's there, then fine. But where?

Then even with Christianity... I don't understand how the writer of the gospel of Matthew takes one verse, Isaiah 7:14. and makes if a prophecy about a virgin born Messiah? So very out of context, and it ignores the context of what this boy does. I don't see how it describes anything to do with Jesus. But now we have and "established" fact, at least for Christians, Jesus was born of a virgin. But... not only Christians, Islam and the Baha'i Faith support this belief in the virgin born Jesus.

I doubt that the virgin birth is true. It is something that could have easily been made up. By the time the NT was written, who knew how Jesus was really born... or where. But if it is a made-up teaching, then not only is Christianity believing in something false, but so is Islam and the Baha'i Faith. They all fall and crumble. But we can't have that, so the Bible critics must be wrong. Or... those religions are as naked as can be and people dress them up with imaginary clothes.

That is not unique to those belief systems. In effect in record history no belief system is just true as they all end up with explaining away false as irrelevant.
But I am weird as I accept false as real and include it in how I understand the world.
It is in effect psychology for the assumption of methodological naturalism.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I thought Baha'is believed there was information about whether God exists or not. It comes from their prophet's writings. And that's been the criticism, because he says God is real, doesn't make him real.
I dunno. The writing is are such a mess it's not interesting enough to investigate.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I think most everybody rejects some religious beliefs. So, is it finding an "excuse" or finding reasons to dismiss some of them. And for many, all of them get dismissed except theirs.

Now when it comes to something like Fundy Christianity, that takes the Bible and NT very literally, I would agree, lots of people are looking for excuses not to believe... and they don't have to look very hard or very far... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."
It's not making excuses
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
There is supposed to be "unity in diversity" in the Baha'i Faith,..
Unless you are gay. Then you are an outcast for being who you are. And many don't want to believe in religious ideas at all. What Baha'u'llah should have done was utilize a Humanism approach, and even include gays as equal. This would have avoided stepping on the beliefs of other religions.

Specifically, the "covenants" are to not try to create your own splinter group in defiance of the authority of Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, ort he Universal House of Justice. Just wanted to make that clear just in case. They can be sanctioned for "publicly" and repeatedly breaking them. Just clarifying, just in case.
So there has to be a great deal of obedience to the authority. So there's no way for the authority to adjust their covenants to better fit the morality of the 21st century?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Unless you are gay. Then you are an outcast for being who you are. And many don't want to believe in religious ideas at all. What Baha'u'llah should have done was utilize a Humanism approach, and even include gays as equal. This would have avoided stepping on the beliefs of other religions.


So there has to be a great deal of obedience to the authority. So there's no way for the authority to adjust their covenants to better fit the morality of the 21st century?
It's time for all religions to update to humanism as the basis for their ethical decision-making. Humanity needs to become one tribe. There are just too many of us now, and we are too inter-dependent for the old tribal factionism of our past. I also believe a whole lot of people globally would approve and enjoin a universalist theological humanist ideology. One in which even atheists would be welcome. The model for it already exists in parts. All it requires is that we assemble them and codify them into a real cohesive ideological movement.

It's overdue.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Some atheists have claimed that believers believe in their religion and in God because they want to believe, and the implication is that believers have no evidence for their religion or God’s existence, so the 'only reason' they believe is because they want to believe.

I have replied that I believe because of the evidence for God and my religion, not because I want to believe. I have gone through periods in my life where I have not wanted to believe in God or be a Baha’i but I retained my belief because of the evidence for Baha’u’llah. Other times I wanted to believe, but that is not the reason for my belief, I believe because of the evidence. When I stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college, the very last thing I was looking for was God or a religion. I just happened to find it, investigate it, and then I believed it was true. That was over 50 years ago.

I am not saying that all believers believe in their religion or in God because of the evidence, I am only speaking for myself. Some believers might believe because they want to believe and some believers might believe for other reasons, such as having been brought up in a particular religion, or maybe even because society expects people to believe in God. These are not the reasons I believe. I was not brought up in any religion or with a belief in God and I always went against societal expectations and societal norms. The Baha'i Faith is an unconventional religion, but I am too unconventional to fit in the Baha’i community so I do my own thing.

