All posts by meanderer007

From Election Fraud to riot

Death of Truth, Domestic Terrorism, Right-wing Extremism

 

In the election of 2020 American presidential election  there was fraud about voter fraud. Namely many lied that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2220 presidential election. This alleged fraud was not based on evidence. It was based on unsubstantiated claims made by the president and his henchmen. This lie is now threatening to undermine American democracy. As Ling said just before the 2020 election, “Dozens of American states are introducing laws to restrict voting rights of millions of people, particularly people of color. And it is all based on a supposed fraud that never happened.” That is voter fraud! To claim fraud where one knows there was no fraud, is fraud.

 

Trump was told repeatedly by his own people led by his own Attorney General William Barr that there was no significant fraud in the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost. Trump hated the thought of losing the election so much that he preferred believing a lie, which he knew to be a lie.

According to Justin Ling,

“Right-wing radio has been laying the ground work for this for years. In the days and weeks before the 2020 election they begin watering that lie. And after the votes are counted, it becomes one of the biggest lies in American history. An allegation that a deep state conspiracy rigged the presidential election. It alleges the states were involved, the Democrats were involved, the company that makes the voting machines was involved, the media was involved and they all conspired to install Joe Biden as president.  ”

 

Of course, the man who never saw a conspiracy theory that he did not like, Alex Jones jumped onto this wagon with startling enthusiasm. He said,

 

“The evidence overwhelmingly shows now, and I have a giant stack that confirms it, law enforcement is investigating that Dominion  illegally called the servers and covered up the paper trail, and of course, we knew that. Now by the hand counts they found that Trump won by a giant landslide. The same tactics were used in every other state. They stole the election.”

These were al lies.

Many Trumpsters believed, and many still believe, that the election was rigged but they could not overturn the results. Because they had no evidence of fraud.  It doesn’t matter that Republicans investigated the claims and universally dismissed them. It doesn’t matter because their belief in their leader is a theological belief not amendable to contrary facts. Religious beliefs work that way.

 

Even on and after January 6, 2021 many of the Trumpsters were firm in their belief that Donald Trump would not be removed from office. It just could not happen. Some believed that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be facing treason charges.

 

January 6th saw the explosion of the hyper believers led by people like the Oath Keepers and Alex Jones.  Jones made a stirring speech to the crowd that was on its way to the Capitol. He shouted through his megaphone in his typical growly bombastic style:

“We are not just going to take the country back, but the whole world back from Communist Chinese. USA. USA.USA. We’re not giving in to the grabbers. We’re never surrendering. The Great Reset is triggering the Great Awakening. And the Great Awakening will trigger the Great Rebellion and the Destruction of the New World Order.”

 

And there were cries to “take back our country,” and “Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.” Another said, “We’ve got the gallows set up outside this Capitol, now it’s time to start fucking using them.”  Another said, “This is now effectively a riot.”  That last one was right! One said, “At 1349 hours declaring it a riot.” Again, that one was right.

 

America had entered a period of insurrection ushered in by decades of lies on American talk radio,.

 

The Land of Fantasies

Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Health, Mennonites, reason, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

I thought I was done with posting about vaccines, measles, and Mennonites in Canada. It turns out that was not quite the case.

I just read yesterday in CBC News that Alberta has confirmed that it now has more measles cases than the entire United States even though it is 60 times larger than Alberta! How is that possible?

 By now you know my theory. Alberta is home to a stupendous number of true believers–credulous people who don’t need evidence to support their beliefs.  The funny thing is that Alberta has always been that as long as I have known about it.

In the 50s the big craze was Social Credit.  Albertans believed the whacky political leaders who came up with crackpot economic theories. They believed them wholeheartedly. And of course, many of those believers were Mennonites. Social Credit ruled in Alberta for decades as a result of the devotion of Albertans. Many Mennonites in Manitoba espoused those theories too.  I remember Social Credit rallies in Steinbach when I was growing up.

In the last couple of years Alberta has given birth to the truckers convoy and their fantasies.

In the entire United States they have had 1,288 measles cases. That’s a lot for a disease that was considered eradicated. Alberta has now had 1,314 cases. That is an astounding comparison given that the US has more than 60 times as many people.

