Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
NO SACRED COWS
"We live, after all, in a world where illusions are sacred and truth profane."
— Tariq Ali
You know what they say: "never talk about religion or politics." That is, of course, unless you want to engage in discussion about some of the most important topics of this or any generation. Keeping certain beliefs out of discussions might keep them protected from further examination, but I don't think that's a good thing. Every idea should receive criticism and challenges to determine its worth — without exception. There is no special treatment; there are no sacred cows. As Winston Churchill said, "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
WHAT IS A "SACRED COW"?
In Hinduism and some other religions, cattle are especially revered and considered a sacred symbol of wealth or the earth, or of a giver of nourishment. There is a lot of academic debate over how the sanctity of cows became a part of Hinduism (Was it a result of the economic or ecological benefits, a purely spiritual belief, or something else altogether?), but one thing is for sure: despite drastic changes in the way we live, that reverence didn't cease in the modern era. In fact, the veneration of the cow and its elevated status within certain cultures has continued and even thrived over time. While this phenomenon might sound odd or extreme to some outsiders, the fact is that cultures and people very often have their own locally familiar yet outlandish beliefs that they accept without much scrutiny, largely due to tradition alone.
As an idiom, a sacred cow has come to mean any idea that is thought to be immune from question or criticism. Many believers (of all sorts) insist that their particular sacred cows be avoided at all costs, often arguing that their beliefs are too old, widely held, or otherwise unworldly to be criticized or — in some extreme cases — even discussed in any way. For example, a religious person might feel comfortable disregarding the notion of telepathy as nothing more than nonsense, while clinging to petitionary prayer as a sacred and spiritual connection above critique or material examination. Likewise, a believer in psychics might scoff at a religious fundamentalist's strict adherence to a completely unsupported dogma, while excusing or ignoring the fact that no so-called mediums have ever proven their abilities and refusing to address the topic entirely.
In each of the two scenarios described above, the believer rejects criticisms of their sacred ideology while actively mocking another person's — all without realizing what is really going on. This type of dissociative reasoning is possible with any topic, but is exacerbated by the very nature of all things supernatural or otherwise unfalsifiable because these subjects are often considered to be inherently (and conveniently) beyond practical investigation. This approach may seem like a safe one for believers who don't want their ideas to be tested, but it creates a problem for anyone asserting that the supernatural world affects our own. Many religious believers, for instance, claim their god is "outside space and time" and can't be shown to be real, but then in the next breath say their god came to earth as a man or inspired holy books. This "argument" is put forth by all kinds of believers who insist they know a significant amount about a supernatural presence that interacts with people on earth, and it always fails. The reasoning is flawed because claiming that your particular god, ghost, or other unknowable force or entity is beyond proof is rigging the game — and often nothing more than an attempt to distract from the real issue: a lack of substance. The bottom line is that you can claim that your sacred cow can't be tested by scientific inquiry, but then you can't say it intervenes in the world — because, if it does, we can investigate it. This beyond reproach mentality, over time, has contributed to the social taboos on investigations (and sometimes even discussions) involving religion, the supernatural, and other cherished beliefs. Fortunately, not all researchers conform to these taboos. Can you imagine what the world would look like if every scientist — or even the vast majority of them — thought a particular hypothesis was too sacred to test or replace? It would undermine the very nature of scientific inquiry itself. American astronomer and cosmologist Carl Sagan, it seems, would agree. He said, "There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths."
DON'T MARRY YOUR BELIEFS
Some people, especially those with firmly held yet unproven beliefs, think my writing is necessarily argumentative — that skeptical inquiry cannot be encouraged without confrontation. But what they call arguments should actually be regarded as discussions ... and possibly some of the most important in human history.
I'm aware that the topics I discuss are controversial, but, despite what some people believe, I don't mean to offend anyone with what I do. I'm very clear about my intentions: I want to help people think critically, analyze their beliefs, and follow the evidence wherever it leads. That means I don't have the time or desire for bigotry and discrimination. Contrary to how many see my work, I don't want to make fun of anyone or the forces they think are real. I want to make people think about questions that would otherwise just be background noise — easily ignored because of errors in information processing or as a result of cultural or familial indoctrination.
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. 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. "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. 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. "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, 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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."
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. 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."
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "No Sacred Cows"
by .
Copyright © 2017 David G. McAfee.
Excerpted by permission of Pitchstone Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