Believers could say the same thing to atheists, that atheists don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe, since there is evidence for God’s existence. Maybe some believers have said that, but I never have. When atheists tell me that they don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, I take them at their word. They do not ‘see’ any evidence for God so they don’t believe in God. Why then don’t they take me at my word when I say I believe because of the evidence? It is because they don’t ‘believe’ there is any evidence, so in their minds that means believers cannot believe because of the evidence.

Nobody can ever know why a person believes or disbelieves except that person, so I don't think people should speak for other people and tell them why they believe or disbelieve. They should take them at their word because otherwise they are as much as calling that other person a liar.
The biggest reason people believe what they do is because it was told to them by someone they trusted. Kids start off being trusting. They accept whatever their parents say, whatever their teacher says, etc. Some people learn to be less trusting, and others don't. I for example, tend to trust what comes out of the scientific community, because I value that it is evidence based. But that's not always the case. There are pseudo-scientists who publish papers where the data and statistics have been played with, for example. I really depend on science correcting itself.

Some people TRUST their religious communities -- after all you see these people often, and they always are nice and out for your own best interest. Why not trust them? Well, because they may be fooling themselves. Anyhow, this is why most people simply stay in the religion in which they were raised. Some people do convert, but most of the time it is simply because they have found a new group to trust.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Anyhow, this is why most people simply stay in the religion in which they were raised. Some people do convert, but most of the time it is simply because they have found a new group to trust.
That's true, people who are raised in a particular religion tends to stick with it unless they find a new religion they like better, but I don't think that happens very often. For example, I have been talking to a man who lives nearby because he saw me walking in the neighborhood a couple of times and he recognized me since he used to work for the same state agency, so he and stopped to talk. I came to discover we have many things in common, including the fact that we are both widowed for similar reasons. We got talking and I asked him if he believed in God and he told me he is Jewish because the Jewish faith goes way back in his family, for generations. I don't think he thought about 'becoming Jewish' but rather he was born into the faith.

In my case, I was not raised in any religion or believing in God. I joined the Baha'i Faith during my first year of college, but I am the exception, since most people are raised in a religion.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
There has to be a limit to what can be tolerated before it causes problems. I knew a Baha'i who had a lot of issues herself but was always critical of others and very blunt about pointing out things. One Baha'i lady, who was married to a non-Baha'i, finally talked him into letting her host a fireside. He actually took part and was involved in the discussion. But then in the third fireside, that Baha'i lady said something negative about one of his comments. That became the last fireside held there. He told his wife, "No more, I will not be criticized in my own house."

That's why I think it is tougher on Baha'is, because, if there is going to be peace, it's going to have to be Baha'is that are the peacemakers... the ones that find ways to bring people together. That, they themselves, become models of humility and understanding and respect for others. If it ain't there, then no one is going to respect them.
There are some Baha'is like that, but not very many at all. Certainly @Trailblazer is not like that. She may have issues but she has a good personality.

But the point is for me that a Baha'i like that should be tolerated. Yes, a person like that does cause problems for a community, though. I definitely have had a problem person in my local Baha'i community, and unfortunately nothing was done about him at the time. The LSA didn't address the problem. They apparently thought that unity was not making waves. They didn't know what to do with him. The Baha'i communities have not reached maturity yet. There can be a problem I know from experience when an LSA is elected from a pool of Baha'is in a community that is barely large enough to elect 9 people to the Assembly there are unqualified persons on the Assembly. We need to grow our communities to a bigger size so there are more qualified people on the LSA.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
I knew Steven Scroll and heard Juan Cole speak. I my opinion, they were forced out of the Faith by overly authoritarian leaders. This is from Juan Cole's blog...