 

I know some people think measles is a pipsqueak disease but of those cases, Dr. Lynora Saxinger, an infectious disease specialist, told CBC News, “there have been 102 hospitalizations, including 15 ICU admissions, as of July 5. No deaths have been reported.” And this is all for a disease that should be eradicated, except for the vaccine deniers who refuse to take the available treatment.  There is no good reason for that to happen, but too many people in Alberta have not been listening to the health experts but instead have been “doing their own research.”

 Is it really a good idea to do your own research?

We don’t always have the time or ability to test scientific ideas. Can you imagine going to make an appointment to see a dentist and then insisting he or she tell you in advance what anesthetic they use so you can do your own research on line to determine whether your dentist was right or wrong? How could I possibly do better research than my dentist who has gone to many years of university to learn things like that.

 

I know experts are not always right, but is it likely that we will do a better job of choosing the right anesthetic? Or the right treatment for measles? Or polio? I really can’t match that expertise. Expertise is important. We should never be slaves to experts, but unless we have good reasons, and by that I mean rational reasons, based on evidence, to the contrary, we should believe them.

 

It is the same with vaccines. How can I know which vaccines are good for me or not?  That is not an easy job. Most of us, I would submit, are not qualified to do the research ourselves on line. Rather, I would submit, get a physician you know and trust, and follow the advice you get. That’s what I do.  Now if I have carefully researched an issue and rationally concluded my doctor was wrong and I was right I should not follow the physician’s  advice, but I would say this won’t happen often. If I am entrusting my child’s health to my own “research” rather than my doctor’s research I had better be awfully sure I am right and she or he is wrong. Otherwise would I not I be guilty of child abuse in not following the good advice if my child was harmed?

We should not be a slave to experts; nor should we be blind to their benefits.

 

Evidence not Faith

Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Health, Mennonites, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust, Vaccines

 

That respected American philosopher Archie Bunker  proudly claimed to have robust faith. In fact, it was so robust, he said, that “faith is something that you believe that no one in his right mind would believe.”

 

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche did not go quite so far as Bunker did. He did not value faith. He challenged it. He said, “Faith” means not wanting to know what is true.”

 

Because faith or even belief can interfere with the search for truth, we have to be constantly vigilant against pre-conceived beliefs and their pernicious effect.  Nietzsche says that “great spirits are skeptics.” Nietzsche also had nothing but contempt for people of faith, because they believe what they want to be true, not what the evidence convinces them is true. I know many of my readers will strongly disagree with that. He also said, “Men of conviction are not worthy of the least consideration in fundamental questions of value and disvalue. Convictions are prisons.”

 

Of course, it is not easy to keep our minds free from our wants, interests, and preconceptions—convictions in other words.  That takes great work. We have to sculpt ourselves as the ideal observer. The ideal observer is the one who knows everything relevant, is free from animus, and free from bias. In other words, we have to recognize our interests and keep them at bay. Bias and prejudice are extreme barriers to finding the truth. It is never easy to be unbiased. It is always extremely difficult. We also need the best information and must not let hatred interfere with our judgment. We will never achieve the status of the ideal observer but we must come as close as we can. Then we can be satisfied that our judgements are valid. Only the best and strongest can do it well. That is why Nietzsche said “Freedom from all kinds of convictions, to be able to see freely, is part of strength.” And also, only the great-souled person can accomplish it.

 

Attacking one’s own convictions is the basis of critical thinking. No truths must be seen as sacred.  We must be willing to challenge them all.   Nietzsche also said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” That is why Nietzsche asks, “Is there any contrast at all between a lie and a conviction?” Or, “in the son that becomes conviction which in the father still was a lie.”

 

For exactly the same reasons Nietzsche rejected all parties. He was always an independent thinker. He was never a party man, because then he would have to subordinate his free search for the truth to the platform of the party. He refused to do that, just as he refused to have faith. That is why he said, “Now this wishing-not-to-see what one does see, is almost the first condition for all who are party in any sense. Of necessity the party man becomes a liar.” Members of the party believe what they are told to believe, whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.

