Ideas considered to be great deserve the same amount of scrutiny as the dubious claims, if not more. There are certain steps we should all take prior to forming an opinion on any topic, from the existence of gods to the costs and benefits of gun control and everything else in between. The inquiring person should ideally begin from an objective and unbiased mindset, weigh evidence on all sides of the discussion accordingly, and follow the logical arguments and empirical data to make a sound conclusion. If you have a sacred cow, which you refuse to analyze with a critical eye, then those steps can’t really be followed properly. Even when they are, however, the process can’t end there because ideas have to be self-correcting. After we have reached a conclusion, if we truly want the facts, we should still be able to hear the arguments from other sides and possibly incorporate that new information into our lives. In this way, criticism of all ideas is not just an action that should be tolerated—it’s an essential part of seeking the truth.
“A thing is not proved just because no one has ever questioned it. What has never been gone into impartially has never been properly gone into. Hence scepticism is the first step toward truth. It must be applied generally, because it is the touchstone.”
—Denis Diderot
NOTES
1. W. Norman Brown, “The Sanctity of the Cow in Hinduism,” Madras University Journal 28, no. 29 (1957).
2. Gauri Pitale and Andrew Balkansky. “Holy Cow! India’s Sacred Cow Revisited,” Popular Anthropology Magazine 2, no. 2 (2011): 11–17.
3. V. M. Dandekar, “India’s Sacred Cattle and Cultural Ecology,” Economic and Political Weekly (1969): 1559–1566.
4. Amy Wenzel, “Modification of Core Beliefs in Cognitive Therapy,” Standard and Innovative Strategies in Cognitive Behavior Therapy (2012): 17–34.
5. Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997).
6. “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson
7. James Randi, The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer (Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 1993).
8. “BBC on This Day | 14 | 1989: Ayatollah Sentences Author to Death,” BBC News, February 14, 1989, news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/14/newsid_2541000/2541149.stm.
9. Rushdie is also quoted as saying that “respect for religion” has become a code phrase for “fear of religion.” “Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect,” he added.
10. Matt Cherry, “Freedom of Thought 2013: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Non-religious,” in Freedom of Thought Report, ed. Bob Churchill (International Humanist and Ethical Union, July 2013), freethoughtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FOTReport2013.pdf.
11. Jackie Northam, “Blasphemy Charges on the Rise In Pakistan,” NPR, November 20, 2012, www.npr.org/2012/11/20/165485239/blasphemy-charges-on-the-rise-in-pakistan.
12. Adam Withnall and John Lichfield, “Charlie Hebdo Shooting: At Least 12 Killed as Shots Fired at Satirical Magazine’s Paris Office,” Independent, January 7, 2015, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-shooting-10-killed-as-shots-fired-at-satirical-magazine-headquarters-according-to-9962337.html.
13. Dalia Mogahed, the Director of Research at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding in Washington, DC, has drawn this comparison, saying, “It is a human impulse to want to protect what’s sacred to you.”
14. “Myanmar Court Jails Three for Insulting Buddhism,” Al Jazeera English, March 17, 2015, www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/myanmar-court-jails-insulting-buddhism-150317063346508.html.
15. “The Global Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, December 17, 2012, www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.
16. “A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?”—Albert Einstein
17. William Lane Craig, “Garbage In, Garbage Out,” ReasonableFaith.org, October 20, 2013, www.reasonablefaith.org/garbage-in-garbage-out.
18. I might say that “nationalism” or “jingoism” would be more appropriate than “patriotism” here, but I suppose it depends on your definition of patriotism.
19. “Interview with Ricky Gervais,” CNN, March 2, 2012, edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/04/pmt.01.html.
2
HOW TO EFFECTIVELY DISCUSS SACRED COWS
“The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
—George Bernard Shaw
Important topics, those that inform our decisions and shape how we interpret our experiences, should never be taken off the table when it comes to legitimate discourse. Preventing or otherwise avoiding real discussions involving firmly held beliefs, much like burning books, will never get a person closer to the truth. When the free flow of ideas is interrupted, including when it comes to things like religion, other supernatural claims, and pseudoscientific practices, nobody wins.
So, we know dialogue is important. But do we have to hurt people’s feelings in talks involving sacred cows? It was philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, often referred to as one of the “Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse,” who said, “There is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion?” While I agree with Dennett on a number of issues, including that the question is a good one to ask, I do think it’s possible to minimize the negative feelings resulting from any interaction … including those involving religion, myths, and superstitions. Dennett took on this task himself in his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking,1 when he promoted rules of conduct put forth years earlier by noted social psychologist Anatol Rapoport:
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Dennett called Rapoport’s Rules the “best antidote” for the “tendency to caricature one’s opponent,” but admitted that following them was always “something of a struggle” for him.