Here I wish to examine social control mechanisms in the American Baha’i community. These include mandatory prepublication censorship of everything Baha'is publish about their religion, administrative expulsion, blackballing, shunning and threats of shunning. What are the ideological bases of these control mechanisms? How is power attained and managed in a lay community without a clergy? I wish to stress here that this article is not concerned with the essence or scriptures or theology of the religion, but with the actualities of its day-to-day technologies of control.​
From a philosophy course I took Juan Cole is picked apart, these are supposed to be examples of bad philosophy.

A good example of essential misapprehension is found in Juan Cole's "The Bahá'í Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997". Cole fails to identify (abstract) two essential qualities of the Bahai Faith: it (1) a voluntary and (2) a purposive organization. This leads him to conflate it with a panopticon, a type of prison in which convicts are visible from all angles at all times (Bentham) or, by extension, a society in which people keep themselves and each other under surveillance by their inward adherence to the rules (Foucault). In one way or another, a panopticon requires compulsion and thus denies individual freedom.

Consequently, Cole's attempt at analogical reasoning fails as per analogy rule # 2: there is a significant essential difference that undermines all other similarities. By nature, panopticons are prisons; they require compulsion to work whether this compulsion be physical or social via fellow inmates. However, the Bahá'í Faith is a voluntary organization; one enters by choice and may leave - i.e. absent oneself from all further surveillance and compulsion - by choice. By definition, no genuinely voluntary organization can be described as a `panopticon' without seriously compromising the proper usage of the term. A panopticon which one may leave at will is simply not a panopticon.

The conflation here is either an inadvertent, but fatal error of reasoning or it is intentional, in which case it is nothing other than a propaganda ploy known as "fear mongering". Conflation is one of the most commonly used propaganda devices.

Referring to the Bahá'í Faith as a theocracy is another example of essential misapprehension leading to outright misrepresentation. Unlike any theocracy that ever existed, the Bahá'í Faith has no clergy; all authoritative and executive offices are held by election: LSA's, NSA's, delegates to the annual convention and the Universal House of Justice. Any decision made by appointees such as Auxiliary Board Members and Counselors may be appealed to the elected bodies, which, in the case of the Universal House, have the final word. This is so unlike any historical examples of theocracy that it is a gross misuse of the word to apply it to the Bahá'í Faith. Nor have there ever been examples of theocracies as voluntary organizations. The use of such philosophically and historically inaccurate descriptions is a blatant use of a rhetorical (and propaganda) device called "guilt by association".

A second type of essential misapprehension is the failure to recognize the purpose of the object of study, its final cause. The Bahá'í Faith exists for a purpose, to unify humankind. It has a purpose that extends beyond its own collective self-interest. Consequently, it is a `purposive organization' and even in the most democratic societies, such organizations do not give absolute priority to individualism and civil rights; rather, they balance individual aspirations with common goals. Those who join such organizations, voluntarily set aside some of their preferences, civil privileges and even curtail some of their own civil rights for the good of the organization as a whole. They do so because they have a greater loyalty to the goals of the cause they have chosen than to their own views and `rights'. Such individuals understand - as Cole does not - that restrictions are a necessary and inevitable part of any purposive organization and that personal sacrifices are required for the organization to work. Membership has privileges - but also its duties.

It is obvious that essential misapprehension could lead someone to portray any purposive organization as undemocratic and repressive, and its members as manipulated tools. To do so, however, would constitute a serious error in reasoning.

A third type of essential misapprehension is the failure to see the object of study as a whole. For example, the Bahá'í Faith is not a fragmented smorgasbord of teachings but an integral entity, in which all parts must be seen in relationship to each other. The fact that women cannot be elected to the Universal House must be seen in light of women's stated priority in education, their absolute right for economic support and their exemption from military service. This error also underlies many attempts to `prove' the repressive nature of the Faith by means of single quotes taken in isolation.

Essential misapprehension may also lead to the straw man fallacy, i.e. the fallacy of false attribution by which we attribute qualities, intentions, motives and powers that do not really exist.

