I love exposing false beliefs in myself and others but, unfortunately, as a result of cognitive dissonance—the uncomfortable feeling resulting from holding conflicting notions—facts and reasonable discussion can seem like ridicule when they work against firmly held beliefs. We love to be right and, as a result, our brains often try to protect our firmly held beliefs … even when they’ve been proven to be wrong repeatedly. This is especially true when it comes to so-called core beliefs, ideas that are fundamental, inflexible, absolute, and generalized. While core beliefs can be altered, it is often a difficult task involving therapy.4 Carl Sagan calls this subservience to cognitive dissonance “one of the saddest lessons of history.”
“If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth,” Sagan wrote in his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.5 “The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
When I talk about human biases or about the importance of empirical evidence, I’m not attacking anyone’s particular ideas—but that doesn’t stop many people from feeling that way. It would seem strange to me that so many people are outwardly offended by reasonable, evidence-based thinking when it comes to their sacred cows, if I didn’t understand the process behind the feelings of offense. While I personally don’t consider asking for evidence of otherwise unsubstantiated claims a negative action, I can see how—from the perspective of someone clinging tightly to them and perhaps experiencing cognitive dissonance—it might seem that way. It’s actually quite easy to understand. If you try to rescue an abused dog, he might lash out at you. If you corner the dog in an attempt to bring him to a safer place, he will probably growl and bite and defend his dirty basement corner where he has been chained for years. It’s all he knows and he will do anything to protect it from uncertainty. The point is we shouldn’t be so firmly tied to our beliefs that objectivity and critical analysis of those ideas is made impossible, because all good ideas should be open to change with new data (see chapter 2). If we hold tightly to notions that might be false, attacking those who present an alternative, we could end up like the abused dog biting his rescuer.
The ability to change one’s opinions with new information is a good indicator of a rational mindset, which is exactly why we should all avoid becoming too entrenched in our beliefs. Once we become married to our ideas, criticism feels like oppression and we can subconsciously force ourselves to reject that which makes the most sense in favor of preserving existing notions. Too often people let their beliefs and opinions become a part of their identity and, for those individuals, challenges to those ideas can become personal “attacks” in their minds.6 To combat this tendency, I recommend reserving your judgment on subjects for which there isn’t yet sufficient data; reevaluating ideas later is much easier if you aren’t already attached to a specific belief. If you aren’t careful when it comes to evaluating ideas and forming beliefs, you could end up like those James Randi classifies as “the Believers.”
“These are folks who have chosen to accept a certain religion, philosophy, theory, idea or notion and cling to that belief regardless of any evidence that might, for anyone else, bring it into doubt,” Randi wrote.7 “They are the ones who encourage and support the fanatics and the frauds of any given age. No amount of evidence, no matter how strong, will bring them any enlightenment.”
It’s important to remember that, if you get upset merely because someone else criticizes your idea, that emotion is likely not because of them—but because your most cherished belief, with which you have come to identify, was challenged. I do my best to avoid tying myself to any unproven beliefs partly because those who do are often subconsciously forced to respond to criticisms of their faith-based ideas with a defensive demeanor, and because I don’t want my feelings to negatively affect how I analyze the world. So, when you do experience cognitive dissonance, it is both difficult and necessary to recognize and act on your own thinking bias. It’s not a bad thing … it’s just a reminder that more research is in order.
SPECIAL PROTECTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
In religion, blasphemy is the term created to protect the allegedly sacred belief systems from any seemingly negative response. The problem with this idea, of course, is that the religion in question serves as a sacred cow that cannot be constructively criticized and therefore might not be improved. Sir Salman Rushdie, a British Indian writer who faced death threats and an Iranian government–backed fatwa calling for his assassination in 1989,8 explained how blasphemy laws and sacredness in general suppress thinking.
