Belief, Rationalization, Manipulation

We have some interesting comments that came in on past postings. In reaction to my statement on Notes on Realization of God's Reality, someone named "Atheist" says:

Atheist said...Metarock: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.
Atheist: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of fantasy, not a technology. Belief has nothing to do with reality or truth. In fact belief and truth are mutually exclusive.

The problem with this is that it privileges doubt to the extent of re-writing the point of bleief. Belief becomes a dirty word tot he professional doubter. The fact of belief is that one does not believe something one thinks is false. Belief is obviously about truth. Of cousre this is not a guarantee that the particulars of one's beliefs are true, yet no one sets out to believe falsehood. Dawkamenatlists. like the fundies that they are, are literalistic and rigid slave thinkers who dread having to think for themselves, thus any hint that a held opinion is not a "fact" and is not guaranteed by the atheist fortress of facts (ala atheist ideology) but is merely "belief," must be held as falsehood and ridiculed to the text the very word "belief" is taken ass a dirty word and held to mean "rationalization." Belief is what one hold to be true, it' s synonymous with "conviction," that's a term atheists are not familiar with.

I am thinking that this person is reacting to the idea that I stated, that proving things is a technology. Somehow this person sees this as an insult he/she has to insult belief back and though belief is some alien process that atheists don't involve themselves in. Unless one is illiterate it must be obvious to all that even atheists have beliefs. Strangely enough an atheist on CARM, who humbly calls himself "big thinker," who martians that he has no beliefs. Belief is such a dirty word to the Dawkies that he can't bring himself to admit that he has beliefs. He refused to answer my question "so you believe you have no beliefs?" That would entail the admission that what you think is true is a belief. Thus there are no people without beliefs. How is it possible that one thinks for oneself without believing things? This person obviously believes that belief is is about unreality, this person believes that atheism is about being realistic about reality these are beliefs. I wonder if most atheists even know the word reality. What they really mean is "what I want to be the case." If it could be proved that God is reality what would they do? They would then begin asserting that reality stinks and fantasy is true.

Webster's Online:

be·lief

noun \bə-ˈlēf\

Definition of BELIEF

1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2

: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

See belief defined for English-language learners »

Examples of BELIEF

1. There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.
2. He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.
3. We challenged his beliefs about religion.

Origin of BELIEF

Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe

First Known Use: 12th century

Related to BELIEF

Synonyms: credence, credit, faith, article of faith

Antonyms: disbelief, discredit, doubt, nonbelief, unbelief

Related Words: axiom, law, precept, principle, tenet; assurance, certainty, certitude, conviction, positiveness, sureness; confidence, dependence (also dependance), reliance, trust; hope; doctrine, dogma, philosophy; dogmatism, fanaticism, insistence

Near Antonyms: distrust, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty

see all synonyms and antonyms

[+]more[-]hide

Synonym Discussion of BELIEF

belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

Belief is placing confidence in a proposition." conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence " Belief is about the way one views reality not manipulating reality.

Proving things is a from of manipulation. Why? Because it requries the re-organizing of bits of sense data in order to change the situation form appearance to demonstration. I didn't originally call it manipulation I called it "technology." Then I defined technology as manipulation. This commenter took this as an assault upon truth. It's actually just phenomenological awareness about our relationship to sense data in the formation of truth claims. Belief is a conviction of truth as the definition says it is not a pretense or a fantasy. Getting at truth requires re arranging the appearance of reality and thus its manipulation. This doesn't mean that stacking the manipulation to coincide with our desires is truth finding.

Webster defines Technology:

tech·nol·o·gy
noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\
plural tech·nol·o·gies
Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1
a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge
3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
— tech·nol·o·gist \-jist\ noun
See technology defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TECHNOLOGY

This doesn't tell us the use of the term in such elite venue as intellectual history in postmodern circles such as the writing of Michele Foucault. The word is used apart from gadgets. We can employ a technology in the way we think about things without any new inventions or scientific apparatus. That's the way I was using the term, not as an insult or an attack but with persimmon making known the fact that the way we think about "reality" in relation to what can be demonstrated as true is a technology and an application of knowledge in a varied way.

In other words, belief is actually conviction that honestly understands truth or reality to be a certain way, while proof and demonstration are actually manipulating reality by arranging the way it is perceived, in order to produce a particular outcome.

The same poster left another interesting comment, this was addressed to the post about atheists moving away from the big bang.