An example of such false attribution of motive is Cole's claim that "the Bahá'í authorities wish to project an image more liberal than the reality" (ibid.) However, this cannot stand up to rational analysis. The Bahá'í Faith has never hidden its commitment to supposedly less `liberal' teachings, among them the ban on non-marital sex and homosexual acts, the ban on alcohol and illicit drugs, the strong discouragement of abortion, the fact that only men may be elected to the Universal House of Justice, the principle of obedience to the elected institutions and the acceptability of capital punishment in some cases. These `un-liberal' Teachings have always been widely available to seekers.

Indeed, the artificial imposition of foreign categories such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' is a straw man device. This extrinsic attributions must be imposed from without because they have no natural place within the Faith. They are drawn from adversarial party politics and the ensuing political culture and as such are irrelevant to a culture that rejects adversarial politics in all forms. Moreover, as already noted, the Bahá'í teachings on various issues impinge on both "liberal" and "conservative" portions of the political spectrum. This false attribution is a good example of a propaganda ploy known as `divide and conquer'.

Essential misapprehension easily leads to self-contradiction because the object of study is not clearly conceived. In effect, the author no longer understands his/her own work. For example, having missed another essential attribute of a panopticon - universal participation - Cole says, "One solution to this difficulty [of growth with strict internal controls] is to attempt to control what are thought of as key pressure points - vocal intellectuals, media, prominent institutions - and to give greater leeway to ordinary believers.

In other words we have a panopticon with selective focus - but that is no longer a panopticon! One cannot, on one hand, claim that the Bahá'í Faith is a panopticon where everyone is informing on everyone else to ensure orthodoxy and, on the other hand, also claim that the vast majority of members are given "greater leeway", that is, less supervision, for their thoughts. A panopticon in which the vast majority are free or even relatively free of supervision is not a panopticon.

False attribution of cause is one of the most common, and serious, logical errors. It is sometimes called 'dog logic' or 'madhouse logic'. Each day the mailman comes; my dog barks and each day the mailman leaves - and once again my dog struts proudly convinced that yet again he has driven off the threat.

According to Cole, "[t]he problem with strict internal controls for missionary religions, however, is that they are most often incompatible in Western societies with significant growth" (Cole, 1998). He blames what he sees as the slow growth in America on 'repression' instituted by the Universal House of Justice. Yet, oddly enough, he recognizes that groups "with strict internal controls" ("Panopticon") such as the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses as well as a wide variety of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches have experienced "significant growth"

It is logically obvious that if other religions with "strict internal controls" (ibid.) are experiencing "significant growth", such controls cannot be used to explain why the Bahá'í Faith is not growing as fast as he thinks it should be. Some other factor must be at work. He attributes causal agency without showing any causal connection. At best, one might say that he mistakes a correlation (slow growth and alleged repression) for a cause.

One of the oddest errors in reasoning is refusal of the conclusion, which is not so much a logical error as an existential error, i.e. an error rooted in personal willfulness or a conflict with other commitments.

For example, there are those who fully understand that the Bahá'í Faith is a religion, and that three things follow from this: first, the material world is only a part of reality; second, there exists a non-material realm which has a role in the unfolding of events in the material, natural realm; and third, no simple empirical-materialist methodology can provide adequate knowledge about reality, especially when relating to historical events involving God.

From these three premises it follows logically that strictly material explanations demanded by contemporary academic scholarship are, by definition, incomplete and, therefore, logically inadequate and inaccurate. Yet, oddly enough there are those who will accept the premises but, for various reasons, refuse the conclusion and thus embroil themselves in needless disputes.

(To be continued)
 
Last edited:

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
(continued)

Without reliable sources, any work of research is bound to outrun its evidence. The single most important element in reliability is independent corroboration, and material that does not have at least some corroboration is suspect. Thus, evidence from anecdotes (especially from many years in the past), e-mails, personal communications and rumours is always weak simply because corroboration is difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain. Any article or argument that relies on such evidence to establish its major points is, for this reason alone, unreliable.

