Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[2PhiloVoid]

Please point out where I have ever said anything either implicitly or explicitly, that denies any external factors influencing a person's religious beliefs throughout their lives?

I'll go a head and assume that "you guys", includes me.

Well, let's just say that, sociologically speaking, I don't consider a 99% probability for some said social "phenomenon" to reflect the full and actual mediating social forces which reside in our respective social spheres of reality. Sure, as I've pointed out above, we can take the thinnest slice of social reality, dissect it out from the rest of reality, label it, and then hold it up as some kind of permeating, umbrella-like designation of TRUTH and then make claims about what we predict our future observations will find.

The problem with this is that it's reductionistic. It can even obscure the fuller individual social, psychological, and even spiritual, experiences that any one person has in her life, experiences that, if unrecognized and unaccounted for, mitigate the exaggerated expectations of the stats, particularly those that [supposedly, and without direct evidence] approach the level of 99%.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not going to speak for @Silmarien, but I'm denying that the power of the influence of religious indoctrination upon children isn't mediated in many various ways by the political and social structure(S) that are found within any given society. So, I'm prone to say that the more pluralistic or open or free the society, the less likely that a child will remain with the original, simplistic religious beliefs that were formed in childhood. But, you guys just love to ignore social and religious complexity, don't you? Have you ever tak'n a Sociology course, or a Sociology of Education course, by chance?

Or do you just take Law and Logic and call it a day?

I actually think I'm making a pretty weak claim here. All I've been calling it, and what I called it in the portion you quoted, was "a powerful influence". There's no denial of mediating factors going on. Maybe you should dust off your logic textbooks I'm sure you have on a shelf somewhere and respond to what people actually say instead of, you know, making stuff up.

What you might call "simplistic" I would likely call "foundational". A kid raised in a strict Southern Baptist home may abandon the notion of a literal Genesis, but never abandon the belief that Jesus died for his sins.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I actually think I'm making a pretty weak claim here. All I've been calling it, and what I called it in the portion you quoted, was "a powerful influence".

A powerful influence? You're right. That is a rather weak claim you're making, especially since DogmaHunter has admitted that no one seems to be actually counting firsthand the supposed "powerful influence" that is being held under the .....well, I was about to say 'microscope' .....but that would be a turn of phrase that would give too much credence to what is actually being asserted here by DogmaHunter, and I guess NV as well.

There's no denial of mediating factors going on.

Perhaps, but what does 99% probability mean to you?

Maybe you should dust off your logic textbooks I'm sure you have on a shelf somewhere and respond to what people actually say instead of, you know, making stuff up.

And likewise, maybe you guys should dust of your Sociology and Anthropoligy textbooks...instead of identifying social forces that don't quite manifest in just the way that you're suggesting.

I mean, how open to a survey do you think the government of Saudi Arabia would be to some Westerners like ourselves who wants to just come over, in supposed peaceful, scientific fashion, and then take a wide ranging survey that asks Saudis, "How happy are you with your current religion? Do you ever feel that some religious ideas that exist outside of Saudi Arabia would be preferable to hold than that which you now hold? Do you ever find anything in Islam that you wish you could change? Do you ever regret that you were indeed born in Saudi Arabia and wish to move to another country where other ideas can be more freely explored?

Yeah-------------------I volunteer you to go in person to do the qualitative interviewing and/or the quantitative surveying. Go on. I'll pay for the plane tickets! Just keep in mind, there's not much I'll be able to do if the Saudi government throws you in jail for asking such questions of its populace.

And if Saudi Arabia doesn't work for you, then maybe we can arrange either Iran or North Korea for you.

What you might call "simplistic" I would likely call "foundational". A kid raised in a strict Southern Baptist home may abandon the notion of a literal Genesis, but never abandon the belief that Jesus died for his sins.

...you know how I feel about the 'F' Word, don't you?

Moreover, a kid raised in a liberal home with thoughts of NASA, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and Star Wars dancing in his head, along with plenty of Dinosaur books and a lot of comic books might just never abandon belief in the truth of Evolution. Or would he?

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think the statistics would show that people in these situations remain Christian at all. There is a bit of a missing generation problem specifically because a decent percentage of people who grew up in these environments have abandoned the church. There are reasons why Evangelicalism is growing and Mainline Protestantism collapsing, and I think the intensity of religious upbringing is one of them.

I would be very interested on the statistics concerning people who leave and then return to religion, but that's an entirely different phenomenon. We can't get lumped in with people who never left their religions in the first place.

