> the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. OK. So in Buddhism (the way I was taught it), confidence or faith isn't something y

> the expression of faith demanded necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. OK. So in Buddhism (the way I was taught it), confidence or faith isn't something you express; you either have enough to achieve what you're trying to achieve, or you don't. And nobody demands it. But you're right, it's not an all-or-nothing deal. > necessarily goes beyond mild conviction. Indeed (although I'm not sure what "mild conviction" means; being convinced of something means you can see no room for doubt). For some kinds of meditation, e.g. some kinds of Tantric meditation, you need something that feels like certainty. It's not about falsifiable facts; it's about trusting, because you have to let go (like falling backwards). I don't know any evangelical Christians; I think that for them, expressing their faith is part of the deal, and it is expected (i.e. demanded). In that sort of context, I can imagine a pastor or community "demanding" that you hold beliefs that are false to fact, e.g. Young Earth. That's not what I understand by "confidence". Regarding trust and confidence, I just watched a two-part PBS documentary about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre; it was an eye-opener. A lot of testimony from people who totally trusted this guy for a long time, despite (what looked to me like) his total charlatanism. He just wanted to be admired, apparently.