RMB writes:
"The difference between willing to live with a question, looking for an answer, and deciding the question disproves the whole, is almost always emotional state. "
There's definitely a lot of truth to that. In general, when something is proven false, wrong or whatever, normal people accept the proof. But when it's their own religion that is disproven, the stakes are obviously way too high for most people to acknowledge it. They have way too much emotional attachment to their religion, they have family and communal commitments, they have a lifetime of religious, spiritual, cultural, intellectual and financial investment. Can you imagine not being in an emotional state in such a situation?!
So of course, rather than just go with the evidence, they will prefer to 'live with the question'. Conversely, the people who go with the proof and decide to leave their religion are generally less emotional and more detached, and more able to objectively decide upon the truth, and make their decisions accordingly.
'Which group is 'better', you're thinking?(or at least I'm thinking) Yeah, I guess that's a dumb question, since 'better' is subjective.
HALOSCAN COMMENTS