“Some targets, quite frankly, don’t deserve such respectful attention, and—I admit—it can be sheer joy to skewer and roast them,” Dennett wrote. “But when it is called for, and it works, the results are gratifying.”
Ray Hyman, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon, has also published a brief guide to “proper criticism.” Hyman, a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Executive Council, suggests five simple steps to “upgrade the quality of their criticism.”2
1. Be prepared.
2. Clarify your objectives.
3. Do your homework.
4. Do not go beyond your level of competence.
5. Let the facts speak for themselves.
6. Be precise.
7. Use the principle of charity.
8. Avoid loaded words and sensationalism.
MY DISCUSSIONS
People’s beliefs, whether they realize it or not, very often affect their actions—and that’s why it is and will always be incredibly important that we challenge, doubt, and work to correct any and all misguided notions. But in my culture and many others, to discuss these issues in any substantive way has long been considered taboo. Despite this fact, as a religious studies graduate and the author of secular-themed works, I’ve had to get used to dealing with religious and other supernatural debates nearly every day—and I’ve had to do so in a calm, rational, and friendly manner.
As a result, I’ve learned that, contrary to popular opinion, you can reach some believers through rational dialogue; indoctrination is difficult to undo, but not impossible. In fact, in some rare cases, years of false beliefs fall away after the believer is exposed to certain sources of information, even those found on Twitter or Facebook, for the first time.3
Over the years, through a number of interactions with believers in all sorts of woo and other nonsensical or unproven ideas, I’ve learned the importance of clear and effective discussions—especially when it comes to someone’s sacred cow(s). I discovered that talking about inherently controversial subjects, including religion and skepticism in general, can actually be a rewarding experience if carried out correctly. Millions of people all over the world devote their lives to worshiping one deity or another—or otherwise base their decisions on supernatural (or nonexistent) forces. And if I can help even a few of these people by engaging in rational discussion about the topic(s), then I consider that a positive contribution. But I find I’m most successful in these talks when I don’t endeavor to change anyone’s mind to my way of thinking. Instead, I think it’s easier to recommend steps that will get them to the truth regardless.4
It’s not all about the other person, either; I love what I do because I learn from every exchange in which I take the time to participate. Even if the opposition’s argument isn’t novel, I still challenge myself to think differently and gain new knowledge through that process. Sometimes I get to teach someone something,5 and I love that experience, but the only thing I enjoy more is learning, and that happens every day. But whether or not these interactions are positive depends on how you handle them. If your goal in a discussion is not to simply beat your interlocutor, but instead to acquire and share new information, then it’s easy to come out a winner in the end (see chapter 7). Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, demonstrated his understanding of this concept when he said, “In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he learns the most.”
YOU CAN REACH SOME PEOPLE, SOMETIMES
I often hear people say, “They’re never going to change their minds!” But the fact is that, from Christians and Scientologists denouncing their faiths to so-called Truthers admitting they were misled, I’ve seen some great examples of evidence-based thinking from people who once believed. Even if you aren’t trying to necessarily change minds, it’s important to recognize that it does happen all the time—we’ve all held irrational beliefs at some point and we eventually gave them up. For instance, some people may have never believed in good luck charms or gods, but were still fooled by other popular misconceptions—perhaps they bought into the myth that the Great Wall of China is visible from space,6 or that shaving hair causes it to grow back faster, darker, or thicker.7 People are sometimes able to shed their false beliefs, including at times ideologies with which they were indoctrinated, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. It’s not an easy task and doesn’t typically happen overnight, but I never assume logical discourse is a lost cause without first attempting it. If some people can give up their faith-based beliefs through skeptical analysis, then others can, too. At very least, discussions like this can plant a new seed of skepticism or critical thought and provide something for them to think about in the future.
I understand that tempers flare in debates about religion and the supernatural, as well as all kinds of other contentious subjects, but I think it’s important to remember that believers aren’t necessarily stupid or overly dogmatic. In fact, many people who believe in religions or other paranormal claims are extremely intelligent; they just compartmentalize their beliefs. They demand evidence for almost every other extraordinary claim in life except those to which they cling most tightly—their sacred cows (see chapter 7). But that doesn’t make them dumb or evil. The average believer is guilty of nothing more than gullibility, wishful thinking, and being indoctrinated, keeping him or her from critically examining beliefs. These are tough obstacles to overcome, but, in my experience, it is mild, calm, rational discussion that is responsible for the majority of breakthroughs in this area—not emotional rhetoric and ridicule.