That's not what I asked about at all. You're just glazing over your caricature of a Christian environment as if reading a story once a week is an accurate portrayal of a Christian home. I may not be discussing all the mediating factors that go into forming beliefs, but I'm not claiming they don't exist. If you want to say that reading mythology is an apt comparison to a Christian upbringing, you're claiming that there's nothing which happens in that environment aside from reading stories from the Bible.

 

[devolved]

So, dude, through all of this, what's holding you back from the Christian 'thang,' bro?

I'll assume that by 'thang' you mean identifying oneself as a Christian?

In short, I could write a book on the subject, and it could be titled "I am not a Christian, and neither are you", and the point is that Christianity is structured "cultural OS" as opposed to an "app" that you run on other cultural OS. It's a complete "wipe and reboot", and it can only exist as a strict and ascetic subculture if you run it in parallel (which is not ideal scenario IMO).

There's plenty of the subcultures in the US that has a "Christian flavor", but it's not of the same kind than let's say Muslim faith. Certain culture simply doesn't mix with Christianity, and American culture is one of these. Modern American culture is everything Christianity is not about, and Christianity can't run as a layer on top of that culture. It's incompatible.

Hence, I can't really put on a mask and then say that I am that mask. If I am a Christian, then I put on the necessary mask when I am "in the world", but I think the opposite is true in the US. Christianity is a mask one puts on when one exists the culture for comparatively short period of time.

Hence, following up with E-Prime conventions, the verb "to be" woulnd't be accurate in my case. I am a fan of Christian culture. I would LOVE to live in one. I'm actually am a proponent of a very strict State-based Christian religion, and you can't appreciate the full irony of that, since I am a part of Adventist church. But I really don't see it functioning any other way in the modern world. The external culture tells a different story, and it atomizes individuals and feeds them virtual reality. It's not conducive for building large interdependent communities that put competition aside, and provide a safety blanket for people to work towards some common goal. The fear of being at the hierarchical bottom of the mainline culture is far greater than that of being at the bottom of the Christian one, hence Christian subculture stops being relevant. And it stopped being relevant when it relinquished virtually all and any control over the environment in which it exists.

 

[Silmarien]

That's not what I asked about at all. You're just glazing over your caricature of a Christian environment as if reading a story once a week is an accurate portrayal of a Christian home. I may not be discussing all the mediating factors that go into forming beliefs, but I'm not claiming they don't exist. If you want to say that reading mythology is an apt comparison to a Christian upbringing, you're claiming that there's nothing which happens in that environment aside from reading stories from the Bible.

No, I'm describing my own "Christian" upbringing. There was basically nothing going on aside from reading stories from the Bible once a week, and I ended up identifying more with paganism because unlike the Old Testament stories, I actually really liked Greek, Celtic, and Norse mythology. Maybe I got indoctrinated into that accidentally instead?

The odds were strongly against me coming back, but I did, so now I'm in Dogma's 9/10. As someone more familiar with the Upanishads than the Hebrew Scriptures, I find that a little bit ridiculous.

 

[Moral Orel]

A powerful influence? You're right. That is a rather weak claim you're making, especially since DogmaHunter has admitted that no one seems to be actually counting firsthand the supposed "powerful influence" that is being held under the .....well, I was about to say 'microscope' .....but that would be a turn of phrase that would give too much credence to what is actually being asserted here by DogmaHunter, and I guess NV as well.

Well, Dogma did go on to talk about religion being faith based as opposed to evidence based, but NV didn't, nor did I. That's a much bigger claim.

Perhaps, but what does 99% probability mean to you?

That it's the most powerful influence? I dunno. I think all of this is more a statement about how easily "programmed" humans are, especially as children, rather than anything specific to religion.

And likewise, maybe you guys should dust of your Sociology and Anthropoligy textbooks...instead of identifying social forces that don't quite manifest in just the way that you're suggesting.

I mean, how open to a survey do you think the government of Saudi Arabia would be to some Westerners like ourselves who wants to just come over, in supposed peaceful, scientific fashion, and then take a wide ranging survey that asks Saudis, "How happy are you with your current religion? Do you ever feel that some religious ideas that exist outside of Saudi Arabia would be preferable to hold than that which you now hold? Do you ever find anything in Islam that you wish you could change? Do you ever regret that you were indeed born in Saudi Arabia and wish to move to another country where other ideas can be more freely explored?