 

Parties in this sense can be very informal too. For example, there is the party of those who believe in the efficacy of vaccines.  They automatically believe vaccines are good. I have to admit I am close to this. I remember as a wee lad fearing the deadly disease of polio. When a vaccine was discovered and made available, I was overjoyed. It was a miracle I thought. And it was—a scientific miracle. But that was not faith either. As a result, I tend to automatically think vaccines are good for me. But if I find credible evidence that my belief in the efficacy of a vaccine is wrong, I must be willing to change. If we have faith, we stick to it, even if the evidence suggests otherwise. That is not something I want to do in important matters that require my attention to make a decision. I don’t want faith. I want the evidence.

 

I don’t really want to have faith to make such a decision. I want evidence evidence available, which is usually scientific evidence. That is not faith.  Faith is what we use when there is insufficient evidence to make a decision.  Then we must make the decision in favor of what is most likely. That means, we make the best decision we can in the light of that evidence. That really is not faith either. That is making the best judgment we can. Once evidence becomes available we will follow that. If that evidence is contrary to our earlier belief we must change.

For most of us, this is not what our Mennonite mothers taught us.

 

 

Mennonite Mothers are to Blame

Conspiracy Theories, Critical thinking, Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Health, Mennonites, Philosophy/Ideas, Rebel, religion, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

Let’s get back to Mennonites.  We have noticed that in many places in North America the resurgence of measles on account of vaccine resistance has occurred in areas with a large number of Mennonites. Why is that? Is that a coincidence?

In my view, the problem is that many Mennonites live in a culture of belief. What I mean by that is that often Mennonites robustly indoctrinate their young. From a very early age, Mennonite mothers (and of course fathers) are careful to foster Christian faith in their offspring. They teach those children that they must have faith. Faith in God and the inerrant word of God evinced in the Christian Bible. I know that many religious groups do the same thing, but Mennonites definitely do and they do it thoroughly. Their children must believe what they believe without evidence.

 

Personally, I consider this a mistake. That is a very bad habit to get into. By doing that Mennonites (and others who do it too) shackle their children. If parents don’t give their children the opportunity to think for themselves their children will not learn to think for themselves in the real world. They won’t learn if they are not given the opportunity. That means they must be allowed to make their own mistakes. Even if we think they are wrong. We should give them evidence to encourage them to change their minds. Not indoctrination. Children must learn to think and think critically. This is true even when it comes to important matters such as choosing to believe or not to believe what their parents have taught them. In fact, this thinking skill is most important in the most important matters.

If children do not learn to think for themselves, they will be constant prey for charlatans, con-men, and hucksters.  That goes for religious hucksters as well. And there are legions of them. They are ubiquitous. It is much better for children to learn to think for themselves and make decisions based on evidence and logical arguments or inferences rather than faith inculcated by their parents. Thinking is a good habit to get into. Believing without evidence is a very bad habit to get into. I know when we are very young we need to believe our parents to keep us out of children or get hurt. But when we are old enough we must learn to think for ourselves or we will be in big trouble. And if enough children overly credulous when they get older society will be in trouble.

Those are skills that are worth much more than any belief. Such skills are literally invaluable.  That is what parents should teach their young charges.

To take away their right and obligation to think for themselves is to rob them of what they will most need after their parents are gone, namely, the ability to think and overcome challenges which they will inevitably meet. I know parents mean well when they try to inculcate their children, but they are misguided when they do it after their children are old enough to think for themselves. And to the extent they are old enough, they should be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

It is only by trying to think that we can learn to cultivate a spirit of questioning, of scrutinizing evidence, of weighing evidence and making rational decisions.  These are the skills children will need as they grow and have to make important decision such as whether or not to take vaccines. Robbing children of that skill could be considered child abuse, because it robs them of one of the most important skills they will ever need and they will otherwise be unable to learn.

Parents can guide such learning and offer help to them in learning these skills, but to take away their decision-making power is unfair to them.

Children must also learn to avoid the trap of wishful thinking. It is one of the easiest traps to fall into. The most difficult thing in the world is to disbelieve what you want to be true.  The easiest thing in the world is to believe what you want to be true.