“The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible,” he said.9
There are currently thirteen countries around the world where apostasy or blasphemy is actually punishable by death, according to the 2013 Freethought Report, published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union.10 In these countries, a person can be legally sentenced to death, often by hanging, for nothing more than not believing in a particular god or for criticizing a specific religious belief. This number only includes governments with the death penalty for misconduct toward a religion, but more than 22 percent of countries and territories in the world have antiblasphemy laws or policies, with punishments ranging from monetary fines to jail. While some countries might treat such laws as the antiquated relics they are, in other countries they are actively enforced. For example, in 2012 alone, there were at least twenty-seven blasphemy cases filed in Pakistan.11
Even outside of legal systems, people are regularly punished or killed by extremists for something as simple as a declaration of atheism, or for drawing a cartoon that is said to depict the prophet of Islam, Muhammad.12 Criticizing or even simply portraying Muhammad is arguably one of the biggest taboos—one of the most widely held sacred cows—in the world. This approach toward representations of Muhammad, which is championed by some but not all Muslims and may or may not be related directly to blasphemy, has been compared to the views of many Americans toward flag burning.13 It’s important to note that, while many of the sanctions against blasphemy are related to Islam—all thirteen of the countries with the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy are Muslim nations—in the Dark Ages of Christianity things were even worse for those who didn’t believe. Blasphemy laws in general have led to real-world problems in a number of different religions and cultures. For example, in 2015, A Myanmar court sentenced three people to a prison term of more than two years for “insulting Buddhism.”14
Aside from the unfortunate fact that many nations still have laws against blasphemy, the word itself doesn’t mean anything to those who don’t believe. A Christian saying I’ll go to Hell because I blaspheme against their god is similar to me insisting they are blaspheming against [insert mythological character here], and exactly the same as a Muslim telling a Christian that they’re blaspheming against Allah every day and that they’ll burn in Jahannam for eternity as a result. Why doesn’t the Christian feel guilty for these blasphemies? After all, there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.15 The answer is that these groups don’t believe the same things are sacred, and don’t give equal credence to other (competing) faiths. That leads us to our next question: why is blasphemy such an important component to so many religions? Well, as nineteenth-century lawyer and author Robert G. Ingersoll once said, “This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves.”
It’s important to note that I and other skeptics are not participating in forced deconversions—and I personally would never support banning religion or phrases that conflict with my beliefs as we have seen with blasphemy laws.
These dogma-inspired rules limit mere speech based on a presupposed divine significance of a particular religious belief, as well as the assumed desires of a mythological character. I don’t personally think the promotion of skepticism and clear, evidence-based thinking should ever be seen as a necessarily negative action, but that doesn’t stop these ordinances combatting criticism from being created and enforced. Are these laws protecting religious beliefs logical? If a person’s criticisms of your ideas are a real threat to your belief system, then can you really say it’s the criticisms that are the problem? If firmly held beliefs can’t withstand routine intellectual challenges and critiques, then the believers should ask themselves why they are so certain about them—instead of imposing punishments on doubters. As novelist George R. R. Martin wrote in A Clash of Kings, “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
ELIMINATE SACRED COWS
Sacred cows are ideas that some believe are best unexamined, but the mindset that any idea should be exempt from rigorous challenges is directly opposed to the scientific method. It’s safe to keep firmly held beliefs from public observance, where they can remain unchallenged and often separate from reality, but truly strong and worthy ideas thrive where they can be verified by qualified people. To cling to beliefs that can’t be verified by others, and instead are based on personal experience or anecdotal testimonies or tradition, is to reject peer review and the very basis of scientific inquiry (see chapter 7).
I want to rid myself of all the sacred cows in my own life, whether I recognize them as such or not, because I don’t see the value in having beliefs that aren’t true—and because beliefs that are true aren’t harmed by healthy criticism. The process of discovering and escaping false beliefs is simple, but it can also be extremely difficult if you consider those beliefs to be beyond question. You must critically examine all available information (including and especially when it validates your existing opinion), follow the evidence objectively, and then invite others to try to disprove you. In essence, a scientific mindset is in direct conflict with—and can help us eliminate—our faulty ideas. Applying scientific scrutiny to your and others’ firmly held beliefs can make you, as author and columnist Cassandra Duffy has said, “the slaughterhouse for sacred cows.”
I think we should always strive to challenge our own beliefs, regardless of whether we deem them sacred. Even though it may not be the most popular position, I want my beliefs to reflect reality as closely as possible—and that’s what makes me a skeptic and a rationalist. Rational skepticism means not simply assuming your beliefs are true, but actually questioning whether or not the claims put forth are supported by empirical research—and then believing (or disbelieving) accordingly. I’m constantly asking myself, “What if I’m wrong?”16 If I’m wrong and proven to be so, l try to change my position and accept the correct one without hesitation or aggression. That’s because I don’t want my ideas to be based solely on those of my family, friends, or society—and I don’t want any prior beliefs to keep me from learning new information. If one is truly searching for what’s real in life, and not just for convenient false promises, then critical analysis and an open market of ideas are of the utmost importance. That is why, when attempting to separate fact from fiction, one should never simply accept preconceived notions and assume. Instead, form a hypothesis, test, and conclude.
Unsubstantiated beliefs are often those to which people cling the tightest, as well as those they say are the strongest, but this façade falls apart when skeptical inquiry is involved. Believers in all sorts of unverifiable things claim their view is the transcendent truth and superior to all others—faithful and nonfaithful alike—yet still maintain that it be protected from the same challenges to which all other ideas are subjected. This mentality shows that people are regularly scared to analyze themselves or to have their beliefs called into question—but why? Why should important concepts be beyond discussion? Talking about and looking into our sacred cows can only foster a more rational outlook if done well and often enough, and I think we can all agree that’s a good thing. Even if you are the most faithful person in the world, looking more deeply into the subject(s) of that faith should be a good thing because you’ll become more familiar with your beliefs. Perhaps it will even make your faith stronger! However, open dialogue isn’t always seen as productive by defensive believers due to false confidence in faith-based notions and an unwillingness to critically examine preconceived notions. These are not positive qualities, as many seem to believe. My view is the opposite. I don’t claim to have any absolute knowledge; instead, I point to what the evidence suggests while maintaining a mindset open to change with new data.