Yeah-------------------I volunteer you to go in person to do the qualitative interviewing and/or the quantitative surveying. Go on. I'll pay for the plane tickets! Just keep in mind, there's not much I'll be able to do if the Saudi government throws you in jail for asking such questions of its populace.

And if Saudi Arabia doesn't work for you, then maybe we can arrange either Iran or North Korea for you.

Not sure what the point of all that is. Regardless of their answers to those questions, they would still mostly answer, "But Mohammed, PB&J, was a prophet of Allah". Is that insignificant?

...you know how I feel about the 'F' Word, don't you?

No.

Moreover, a kid raised in a liberal home with thoughts of NASA, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and Star Wars dancing in his head, along with plenty of Dinosaur books and a lot of comic books might just never abandon belief in the truth of Evolution. Or would he?

Maybe. Not sure what the point of that is though either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll assume that by 'thang' you mean identifying oneself as a Christian?

In short, I could write a book on the subject, and it could be titled "I am not a Christian, and neither are you", and the point is that Christianity is structured "cultural OS" as opposed to an "app" that you run on other cultural OS. It's a complete "wipe and reboot", and it can only exist as a strict and ascetic subculture if you run it in parallel (which is not ideal scenario IMO).

There's plenty of the subcultures in the US that has a "Christian flavor", but it's not of the same kind than let's say Muslim faith. Certain culture simply doesn't mix with Christianity, and American culture is one of these. Modern American culture is everything Christianity is not about, and Christianity can't run as a layer on top of that culture. It's incompatible.

Hence, I can't really put on a mask and then say that I am that mask. If I am a Christian, then I put on the necessary mask when I am "in the world", but I think the opposite is true in the US. Christianity is a mask one puts on when one exists the culture for comparatively short period of time.

Hence, following up with E-Prime conventions, the verb "to be" woulnd't be accurate in my case. I am a fan of Christian culture. I would LOVE to live in one. I'm actually am a proponent of a very strict State-based Christian religion, and you can't appreciate the full irony of that, since I am a part of Adventist church. But I really don't see it functioning any other way in the modern world. The external culture tells a different story, and it atomizes individuals and feeds them virtual reality. It's not conducive for building large interdependent communities that put competition aside, and provide a safety blanket for people to work towards some common goal. The fear of being at the hierarchical bottom of the mainline culture is far greater than that of being at the bottom of the Christian one, hence Christian subculture stops being relevant. And it stopped being relevant when it relinquished virtually all and any control over the environment in which it exists.

... so, you're saying that .............I'd do better to..........um........trade in my collection of Incredible Hulk comic books for more X-men comic books? Right? That does sound tempting! And don't get me wrong, I do love the X-men, always have, but me and the Hulk, we're bros!

[That was a great post, devolved! Now if I can just find the secret-decoder ring I got from a candy box, I'll be set!]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, Dogma did go on to talk about religion being faith based as opposed to evidence based, but NV didn't, nor did I. That's a much bigger claim.

Well, it's good to know that you're all not in cahoots with one another on this stuff!

That it's the most powerful influence? I dunno. I think all of this is more a statement about how easily "programmed" humans are, especially as children, rather than anything specific to religion.

On a basic level, sure, we're all very programmable at an early age, and that's probably a good thing since some of that programming and the act of obeying what we're told by our parents---like, "Johnny, get your little behind out of the street! How many times do I have to tell you that a mack truck is nothing to tussle with?!"---might just save our lives.

So, yeah. I'd say a little bit of programming could go a long way toward our personal survival. Maybe a little religion, too.

Not sure what the point of all that is. Regardless of their answers to those questions, they would still mostly answer, "But Mohammed, PB&J, was a prophet of Allah". Is that insignificant?

The point is that it's one thing to say, "I think [but don't really know] that such-and-such statistics will obtain if I could do a survey over in such-and-such a nation," but it's another thing to actually be there and actually cull out social data in a cultural environment that might not be friendly to our digging and prodding for "stats." I mean, it's not like every nation is waiting to open its doors to the world so it can be utterly scrutinized.

No.

You don't know how I feel about the 'F' word? Ok. Then see my other thread on the "Tower of Atheistic Terror"

Maybe. Not sure what the point of that is though either.

That was a little briefing about my childhood, Nick. I hope you do know that I wasn't raised Southern Baptist even though I might talk like one.

 

[anonymous person]

Plantinga with the sauce will wrap this tit for tat up nicely...

 

[zippy2006]

...I literally made that exact same argument four pages ago and we're still going strong.

 

[Silmarien]

...I literally made that exact same argument four pages ago and we're still going strong.