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said it was not important to have the courage of one’s convictions. It was much more important to have the courage to attack one’s convictions.”  That is what we have to learn to do. That is the basis of critical thinking. It is perhaps its  most important element.  Nietzsche also said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

He also said, “if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire”

Nietzsche realized he was radical in this respect. He showed thinking is fun. He said, “I am dynamite.” I think he meant to say that he was on this earth to break up encrusted ‘truths.’ He was here to attack them, to expose them.

I think many Mennonite mothers, but not all of them, and many Mennonite fathers, but again not all of them, have taught their children to believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe, and that is a dangerous thing as is shown by the fact that too many Mennonite children  have refused to believe measles vaccines are better for them than the alternatives, such as, in extreme cases, such as the woman in Ontario, eating wild flowers.

 

 

Will to Believe

Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Mennonites, Philosophy/Ideas, reason, Skeptical Philosophy, Trust and Distrust

 

We live in a dangerous society. We see that every day.

One of the problems is the willingness to believe that is so prevalent among people.  For example, Professor Arthur Schafer said that in 1970 there was a strong willingness in the Canadian public to believe that we faced a likely insurrection just because 2 politicians were kidnapped.  The evidence of insurrection was extremely weak, yet when Pierre Trudeau implemented the War Measures Act and civil liberties such as Habeas Corpus were suspended and hundreds of people in Quebec were detained on very thin evidence that they posed a threat, people loved Trudeau.  He was tough. This was his most popular moment. People should have suspended their belief, but instead took a leap of faith. They wanted to belief it was true. People love to do that.

More recently, many people believe that immigrants are the major cause of crime. There is no evidence to support that and a lot of evidence to undermine that belief. Yet it is commonly believed.

This is exactly why irrational beliefs are so dangerous. They can spread like a virus leading to others believing what you believe, even though there is no evidence to support that belief, but even worse, can lead others to believe other irrational beliefs because they have been conditioned to do that by the culture of belief.

It is an obvious fact that some politicians lie.  Some —we know them well—even lie all the time.   The evidence of weapons of mass destruction concocted by the CIA to support actions President George W. Bush who wanted to take against Iraq in order to invade it are just one example. “Credulity is a rampant disease in modern societies,” according to Arthur Schafer. Not only that, but it is one of the most dangerous diseases our world has ever faced.

It is very easy to confuse people. We are not a skeptical rational society, even though, according to Schafer, our very capacity to survive, not just flourish, is dependent upon our diligently, conscientiously, and thoughtfully looking at evidence to support our beliefs.

We can’t always wait until we have decisive knowledge either. Take the case of climate change. The issue is so important because we are facing possible extinction. Sometimes we have to act on probability based on the best evidence and analysis that we can muster. It would be nice if we had perfect knowledge but that is seldom found in the real world. Really, that is never found in the real world. Probability is the best we can muster.

Do we have to pretend that we have certainty? Will people not act unless we exaggerate the level of certainty? Can we live useful effective lives while living with uncertainty? The problem is that there is so much that is uncertain and so little that is certain we really have to learn to embrace uncertainty.

Schafer said, “if you don’t have a healthy scepticism, you are really sunk. As a society we don’t have nearly enough.” We don’t need more credulity. We have to learn critical thinking.  Being infected with irrational beliefs is not healthy. That is asking for trouble—serious trouble. That is why it is so important to root out irrational beliefs that are not based on evidence—genuine evidence, not wishful thinking.

Of course, in recent times we have learned another problem, namely, that many people don’t trust authority anymore. That is what has happened with vaccines. Too many people have lost confidence that they are getting the straight goods from government and are not willing to believe authorities when they tell us it is vitally important for almost all of us to get vaccinated.  We need a rational scepticism in other words. We need to look critically at claims by authorities that vaccines are safe. Then if there is no good reason to doubt them, we should believe them.

We must also turn our sceptical lenses on to the critics. If Robert F. Kennedy for example, is not giving us the straight goods on vaccines we should reject his criticisms.  Irrational criticism—criticism that is contrary to the evidence—is just as dangerous as irrational belief. Neither belief nor criticism should be based on wishes, hunches, or instincts. All must be based on good evidence. The best evidence in fact. Sometimes this makes our job hard because it is not always easy to choose which side is right or rational.