Atheist said...I am an atheist. I do not depend on science for my atheism. In fact I disagree with science often when it looks too much like theism. Multi-universes, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang are a some examples.

My atheism is based on truth and facts not science.

"I disagree with science when it looks like theism." I assume then that he/she agrees with it when it looks like opinions he/she already holds. So at that rate science is not a teaching device that tells this person truth but is in fact the "big fortress of facts" that proves atheism and backs up her opinion. In other words in the Orwellian "atheist speak" truth is a lie and one's own desire to escape God is paramount and outweighs truth, scirnce is a propaganda tool that can only be useful when it backs the template of atheist ideology. Look at the two quotes back to back it's pretty obvious that's what being said. If science was as atheists cling to it and portray it in clash with Genesis or creationism it's supposed to be a tool that lays bear what is real and enables us to know the truth of the physical world. To allege that would be a belief. Belief is a dirty word, belief is fantasy. Yet it's also apparent that truth finding goes hand in hand with fantasy and in place of truth this atheist wants propaganda. Hence I only believe science when it tells me what I want to hear.

"I don't believe scinece when it looks like theism."


Is there a way to reason with such people? If the facts and the uncovering of reality to the extent that the umpire of reality says "this be true" is not good enough, but must be rejected when ever it strays from the ideology that enthralls this salve thinker then what could possible point to truth in discussion or argument or evidence? Can't we see this is the total betrayal of "free thought" that it obviously is? How long can people be suckered?

We have to fear truth seeking and make conviction a dirty word becasue reality might be other than we wish?

Atheist Bait and Swtich

Simple concept: I said "belief is rationally warranted, I am not trying to prove God exists, just that belief is rational," then I make an argument; and the atheist say "your argument didn't prove God exits."



Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

Second bait and switch that atheists pull. I go "I argue for rational warrant for belief, not absolute proof." Sometimes they go "I don't think religion is irrational." Sometimes not but the thing they always do is wind up the argument saying things like "there's no proof for your God, you didn't prove it."

I say "I don't argue for proof" and they say "you didn't prove it." Does anyone see the problem with the picture? they are switching the goal of the argument from warrant to proof.

Now the ball is in the other court. I've given good solid logcial reasons why I believe in God. They are not reasons why the atheists believe, or course not. They don't have to be. they my reasons. They can't disprove that to me. nothing they say is going to make me think that God is not real.


They are going to come and say "O but have the burden of proof."

NO I don't for two reasons:

(1) I have met my prmia facie burden by providing a rational warrant

(2) atheist ideology depends upon demonstrating the superior rationality of atheism over belief in God. If my prima facie warrant stands they have failed because I've proved it's rational to believe, which their ideology says it's not.

don't let them pull the switch and say "It's your burden of proof" I didn't argue proof.

Essentially they have to now show why my prmia facie stand is not good enough.



Documentation on the validity of PF case:

quote:


Prima Facie Justification.


heory of Knowledge lecture notes.
G.J. Mattey
Philosophy, UC Davis
originally posted under the Thomas Reid Project


"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain."

"Reid pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of it."

"According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in accepting that things are the way they appear, when

* it does appear to one that they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone wrong.

[Ibid]

"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated." Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible."

"For Reid, our beliefs about physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects. Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs about physical objects is a mental state such as:

* looking like something is red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"

"For example, what justifies a person in believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things appear."

So every single athist the thread did exactly what I said they would do. They pull the old switch and argue "your argument didn't prove God exists."

no 2
Larger Minded

The following will hopefully illustrate for you, by way of parable, why the "rational warrant for theism" line of reasoning fails to live up to its billing for so many of us:

I posit that mankind communes with the lesser animals by way of a connective spirit force called the tiergeist. The tiergeist pervades all aspects of our existence and explains why humans and animals have been such great cooperators throughout their respective histories. Without getting in touch with this spirit force, our lives are devoid of fulfillment and we suffer for it. The tiergeist allows for connectivity with animals at a spiritual level, and this demonstrates that it is a core element of all consciousness in the universe. Getting in tune with one's connection to the tiergeist can have enormous, quantifiable benefits in one's life, such as improved health and happiness.

After telling you all this about the tiergeist, your reaction is simple: "Bu*****t."

I insist that it is true, but you demand evidence.

Very well, then....