UNDERSTAND AND ADJUST FOR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Confrontation most often results from religious and other sacred cow conversations for one simple reason: you’re telling a person that some of his or her most fundamental beliefs are probably false. This can be a scary thought, but the fact that you are telling believers they’re likely to be wrong isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially if you recognize and demonstrate that the error isn’t unique to them and that it can be corrected. They might believe strongly because their family or culture does—or because that’s the only position they’ve entertained—and looking at these possible reasons and considering them in your replies can help guide a discussion.
Popular ideas are often taken for granted as the truth without much thought, so, when they are false, cognitive dissonance is almost always a factor. It’s hard to accept the fact that your entire society might be wrong about something, but it happens all the time, so being able to voice your opinions and challenge those of the majority is critical. Unfortunately, as discussed earlier, cognitive dissonance can keep people from listening to ideas or arguments that contradict their own firmly held beliefs on a topic. This process was perhaps best described by psychiatrist and philosopher Frantz Fanon, who was born in the 1920s.
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted,” Fanon wrote in Black Skin, White Masks.8 “It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
If someone gets upset about a particular argument or statement of fact, then that emotional reaction isn’t your fault, but you can still anticipate and adjust for it. The best way to handle this is not to treat the situation with kid gloves or to simply give up, but instead to go out of your way to show exactly why your words aren’t meant to insult—they are meant to share ideas and communicate. Sticking to the facts and avoiding any appeals to emotion helps others see your good intentions, which may ultimately help you diffuse a potentially hostile situation.
FIND COMMON GROUND
Discussions surrounding hot-button issues are difficult because of the Us vs. Them mentality that is present in our very nature, but controversy itself can also be a powerful learning tool.9 So how do we overcome the former and take advantage of the latter? We establish similarities and work from there. Finding common ground can apply to anything—any point on which you can agree with your interlocutor—and it almost always improves the quality of a discussion. For me, studying religions and the supernatural has always been a passion. From a very young age, I remember being intrigued by what my friends and family believed—and, perhaps more importantly, why they believed it. I’m very passionate about the same stories to which some believers cling so fervently, and keeping this in mind and pointing it out can make a debate into more of a discussion.
Many people who are opposed to supernatural beliefs in general tend to forget how interesting the concepts themselves can be, but it’s important to note that most of these nonbelievers probably agree that ancient mythology and magic are incredibly interesting topics. If you can apply that same intrigue to modern belief systems and myths, you may be able to find more common ground with believers than either party previously thought possible (see chapter 4). This is not to say, however, that an interest in the supernatural must be your common ground. This can and likely will be different for everybody. I recommend talking with your debate partner(s) and asking friendly questions to find out where you might already agree and starting from that point.
ASK QUESTIONS
Sometimes you can say more with a simple question than you possibly could with any definitive statement,
and that’s because questions make us think. Statements of fact, even when they are true, don’t always encourage a person to think more deeply about an issue. Questions are better at spawning fruitful dialogue and, in turn, additional queries. The authors of Critical Thinking Handbook: Basic Theory and Instructional explain how questions “define tasks, express problems and delineate issues,” while answers “often signal a full stop in thought.”10
Deep questions drive our thought underneath the surface of things, force us to deal with complexity. Questions of purpose force us to define our task. Questions of information force us to look at our sources of information as well as at the quality of our information. Questions of interpretation force us to examine how we are organizing or giving meaning to information. Questions of assumption force us to examine what we are taking for granted. Questions of implication force us to follow out where our thinking is going. Questions of point of view force us to examine our point of view and to consider other relevant points of view.
Questions are powerful drivers of growth. Without needing to provide any information themselves, they stimulate further thought, provoke entirely new discussions, and are responsible for major advancements in science and technology. In fact, inquiry itself is the cornerstone of the scientific method, as well as of my own personal philosophy, “Question everything, and worship nothing.” Comedian George Carlin pointed out the importance of asking questions (as opposed to simply taking in information) when he said, “Kids who want to learn to read are going to learn to read. It’s much more important to teach children to question what they read. Children should be taught to question everything. To question everything they read, everything they hear.”
No Sacred Cows Page 4
