There were two stories yesterday illustrating both the power of self-delusion and the potential costs.
I have written elsewhere about the human ability to go to extraordinary and illogical lengths to create meaning (see Nessie, God, and the Creation of Meaning). In many cases it could be argued that this harms no-one, although I would argue that the attitude of “let them believe it if they want to: it isn’t harming anyone” is patronising and demeaning. Sure, let people believe what they want, but don’t expect me to be disrespectful by keeping silent about any self-deception.
In other cases there can be real, and tragic costs.
At least 48 people in India’s Kottayam district have experienced photochemical burns on the retina and damage to their sight after looking into the sun to see an alleged divine image in the sky. Believers are still flocking to a hotelier’s house in Erumeli near where the divine image is said to have appeared. The hotelier, who has since moved, had claimed that statues of the Virgin Mary in his house have been crying honey and bleeding oils and perfumes.
Purveyors of snake oil don’t restrict their activity to developing nations where the general level of education can be low. A ruling yesterday by the UK Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) revealed that at least one such purveyor is alive and well in Britain.
The ASA has ordered a woman who does business under the names “Zara” and “Freya” to stop claiming that she is superior to other “psychics” and can cast spells that will “solve all problems” and improve the health, wealth, love life, happiness, or other circumstances of her clients.
In response to the complaint, the woman stated that (a) she harnessed positive energy and provided a focus through which her clients could instigate positive changes in their lives; (b) there is a solution for every problem, if people look for it; and (c) her role was to empower people to find solutions for themselves.
The ASA concluded that these claims were unsubstantiated. [ASA Adjudication: Zara, 12 March 2008]
I am very happy to accept that some people in Kottayam may have seen something unusual, and that Zara’s clients may have benefitted from an encounter with her in some way. What I would challenge are the explanations (the interpretations) provided. Going for a supernatural explanation that cannot be substantiated when a more rational one that could be investigated is available seems to be a dangerous choice - one likely to lead the individual away from reality and into fantasy. (Placebo effects are very powerful and well documented.)
Sadly, strange beliefs are very widespread. For example, a typical study in England in 1987 (cited in Nicholas Humphrey’s Soul Searching) suggested that 88 per cent of people believe in some paranormal phenomena. This study did not even include traditional religious tenets such as the belief in life after death, which 71 per cent of Americans and 43 per cent of Europeans have signed up for.
It seems that human beings have a tendency to see imaginary connections between events - perhaps a by-product of the vital ability to discern patterns in the world. Perhaps our disposition to overestimate the improbability of certain events, thus leading us to infer a cause when there is really only coincidence, is a form of “better safe than sorry” strategy.
I am also very aware in writing the above that at one stage in my life, when I was part of a traditional believing community, I would have regarded the above stories as weird, but would have been completely oblivious to the striking parallels with my own faith. Now, it seems that there are few substantial differences (apart from some skilfully created caveat escape clauses) between Zara’s claims and the claims made by mainstream churches about the benefits of faith and the power of prayer.
(See also: Asparagus Mystic)
Another manifestation of this, I suppose, is the human penchant for wanting to belief in conspiracy theories. There are amazing leaps of faith that occur—and disregard for the facts—that goes into believing in a JFK assissination conspiracy, for example; or a belief in a World Bank conspiracy.
Mercurious
I agree. Conspiracy theories are usually invented because the random and accidental nature of life is too frightening for some. Saying that the FBI were behind something or that god caused something to happen may be comforting and fill the meaning gap, but they are a kind of delusional drug that keeps people from existential truth.
I think it is terribly difficult to state with total proof and certainty that something that an individual feels may be from God, is either God or not. A delusional drug?? Well, I don’t know on that score. It feels a little harsh to me. I would find it very hard to take away that comfort,if it feels real to them.
onethoughtfulwoman
I would find it very hard to take away that comfort,if it feels real to them.
Of course, you assume that taking away a false comfort would be destructive. If they chose that path themselves and discovered a more substantial reality rather than a false comfort, they may actually find the truth liberating, stimulating, motivating, envigorating, energising. At least one peron I know would describe it as being ‘born again’. If you read the ‘testimonies’ on de-Conversion, the people writing there are so glad that they left the false comfort behind and wished they had done it earlier.
I also come back to the point that for me it is ultimately disrespectful, patronising, and unloving to encourage people to believe falsehoods, however comforting they may think those falsehoods are. In the short term truth may be tricky, but in the long-term it has to be the best policy.
it is terribly difficult to state with total proof and certainty that something that an individual feels may be from God, is either God or not.
Agreed. Absolute certainty may not be an option. However, I am happy to run with the balance of probability. Are you? Surely the evidence favours the fact that there isn’t a supernatural explanation. If god answers prayers and is active in the world today, why doesn’t she/he heal amputees?
I have to strongly agree with you. I was telling some atheist friends about a dream my sister had years ago. She woke up in the middle of the night, feverish, screaming, “Don’t step on the floor is full of mud, all over.”
We would find out the next day that at the same time, a huge mud slide had occurred at the other side of town, killing hundreds of people.
My atheist friends tried to convince me that the dream was random and unrelated. “You would have to know how many people daily dream of mudslides,” someone said, trying to sound scientific and smart. “Zero,” I responded.
I went on to say that we can take 3 positions when facing something seemingly supernatural: (1) Deny that it happened, call the person crazy, deluded, or a liar; (2) Claim that God did it, assuming that it was all supernatural; (3) We can admit that it happened and that we don’t know why.
I believe that most times the account tellers are liars trying to make a buck from naive people. But there are times when things happen and we don’t know why. Why can’t we admit that there are events we can’t explain?
People are often misled by supposed supernatural or paranormal phenomena. To the atheist, this seems stupid and pitiful. However, we should beware of assuming that we ourselves are infallibly wise. It is not only believers in superstitious nonsense who are misled.
For example, consider the brouhaha over global warming. Despite the huge scientific evidence that it is occurring and has reached a dangerous level already, there are still many people who refuse to believe in it, claiming that reports of climate change are merely a devious plot on the part of government to screw more taxes out of us.
To state it more simply, it is not only the religious who are misled by mistaken beliefs.
But that’s not where the argument ends. We should see the implication, namely that none of us can be entirely sure of what we believe to be true unless we carefully and repeatedly check our beliefs against the evidence.
This habit of checking and verification is not self-evident. It has to be learned. We should be teaching children at school to think logically and critically. Unfortunately, proposals to do this have been treated with ridicule. Allowing “faith schools” into the education system is also counter-productive as you can hardly expect them to teach a rational approach to life. Their agenda is to promote befuddlement and mystification.
“This habit of checking and verification is not self-evident. It has to be learned.”
Too stressful, as far as I am concern. What about living life in full? What about having fun?