I point you to the work of the Baker Medical Research Institute in Melbourne, where they conducted a study of more than 5,000 people and showed that those who own pets have significantly lower cholesterol and blood pressure than those who don't. Furthermore, "pet therapy" is a common practice in the professional long-term care of senior citizens, as a means to increase their daily exercise and ease their sense of loneliness. As if to put the case to bed, I refer you to a 2003 study published by the Gerontological Society of America, that shows an exceptional increase in longevity and a resistance to cancer among dog owners versus the general population.

Now, I grant none of this is direct proof of the tiergeist - no such proof could ever be had, of course - but clearly I have provided a rational warrant to believe in it.

Or have I....?

REVENG

okay... but so what? i don't find a belief in something that has no evidence of it's existence to be really rational, even strings has some sort of maths supporting it even if it is all theoretical.

what has your god got again? oh yeah nothing, at least nothing that would point to god as an answer over something natural. even your studies can at most show that mystical experiences affect lives which after all your repeats of posting the same drivel over and over, no one doubts.
whether they support a rational warrant of belief is a matter of something outside the belief, namely the gods existence. without that the belief is not above the level of believing elves affect farm equipment if you pave over their homes.
no matter how hard you push, believing in something that has no evidence isn't ever going to be rational, you call holler and bad mouth me all you like, beliefs don't magic god into existence.

36
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

that's begging the question. I have demonstrated over and over that there are good logical reason to bleieve. you have not show any of them down. to show me that they aren't good you must shoo them down. when will you do it? you haven't yet!

stop the truth by stipulation and prove soemthing.

REVENG

lol what? i don't think you have a clue what begging the question means, in fact i'd say all of your claims either are begging the question or special pleading.
If you really understood those terms you would show me by laying the argument and demonstrating it. You wouldn't just do this chest thumping thing I am I am so smart. I am better than you. If you were really better you would make the argument.

Meta:

You can't prove any of that. My arguments are not begging any questions are. you come out and say "there's' no proof for your God" I just gave you ne and you did not answer it. that's you begging the question.

you say "there are not arguemnts for God" I just go through winning two. no one disproved TS or the sublime, throughout that the tread right up to this day 90% of what they said is "i don't understand this." So how can they beat it when they don't understand it? you did not make an argument that beat it. no you did not!

THAT IS YOU BEGGING THE QUESTION!

anyone can thump his chest and say "your arguments are just x y and z" proving it is another matter. You are afraid to debate me 1x1. you didn't take my challenge so you really don't believe you can beat my arguments.

oh and no, you haven't demonstrated any good logical reasons to believe, again you use fallacious arguments and brow beating attacks to make your case.

PROVE IT! PROVE IT! if we tried to talk all our opponents to death what war would we have won? You don't prove it, if you could you would have a don't have an argument

you don't make a single argument, you spout the same lame slogan over and over.

howling how you have 200 studies and we have none, doesn't prove anything you say right,
that's silly. that just saying empirical scientific data doesn't prove anything. I know you really believe it doesn't. you don't believe in scinece you don't believe in proof. these are just Little games to play while you mock and ridicule. you only care science when it supports you.

what kind of a thinker would say "your studies don't prove nut'n!??" hu? that's just saying "science ant no good it support me." The studies prove what they say. So my premise form which i made my arguments is proved, becasue my premise is what the studies prove, the one's you are too lazy to read, remember?

so science disproves your world view and you don't have the integrity to even check it out! you have the Gaul to say that I'm betting the question!

REVENG

it merely means you have 200 studies that can be used or twisted to anyone liking since none of them attempt to support what you want them to.

Meta:

you don't know that you are only assuming because they disprove your junk world view. You don't have the integrity to even read one. I doubt that you really care what scinece says.

REVENG

also other than saying you have 200 studies and a few flawed logical arguments such as your argument over necessity of god, which is flawed when you comprehend what time is at its core, why arguments do you really have?

Meta:

that's not an argument. you are making proclamations not arguing. snow me why.
why should i? i'm not claiming anything,


no 40
Originally Posted by CaptainObvious View Post
Is this meant to be taken seriously?

Meta:

Since major logicians take Stephen Toulmin seroiusly why can't you? It's Toulmin who said there's a warrant. It's Toulmin who said you don't need to prove an hypothesis if you have a warrant to believe it. Why si that so teerible?

you don't have an argument against any of my arguments. all you ever do si spout the same incredulity your brain washed comrades also spout. do you really expect me to take you seriously?

*you are afraid to debate
*you can't make an argument
*every argument you makes is based upon begging the question
*the only argument you can offer is that of incredulity
*you have not a single specific disproof of any of my arguments
*too lazy to read one single study.

you expect to must mouth a bunch clap trap about "your arguments aren't any good" that's suppossed to prove something even though you have no argument to back it up.

you expect me to take that seriously?

every single atheist in this thread has done exactly what I predicted.