Well, the obvious answer is subjectivism. Our beliefs are all completely arbitrary products of our environments, but we will insist on holding them because they are ours. And because they make us feel good.

Or of course we can just deny that we have any beliefs at all.

 

[zippy2006]

Our beliefs are all completely arbitrary products of our environments, but we will insist on holding them because they are ours. And because they make us feel good.

I have to wonder if the parallelism between the modern view of beliefs and the modern view of babies is more than a coincidence.

Spoiler

That was a joke. Please, no one hurt themselves by thinking about this too much.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll assume that by 'thang' you mean identifying oneself as a Christian?

In short, I could write a book on the subject, and it could be titled "I am not a Christian, and neither are you", and the point is that Christianity is structured "cultural OS" as opposed to an "app" that you run on other cultural OS. It's a complete "wipe and reboot", and it can only exist as a strict and ascetic subculture if you run it in parallel (which is not ideal scenario IMO).

There's plenty of the subcultures in the US that has a "Christian flavor", but it's not of the same kind than let's say Muslim faith. Certain culture simply doesn't mix with Christianity, and American culture is one of these. Modern American culture is everything Christianity is not about, and Christianity can't run as a layer on top of that culture. It's incompatible.

Hence, I can't really put on a mask and then say that I am that mask. If I am a Christian, then I put on the necessary mask when I am "in the world", but I think the opposite is true in the US. Christianity is a mask one puts on when one exists the culture for comparatively short period of time.

Hence, following up with E-Prime conventions, the verb "to be" woulnd't be accurate in my case. I am a fan of Christian culture. I would LOVE to live in one. I'm actually am a proponent of a very strict State-based Christian religion, and you can't appreciate the full irony of that, since I am a part of Adventist church. But I really don't see it functioning any other way in the modern world. The external culture tells a different story, and it atomizes individuals and feeds them virtual reality. It's not conducive for building large interdependent communities that put competition aside, and provide a safety blanket for people to work towards some common goal. The fear of being at the hierarchical bottom of the mainline culture is far greater than that of being at the bottom of the Christian one, hence Christian subculture stops being relevant. And it stopped being relevant when it relinquished virtually all and any control over the environment in which it exists.

So, does this mean that Saturday morning superhero cartoons are off the table?

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, it's good to know that you're all not in cahoots with one another on this stuff!

Just pointing out that you're addressing me about claims I don't make. I know there's a few people all responding to the same thing, so it may seem difficult to keep track of, but you're literally re-writing word for word what I've said before making a comment about it.

On a basic level, sure, we're all very programmable at an early age, and that's probably a good thing since some of that programming and the act of obeying what we're told by our parents---like, "Johnny, get your little behind out of the street! How many times do I have to tell you that a mack truck is nothing to tussle with?!"---might just save our lives.

So, yeah. I'd say a little bit of programming could go a long way toward our personal survival. Maybe a little religion, too.

Sure, but we can be programmed to believe false things too. Like kids that grow up in Scientology*.

The point is that it's one thing to say, "I think [but don't really know] that such-and-such statistics will obtain if I could do a survey over in such-and-such a nation," but it's another thing to actually be there and actually cull out social data in a cultural environment that might not be friendly to our digging and prodding for "stats." I mean, it's not like every nation is waiting to open its doors to the world so it can be utterly scrutinized.

Who ever said we can reliably guess the answers to those questions? Again, even if there are more disagreements on a subject the more specific you are about it, is it insignificant that the core tenants of a religion fall on such statistical lines?

You don't know how I feel about the 'F' word? Ok. Then see my other thread on the "Tower of Atheistic Terror"

Do you want to just tell me what's wrong with foundational beliefs?

That was a little briefing about my childhood, Nick. I hope you do know that I wasn't raised Southern Baptist even though I might talk like one.

That's kind of what it sounded like, but when did you start denying evolution? And what does evolution have to do with Star Wars? Can't YECs enjoy a good space opera as much as the rest of us?

*Can we all just take a moment to pause and reflect on how nice it is that no matter our disagreements here, we can all come together and crap all over Scientology as the most obviously man-made religious scam ever concocted? To Philo or anyone else reading this, if you agree Scientology is laughable at best, and dangerous at worst, give this post a "Friendly" rating.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just pointing out that you're addressing me about claims I don't make. I know there's a few people all responding to the same thing, so it may seem difficult to keep track of, but you're literally re-writing word for word what I've said before making a comment about it.

