Category Archives: reason

The Weird World of the West

Decline of the west, Pessimism, reason, Sacred Ignorance, The Sleep of Reason

 

One thing at least is clear. The world is weird and so is Donald Trump. He may be the weirdest of them all.

 

First of all, we all know that Trump hates renewable energy with a passion. He likes oil, gas, and coal, even when the world, particularly China is moving towards renewable energy. So he has done everything he could do to hold back the turn to renewable energy in the United States because he thinks that the United States is tied to fossil fuels and can benefit from holding back renewables. Added to that the giant energy corporations which he solicited Bigly in the 2024 election are his buddies. He likes them. He understands them. They are greedy like him and are trying to squeeze every dollar out of the fossil fuel economy while it is still significant.

 

There is one other important element here. Trump started the war against Iran entirely on his own initiative. That war is on him and he caused it when no one was encouraging him to attack Iran except right wing zealots from times of yore.

 

Many countries have reacted to this scary thing in variety of ways. Some have tried to find new ways to get their oil to the markets by avoiding the Straight of Hormuz. The allies of the United States like Saudi Arabia and many others have relied on the United States to provide order, stability, and protection. But their American  guarantor has heavily disappointed them.

 

That was has scared a lot of countries. They saw how a relatively small country like Iran without a great deal of power could react to a punishing attack by the richest and most heavily armed country in the world and in effect hold a massive world economy up for ransom in the process.  Ian Bremner an international risk assessment expert had some interesting things to say about this on Fareed Zakaria’s television show on CNN:

 

“It really unnerves them, because they understand that on the back of a unilateral American decision that a relatively small country, can put them at risk  put and can hold a 100 plus trillion dollar global economy at risk and there are tremendous implications of this. One is that OPEC is functionally dead. That is why the Emirates have left. They don’t want to be held with stranded assets…This is also going to affect countries around the world because they can see that these straits, not just here [Hormuz] but also the Red Sea also the Malaqqa are very vulnerable, moving them to renewable energy in a much, much, faster way…We can look back at this in 10 years and see that orange is the new Green. Trump will have done more for renewable energy unintentionally than any other president in US history!”

 

All of this accumulated so much that Bremner said Trump’s starting the War against Iran was “the biggest foreign [policy] mistake of his administration by a very long margin.” This of course was such a big mistake not because it pushed many countries towards renewables, for that was a good thing, but because it pushed China even farther down its agenda in turning away from fossil fuels and more towards renewables which is givng it an incredibe leg up on the US in making its shift to green energy when the US stupidly goes in the opposite direction. China will be eating the US’s lunch.

 

The world is really weird all. And getting weirder all the time.

 

This should hardly be surprising to anyone though. What do you expect when you combine great ignorance with great power as America has done? That’s what sacred ignorance is all about.

Sometimes our Devotion to Ignorance Seems Pretty Profound

Climate change, reason

 

I have travelled, not enough, but a lot. I have been to some of the most beautiful places on the planet.  So has Elizbeth Kolbert, a staff writer for the New Yorker, and as she said, on the Daily Show, “these are places  we might want to take an interest in.” She pointed out that “life on our planet is very resilient, otherwise it wouldn’t be here.” Yet she added an ominous note, “But we are really piling it on right now.” Someone else might have said, “But we are really asking for it right now?” So why are we not changing?

 

We know life on the planet is tenuous. We have a lot of information. Kolbert said, but yet we are doing very little about it. Is that not not terrifying?

 

Kolbert had recently been to Greenland, which ten thousand years ago looked much like New York does today.  Where New York is located people there were standing on more than a mile of ice as people there are doing now in Greenland. After that the ice retreated and we entered an amazing period of climate stability. The climate has been remarkably stable in the last 10,000 years. During this time “we invent what we call civilization.” During this time we invent agriculture, towns, cities and things like that. “And what do we do to use these 10,000 years? We invent ways to disrupt the climate.” Instead of trying to keep the climate which benefited us so much, we destroy it instead. “We have chosen to go the other way with all this mounting evidence of the risks which that entails.”

