Belief, Violence, and Denial

An article worth reading: Sam Harris on extremists and apologists

I am convinced that otherwise intelligent decent folks end up becoming de facto apologists for religious violence.

How does that happen?

I suggest there are multiple factors in play. First, most of us either know personally, or know of, persons who belong to one of these groups and also exemplify moderation. This creates a gnarly thought branch.  We are confronted with the idea that not everyone who is a member of said group is an extremist. Further, being decent compassionate and open-minded humans, we have no wish to offend the reasonable members of the group by unintentionally lumping them in with the loopy members. Further yet, if the group to which we refer are Muslims (and in the early part of the twenty first century, this is too often the case) many people have a perfectly reasonable fear of offending Muslims- be they loopy or reasonable.

No explanation for trepidation is necessary with regard to the loopy ones. As to the moderates, they divide into two camps. The poor folks who are, mostly, like everyone else and simply wish to get along with others and thrive in the world and the ones who are one news article away from joining their loopy cousins. Now, here is where things get dicey. Non-Muslims simply have no viable way of sorting them out. And, rightly or wrongly, we perceive them as not adequately defining themselves. This leaves us on the horns of a dilemma.

On one hand, we fear the less moderate non-Muslims will simply take matters into their own hands and target Muslims indiscriminately. Need I mention this is a very bad idea on its face, beginning with the vigilante nature of such action? On the other hand we have those who, so wish to avoid judging, (and here’s the tricky bit) even in the presence of overwhelming evidence, they refuse to call out the nutters for fear of offending the others. It is understandable. Folks do not wish to have any spill-over from their judgment taint the good folks. I couldn’t be more sympathetic to that cause. However, what if this thinking results in our failure, on a collective level, to say what is true and act on what is true? In short, what if our apologist attitudes result in worsening the situation in every way? What happens when we fail to see the world clearly, say bravely what we see, and, when the consequences are potentially dire, act appropriately? I suggest it likely emboldens the undesirables on both sides. That is, non-Muslims who are all worked up because they feel like nobody is taking leadership may be emboldened to act out lawlessly. On the flip side of the coin, those who would do us harm perceive our mealymouthed vacillation as opportunity.

All that said, we haven’t yet dared to approach the real prickly bit. Would anyone care to hazard a guess on that score?

Here is what Sam Harris (among others) has said and, more disturbing for many, what he implies. Simply stated, the words in the Qur'an call out to be interpreted in the strictest sense. Why? To believers, these are the words of the Supreme Being. As such, the rules and admonitions are intended to be eternal. If that were not sufficient, the words appear within a highly charged context. This is intentional. The author, regardless if he is perceived to be human or a prophet of God, unapologetically intended for the words to fall as heavily weighted as possible upon the mind of the listener. On this point few, on any side of the question, would disagree. So, we come to the more disturbing bit. Mr. Harris could not, by rational argument, fail to include in his assessments the other books which are universally included in the canon of religious texts. That is to say, the scriptures associated with Judaism and Christianity. As any student knows, from the study of the three major religions to emerge from deserts of the Middle East, they are all related. The history on this is well known and anyone, regardless of formal training, can perform a simple internet search to familiarize themselves with the overlap.

So, what does it all mean?

Because humans have a tendency to be parochial and shortsighted, it is easy to wag our fingers at the “others”. In our time, Muslims make an easy target. Our President recently scratched the surface of an unsettling truth when he referenced the so-called Crusades. In fact, any of us with the shallowest knowledge of history could have cited any number of examples. What kind of examples? Well, basically, examples where the people who were considered to be the most righteous, the most pious, the most devout believers, the ones most likely to have a literal interpretation of their scriptures, acted very, very badly. 

Okay, so it is fair to say that such conflicts are, to some degree, bound up with politics and the acquisition of resources (usually someone else’s). And, it is also fair to say that, the stated justification for the heinous barbarism was the advancement of the religious agenda of the aggressors of either or both sides. For any that cared to read all the way to the end, No! This is not about some prejudice or dislike of Muslims. And, while I’m about it, I am offended if that is what you thought.

