Let’s conduct a seemingly simple experiment that may be done during common theological arguments (which I’m sure you’ve encountered many times). After hearing all the usual claims about the miracles supposedly created by the wonderful divine supervision, ask your religious friend the following question:<\/p>\n
“Tell me yourself, what will cause you to quit believing\u2026 Is there anything that will stop your belief?”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now, let’s analyze for a moment the possible answers to this question. Your friend may answer something that boils down to “nothing”<\/em>. If he\/she does so, then this is a declaration that his\/her belief is not based on any evidence whatsoever<\/em>. If it were based on some findings and conclusions, then the potential discovery of contradicting findings would be sufficient for him\/her to generate different conclusions \u2013 a thing that he\/she says will never happen.<\/p>\n
In other words, he (or she\u2026 well you know\u2026) who gives such answer, declares his faith to be blind faith<\/em>; and it’s pointless to argue about it, since he declares in advance, that every claim presented \u2013 even if true and overwhelming \u2013 will not be sufficient to change his belief.<\/p>\n
A different kind of answer may be: “If XXX happens \/ if I see XXX, then I’ll stop believing”<\/em>. Such an answer opens up a possibility for an interesting discussion, as the person who uses it declares his faith to depend upon extraneous factors<\/em>. He stipulates certain conditions to God, and pretends to understand better than him when this god is right and when he is wrong in his deeds.<\/p>\n
A belief that presents conditions to God<\/em> is in contrast with, say, the principles if the Jewish faith, as phrased by the Rambam and the Talmud (and others), stating that one should never doubt, and worship God for “no prize”.<\/p>\n
Your religious friend may of-course reciprocate the question to you: “What will make you start believing and being religious?” However, this is what’s it all about: The rationalist skeptic, whose ways of life are derived from self-choices and logic conclusions, should have no problem stating he will decide according to what he will see and be convinced, subject to future changes, if and when new things will be revealed. The scientific approach gives here pretty clear answers (which also demand a more precise definition of what “religious” and “God” are).<\/p>\n