Category Archives: Vaccines

The Monsters of Unreason

Critical thinking, Death of Truth, Vaccines

 

The Spanish painter Goya labelled one of his paintings with this caption: “The Sleep of Reason brings forth monsters.” I think that is a profound statement that is deeply true. That has become extremely important during the pandemic. It is my belief that in the United States in particular, but including many other countries, it has become painfully obvious that reason has gone to sleep and we have had to suffer the consequences.  We don’t have to look any further than the refusal to use vaccines by millions of people even after the scientific evidence and real-world evidence made it overwhelming clear, that the best chance we had to combat Covid-19 was to take the vaccines. There were no good reasons not to take vaccines in almost all cases. Yet people resisted.  Why was that?

 

I have been talking about the sleep of reason since my second post in this blog. That was long before the pandemic. I was concerned that many people, particularly in the United States, have forsaken evidence-based decisions making, critical reasoning, and thinking obsolete in favor of faith, hunches, feelings, instincts, and ultimately conspiracy theories. It seemed people prefer living in FantasyLand to the real boring world of truth and facts.  Some call this a “post truth world” as it seemed people no longer cared about truth. I believed this was a dangerous development.

 

I have been amazed that it could happen in the United States home to the finest universities and scientists in the world. How could this have happened? In previous posts I have tried to explain why I think this happened. This was a pandemic of unreason long before anyone heard of Covid-19.  Since then, this disease has been delivered to us in high-def and there are no vaccines to save us or mitigate the harms. We just have to suffer. And we are suffering from the monsters of unreason.

Those monsters of unreason are still lurking and are more dangerous than ever

Critical thinking, Freedom, Vaccines

Freedom

 

The first word Carol Off tackles in her book At a Loss for Words, is the word I immediately thought of when I realized what her subject was. Off like me was appalled at how the word “freedom” has been repeatedly hijacked by diverse groups in their own personal interests, at the expense of truth. The one group that came top of mind to me was Canada’s truckers’ convoy and their allies around the country, including Steinbach. To them the word “freedom” has come to mean the capacity to do anything one wants no matter what the consequences to others. Any restraint, no matter how rational is considered an affront to freedom.

 

In Ottawa and across the country the truckers demanded release from the tyranny of government-imposed vaccine mandates, even after those mandates  had been largely eased, while they forgot about the fact that millions of lives had been amazingly protected by those vaccines from a novel virus that was threatening them even though the problems with the vaccines were miniscule to minute compared to the substantial benefits for the vast majority of people.

 

As Carol Off said, “They’ve attempted to repurpose the word for a political agenda that seeks to exclude anyone outside their tribe. For those who have truly escaped the iron hand of oppression, these freedom chants smack of privilege and historical revisionism.”

 

I think she nailed it.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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?

 

Faith Fuels the Resistance

Epidemics/Pandemics, Evangelical Christianity, Health, Mennonites, The Sleep of Reason, Vaccines

 

I noticed that during the Truckers’ Convoy which haunted Ottawa for a few weeks in the winter of 2022, during the end of the pandemic many of the protesters were fueled by faith. Trucker George Dyck, interviewed on CBC radio, and likely a good Mennonite, was not concerned when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threatened to invoke the Emergencies Act even though it could be used to freeze his bank account.

This is what he told Jorge Barrera of CBC News at the time:

“I take it one step at a time,” said Dyck. “In all honesty, God is my shield, and that is what I stand by.”

 Barrera said this in response: “Faith led him to Ottawa, and faith is what keeps him there.” In other words, echoing the words of Bob Dylan in another context, “You don’t count the dead with God on your side.”

In February of 2022 George Dyck, who lives about 600 kilometres southwest of Ottawa in Aylmer, Ontario, the centre of the largest outbreak of measles in North America, Ont., prayed with his wife before going to turn his 18 wheel rig toward Ottawa in order to join a national protest against mask mandates even though they were not imposed by the federal government.  As he told CBC News, “I had the feeling I had to be here,” said the 44-year-old trucker.

 

This strikes as being a religious response. Many of us don’t see how this could be a religious issue, but I think it is for people like George Dyck, and some other Mennonites, and other people too in and around the area of Aylmer. It also strikes me that this is the same as it is for the measles vaccine, which the same people in the same places seem to resist.

 

If it is a religious belief then of course it will be very difficult to dislodge. As John Loftus once said about religious beliefs, “it is impossible to reason someone out of a religious belief, because they did not get the belief by reason.” I am paraphrasing his comments here.

 

Barrera described this incident in Ottawa in 2022:

“Dyck has been parked there for over three weeks and, this past Saturday, his cargo trailer was a refuge from the windchill-edged temperatures of downtown Ottawa, with a handful of chairs toward the back and a propane heater emanating warmth.

 

The words “Freedom Is Essential” are emblazoned in large blue and yellow letters across the side of his charcoal-coloured trailer.

 

At one point, a man shook Dyck’s hand as he left the trailer, a folded $50 bill in his palm. This happens a lot — bills slipped in with a handshake, a smile and a thank you. Dyck often responds with, “God bless you.”

 

The truckers in Ottawa were part of a movement that felt a lot like a religion. As Barrera said,

 

“God keeps telling me to, ‘Stay where you are. Don’t go anywhere. You are doing the right thing,'” Dyck said.

 

Devoted to the cause.

 

Christian faith — with an overtly evangelical feel — flows likes an undercurrent through the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. 

It’s unclear how many of the roughly 4,000 people who gathered in the Parliament precinct this past weekend call themselves Christians, but the biblical references were everywhere — in the hand-made placards lining the stone and iron fence at the border of Parliament Hill reading, “We are praying for Justin [Trudeau],” quoting parts of Psalm 23 or paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 1:27 in the New Testament:

“God chose the foolish to shame the wisdom of the wise.”

 

 

One thing is clear, the connection between the anti-vaccine movement  has now morphed into the anti-measles vaccine movement and is filled with evangelical exuberance which runs deep.