Formal authority in facts

Let's say Reuven believes in a God who has a body.
And according to Reuven, that same God requires him to believe that he does not have a body, that is (in a metaphorical way) to take a pill that will make him believe that he does not have a body.

So the Rambam says: "The God who revealed himself to us, and in whom you and I believe, demands that everyone who believes that he has a body, take a pill that will make him believe that he does not have a body."

I suggest you spare yourself these vain chatterboxes. We are required to believe and not take hallucinogenic pills. You cannot demand that someone believe in something they do not believe in.

For me, this is not nonsense, not nonsense, not a game, but a real question that annoys me. But I probably won't be able to explain myself better than I did and we've exhausted it.

If someone believes that God wants them to believe something, then together with the reasonable assumption that God does not want the person to believe things that are not true, it follows that they already believe in that something.

Why? Maybe he doesn't want us to believe in true things that hurt us or in something else important. And once again, this is just the credible future, meaning maybe the story is like this:

1. The truth is that he doesn't have a body
2. Reuven thinks he has a body
3. But God demands that Reuven believe that he doesn't have a body (because that's the truth)
4. Reuven thinks: If God wanted to believe in something that is not true in my opinion, there must be some reason to be convinced of it, even by force (and this is his credible future).

Option A
5. He "takes a pill" (i.e. convinces himself with some kind of brainwashing)
6. In the end, he believes that he doesn't have a body
7. He keeps his commandments (and along the way he understood the whole story, but that's not the point)

Option B
5. He stands his ground
6. You can come to him with the argument, "Why don't you take a pill? You do believe that you should obey it."

I think that even after the brainwashing he knew that he believed it only because of the brainwashing and I'm not at all sure that a person can brainwash himself. Theoretically, it is possible to demand from a person (who behaves in a very illogical way in that he does not believe what he is told is the truth and instead believes that he is being asked to believe something that is not true, even if it is possible it is very unlikely in the face of the possibility that it is simply the truth) to find a way to undergo brainwashing that will make him believe something and also forget that he was brainwashed to believe it. To me, this seems like empty talk.

I think that not only is it plausible, but that many people actually do it, in the world of religions and in the world of ideologues. They call it “working on themselves” or “forcing their instincts” (i.e. using these or other legitimate terms to describe self-brainwashing).

It seems to me that they already believe it is true and just want to live it. Like someone who believes that prayers help and in practice is not intentional in praying, who tries not only to understand that prayers help but also to feel it. And even if there are people who make a deliberate effort to believe in a lie, they are strange. Try to think of a belief that you are sure is true that a prophet tells you is false. What will you do? You will either believe him or you will not believe him, but I do not think that you will look for a method to undergo brainwashing that will also make you forget that you believe only because of the brainwashing in order to believe the prophet. This is a very strange demand on the part of God that I do not think is even technically possible. If I have three options, either to believe or not to believe or to undergo brainwashing, I will choose one of the first two options.