In history, it's always symptomatic of the winner of a culture writing the history. So a lot of what we know and form opinion upon, politically and socially tend to be from past knowledge and cultural events. So when you have a new piece of history written, we will always stress on things that seem interesting or even appeal to us- which might indoctrinate people to believe the event happened and they may change their opinions based on that. The magnitude and direction of that belief is another question, in my opinion.

It gives a much broader perspective of the diversity of beliefs possible...and the consequences thereof.

Depends on how much of an independent thinker q paerson is.

It can, just as any other evidence based studies can.

Not influenced by history — influenced by science.

i don't understand the question. there are no gods. the likelihood of there being any gods is so small as to be moot. what has history got to do with it? there is a history of people believing in gods, a whole bunch of 'em. so? there is a history of people sticking their wet fingers into electrical outlets too. meanwhile, everyone has beliefs. i believe i am alive. i might not be -- i might be someone else's dream. but the likelihood of this being the case is not only teensy but it's irrelevant to how i live my life. so for all intents and purposes, i believe i am alive. it's not a religious belief and i don't pray to myself (though i occasionally do yell at myself) but it's still a belief.

g