(1) they beg the question assuming there just can't bea god so no God argument could ever be good.

(2) not one of them gives a specific reason why my arguments fail

(3) the argument incredulity and make a bunch of proclaimations about it

(4) they call my arguments names.

(5) most importantly, they do the bait and switch they say "your arguments don't prove God."

a couple tried to assert that ratinoal warrant is not good but they can't really say why.

Look at the one that just goes "do you exect us to take this seroiusly." Obviously, that's nothing but incredulity. Everyone in the thread is like that.

Belief, Rationalization, Manipulation

We have some interesting comments that came in on past postings. In reaction to my statement on Notes on Realization of God's Reality, someone named "Atheist" says:

Atheist said...

Metarock: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.

Atheist: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of fantasy, not a technology. Belief has nothing to do with reality or truth. In fact belief and truth are mutually exclusive.

The problem with this is that it privileges doubt to the extent of re-writing the point of bleief. Belief becomes a dirty word tot he professional doubter. The fact of belief is that one does not believe something one thinks is false. Belief is obviously about truth. Of cousre this is not a guarantee that the particulars of one's beliefs are true, yet no one sets out to believe falsehood. Dawkamenatlists. like the fundies that they are, are literalistic and rigid slave thinkers who dread having to think for themselves, thus any hint that a held opinion is not a "fact" and is not guaranteed by the atheist fortress of facts (ala atheist ideology) but is merely "belief," must be held as falsehood and ridiculed to the text the very word "belief" is taken ass a dirty word and held to mean "rationalization." Belief is what one hold to be true, it' s synonymous with "conviction," that's a term atheists are not familiar with.

I am thinking that this person is reacting to the idea that I stated, that proving things is a technology. Somehow this person sees this as an insult he/she has to insult belief back and though belief is some alien process that atheists don't involve themselves in. Unless one is illiterate it must be obvious to all that even atheists have beliefs. Strangely enough an atheist on CARM, who humbly calls himself "big thinker," who martians that he has no beliefs. Belief is such a dirty word to the Dawkies that he can't bring himself to admit that he has beliefs. He refused to answer my question "so you believe you have no beliefs?" That would entail the admission that what you think is true is a belief. Thus there are no people without beliefs. How is it possible that one thinks for oneself without believing things? This person obviously believes that belief is is about unreality, this person believes that atheism is about being realistic about reality these are beliefs. I wonder if most atheists even know the word reality. What they really mean is "what I want to be the case." If it could be proved that God is reality what would they do? They would then begin asserting that reality stinks and fantasy is true.

Webster's Online:

be·lief

noun \bə-ˈlēf\

Definition of BELIEF

1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2

: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

See belief defined for English-language learners »

Examples of BELIEF

1. There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.
2. He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.
3. We challenged his beliefs about religion.

Origin of BELIEF

Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe

First Known Use: 12th century

Related to BELIEF

Synonyms: credence, credit, faith, article of faith

Antonyms: disbelief, discredit, doubt, nonbelief, unbelief

Related Words: axiom, law, precept, principle, tenet; assurance, certainty, certitude, conviction, positiveness, sureness; confidence, dependence (also dependance), reliance, trust; hope; doctrine, dogma, philosophy; dogmatism, fanaticism, insistence

Near Antonyms: distrust, mistrust, skepticism, suspicion, uncertainty

see all synonyms and antonyms

[+]more[-]hide

Synonym Discussion of BELIEF

belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

Belief is placing confidence in a proposition." conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence " Belief is about the way one views reality not manipulating reality.

Proving things is a from of manipulation. Why? Because it requries the re-organizing of bits of sense data in order to change the situation form appearance to demonstration. I didn't originally call it manipulation I called it "technology." Then I defined technology as manipulation. This commenter took this as an assault upon truth. It's actually just phenomenological awareness about our relationship to sense data in the formation of truth claims. Belief is a conviction of truth as the definition says it is not a pretense or a fantasy. Getting at truth requires re arranging the appearance of reality and thus its manipulation. This doesn't mean that stacking the manipulation to coincide with our desires is truth finding.