One of the most pervasive logical errors is proof by selected instances. The physicist Richard Feynman provided a good example: he once dreamed a relative was going to die, but the relative didn't. Feynman did not write a parapsychology institute about this negative example; if, on the other hand, the relative had died, he probably would have and thus his letter would have become additional `proof' for a theory of pre-cognition. From the number of all death-dreams, only a few are selected.

Similarly, from the entire repertoire of e-mails (conversations, letters etc.) about the American Bahá'í community, Cole has selected those that support his case. However, without some sort of statistical study comparing the number of e-mails supporting Cole's views with the total number of e-mails written about the Aministrative Order, it is a logical error to assume Cole's selected examples represent anything other than isolated instances. No selection means anything except in comparison with the whole.

In rational debate, anecdotes have a single purpose: they may properly be used to illustrate and support conclusions already been proven in other ways in order to convey nuances and subtleties that are difficult if not impossible to describe in abstract language. Anecdotes must also be carefully chosen to provide maximum support for one's contentions and must always be seen in the entire context.

Anecdotal evidence creates problems when it is used to support general, as opposed to specific, assertions because the anecdote may only be an isolated incident, memory may be faulty, the anecdote may embed a hidden agenda or it has been selected from other, perhaps contrary anecdotes.

These errors occur when essential information is left out and thus creates a misrepresentation. Critical of the ban on partisan political involvement, Cole leaves readers with the impression that this is somehow an unnatural imposition on the Faith, a deviation Abdu'l-Bahá's instruction to "take part in the election of officers and take part in the affairs of the republic" (Abdu'l-Bahá, 1099-1916,II,342-343, quoted by Cole). In order to misrepresent the Faith on this matter, Cole leaves out two pieces of information that contradict his assertions.

First, Bahá'ís may perform the most essential of all democratic acts - voting, which, the case of the U.S. means voting for a party. This requires them to be watchful and intelligent observers of the political scene, something which undermines Cole's claims about the political isolation of Bahá'ís. They may be removed from personal activity but are certainly not removed from thoughtful concern which is in itself a form of involvement.

Second, partisanship in the wranglings of political parties is not the only way to "take part in the affairs of the republic" (Abdu'l-Bahá, ibid.) Nothing, for example, forbids Bahá'ís from discussing the philosophical issues that underlie political or social issues, or, for example, publishing an article on the role of government in family matters. What the writer may not do is identify his views with a particular party or publish them in a party forum. Such a discussion or article is certainly involvement "in the affairs of the republic" (Ibid.). Furthermore, Cole assumes that all involvement in public life must be personal, partisan political involvement, ignoring the fact that Bahá'ís can get involved in all kinds of reform groups and committees and in service clubs.

False assumptions are those which are erroneous, unsupported or inappropriate to the object of study. For example, the assumption that the avoidance of partisan politics isolates Bahá'ís more than the large numbers of Americans who, like Bahá'ís, do no more than cast their ballots. Such a far-reaching assumption cannot simply be accepted and built on; it must be proven or, at least, shown as a reasonable possibility.

In his critiques of the Bahá'í Faith, Cole also assumes that the American political-judicial system is the standard towards which the Bahá'í Faith must aspire and by which it should measure itself. He provides no justification for this assumption which ignores the existence of very different but viable democratic systems elsewhere such as in Canada, Britain and France.

Over-simplification is another result of essential misapprehension. It means that essential attributes or aspects have been ignored, which in turn paves the way for erroneous reasoning and misrepresentation. Over-simplification means that our premises will be false and this in turn leads to false conclusions.

One example of oversimplification concerns the issue of interpretive authority. Cole writes that "With the end of the guardianship, conservative Bahá'ís are eager to invest the House of Justice with de facto interpretive authority ..." (ibid.). By presenting matters in such a black and white manner, Cole ignores the genuine complexities of the situation. How can any legislative and executive body like the Universal House of Justice, fulfill its functions without at least some interpretation? To put a law or teaching into practice means to interpret it, to decide what it means under particular circumstances. To divide it into two mutually exclusive 'sides' is untenable.