This I Believe

For sometime now my local radio station running this series of essays sent in by listeners. The topic is, This I Believe. I have enjoyed several of them. Others, not so much. In short I have been rolling this topic around my brain for a while. I kept thinking that I would write something down- eventually. Then, out of nowhere, a friend asks me to comment on a quote by Robert Anton Wilson regarding belief. So, I figured I would just let it out.

I basically agree with R.A. Wilson when he says, "My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence". However, though he only died in 2007, Mr. Wilson was born in 1932 and though very knowledgeable and thoughtful, he belonged to another time. This doesn't make him wrong. I am just not certain that he was aware of the latest brain research, which turns out to be pertinent. This is my view and I will expand upon it momentarily.

One of the first problems we run into when discussing "Belief" is how many people, sophisticates and lay folks, conflate or overlap their usage of this concept. People regularly say things like, "I believe I will go to the gym", when they really mean, "I have decided to go to the gym". Here is another way we loosely use this idea. "I believe in love or family or values and so on)". They use this device when they really mean, "I like loving and being loved. It feels good". One infers the subcontext to be, "I observe loving behavior is also important to others". How about, "I believe in America". Or, "I believe in justice". I concede, these phrases have a nice ring to them. Sadly, they are often used in such a shallow manner that they have sunk to a level between insipid and meaningless. Many times such statements are made to glorify the person making the statement and/or laying blame/guilt upon those of a different opinion in a given matter. I refer to this as, 'The Belief as a Bludgeon' strategy. I suggest this is the last refuge for a mind that can not or will not engage in critical thought or rational discourse. Or, in the worst scenario, the first refuge.

Then further, we hear people essentially say, "I believe in an invisible, (often anthropomorphic, though sometimes disperse and all-pervading), being who is all-powerful, judgmental, and lives in the sky (or wherever) and who intervenes in human business through magic unseen channels". Now we are in different territory.

So, what is the problem with a person stating that they "believe in love"? If we cede the semantic ground and infer their real intent, nothing. Well, almost nothing. I suggest that one little problem does begin to rear it's ugly head in such discussions. Too often, those making such claims appear to have skipped right over the important bit. Huh, what important bit? In a word, Evidence. I purposefully capitalize the word. I suggest it should rightfully be captialized in keeping with its profound importance.

When a person says, she believes in love, a number of factors are at work in arriving at such a claim. I will not attempt to enumerate all of them but community norms might be one such factor. However, there is one thing we all can reasonably infer from such a statement, there was a groundwork of Evidence through experience that leads a person to this claim. Sure, we don't usually label things overtly in this manner as we go through our days. As in, "Wow, I had a loving interaction and this has provided me with further evidence for my claim".In fact, science now indicates that our emotions tend to mediate such experiences and inform our judgments. In other words, the whole system seems to be built-in to some degree and we are scarcely even aware of the process, at least consciously. *See suggested reading below.

I will make a brief aside regarding a complex topic to which I could not do justice in this small space. Recent brain research tends to show that we have a tendency to belief or, at minimum, imperative choice. An admittedly way-to-simplified expanation would be that our survival (early in our sentient development) necessitated making relatively quick potentially life or death judgments. This very roughly corresponds (though on another biological level) to belief. I know it's sketchy and others explain it rather better, though, I suspect, not in this little space.

Ok, now the tricky bit. What is the problem with believing in the Big Guy in the Sky? The short version is, there really isn't a short version that is easily stated, truly informative, and powerfully persuasive. With that said, what am I bound to do? Correct-a-mundo! Elucidate a short version. Disclaimer. For my believing friends and family and others, feel free to skip over this part or read it and dismiss it as you wish. And, now, (I hear a drum roll. Do you?) the short version of something for which I've already admitted there is not short version.

The believer perspective starts from the position, "I know how the world is (the BGS made the earth, and the flowers, and the mountains, and the stars and so on. Then, rather like a cherry on the top of an ice-cream sundae, he made humans. Now, it is incumbent upon me to go about and make the world fit into this model". The non-believer perspective is, "I don't know how the world is (except to the extent that, I stand on the shoulders of giants who came before and laid a road of discovery upon which I am priveleged to tread and marvel). And even then, I need to question, examine, and discover what is true, as best I am able, with the tools at hand. And, if I were to find a thing to be true, which ran counter to the claims of some previous giant, I sleep easy in the knowledge that this is nothing less than she would expect from her progeny of discoverers."