As a result, Schafer concludes that Clifford has got it right and those who feel a liberal tolerance to those who espouse superstitious or irrational beliefs have got it wrong. “It is not permissible to believe whatever makes you feel good,” says Schafer. It is ethically wrong. And we ought to be willing to say so. According to Schafer those who take the attitude that it is permissible to believe whatever makes one feel good is sort of like stealing. “Such beliefs are equivalent to stealing from your fellow citizens by making yourself credulous” says Schafer.

We have to remember that giving up reason and evidence, as the only valid basis for beliefs, is not just unwise it is dangerous. If we base beliefs on sacred texts, authority, or wishful thinking we can come to believe absurdities.  Voltaire got it right when he said, “Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

We have to remember that irrational beliefs can have very serious consequences. We should not do anything to encourage them. We ought to do everything we can to stamp them out. We should be cultivating a spirit of questioning, of careful scrutiny of evidence, of diligent searching for the best and most reliable evidence, and of conscientious analysis of arguments based on evidence. We should do everything we can to foster critical thinking for it is in such horribly short supply and our lives depend on it. That’s why it is unethical to believe without evidence. The ethical life is the rational life. The superstitious life is based on moral flaws.

That’s why we should not tolerate irrational beliefs such as the belief espoused by that Mennonite woman in Ontario who said eating flowers was better at combating measles than vaccines.

 

Infectious Beliefs

Ethics, Philosophy/Ideas, reason, religion, The Sleep of Reason, Vaccines

 

The British philosopher William Kingdon Clifford said “we should not believe anything except those propositions for which we have good evidence and that the confidence we place in our beliefs should be proportional to the amount of evidence that supports them.”  According to Clifford we have a moral duty to engage in the hard work of looking at science, or our own good work in order to consult the best available evidence conscientiously and honestly before we commit to believing.

 

We have to be open-minded. That means that we have to be willing to accept evidence that contradicts our cherished beliefs or that contradicts those propositions we would really like to be true and we must be willing to discard or modify them if the evidence entails such actions. Only on that basis are we entitled to belief something. Only on that basis can a belief be ethical.

 

The fundamental basis for Clifford’s position is that the harm, the evil, the tyranny, the cruelty of humanity is a function of our superstitions, ignorance, and prejudices. As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, “we have to have not the courage of our convictions; we have to have the courage to attack our convictions.”

 

The basis of all superstition is that people believe things that are false and for which people have no good evidence.  Some people say believing something without evidence is acceptable provided we don’t act on it.  Clifford denies this. People often say that they live most of their lives based on rational evidence and if they choose from time to time to base their beliefs and their actions on horoscopes, or hunches, or perceived answers from God to our prayers, or perceived dictates from ancient sacred texts that is no one else’s business. We should be free to do that. Clifford disagrees.

 

Clifford says that if we believe a statement without evidence because we want to believe that, we are conditioning the mind to do that again. It will then tend to believe another statement without evidence just because we also want to believe it is true. This is really a kind of slippery slope argument. Credulity leads to ever more credulity. It is not possible to sequester such beliefs in order to avoid contamination. Contamination will follow inevitably from our acceptance of beliefs without evidence in one case. Our mind is so trained to think that this is acceptable.

 

Schafer gave an interesting example from his experience as an ethics consultant with hospitals.  If you accept beliefs, such as religious beliefs, without evidence, you are more likely to believe that they should let their children die rather than giving them a needed blood transfusion. One irrational belief leads to another and that other belief may be seriously harmful. In fact, this is what we might be experiencing now with  the explosion of anti-vax beliefs for which there is little or no evidence.

 

Another example that Schafer gave was the father of Turrel Dueck whose father was a fundamentalist Christian who believed that chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer was not appropriate. As a direct result of that irrational belief Turrel’s life was put in eminent danger. His father took him to Mexico for scientifically untested medicines that proved wholly useless. Irrational beliefs lead to more irrational beliefs. As a result of some irrational beliefs some have come to believe that homeopathy is a valid discipline, which Schafer said is total garbage.

Part of the problem is that people pass on their superstitions and their prejudices and irrational beliefs to their children. As a result, ordinary people in ordinary situations can infect others with their irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs are never innocent. They often have seriously harmful consequences.