Another common logical error is special pleading in which one makes an exception. This may be legitimate but there have to be good, i.e. essential reasons to justify doing so. For example, "Bahá'í elective institutions are not beholden to the electorate and may decide as they please" (ibid.). Logically, this statement is true - but trivial because it says nothing more than the obvious. This is true of any elected institution, Bahá'í or non-Bahá'í : they can do as they please until the next election. But if this is true of virtually all elected bodies, why is it evidence of control and manipulation in the case of the Administrative? Consequently, this critique has no rationale, and does nothing to prove the alleged control and manipulation.

A circular argument is one in which the premise depends on its conclusion and vice versa. On the subject of `tripping' "the wire" (ibid.) of the alleged "informant system" (ibid.), Cole writes, "The independent-minded, however, usually discover fairly early on in their Bahá'í careers and then have to decide whether they wish to live the rest of their lives in a panopticon" (ibid.). In other words, anyone who `trips the wire' is independent and anyone who is independent trips the wire. The argument is obviously circular.

This circularity itself leads to the fallacy of false alternatives because it suggests that people are either independent thinkers (and, therefore ex-Bahá'ís or Bahá'ís `in trouble') or they are not genuinely independent thinkers. He rejects out of hand the reasonable possibility that people may independently have come to agree with the Faith or do not interpret the actions of the Administrative Order as he does.

The appeal to patriotism is one of the standard tools in the propagandist's tool-box. It is also regarded as intellectually dishonest since such appeals are rarely relevant to the subject matter. Furthermore, like all propaganda, this technique appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect. As such it has no place in rational and scholarly debate. Below is an example of a blatant patriotic appeal:

"Another way in which many Bahá'ís are isolated from social supports is their disparagement of the institutions and values of mainstream American society. Many Bahá'ís exalt their own community, values and procedures and denigrate those of what they call the "Old World Order". The U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights are often criticized by conservative Bahá'ís as embodying the Old World Order values and inferior to those found in the Bahá'í Writings. Bahá'í antagonism to existing American society is expressed in a number of ways."

The use of emotive diction makes it obvious that the author wants to portray Bahá'ís as un-American. Bahá'í disagreement, i.e. difference of opinion with some aspects of American political life is portrayed as "disparagement", i.e. an emotionally dismissive contempt. `Disparage' has a nasty and hostile connotations which are reinforced by Cole's use of two other strongly emotional words: "antagonism" (ibid.), which directly brings up the issue of hostility, and "denigrate" (ibid.), which means to "blacken; defame" (OED). By using the word "denigrate" (ibid.) Cole presents Bahá'í disagreement with some aspects of American political and social life as an odious and hostile attack. This reinforces his suggestion that Bahá'ís - or least, Bahá'ís in good standing - are enemies of the United States. Further reinforcement of this portrait of Bahá'ís as disloyal Americans is the statement that they "exalt their own community" (ibid.) over what currently exists. In other words, not only are Bahá'ís (except `liberals') of dubious loyalty, they also have the gall to believe they have something better from which America may learn. The word exalt means to praise, dignify, ennoble (OED), but it also carries connotations of exaggeration, irrationality and of what today is termed `triumphalism'. This supports the portrait of Bahá'ís as enjoying a fanatic and malicious sense of their own superiority. Here too we see all the standard techniques of demonization

The purpose of scare tactics in propaganda is to turn readers against the target by making them afraid for their own well-being and/or safety without presenting any rational or adequate reason for such fears.

One of Cole's most obvious scare tactics is guilt by association. He works hard to link the Bahá'ís with the threat of a theocratic dictatorship which would deprive non-Bahá'í Americans of their civil rights. Leaving aside Cole's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of this issue (See above) let us focus on Cole's propaganda. He raises irrational fears, by linking the Bahá'í Faith specifically with the Khomeinist regime in Iran. For example, he writes that Bahá'ís "do not see them [their institutions] - - as Protestants would - - as a mere church, but rather as an embryonic theocracy (in this they resemble the Khomeinists)" (ibid.). `Khomeinist' with its associations with Iran, the hostage crisis of 1979, the failed rescue attempt and Hizbollah suicide bombers is an effective way of making readers, especially those in the U.S., nervous.

