How Can You Possibly Believe (or Not Believe) in God!?

Everyone knows a type of person that I call a "belief machine". Belief machines are not tied down to any particular religion (or any religion for that matter), but we all know and have met them. These are the people who fervently believe whatever they have been raised to believe and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds.

Likewise we have all met skeptic machines. People who will never believe anything without the most compelling body of evidence to support it. These are people who are completely unmoved, and unfazed by appeals to faith, experience, anecdotes, wonderful stories, etc. Only cold, hard facts and a lot of them will do.

More on that in just a moment.

Two years ago I set out to investigate whether my own beliefs were true. It is my opinion that one can never know if their beliefs are true unless they are willing to consider the possibility that they are false.  I have interviewed thousands of people from dozens of religions and have asked them to answer one simple question: how do you know your beliefs are true?

I have come to the conclusion that Christians, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Jews, Scientologists, Mormons, Baha'i, Deists, Mysticists, Pagans, agnostics, and New Agers are all brilliant, stupid, rational, irrational, kind, mean, wonderful, and mean-spirited in equal measure.  Trust me, I have talked to thousands of these people over the last two years.

What I have discovered is more about humanity and the way our minds work more than anything. So as alluded to earlier, there are certain people (and we all know them) who just believe, absolutely no evidence of any kind is required. And, in fact, if presented with hard evidence contrary to their conclusions, they will simply dismiss it out of hand without a second thought as false.

Folks like that are cognitively wired for belief.

Transversely, there are people on the opposite end of the spectrum cognitively. They simply do not believe anything without strong, supporting evidence often from multiple lines that are repeatedly and independently confirmed. Until an extremely high burden of proof is met, these folks simply will not establish a belief.

People like that are natural-born skeptics.

I'm not saying one position is better than the other, they are simply different. Although, there can be serious problems with either extreme.  The point is humans exist on both ends of that spectrum cognitively and also exist, like a gradient, on every point in between. Some people are simply wired for belief. Other people are naturally skeptical. Then you have people like me who fall somewhere in the center of that spectrum.

To this point, we have all heard people say things like, "I simply do not understand how some people don't believe in god(s)." And we have also probably heard people say, "I simply do not understand how some people DO believe in god(s)."  These are honest statements from opposite ends of the spectrum. A natural-born believer, someone who is cognitively wired before belief is simply not going to understand the mindset of a natural-born skeptic, and vice-versa.

To the natural-born skeptic, a god belief is foreign, unnatural, completely incredulous. She simply cannot understand or relate to why anyone would take something like that on faith. It's ridiculous! Therefore she rationalizes this buy saying things like, "well people who have a god belief are just brainwashed, or delusional."  Because, for her, a god belief can ONLY exist on those terms. Her mind simply cannot understand it, so she rationalizes it in a way that she can understand it. Delusion, dogma, brainwashing, etc.

On the other hand, to the natural-born believer a god belief is intuitive, intrinsic, as easy and as natural as breathing. In fact, most natural-born believers cannot separate themselves from the idea of a belief in god. Existing without a god belief would be the worst possible thing imaginable. Thus, these people simply do not understand natural-born skeptics. They rationalize their non-belief with statements like, "you only don't believe in god(s) because you are angry with them, you know they exist you're just in love with your own pride." Because to them, not having a god belief is simply unfathomable. They cannot and do not understand a skeptic's mindset, so they put it in terms they do understand. "You only don't believe in god because you obviously hate god."

After two years of investigating whether my own beliefs are true, I am not sure I'm any closer to the answer. In fact, I would venture to say my investigation has raised more questions than answers. But I have learned other valuable lessons along the way, including the one I have presented here. Recognizing there are people who have extremely different mindsets than me is important. Understanding people, even people with whom I vehemently disagree with, helps establish empathy. I think all sides should strive to understand one another more, not just assume that their own personal cognitive position applies to every one else. Not everyone thinks as you do, or as I do. But even more so, not everyone is cognitively capable of thinking like you do.  Understanding this should go a long way in helping people with vastly different ideas to discuss matters calmly, and with an eye towards mutual benefit and understanding rather than hate.

Atheists Are Delusional Too

I can still remember my grandmother saying, "when you point a finger at someone, remember that three fingers are pointing at you."  How wise, indeed. A large percentage of atheists I interact with on a regular basis are very skilled at pointing out flaws and weaknesses in other people's reasoning. They are very good at demonstrating how and why religious people often engage in tribalism or groupthink. And they often fail at recognizing these same problems in their own groups and circles.

What inspired this blog was a pretty reckless, irresponsible, and most importantly, unfounded claim by atheist philosopher Peter Boghossian on Twitter. Boghossian asserts that religious belief is often the symptom of a mental health problem. More fervent and tenacious believers have more dramatic health issues.