Schafer said “Clifford sees irrationality as a kind of infection.” The analogy Schafer employs is that of the person who knows she or he is infected with the aids virus having sex with an unprotected and unaware partner is committing a serious assault on that other person. So too with the person who relies on irrational beliefs. According to Schafer, “the penis or vagina in such circumstances can be a lethal weapon.”  The same is exactly true of irrational beliefs that are accepted without evidence. The people who knowingly engage in unprotected sex without telling their partners of the risk are engaged in spreading infection and ought to be punished. It might be that the criminal justice system is not the best forum for this but the principle remains and is equally applicable to those who adopt irrational beliefs.

“There is no such thing as an innocent religious belief, if religion is irrational,” says Schafer. If it’s not rational it shouldn’t be believed.

 

 

There are no innocent beliefs

Conspiracy Theories, Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Health, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, reason, Skeptical Philosophy, Social Democracy and Trust, Sociology of Knowledge, Trust and Distrust, Vaccines

 

According to Professor Arthur  Schafer, if we are credulous people then we can easily believe the Christian story, or the Muslim story, or the Jewish story.  Or we can believe as the Mennonite woman interviewed by the CBC believed that eating flowers was as effective at defeating the measles virus as vaccines.

 

If we are credulous, we can believe anything because it makes us feel good. Then we can believe horoscopes because that makes us feel good, even though there is absolutely no evidence to support such beliefs. Even reputable newspapers publish horoscopes. It makes their readers feel good. Then they are more inclined to purchase the newspapers.

If we are credulous people, we can believe that Bill Gates implanted tiny chips into vaccines so that he could control the world, or kill millions of people, without any evidence at all. If we are credulous people our political leaders can make us believe that an election they lost was stolen by the opposition, even in the complete absence of any evidence.

If we are credulous people, we can believe that ivermectin can kill the coronavirus just because it is very effective at killing parasites in livestock even though we have no evidence to support that belief at all. If we are credulous people we will believe anything at all,  just because our political leader who has virtually no scientific knowledge at all, tells us to believe it. Credulity is a very dangerous thing. Not just for individuals, but for society. Society does not work well unless we believe our leaders when belief is rationally justified and do not believe them when the evidence does not support their claims. We cannot afford credulity.

The fact is, according to Arthur Schafer, that our society which many of us think of as secular, is actually “impregnated with a lot of irrational superstitions.”

Today almost no one agrees with William Kingdon Clifford, says Schafer. Schafer says instead, people believe things just because authority figures, such as Presidents, or mothers, or church leaders tell us to believe them. They are willing to accept all manner of irrational beliefs. According to Schafer, many people believe what they have been told to believe by their parents as they grew up, without challenging those beliefs at all. They require no evidence to support them.  As a result, children born and raised in a Muslim home usually become adherents of Islam. Children born and raised in a Christian home usually become adherents of Christianity. Parents want their children to believe them, even when they give no good reasons for doing so.

As a result, Schafer argues that people are entitled to believe what they want to believe, but are not allowed to enforce those views on other. This is called tolerance. In a pluralistic society, we must tolerate diverse views provided they don’t hurt others. To get along with others we must learn to respect their diverse views and must reject their harmful views, that are unsupported by evidence,  but in such a way that we can still tolerate each other. We have to learn to live together. Sometimes that is not easy.

This is the attitude of tolerance. This is a liberal good—a very important  good at that. We tolerate the fact that others have irrational beliefs. We tolerate that they believe any kind of superstition no matter how nonsensical as long as they don’t try to impose it on us.

But Clifford goes farther than that. Clifford is different. He doesn’t believe that your belief in horoscopes is innocent. According to Clifford, says “there are no innocent beliefs.”  All beliefs have consequences.  Many liberals hold that I have the right to believe whatever I want, so long as I don’t harm anyone else. Clifford says that by believing irrational things we are exposing ourselves and the societies in which we live, to serious potential harms. As long as we would harm only ourselves that might be acceptable. But by our actions we are actually exposing many others to serious harms as well through our credulity. That we are not entitled to do. That is morally wrong, he says. Credulity is a harm that we must work hard to suppress. Tolerating irrational beliefs is a sure way to encourage such harms.