Introductions to scholarly articles are intended to prepare readers by providing necessary background information either about the subject and/or the author so that readers can achieve genuine understanding of the topic and evaluate the article rationally. The task of an introduction is to construct a frame of reference that contextualizes the material and provides guidance for understanding; it exists to clarify. Introductions to scholarly work should not aim at arousing emotions since emotionality is not conducive to rational and critical reflection. Such introductions are appropriate to propagandistic, not scholarly works.

(to be continued)
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
(continued)

"Panopticon" is blatantly propagandistic. To create reader receptivity for his thesis that Bahá'í Faith in the U.S. has become deceptive, controlling and manipulative, Cole begins the article with diction carefully chosen to arouse suspicions and negative emotions. Indeed, his first sentence encourages readers to adopt a suspicious, paranoid mind-set and engage in conspiratorial thinking: "Despite the large literature on American religious bodies, some groups remain curiously off-limits to investigation"

The phrase "curiously off-limits" (ibid.) suggests that something odd or `fishy' is going on. "Off-limits" has strong authoritative (police, military) connotations, which, of course, is exactly what Cole wants to suggest about the Administrative Order. The word "curiously" insinuates that perhaps somebody may even be hindering a "careful investigation" (ibid.), a possibility that feeds Cole's portrait of a dishonest and manipulative Administrative Order. that, according to him, maintains a network of spies.

Cole's attempt to arouse emotions is reinforced in the second sentence of "Panopticon" which points out how these "curiously off-limits" (ibid.) religions "carefully cultivate public images that hide important facets of their outlook and internal workings" As used here, both of the italicized words carry strong suggestions of intentional deceit. To complete this orchestration of connotations, Cole refers to the disastrous "collapse of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh's Oregon commune" (ibid.). This reference is intended to arouse reader's emotions by recalling the extreme isolation and regimentation undergone by Bhagwan's followers as well as the absolutely uncritical adulation they accorded him. Cole wants readers to transfer such associations to his portrait of the Administrative Order.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Some people TRUST their religious communities -- after all you see these people often, and they always are nice and out for your own best interest. Why not trust them? Well, because they may be fooling themselves. Anyhow, this is why most people simply stay in the religion in which they were raised. Some people do convert, but most of the time it is simply because they have found a new group to trust.
The take-away here is that what people believe is whatever is convenient for them to believe until it becomes inconvenient, or unless they happen to be of a particularly skeptical nature. Only then will they question it. That is our nature.

We believe whatever we believe because it fits with our nature, Not because we have any special access to the truth. Science tells us no more about reality than art or religion of philosophy do. But how it relates to reality fits better with some people's individual nature. So science becomes their source of "truth". Religion fits better with some other people's natures, so for them, religion becomes their source of "truth". For me, art fits better with my nature, so for me, art is my preferred source of truth. And for others it may be philosophy, or it may even just be the practice of survival. Or the pursuit of pleasure.

We believe whatever suits our individual natures. Belief doesn't make us who we are, we make our beliefs what they are.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It's not making excuses
I'm talking about a person that has some "vices" that go against Christian morality. If there is an excuse they can find to show that the Bible isn't true, then they don't have to worry about Christian morality. But what's strange is how Christians find excuses why they don't follow Christian morality. Things like the old, "The devil made me do it." One lady told a friend of mine, "Go ahead let's do it. I'll just go to confession tomorrow.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'm talking about a person that has some "vices" that go against Christian morality. If there is an excuse they can find to show that the Bible isn't true, then they don't have to worry about Christian morality. But what's strange is how Christians find excuses why they don't follow Christian morality. Things like the old, "The devil made me do it." One lady told a friend of mine, "Go ahead let's do it. I'll just go to confession tomorrow.
Christians have been making up excuses for atrocious
behaviour for centuries.

What the bible does or does not say is irrelevant to
atheists.

If thatscwhat you are saying we are in agreement
 
Top