Oh, you're definitely right about that! We're all just all over the board here, and I do so weary of playing leap-frog.

Sure, but we can be programmed to believe false things too. Like kids that grow up in Scientology*.

Yes, this is true. But let's keep in mind that there are different "Philosophies of Education" which can, do, and have, played into the form, function, and degree to which societies, cultures, and parents have "programmed" their children. One form of programming can't just be philosophically or socially equated with just any other form of education. [And I think you already know this, but I just want to put it out there in print as a reminder for us to think about..................]

Who ever said we can reliably guess the answers to those questions? Again, even if there are more disagreements on a subject the more specific you are about it, is it insignificant that the core tenants of a religion fall on such statistical lines?

Who ever said we can............................? I'll admit, it probably wasn't you; but that doesn't mean we don't have other guilty parties around here who might have tripped that alarm.

Do you want to just tell me what's wrong with foundational beliefs?

Do you want me to write a book on it? [Fortunately, there are others who have already done so, many of whom [probably most] are much more qualified that I am on the subject, and it is to them that I humbly, even if not completely, submit my learning.]

That's kind of what it sounded like, but when did you start denying evolution?

I never did. So, even at a very young age, and my parents (my mom, really), thought it'd be a quaint idea to hand me a Children's book on bible stories, I just looked at it and thought, "Gee, Mom, that is swell and quaint, but I'll read bits and pieces of it later! Now, where did I put my comic-books and dinosaur books?!"

And what does evolution have to do with Star Wars?

It's a long story, Nick, but as a kid who knew about a pre-historic earth and dinosaurs and all of that meaty kind of stuff, it wasn't a major hurdle for me to see the following introductory words that Lucas put in that first Star Wars movie and think to myself, "Self! That could make sense, really!" I mean, there's a boat-load of implications in just these few words alone. I'm sure Carl Sagan rejoiced in his day to see these words:

Can't YECs enjoy a good space opera as much as the rest of us?

Perhaps they can. But, believe it or not, I have run into Christians who have actually told me, "uh............nope, never seen that there Star Wars movie." ....and I'm just like, . [Yes, I know, I know. We can't expect everyone to be a fan.]

*Can we all just take a moment to pause and reflect on how nice it is that no matter our disagreements here, we can all come together and crap all over Scientology as the most obviously man-made religious scam ever concocted? To Philo or anyone else reading this, if you agree Scientology is laughable at best, and dangerous at worst, give this post a "Friendly" rating.

....ok. I'll have to admit too that you have a really good point here, Nick.

 

[devolved]

... so, you're saying that .............I'd do better to..........um........trade in my collection of Incredible Hulk comic books for more X-men comic books? Right? That does sound tempting! And don't get me wrong, I do love the X-men, always have, but me and the Hulk, we're bros!

[That was a great post, devolved! Now if I can just find the secret-decoder ring I got from a candy box, I'll be set!]

In short... we tend to use the verb "to be" quite liberally in the modern world, and really what you see in our modern world is the general "across the board" watering down of value (I don't know how old you are, but I'm assuming your age begins with 2?). You may have actually experienced it in your lifetime.

In the past, if you could ask me what does it mean to be "great", I would likely answer with some great model figures like "astronaut" or some specific examples of human excellence for people who are experts of the experts in certain skill and they have plenty to show for it. Greatness was rare.

What does it mean to be great in context of modern culture? It can be very confusing for younger generation today. Is the guy who makes a compilation videos that he "reacts to" and gets 2 million viewers on the YouTube a great figure? He obviously commands enormous amount attention and numbers, and the advertisers re-enforce and reward that attention by paying the guy, in which case there is certain demand-driven indicator of value. But this guy is far from classical greatness in a sense of "arete" or "bushido" or whatever classical behavioral ideals you pick. But it doesn't seem that way. What is "epic" after all? Epic used to be something truly grand. Today it's a word that could describe a t-shirt . In the indie film production back in the days you would scream and cuss at actors for missing marks and screwing up lines, because film is expensive. Now you can just erase the bad ones and start over. No pressure, hence less adequate preparation, less respect for craft in general. There's an overall loss for frame of reference, because there's just too much junk that copies certain attributes of greatness enough to grab your attention for a moment.

And that's really the lens through which I view Christianity as we enter into the "metamodern" stage in which arbitrary meaning generated so much variable junk that it's difficult to categorize it all and lump it all under same umbrella as the original and classic form that such junk bares minimal resemblance to.