Webster defines Technology:

tech·nol·o·gy
noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\
plural tech·nol·o·gies
Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1
a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge
3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
— tech·nol·o·gist \-jist\ noun
See technology defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TECHNOLOGY

This doesn't tell us the use of the term in such elite venue as intellectual history in postmodern circles such as the writing of Michele Foucault. The word is used apart from gadgets. We can employ a technology in the way we think about things without any new inventions or scientific apparatus. That's the way I was using the term, not as an insult or an attack but with persimmon making known the fact that the way we think about "reality" in relation to what can be demonstrated as true is a technology and an application of knowledge in a varied way.

In other words, belief is actually conviction that honestly understands truth or reality to be a certain way, while proof and demonstration are actually manipulating reality by arranging the way it is perceived, in order to produce a particular outcome.

The same poster left another interesting comment, this was addressed to the post about atheists moving away from the big bang.

Atheist said...

I am an atheist. I do not depend on science for my atheism. In fact I disagree with science often when it looks too much like theism. Multi-universes, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang are a some examples.

My atheism is based on truth and facts not science.

"I disagree with science when it looks like theism." I assume then that he/she agrees with it when it looks like opinions he/she already holds. So at that rate science is not a teaching device that tells this person truth but is in fact the "big fortress of facts" that proves atheism and backs up her opinion. In other words in the Orwellian "atheist speak" truth is a lie and one's own desire to escape God is paramount and outweighs truth, scirnce is a propaganda tool that can only be useful when it backs the template of atheist ideology. Look at the two quotes back to back it's pretty obvious that's what being said. If science was as atheists cling to it and portray it in clash with Genesis or creationism it's supposed to be a tool that lays bear what is real and enables us to know the truth of the physical world. To allege that would be a belief. Belief is a dirty word, belief is fantasy. Yet it's also apparent that truth finding goes hand in hand with fantasy and in place of truth this atheist wants propaganda. Hence I only believe science when it tells me what I want to hear.

"I don't believe scinece when it looks like theism."


Is there a way to reason with such people? If the facts and the uncovering of reality to the extent that the umpire of reality says "this be true" is not good enough, but must be rejected when ever it strays from the ideology that enthralls this salve thinker then what could possible point to truth in discussion or argument or evidence? Can't we see this is the total betrayal of "free thought" that it obviously is? How long can people be suckered?

We have to fear truth seeking and make conviction a dirty word becasue reality might be other than we wish?

We have heard from Rex again.

I am going to try and avoid CARM and avoid going on message boards to argue with atheists. It's such a waste of time. This does not apply to my boards nor to this blog, or Metacrock's blog. Of cosure I continue the policy here and on  Doxa forum that  I don't allow posts that attack people personally.
Rex respond to my call for boycott of atheist boards:

Aaaahhhhh the good old days, the golden days of superstition on Earth, when you could just burn atheists at the stake for asking rational questions about irrational dogma!

This is typical of atheist ignorance. The minds that refuse to learn or probe the facts always ground their understanding in nonsense and inadequacy. Was religion the source of superstition? No it was the counter to superstition. The first steps man took in the direction of understanding the world through logic and reason were religious steps. See  my  article on Metacrok's blog about how Toynbe demonstrated that Christianity was an advance over what came before it in that it's broke the ancient connection the eternal return and progress in history possible. Once again we have the reality that atheists are un-scholarly, anti-learning and can't change. How many times have I demonstrated the social liberation aspects of the faith only to find Loren, Rex, and the other atheist regulars saying the same old innateness unhistorical crap? They just cannot learn. What's the point in having a dialogue with anyone who refuses to listen to what you say, and refuses to read the facts and can't learn?

The only response that allows one to cling to concepts that are losing in the marketplace of ideas is to close the discussion to the people who ask such inconvenient questions.

 Concepts losing in the market place! You mean like the way atheism is stuck at 3% of the population and 90% believe in God. In other other words the way atheism is losing in the market place?

If your concepts are so great and strong, then convince us! Oh, sorry, I forgot, you can't!

It's such a shame it's rather a catch 22. He's not just smart enough to understand the proof which he's constantly calling for and yet, when we give it him, he wont listen he wont learn, he is not capable of understanding the answers. I am not the guy to take the answer to people of this ilk. I will pray that the Lord will send an amiable simple minded person to lead Rex into the truth.

The real issue is the way the educational system has let us down. It was the school system that decided schools were not about learning but about job training (barely). So they just cut off Rex's generation from knowledge and the ability to acquire it so that when he calls for proof he hasn't the slightest concept of what he's asking for. He has no choice but to fall back upon what he's been taught; what you see is what you get. If you don't see it in front of your face it ant there.