Can I Get a Witness? II

In my previous post on this subject, I pointed out the illogic of expecting religious people to be more honest as witnesses than atheists.  Religious people are admittedly completely biased (i.e., faith) and therefore unable to be honest with even themselves.  If a person can't be honest with himself, one cannot expect him to be honest with anyone.

What makes this situation worse is that the religious person has absolutely no idea when he is making untrue statements.  He or she has been raised to think that choosing "facts" based on how he or she feels about them is not only perfectly normal and acceptable but a positive virtue in many cases.

In fact, religious people invariably assume that this sort of "rationalizing" approach to thinking is the norm.  This is one of the reasons they so often accuse non-believers of rejecting god because they don't want to follow god's rules.  They assume that we, too, are simply rationalizing our pre-formed desires.

In my opinion this sort of argument is another of those non-arguments in which the religious are implicitly admitting that they know their beliefs are delusions.  At the very least, they are admitting to rationalizing--especially if they say they think you are doing it because that is what everybody does.

If they do say such a thing to you, try to get them to admit that they have just implicitly admitted that this is how they think about religion.  That they are rationalizing their desires rather than rationally seeking the truth.

Then, you can quote or paraphrase Richard Feynman, who said in a lecture in 1964 (speaking about the scientific process):

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

One of the best paraphrases of this that I have heard came from Prof. Lawrence Krauss, who rendered it as "the easiest person to fool is yourself".

If need be, you can follow up by explaining that fooling yourself (rationalizing) can have deadly real world consequences.  Feynman was on the committee that investigated the Challenger disaster in the 1980's.  In the committee's report there is a sentence that has Feynman's imprint:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." 

Science provides the tools--the process--to avoid fooling oneself and avoid the inevitable disaster when nature is not fooled.  That process is infinitely superior to the one taken by the religious mindset, which is that something is true only if they want it to be true.

Religion Is Like a Penis

I am sure most of you have seen or heard this before, but it is worth considering again not only because it is a great quotation to have handy to use against those who seek to proselytize but because of a little irony implicit in its words.

First, the quotation:

Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But, please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.
--Author unknown

Some people like to change the last line to say "anyone's throat" rather than "my children's throats", but I left it this way to help make a point.

This quotation is a summation of the "live and let live" viewpoint so often espoused by many believers and non-believers alike.  As I have pointed out, this sort of philosophy has to be a two way street.  Both sides have to agree to live and let live and then actually follow through on their agreement.  Otherwise, the notion is empty words at best, a complete capitulation by one side at worst.  Therein lies the problem.

The trouble is that religious people don't seem to be capable of living up to the "live and let live" sentiment.  Partly, this is because many religions actually require their members to actively recruit new members.  It is also partly because most religious people truly believe that there are dire consequences awaiting anyone who does not belong to their particular church.  They consequently feel it incumbent on them to try to "save" the rest of us.

More ominous than the concerted effort to "save our souls", however, is the situation where religious people believe that the rules of their religion are the only "correct" rules and trump anything that contradicts them, such as the law.  Such people will try to argue that we should change the law to reflect their beliefs and, when that doesn't work, will work behind the scenes to effectuate changes in society that effectively nullify the law.

This sort of behavior clearly does not constitute allowing others to lead their lives as they see fit.  Instead, it is a dishonest, and sometimes criminal, effort to interfere in the lives of others.

I would like to postulate that it is absurd to expect people to ever live up to the "live and let live" standard of religious freedom if they won't stop their priests and preachers from literally shoving their penises down the throats of the children in the congregation.

This is not only something to keep in mind, it is also something to point out to fellow non-believers who chastise you for being critical of religion.  The "live and let live" ideal is totally foreign to many, if not most, religious people.

Prejudice in a Fancy Dress

Recently, I read "Crimes Against Logic:  Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders", by Jamie Whyte, a young English philosopher.  I would have suggested a little re-organizing and editing to make the book more enjoyable to read, but other than that small criticism, I highly recommend it.

In the book, Mr. Whyte lists faith as one of his crimes against logic.  He does so for the same reason that I call religion dishonest:  Because it isn't honest to believe in one unproven and unprovable proposition while rejecting all similar propositions.  Mr. Whyte's phrase for this it the title of my post today:  Prejudice in a fancy dress.  He gets the credit for coining that phrase in this context, and I would suggest we all remember it for future discussions with the religious.

The religious have been taught that this sort of prejudicial thinking is actually a virtue.  They do not see it for what it is:  Intellectual dishonesty and an artificial form of racism.  Faith is intellectual dishonesty both in terms of the deliberate use of bad logic and in the way the fallacious conclusions are presented disguised as something other than what they really are.  And, it sets people against each other (often extremely so) on the basis of a fantasy.

Dishonesty

My apologies.  The post below was published a couple of years ago, but I recently reverted it to draft status by mistake.  I am now re-publishing it.


Many dishonest people (i.e., the religious) seem to think that honesty is stupidity and that being dishonest is a sign (if not THE sign) of being intelligent.  Now, while possessing intelligence will make one better at almost everything one does, what one chooses to do is a sign of one's character--not intelligence.  Dishonesty (even successful dishonesty) is not a sign of intelligence but a sign of bad character.

Why do the dishonest think this way?  Because they often get away with it--for a while.  They take advantage of the honest, trusting nature of others.  Anyone can do this, all one has to do is move on to new victims once the old victims have figured out that you cannot be trusted.  One must also be impervious to the feedback that one gets from those who have figured it out.  Most dishonest people are suffering from some combination of egotism, narcissism, and psychopathy, so the feedback simply bounces off their defense mechanisms.