*Suggested reading: Why We Feel: The Science of Human Emotions, by Dr. Victor S. Johnston.

Yes, it is, like most everything else, available on Amazon.

Spoiler/Warning: If your personal operating system is not yet upgraded to include Evolution by Natural Selection, this book could cause a mind melting dissonance.

What if it wasn't a matter of Belief?

The Official UFO Debunker Plans & Policies

1- Point out that very large percentages of things reported as UFO's turn out to have conventional explanations, but do not talk about  the widely varying observational abilities and critical thinking skills of individual observers. Do not acknowledge that serious ufologists attempt to screen out the goofy bits and bring some rigor to the investigation of the promising cases.

2- Always refer to people interested in UFO's as "believers", implying that their positions are always faith-based.

3- Argue that any given case could have been something conventional and we will never know because we never have all the facts. Never acknowledge that intelligent, educated, rational, and generally well-qualified observers have reported thousands of unexplained craft displaying extraordinary performance, highly unusual characteristics, and seemingly intelligent control.

4- As a corollary to rule three, avoid mentioning that such reports have spanned many decades and often include patterns of behavior on the part of the unidentified craft.

5- Focus on well-known problems and limitations of human perception, implying that giving any credence to eye witness testimony is tantamount to stupidity. Never mention that our court system regularly incarcerates our fellow citizens based upon eye witness testimony. Also avoid discussions that point out the fact that, if human perception was as flawed as debunkers claim, most people would be too frightened to cross a busy street, drive a car, or fly in an airplane.

6- Comment regularly on human credulity and wishful thinking. Sprinkle in comments about a desire for "Saviors from Space. Do not mention that every group has its cultists and fringe elements. Also do not bother to share that most close encounters do not leave the witnesses feeling as though they were visited by angels but rather they are left frightened and bewildered.

7- Always act as though no one before you has really conducted a thorough investigation into the classic UFO cases and consistently maintain that it's only a matter of time and diligence before the "real answers" to those cases are found. Avoid mentioning that the suggested answers proposed by debunkers have already failed to account for the features described by the witnesses.

8- Demand that UFO "believers" produce just one spaceship or physical evidence that one has been here. Do not mention that serious UFO investigators do not claim to know for certain that there are alien visitors. While they may personally believe this to be true, the thoughtful ufologists simply advocate that serious scientists/engineers gather evidence in an attempt to answer the open questions of a real phenomena witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

9- Pretend that every ufologist strives to have people agree on the alien visitor hypothesis. If they shout anything about keeping an open mind while we pursue serious scientific study, pretend that you don't hear them.

10- Forget that many ufologists are just as smart as you. Then condescendingly explain to them how they have stupidly and/or foolishly drawn a fantastical conclusion from insufficient evidence. Do not offer to help gather more evidence or even admit more evidence may exist.

11- Act as if you do not understand how the worst UFO related drivel comes into existence or gets propogated. Help to shield the public from the following ideas. The fact is most UFO witnesses are regular folks who see something extraordinary and are left on their own to puzzle out the nature of what they saw and what it may mean in some larger context. Most people intuitively understand when they have witnessed something that contradicts their understanding of the world and the way it works. From this point, it is a simple matter of human nature. There are a number of ways to describe human nature but one of the clearest and most consistent is that humans are pattern recognition machines. This is one reason people enjoy puzzles. When something falls outside established patterns we are programmed to notice and determine why.

In their attempts to solve the puzzle of their experience, clearly some witnesses employ shoddy thinking, some are taken in by hucksters who sell books and videos promoting their personal theories/delusions and so on. However, even if a witness possesses a basic understanding of how the world works (for instance, a bit of physics and some rational thought) the "high strangeness" of what they've seen naturally gives rise to some rather incredible possible interpretations. A person need not be stupid, irrational, or crazy to consider these interpretations. Furthermore, the consideration of or even adoption of a wild interpretation does not necessarily indicate that a person is unwilling to hear or accept other views. In fact, any number of serious sober witnesses would love the opportunity to consider other views based upon sound scientific investigation. Sadly, such an opportunity is unlikely given that the organizations possessing the necessary resources have not been engaged.

(found a version online and tweaked it to fit. JF 060413)