Hence, I feel like it should have it's own label to avoid the confusion. Much of these classic terms have shifted into a different frame of meaning, and I'd rather not use these to re-enforce that meaning.

I hope it clarifies my position.

 

[devolved]

Sure, but we can be programmed to believe false things too. Like kids that grow up in Scientology*.

In which case it's not really about the method (indoctrination), but rather about the content?

I've attempted to teach critical thinking to my 5 year old, and it doesn't work really well. What we typically think of indoctrination generally revolves around some "other parents or cults" that feed damaging information to children in some form of unquestionable "that's the way it is".

But as parents we are driven to provide information to kids that we feel is necessary for them to succeed in their environment. In context of Scientology as a system one could paint some parallels of being born into "American cultural economy" in which young people who don't know "what's up" are put through a indoctrinated sets of expectations that keep the economy growing via debt that they collectively take out to conform to these future expectations of car/education/house/family/holidays, etc.

So, yes, in the microcosm of Scientology... it's awful, but I think I wouldn't be completely honest if I didn't see the parallels between the "virtuous" form of such system as opposed to the Scientology as a human-resources-driven enterprise that siphons enormous amount of "life-effort" from one party to another in exchange for a "dream come true" that they were indoctrinated into from the beginning.

Of course, one is more extreme and uncomfortable than other, but in principle we could draw that analogy about "generic cultural indoctrination" in any case, be it a caste system, or entertainment-driven celebrity brainwashing for the sake of selling people their own brain chemistry.

Eventually, that's all these systems tend to be... some dude selling you your own brain chemistry as it's triggered by words. Of course, there's plenty of that in religion, but I think there are some that help you to be aware of that fact, and there are some that hide and exploit it.

 

[Uber Genius]

The faith vs. reason debate persists because I think so many are taught exactly what DogmaHunter thinks is true, that faith and evidence are antithetical to one another.

I agree the debate persists, but only due to the misrepresentations of the definition of faith. And the use of fallacious reasoning. Serious scholars in this debate don't use the genetic fallacy to argue.

We would also agree, it seems that faith is not a way of knowing a claim is true but rather trusting a claim for which we have consistently found the evidence and argument to support.

But your approach was certainly kinder. I have worn out my kinder approach by the time I put someone on "ignore," out here. They have to demonstrate their interest in propping up Dogma rather than arguing from evidence in support of premises, then premises in support of an argument. Your points, which are fair and accurate, have been made to dogmatists out here for years.

 

[anonymous person]

Ok. I wouldn't necessarily formulate it like that, but sure.


If actual sufficient evidence was present, faith wouldn't be required, is what I'm saying.



I don't see why.
Regardless of how religion and faith is defined, it's nothing short of fact that most people tend to stick to the religion they were indoctrinated in from birth onwards.

That's just how it is. Even if you can find me a religion that has bulletproof evidence and which doesn't rely on faith at all (but I'ld argue that in such a case, we wouldn't call it a religion).

If you define faith as believing in a proposition in the absence of evidence for that proposition, then you don’t need an argument to support that because you’re making the claim that that is what faith is by definition.

There are different schools of thought about the relation between faith and reason. You’re assuming that all adherents to biblical teachings on faith should be fideistic in their epistemology but have given no reason to think this other than a quote from a verse from Hebrews taken out of context but the way, which ironically is counterproductive for you because the very verse appeals to the concept of evidence as that which faith takes into account.

Maybe the majority of people retain the beliefs of their childhood because they think they have good reasons for those beliefs.

I follow Plantinga and Craig and Dodwell In holding that belief in God is properly basic so I don’t fit into the fideistic mold you assume all adherents of the biblical teaching on faith should conform to.

Additionally, DogmaHunter, if you're espousing a form of evidentialism which holds that one is rationally justified in believing a proposition to be true if and only if that proposition is either foundational to knowledge or is established by evidence that is ultimately based on such a foundation and that only those views which are incorrigible or self-evident are foundational, then you will have to jettison this view because you yourself hold views about reality that are neither supported by evidence, nor are incorrigible or self-evident. For surely you believe that the world was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age and such a belief is neither self-evident, incorrigible, or supported by evidence.

Finally, your argument appealing to the vast majority of people retaining the religious beliefs of their childhood is counter-productive for you, for it only serves as data that is best explained by theism. Why? Because the statistics you've staked your whole argument on are exactly what we would expect to see if God exists. The vast majority of people in the world are not in the arena of debate; and theism, in whatever form it may take, is a given; constituting for them, background data.