 

Credulity is Bad

Conspiracy Theories, Critical thinking, Epidemics/Pandemics, Morality, Philosophy/Ideas, reason, religion, Skeptical Philosophy, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

 

The philosopher William Kingdon Clifford argued, that to believe anything because it comforts you, or makes you feel good, or sustains you in life, or makes life a little less intolerable, is not just epistemically wrong, not just intellectually wrong, but morally wrong. In fact, if the decision that needs to be made is serious enough, such as whether or not to send people to war, or whether or not to cut health benefits to millions of people to raise money to give tax breaks to wealthy people, or whether or not to encourage  vaccines to fight serious diseases or encourage eating wild flowers instead, the decision could amount to one of the worst crimes that you can commit. That’s a pretty drastic statement. According to Clifford  It is a travesty and has some horrible consequences.  We will get to those later. In any event, according to Clifford this is a morally wrong. I think it is hard to argue with that. Serious decisions must be made on the basis of serious evidence, analysis, and scrutiny before they are made and innocent people suffer.

 

Arthur Schafer, a wonderful philosopher and ethicist from the University of Manitoba, and the first philosopher I ever heard speak in person, is a fan of Clifford’s reasoning. According to Schafer, Clifford sees our reliance   on illusion on false pictures of the universe, as amounting to creating in us a walking time bomb. As Schafer said at talk to a talk given to the Winnipeg Humanists, Atheists, and Skeptics, Society,  “to put it a little less dramatically, when we believe things because they make us feel good, rather than because we have good evidence for them, as Clifford argues, we make ourselves credulous people.” That Clifford says is wicked. Schafer agrees with that conclusion. So do I.

 

Again, we are talking only about serious important issues here. We are not talking about a decision to pick a red jelly bean rather than a white jelly bean from a cup. For those decisions we are completely free to make them on the basis of a whim, or an inkling, or an instinct or even on a guess.  But we can’t justify decisions that seriously affect the health or welfare of other people on such a basis.

 

If we are credulous people we can easily believe, as the Mennonite woman interviewed by the CBC radio did, that eating wild flowers to combat measles is better than taking vaccines. If we have been conditioned by our parents to be credulous, they are partly responsible. Credulity can be dangerous—to ourselves and others. That is why Clifford and Schafer said encouraging credulity is dangerous for society. Not just for the believer, for society.

We can believe whatever we want but we should be careful about helping to create a credulous society. As we are now seeing everywhere, that can cause a lot of harm.

The Ethics of Belief

Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Health, Pluralism, Skeptical Philosophy, The Sleep of Reason, Vaccines

 

One thing I have learned from the Covid-19 pandemic and the measles vaccine fiasco, particularly among Mennonites, is that it is important—vital in fact—that important beliefs are grounded in rational thinking, evidence, and facts.  Wishes are not helpful. Neither, in my view is faith. I know this will be controversial. So be it. More on this later.

 

There was an interesting philosopher in the 19th century in England by the name of William Kingdon Clifford. He is no longer very well-known but he had some good ideas. Some were very controversial. Radical even.  Here is one of those ideas: “ It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” He wrote that in his book The Ethics of Belief which was published in in 1877 or in 1879 depending on whom you believe.

 

Here is another f comment from the same book equally as radical:

 “If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”

 

Clifford took beliefs seriously. And I have to agree with him. In simplified terms he believed it was immoral to believe things for which one has insufficient evidence.

 

Here was an example of what he meant by this claim. Clifford told the unhappy tale of a shipowner who was planning to send to sea a shipload of people on a rickety old boat.  The ship-owner had doubts about the seaworthiness of his ship but nonetheless sent ship out to sea anyway heavily loaded with people.  He believed the ship was seaworthy but he really had no good reasons for that belief. In the case of something as important as sending a ship-load of people to sea he ought to have been more careful. He should not have assumed without good evidence that the ship was alright.  Clifford argued, persuasively, to my mind, that the ship owner was guilty of negligence  for the deaths (not murder which requires intent to murder) even though he sincerely believed the ship was sound. According to Clifford “[H]e had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him,” that it was safe to send those people on that ship. His decision was morally wrong. Serious issues require serious deliberation. Clifford said the owner ought  to have checked the boat thoroughly.  He should have examined it carefully, got expert advice if needed, weighed all the evidence with scrutiny and care before sending the vessel out to sea.