 

That is pretty dumb isn’t it? You might even ask, “How stupid can you get?” If we keep doing what we are doing, Greenland will come to look like New York but there will be 20 feet of sea level rise over New York city. People will no longer live in New York which they love.

 

But now even if we don’t know how to solve this problem, this very big problem, the fact is we are not anywhere near moving in the right direction. Canada, per capita, is putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than maybe only one or two other countries. That can’t be right!

 

In the US under the leadership of Donald Trump, even though they have produced more of the greenhouse gases than any other country in the world they are not just doing nothing about it, they are not only doing little about it, they are actually encouraging other countries to do nothing either! That can’t be right either. As Kolbert said, “that is pretty unconscionable.” They could not really be doing worse than they are doing. The same goes for Canada, I would add. We always say we are a small country and what we do makes no difference. But we are the #2 polluter per capita in the world per capita and now we want to invest in another major oil pipeline, when green energy is the cheapest energy in the world.

 

China is acting much better than us. It is investing in green energy Bigly while the US and Canada invest in the most expensive and most harmful energy. There is money to be made with clean energy, but we are choosing not to go there. The US is now the largest producer of oil and gas energy on the planet. A lot of people are getting rich on that. The same goes for Canada. People producing oil and gas energy are making a lot money on pipelines. These people, let’s face it, are spending a lot of money to convince us to keep doing what we are doing.  They are spending a lot of money to convince us that things are hopeless we should just keep on trucking. They are spending a lot of money to try to deflect us from doing anything about it and have been very successful at that. That is not just a disgrace. That is stupid.

 

As Kolbert pointed out, we in the US, and of course Canada, are investing as if we have a choice to invest in this new product called light bulbs and want to insist instead on investing in the tried-and-true kerosene.  China will own the new industries. We will be stuck with the old that no one wants anymore. As a result, it is her view that we will really regret this in 20 years while China will bask in its new wealth. That is what we are doing. As Kolbert summed up, “What we are doing makes no sense economically nor environmentally.”

 

As Jon Stewart responded, “Making sense has not been our forte.” And that is stupid. Sometimes our devotion to ignorance seems pretty profound.

 

America Can’t be Great if America is Stupid

Death of Truth, reason, The Sleep of Reason, The War on Smart

 

America has been the center of knowledge and thinking and frankly, brains, for a long time. What Americans have done is astonishing and ought to be celebrated.  But what it is now doing is cause for deep concern. America seems bent on destroying what it has built up and has no one to blame but itself.

 

Frank Bruni is a columnist for the New York Times and a professor at an elite University, namely, Duke University. Now in some circles that is about equivalent to saying Bruni is a child molester. What could be worse?

 

That is how the Trumpsters feel about such a person. They don’t like smart. They prefer dumb. Bruni pointed out that,

 

“But Trump doesn’t seem to get that. Doesn’t want to get that. Gets only that the wonky and effete denizens of the world of ideas aren’t his people, aren’t guaranteed supporters, don’t lavishly praise him and sometimes dare to disparage him. They need their comeuppance, no matter how much damage it does to everyone else.”

 

 

Bruni justifiably criticizes Trump for that, but he seems to think this is all Trump’s fault. The sad fact is the happy Trumpsters by and large feel the same about such smarts as Trump does.

 

Bruni pointed out validly that for decades, at least 60 years if not more, America has been known around the world for the quality of its universities. They are not perfect, they at times slip into anti-semitism, though not as often or as consistently as Trump claims nor his supporters. American universities have been a driving force in the steep rise in quality of economic life during this time. And that has given The US an incredible global economic advantage over its rivals. As Bruni said,

 

“Among our most significant competitive advantages are our scientists, our laboratories, our system of higher education. They’re a kind of superpower, their output an engine of our wealth — of frontier-expanding technology, medical breakthroughs and production innovations that enrich companies as they improve lives.”

 

No one should try to claim that they can’t be improved, but frankly to defund our scientists and universities is about as stupid as defunding the police would be.

 

The most important thing is not to cherish ignorance. Both the left and the right can do better.

The only thing we have that resembles a super power is our smarts.

As Frank Bruni said: “America can’t be great if America is stupid.”

 

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.

 

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.