DESTROY FALSE BELIEFS WITH INFORMATION
I think healthy criticism, inquiry, and knowledge about all sides of an argument are necessary parts of a discussion for any person legitimately looking to determine what’s real. And that’s why I encourage people to expose themselves to as many ideas as possible, especially those that don’t confirm their own beliefs, in the never-ending search for the facts. The great thing about learning is that we can find out something important from researching every side of any issue at hand, including information from biased and unreliable sources, as long as we do so with a critical eye. If nothing else, reading material you disagree with helps you learn about the other side of any particular debate. Not everyone agrees with my all-inclusive approach of exposing people to all sides of an argument. Anyone who has ever advocated for the burning or banning of a book, for instance, thinks certain information should be destroyed or made inaccessible. With that I could not disagree more.
One particular example of attempted idea destruction in my own life took place on October 20, 2013, when Christian apologist and philosophical theologian William Lane Craig published a piece called “Garbage In, Garbage Out” on his Reasonable Faith website.17 In the post, Craig was responding to one of his anonymous fans who read my book, Disproving Christianity, and was subsequently finding it “hard to believe in God.” The questioner was seeking advice from Craig, a well-known advocate of “reasonable” Christianity, but what they received was anything but reasonable. Craig’s response, published alongside the question on the website, was simply to “Quit reading the infidel material.” Craig offered a total of four “suggestions” to help resolve his reader’s crisis of faith:
1. Make first and foremost a recommitment of your heart to Christ …
2. Quit reading and watching the infidel material you’ve been absorbing …
3. Begin a program of equipping yourself in Christian doctrine and apologetics …
4. Attend some apologetics conferences … [my emphasis]
If Christianity is the transcendent truth and superior to all other faithful and nonfaithful worldviews, as Craig believes, then why does it need to be protected from criticism? Why do Christians, in Craig’s view, need to “equip” themselves before being exposed to any opposing material?
Where Craig says, “Just believe,” I say investigate. I would never warn a fellow atheist to avoid reading the Bible or another holy book out of fear that the strong arguments contained within them might compel that person to become religious. I champion the opposite approach by encouraging believers and nonbelievers alike to educate themselves about all of the world’s religions, including a basic understanding of the traditions’ core tenets and holy books. The fact is that, if you study comparative religion, it’s more difficult to be fundamentally religious because the great faiths are all very similar at their most elementary levels. Each organization has similar cult beginnings and “prophets,” they each began as local and cultural myths before being applied to a global context, and they are almost always spread through a combination of violence and proselytization. Educational research and academic group analysis only reinforce these facts, so there’s no need to avoid them in an effort to preserve my beliefs.
My approac
h regarding exposure to opposing views isn’t limited to religion. The same goes for all other superstitions and unsubstantiated claims, because knowledge about these beliefs is what ultimately destroys them. If you learn when and where a specific philosophy or concept was introduced, and you understand its pitfalls and abuses from a historical perspective, you can much more easily reject it despite any emotional ties that may be present. The best fix for any false belief or flawed perspective is more knowledge. As Pakistani secular activist Alishba Zarmeen once said, “The best cure for patriotism is carefully studying history and the best cure for religion is studying the scriptures.”18
DON’T SUPPRESS CRITICISM
I would never attempt to (nor would I want to) take away a person’s right to believe anything, whether it’s true or false, because to me it’s important that people be able to believe in anything that doesn’t interfere with others’ rights. On this topic I agree with comedian Ricky Gervais, who once told CNN, “If someone said, ‘We’re banning religion,’ I’d march to not have it banned. Because it’s your right to believe what you want. And it’s your right to be wrong. And I’ll fight for that right.”19
I might critique false beliefs, whether they are based on religion or the supernatural or something else entirely, but I would never force my way of thinking on anyone. People can choose to read my writing or simply ignore it. If they do hope to retain their special beliefs—and if those beliefs would be destroyed by looking into my work—then I recommend they avoid my books. Beliefs need to allow criticism, and I would never limit the topics of my writing to protect my beliefs or out of reverence to the beliefs of others. I have the right to point out the simple fact that faith-based beliefs are by their very nature unsubstantiated, just as believers have the right to persist in them regardless. I respect people’s right to believe, as long as I have the right to point out flaws in those beliefs, but I don’t have to respect the ideas themselves. People should respect other people (until they’ve been shown underserving of it), but not all ideas deserve that leniency. Beliefs aren’t protected just because they are firmly held; they need discussion and analysis to determine their worth.
No Sacred Cows Page 3