 

Clifford would have been appalled by Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump always invariably say he makes his decisions on the basis of instincts. Not evidence! Instincts. I have heard him say that many timers. Instincts are not evidence. Instincts are not reasons. Important decisions, such as decisions about sending a boat load of people to sea must be based on evidence, not instincts or hunches. Important decisions a  president can make such as whether or not he should send bombers around the world to bomb his enemies, or deciding whether captured illegal immigrants should be sent to El Salvador or whether government departments should be closed on account of waste, fraud, and abuse must all be dealt with on the basis of evidence—the best evidence available—and good solid logical reasoning. Not instincts.

 

What does this have to do with Mennonites and vaccines? Everything!

The End Times

Epidemics/Pandemics, Health, Mennonites, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust, Vaccines

 

I am still trying to figure out, in a circuitous manner, why Mennonites are at the centre of the Measles epidemic in the United States and Canada. To do that I am recalling the Truckers’ Convoy.

 In Ottawa during the trucker’s convoy, there were abundant Christian sermons and even “Jericho Marches” that circled the Parliament buildings echoing the story in the Bible where the Israelite circled that city for 7 days. On the 7th day they blew their horns and the walls came tumbling down.

In Ottawa a woman draped in a Canadian flag led the march and said, “When we sing, enemies flee,” she said as she entered the grounds of Parliament Hill. Hallelujah, hallelujah.”  The woman was Bonita Pederson from Alberta and she claimed with fervor, “I surrendered to our Lord.” She also said she would not reveal her vaccination status just like Steinbach’s Member of Parliament, Ted Falk.  But Pederson went farther than Falk. She said,” I will give everything I have to the freedom movement. My time, my energy, my money, my resources. If necessary, I will surrender my own freedom and even my life.’ Because that is what it could come to.” In other words, she was filled with religious fervour.

Laurence Leriger, 46, from Niagara, Ont., who was unvaccinated, had until March to get the Covid shots or face losing his job. He wouldn’t get employment insurance either because his departure would be categorized as voluntary leave. He refused the vaccine and was very upset that the government had “crossed the line” by closing churches” to prevent transmission of the coronavirus even though they only closed in person worship services.  He told the CBC in Ottawa:

“I think it’s absolutely appalling… they are holding our livelihood over our heads if we don’t take part in a medical experiment,” said Leriger, standing by the Centennial Flame monument., The very nature of the church is to get together, and the government was trying to rule the church. The government left their sphere of authority…This is wickedness. This is complete rebellion against God.”

 

 

Leriger, who became a Christian at age 30, said his personal trials were only part of what motivated his weekend trips to Ottawa in support of the Freedom Convoy. He felt governments crossed a line by shuttering churches during lockdowns.

 

George Dyck, the good Mennonite from Aylmer Ontario who was interviewed by  CBC radio  demonstrated  what I have been saying, that in large part this movement was being driven by a loss of trust in government and authority. As he said, “I am not sure who you can trust anymore. I lost faith in pretty much everything”.

 George Dyck said during the truckers’ convoy event in Ottawa that he believed there were “shadow powers” behind Prime Minister Trudeau and other world leaders.  As a result, he said this was “just the beginning of a creeping tyranny that will tighten its grip…”We live in the Book of Revelation 100 per cent.”  Talk of pandemics of course energizes the extreme religious views because the book of Revelations is commonly believed among Evangelical Christian to prophecy edict the end times.

To George Dyck his duty was clear:

“If you look at what’s happening, how the government is working. It is step-by-step all in the Book of Revelation. It’s clear as day.”

With pressure mounting on Ottawa police to end the protest and politicians of all stripes condemning the disruptions, Dyck says he knows he’s put all his material possessions on the line for this cause — his career, his rig, his mortgage.

“I have children, they might have children. If we don’t sacrifice everything now, then what kind of future will they have?” he said, “What did Jesus do? He gave it all, he gave everything.”

 

These are things that happen when people expect the ‘end times” are near.  Things get kind of crazy.  Is that what is also happening with the measles pandemic. Is it all part of the end times?