Ok, false.

First I'd like to address the claim itself, and then offer a bit of a verbal spanking for that kind of baseless assertion from a man in his position.

The National Institute of Health indicates that people who suffer from depression are more likely to turn to religion for assistance, and also more likely to break out of depression because of religious beliefs. The NIH indicates that the correlation between mental health deficiencies and religiosity are inconclusive due to a lack of data. (Link to the NIH Study)

The Psychiatric Times, which is a professional journal for psychiatrists, indicates that as of 2000, more than 724 studies have been done on the correlation between religiosity and mental health disorders. The journal is quoted thusly:

"The evidence suggests that, on balance, religious involvement is generally conducive to better mental health." - Psychiatric Times, January 2010

The Psychiatric Bulletin indicates that religious beliefs and practices may help patients cope better with mental illnesses, and that this claim is backed by research.

"Religious beliefs and practices of patients have long been thought to have a pathological basis and psychiatrists for over a century have understood them in this light. Recent research, however, has uncovered findings which suggest that to some patients religion may also be a resource that helps them to cope with the stress of their illness or with dismal life circumstances." - The Psychiatric Bulletin, June 2008

Both the Psychiatric Times and the Psychiatric Bulletin indicate that the idea that religiosity and mental health problems are correlated is a century-old and that is no longer believed in the psychiatric community.  For Dr. Boghossian, who is a well-respected author and philosopher, to use speak with the same level of authority that he has earned in philosophy on a subject like mental health, for which he is not an expert, is unconscionable.

Not only was the assertion patently false, but it violates a skeptical method of inquiry that Dr. Boghossian lives and breathes.  In his book, "A Manual for Creating Atheists", Boghossian repeatedly insists that philosophical skepticism is the only real  player in the game of determining truth claims. I actually agree. The problem is that philosophical skepticism requires its adherents to follow evidence and adopt conclusions, even when those conclusions are in conflict with their personal feelings and preferences.  Boghossian repeatedly says that he is not an antitheist in his book, but I disagree. It's clear to me that Boghossian doesn't like religion or religious belief. So much so that he's willing to make claims like "religious belief and poor mental health are correlated" when they are clearly not. Even a 15 minute search on Google will put that idea to rest.

I'm not necessarily trying to pick on Boghossian here. The point I am making is that he is clearly a very well-educated man who has made skepticism his life's passion. But he is human. Just like you and me. If a man who eats, breathes, and lives skepticism is willing to make such a baseless assertion, are we capable of doing the same? Yes. Of course. It's a condition of being human.  So please be careful, oh atheist. And remember the next time you point a finger at someone for being delusional, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

If I Only Had a Brain: A Review of "God's Not Dead"

A "Strawman argument" is a popular tool in debate, politics, and propaganda. A strawman argument happens when one side intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument, then destroys the misrepresentation instead of their actual position.

"My opponent claims X, but that's ridiculous because A,B,C".

No. Your opponent does not claim X. You are asserting that your opponent claims X when in fact they do not.  This misrepresentation is a very effective tool. It's propping up a false position of your opponent (strawman), then making them and their position seem ridiculous by tearing up the false assertion instead of addressing their actual position. It's very disingenuous.

Speaking of disingenuous, that's the single word I would use to describe the recent film, "God's Not Dead". Disingenuous on multiple fronts. The film itself is basically a 2-hour long strawman argument of atheism. The protagonist of the story is a college freshman named Josh Wheaton. Wheaton bravely takes Philosophy 150: Introduction to Philosophical Thought taught by the sinister and evil super atheist, professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo of Hercules fame.)

Every single non-Christian in this film is a terrible person, including Radisson. I have seen numerous (false) Internet memes about mean, bullying, atheist professors who were taken to school by steadfast paradigms of faith Christian students. The most famous one, of course, was an account of Einstein intellectually whipping an atheist professor during his freshman year.  A false story, indeed, as Einstein found the idea of a personal, loving, intervening God preposterous. Nonetheless, this film played right into that class of glurge. Radisson's character was an intellectual bully.

In the first three minutes of his first class he proposes to the class that they bypass the portion of the syllabus which discusses God and just all agree that God is a myth. Therefore, simply write "God is Dead" on a piece of paper, sign it, turn it in and you get an automatic credit for 1/3 of the class.

Ok, no.

"There is a god in my class, it's me. And I'm a jealous God."

As a student of philosophy, this is abhorrent and something no philosophy professor would ever do. The class is supposed to be an introduction to philosophical thought and the class begins with the professor bypassing all critical thought and discussion on perhaps the most important question we can answer and gives his students what their conclusion should be... or else.  Any, especially philosophy, professor doing this should be fired on the spot.  Secondly, the only person who took an issue with this was brave, brave Josh Wheaton. In an American public university, where the overwhelming majority of students are Christian, only one person raises an objection to this ridiculous demand? I think not.

