1
The Lounge / Eliminating the Stigma
« on: January 28, 2007, 07:07:15 PM »
In response to the incident last night that I mentioned in another thread, I wrote a relatively short note today and published it on Facebook. For all you non-Facebookers, here it is:
Imagine a person who believes that Elvis was abducted by aliens and now resides on another planet in a different galaxy. Imagine a person who believes that driving 88-mph in a De Lorean will actually make you travel back in time. Imagine a person who believes that all the world's dead animals come to life at night and then return to their graves before dawn.
Now imagine a person that believes that believes that a man was born of a virgin a little over two thousand years ago, was crucified, and came back to life after being dead for three days. Imagine a person who believes that today, a priest saying some Latin words over some bread and wine can literally turn them into the flesh and blood of this person who lived so long ago. Imagine a person who believes that one of our ancient books holds the key to understanding the truth about our universe, and that it was written by the creator of the universe for our benefit.
Most of you will see a big difference between the two groups of people. Most likely, you'll immediately dismiss the beliefs of the first three people as utterly ridiculous. Yet in the second group of people, you'll refrain from making any comment about the beliefs being ridiculous and unsubstantiated. The reason for this is most likely not because the first set of beliefs is any more unbelievable than the second set of beliefs (they're both equally invalid). There's something in your mind that allows you to criticize the belief that Elvis was abducted but won't allow you to criticize the belief that people can actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of a person that supposedly lived and died two thousand years ago.
I believe that the difference between the first set of beliefs and the second set is some sort of illusion of 'truth in numbers.' Surely anybody reading this will realize that there are more people that believe in the second group than the first group. Does this fact lend any more credibility to those propositions? Not at all. Consider the fact that a large number of people living in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was the right thing to do to exterminate Jews. This belief resulted in the Holocaust. Were the people correct to believe that this was the right thing to do? Or consider the fact that there is a large number of people living today that believe that blowing themselves up in crowded places will earn them a ticket straight to paradise where they will get seventy-two virgins. Does the fact that there are many people believing this lend the ridiculous belief any credibility? In fact, the very notion of 'truth in numbers' is immediately defeated when one realizes that there are large numbers of people currently holding incompatible beliefs.
The fact that there are more people who hold the religious beliefs than there are who hold the Elvis, De Lorean, or re-animated pets beliefs does nothing to show that they're true. But there is still something that stops you from criticizing one set of beliefs and allows you to criticize the other openly. This is because our society attaches a certain stigma to criticizing religious faith. You and I can feel free to ridicule the belief in De Lorean time-travel, but we apparently have no right to ridicule the Bible, Qur'an, or any other bogus answer to all of life's questions. What is it about religion that deserves this freedom from criticism? Why isn't religion held to the same standards as everything else? Is there something that is intrinsically different about religious claims that makes it invulnerable to rational conversation? I don't think so.
Unless the various religions in the world are submitted to a rational discourse, the resultant future could be even more divisive and dangerous than today. If there's a reason to believe that Elvis was abducted, we expect to see evidence before we believe it. In the same way we should expect to see evidence before we believe that the Bible or the Qur'an were written by the One True God (so far the evidence suggests that this belief is ridiculous to an extreme degree). So if you're willing to submit your beliefs to rational inquiry, I suggest the following books:
"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
And the following website:
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm
And the following videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975633975283704512&q=Sam+Harris&hl=en
Lastly, consider the following quote by Sam Harris in his book "The End of Faith":
"Jesus Christ--who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens--can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."
Imagine a person who believes that Elvis was abducted by aliens and now resides on another planet in a different galaxy. Imagine a person who believes that driving 88-mph in a De Lorean will actually make you travel back in time. Imagine a person who believes that all the world's dead animals come to life at night and then return to their graves before dawn.
Now imagine a person that believes that believes that a man was born of a virgin a little over two thousand years ago, was crucified, and came back to life after being dead for three days. Imagine a person who believes that today, a priest saying some Latin words over some bread and wine can literally turn them into the flesh and blood of this person who lived so long ago. Imagine a person who believes that one of our ancient books holds the key to understanding the truth about our universe, and that it was written by the creator of the universe for our benefit.
Most of you will see a big difference between the two groups of people. Most likely, you'll immediately dismiss the beliefs of the first three people as utterly ridiculous. Yet in the second group of people, you'll refrain from making any comment about the beliefs being ridiculous and unsubstantiated. The reason for this is most likely not because the first set of beliefs is any more unbelievable than the second set of beliefs (they're both equally invalid). There's something in your mind that allows you to criticize the belief that Elvis was abducted but won't allow you to criticize the belief that people can actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of a person that supposedly lived and died two thousand years ago.
I believe that the difference between the first set of beliefs and the second set is some sort of illusion of 'truth in numbers.' Surely anybody reading this will realize that there are more people that believe in the second group than the first group. Does this fact lend any more credibility to those propositions? Not at all. Consider the fact that a large number of people living in the 1930s and 1940s believed that it was the right thing to do to exterminate Jews. This belief resulted in the Holocaust. Were the people correct to believe that this was the right thing to do? Or consider the fact that there is a large number of people living today that believe that blowing themselves up in crowded places will earn them a ticket straight to paradise where they will get seventy-two virgins. Does the fact that there are many people believing this lend the ridiculous belief any credibility? In fact, the very notion of 'truth in numbers' is immediately defeated when one realizes that there are large numbers of people currently holding incompatible beliefs.
The fact that there are more people who hold the religious beliefs than there are who hold the Elvis, De Lorean, or re-animated pets beliefs does nothing to show that they're true. But there is still something that stops you from criticizing one set of beliefs and allows you to criticize the other openly. This is because our society attaches a certain stigma to criticizing religious faith. You and I can feel free to ridicule the belief in De Lorean time-travel, but we apparently have no right to ridicule the Bible, Qur'an, or any other bogus answer to all of life's questions. What is it about religion that deserves this freedom from criticism? Why isn't religion held to the same standards as everything else? Is there something that is intrinsically different about religious claims that makes it invulnerable to rational conversation? I don't think so.
Unless the various religions in the world are submitted to a rational discourse, the resultant future could be even more divisive and dangerous than today. If there's a reason to believe that Elvis was abducted, we expect to see evidence before we believe it. In the same way we should expect to see evidence before we believe that the Bible or the Qur'an were written by the One True God (so far the evidence suggests that this belief is ridiculous to an extreme degree). So if you're willing to submit your beliefs to rational inquiry, I suggest the following books:
"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
And the following website:
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm
And the following videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975633975283704512&q=Sam+Harris&hl=en
Lastly, consider the following quote by Sam Harris in his book "The End of Faith":
"Jesus Christ--who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens--can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."