One of the reasons dishonest people think that lying is proof of their intellectual superiority is that they often do get away with it more than other people would.  But, it is not intellectual superiority that enables them to do this--it is a lack of conscience.  This lack of conscience enables them to act the part flawlessly. 

The human brain is finely attuned to the nuances of human behavior.  The vast majority of people can sense when someone feels uncertain or guilty about what they are saying.  An honest person attempting to lie will give himself away by small signs of discomfort at having to lie.  A person who possesses little or no conscience will not show the same signs of dishonesty.  Consequently, his or her audience is more likely to believe the lies.

I have found that dishonesty and especially the attitude that it is some form of intelligence are often signs of pathological narcissism.  When observed in a religious person it should be taken as a serious warning regarding that person's utter lack of moral and ethical character.

Can I Get a Witness?

You have probably heard religious people expressing the bigoted notion that atheists cannot be trusted.  In fact, in the past, it was common for various commentators and even the law in various jurisdictions to hold that atheists could not be witnesses because they could not be trusted to tell the truth.  Some states still have such laws, though they are clearly un-Constitutional.  The reason given for this restriction on atheists was that atheists could not possibly consider their oaths to tell the truth to be binding because they did not fear divine retribution.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the fear of punishment is not really morality at all.  It is self-interest.  It is also the lowest form of moral development.  It is the stage occupied by very young children, psychopaths, and religious people.  Limiting the available witnesses in a case to only those who are psychopathic or reminiscent of a psychopath seems like a very poor way to ensure that the testimony is reliable.  Such people will do whatever they think they can get away with, and in our system where perjury is tolerated in practice daily and is prosecuted only in very unusual cases, having such people testify seems almost like having no standard at all.

An even more telling point is the fact that witness testimony is not very reliable at best.  Most people do not remember things very well and will often unconsciously add or alter details.  The best witness would be a person who understands this and who tries to be as objective as possible.  Such people are necessarily atheists.  Having a major belief that is unsupported by evidence is a clear indication that a person does not try to be as objective as possible.  In fact, such people are deliberately being completely subjective in their assessment of one of the most important "facts" in their lives.

Consequently, I recommend keeping the following thought in mind:

"I think it is more true that religious people cannot be trusted to tell the truth for the simple reason that they are incapable of telling the truth even to themselves.  If a person can't tell himself the truth, then it should be clear that the person cannot be trusted to tell anyone the truth."

Or, to put it more succinctly:

"If you can't tell yourself the truth, you can't tell anyone the truth."

Dealing with the Nosy II

First, let me apologize for the hiatus.  I doubt anyone was waiting anxiously, or otherwise, for my next post, but I feel guilty for neglecting this blog so much lately.  My real world life has been very demanding, and I haven't had time to work on the numerous draft posts I have that need work before publishing.

That being said, I want to post a quick note concerning how to deal with those situations where a religious person is being nosy about your beliefs (or lack thereof).  As you may have noticed, I have had numerous experiences with bigotry and intolerance and have come to assume that most, if not all, religious people are bigoted and therefore dangerous to me and my family.

The worst of these sorts are those who can't seem to take a hint when you indicate that you do not want to talk about your beliefs.  The reason that they can't take a hint is that their bigotry is so ingrained that it is taken for granted and not seen for what it is.  If a person thinks his bigotry is fact, then he sees no reason for anyone to complain about discrimination.  In such a person's mind, we non-believers can avoid discrimination simply by ceasing to be "bad people" and start believing in god.  They see our refusal to do that as absolute proof of our immoral nature.

When faced with a persistent believer who just can't rest without knowing your religious beliefs, you should first try to change or avoid the subject even if it requires getting up and walking away from the person.  (You should also make a mental note to avoid this person in the future.)

If you simply cannot avoid either the subject or the person, then your best bet is to try to put the spotlight on the person's bigotry.  Make it plain for all to see.  A good way to do this is to respond to inquiries about your beliefs by asking why the person wants to know--specifically ask about his or her bigotry:

"Why?  Do you discriminate against people based on their beliefs?"

Chances are good that he or she does discriminate and asking about it will make it clear who is the bad guy here and what an awful and dangerous spot he or she has put you in by asking.

The religious person will probably respond to this by denying it.  The denial will be a lie, but perhaps not a conscious one.  If the person does deny that he or she discriminates, you can follow up with:

"Well, a lot of people do discriminate and consequently I keep my beliefs to myself."

If this doesn't stop the nosiness, nothing will.  In that case, it is best to get away from this person and stay away.

See, also, my earlier post on this topic:

Dealing with the Nosy 

Religion vs. Science

A pro-science meme has been circulating on the internet regarding the shooting of the 15 year old Pakistani, Malala Yousufzai, girl who spoke out in favor of educating girls.  It goes something like this:

"Hello Religion,

I sent a man to the moon and returned him safely.  You shot a girl in the head because she went to school.

Sincerely,

Science"

I wish I could take credit for this, but it wasn't my idea.  I am happy to pass it on, however.  If you use it with a religious person, expect some blather about how the Taliban don't represent all religious people.  Just stick to your guns and point out that the shooter was undoubtedly motivated by religion, just like the 9/11 hijackers.  You can also point out that this is not an isolated incident.  There have been numerous occasions in which the Taliban have murdered girls for simply going to school.  You can also point out that using force to punish people for disagreeing is one of religion's primary characteristics.