On issues like God, morality, ethics, epistemology, the divine, the supernatural, etc. a great deal about how one should properly think can be demonstrated by tackling these subjects regardless of where one falls on the conclusion. In general, philosophers care less about conclusions (God does or doesn't exist), and more about how one properly supports said conclusion. In other words, philosophers care less about what you think and more about why. The why is how we can examine and properly assess philosophical thought.

When Wheaton refuses to sign a statement of non-belief, Radisson tells him he must defend his refusal in front of the class or fail the class. I found the statement of belief upon threat of failure to be particularly dishonest and  hypocritical, and every other Christian should feel the same way.

The only universities that require students to sign statements of belief upon threat of failure or expulsion are Christian universities.

Let that sink in for just a moment.

The very practice that the movie adamantly portrays as unfair and bullyish is a common practice among Christian universities. Instead of giving students the tools to arrive at their own answers, they hold a student's good standing with the university hostage. This is a very affront to education.

Aside from this glaring hypocrisy-bomb, the movie featured numerous other story lines. I won't go into all them but they can all be summarized thusly: a really terrible and mean non-Christian picks on Christians and through the resolute faith of the Christian, comes to be saved, or gets cancer, or hit by a car, or both.

I am thoroughly well-versed in the arguments for atheism, and none of them appeared in the movie. Well, not correctly anyway. Every argument for atheism was a pretty bad bastardization for a good argument that was thoroughly deconstructed by a college freshman in ten minutes which culminated in mean, old Professor Radisson running out of his classroom crying. Yes, seriously.

Give me a break.

In short, this movie was disingenuous, dishonest, highly insulting, hypocritical, and was a two-hour long strawman. But hey, at least it had Duck Dynasty in it. Summary: I was embarrassed for this movie. I was embarrassed for everyone who participated in it.

Drinking with Bob Jones

The humble Irish Pub.

One of the happiest memories of my life was a day that I spent, quite by accident, drinking at this little dive in Greenville, SC called simply, "The Irish Pub".  I found this place because it was situated right beside a chess tournament in which I was competing and had just bested my opponent in only 9 moves in the last round of the tournament. I skipped over to this little bar to wait for my ride back home to finish this game. An hour later, Germans were buying me drinks and we were all yelling "Deutschland!" as Germany crushed Italy in the World Cup 5-0. Of course the Germans were buying me drinks. Germany just won a World Cup game, 5-0.

But that's a story for another time.

Recently, I returned to Greenville to meet a friend of mine that I had not seen in ten years. When I arrived in Greenville, he informed me that he was stuck in horrible Atlanta traffic and was still an hour and a half out.  I decided I would see how far our meeting spot was from the aforementioned Irish Pub for which I have gushing fondness. Only four minutes from here? Well, I know where I'm spending the next hour and a half.

I pulled up a chair to the bar inside the pub and ordered a Magner's Apple Cider.  I got to talking to these two guys at the bar in their 20's. The conversation was nothing exciting really. I told them, with great enthusiasm how I came to discover this place and subsequently how I became a German soccer fan.  They really loved the story, and they should, it's a great story.

The conversation turned to work, and activities outside the bar. The guys mentioned they were Bob Jones University students. Most people in South Carolina are familiar with Bob Jones University. However, for those who are not, here is your primer. Bob Jones University is an ultra-conservative Baptist University in Greenville. Students are taught a young-Earth science curriculum based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

Students are also forced to sign statements of belief and ethics on threat of expulsion. BJU students are not allowed to have physical contact with the opposite sex... like, at all. No holding hands, no hugging, no kissing. Verboten! Students cannot watch R-rated movies, cannot participate in secular activities and most certainly cannot be at the Irish Pub drinking.

We then got into a discussion about God which I would like to dissect because it's an interesting one.  The students indicated it would be fine for me to write the blog but requested anonymity because their lives could be ruined if anyone found out they were drinking. Thus, the two students will be referred to as "D" and "P".

Disclaimer: Often times I will argue for the existence of God. Other times I will argue against the existence of God. This helps me understand and invoke honest responses from other people about their beliefs. It's an exercise in understanding what people believe and why.

THE CONVERSATION

Me: So you guys believe the Earth is like 8,000 years old because Genesis says so?
D: Yep.
P: Well, I'm slightly more open to an older Earth, but certainly no older than 12,000 years old.
Me: Why do you believe that?
D: Because the Bible says so.
Me: So you believe that, despite all the evidence to the contrary?
D: Like what?
Me: Like every discipline of natural science. Geology, archaeology, climatology, astronomy, physics, biology, oceanography, etc. All of these disciplines independently date the Earth way older than 8,000 years old.
D: <drinks>
P: I have heard that. I guess I just trust in the Bible.
Me: Why?
P: Because it's God's inerrant word.
Me: Why do you believe that?
P: Oh. You don't? What do you believe about God?
Me: I'm certainly open to the idea of a god. I just don't see any good reason to believe in one over the other without sufficient evidence.
D: What kind of evidence would you accept?
Me: One that could not also confirm a different god.
D: What do you mean?
Me: Well, like if you told me because you had an experience where God revealed himself to you, if I accept that as evidence I would also have to accept a Muslim's experience too as evidence for Allah. If you told me you had a perfect, inerrant holy book, dozens and dozens of other religions also make the same claims about their books too.  There's inaccuracies and inconsistencies in all of them, and scholars from each religion who painstakingly explain why those inaccuracies and contradictions aren't really inaccuracies and contradictions. If you told me I had to just believe on faith, well other religions claim that too. Judaism and Islam come to mind on the faith front, but also vastly different subsets of Christianity which you consider heretical like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. All tout truth on the basis of faith. Which one should I believe? They all make competing claims. That kind of thing.
D: Interesting. So how do you think all of this got here?
Me: I don't know. <drinks>
P: Do you think it's possible a god made everything?
Me: Sure. Totally possible. I've had Hindus tell me that existence in all its majesty, beauty, complexity and wonder attest to the power of Brahma the Creator. Also had Muslims tell me the same thing about Allah, Christians, Yahweh. That's the thing, I've yet to figure out why I should believe in one god over another, which is what I was saying at the beginning of the conversation.
D: Well, like how do you account for morality? I mean I get non-believers can be moral, but what I'm saying is where did we get this sense of morality?
Me: I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that for sure, however there is strong evidence that morality is an emergent property in social species. We can directly observe moral behavior in social mammals like dolphins, elephants, orcas, orangutans, chimps, that kind of thing. I have a feeling that at some point in the past, moral behavior benefited the group and then by de facto, the individual. At some point in the past it became beneficial to act morally. If members of the group fail and die, your odds for survival go down. Simple as that. You hunt, I tend the fields. It's in my best interest to see that you prosper. It's in your interest to see that I prosper. Like that. But I admit, I'm not certain about this, it just happens to be what I think.
P: Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?
Me: Everyday, all the time. I inspect and bang on my beliefs daily. I assert I spend more time asking myself "are my beliefs true?" in a single day, than most people will in a lifetime. The reason I'm a philosophical skeptic is because I consider the possibility that I'm wrong, everyday. My skepticism is a by-product of admitting to myself that I'm flawed cognitively, that I process information poorly like every other human.  I don't know all the answers. The main difference between me and most people is that we are all equally flawed and don't have all the answers, it's just that I don't pretend like I have the answers. <drinks>
P: That's really interesting, and I must admit, thought-provoking. <drinks>
D: Well, I want you to consider this carefully. If I'm wrong and you're right, we both go into the grave and nothing happens. But if I'm right and you're wrong, you're eternally lost and have the greatest price to pay.
Me: Ah, yes. Pascal's wager, indeed. I have numerous problems with Pascal's wager that I'd like to mention. First, I do not have a choice as to what I believe. You nor I can will ourselves at this very moment to believe Santa Claus is real and delivers presents to children in a sleigh powered by flying reindeer. Belief is not voluntary, it's the result of your brain processing evidence and making an involuntary assessment of the evidence.

Secondly what if you're wrong and the Muslims right? You are going to Hell for committing the blasphemy of believing in Christ's divinity.

Finally, I don't find Pascal's wager a particularly compelling reason for belief. Belief simply for the purposes of avoiding Hell is essentially reducing God to fire insurance, which I imagine he would find somewhat insulting.

I've enjoyed the talk, but have to run so let me leave you with this. Let's say a parent takes two children into a grocery store. Before entering the store she says to one child, "if you behave, when we leave the store I will take you to buy ice cream for your good behavior!"  She makes no promise to the other child or plea to be good. During the shopping trip, both children behave. Of the two, which one is the more moral? The one who was promised a reward for good behavior, or the one who was good despite having no promise of a reward?

D: (wide-eyed) Uh. The child who was promised nothing.

Me: Exactly. One day if I ever meet a god, regardless of which god it turns out to be, maybe even one you don't know about. I can confidently say, hey I never knew about you in order to believe in you, but look I was good and loving and selfless, and I did all of these things without being coaxed with some kind of promise or threat. And that's why I don't care for Pascal's wager
P: (silent, staring wide-eyed)
D: (silent for several seconds) Wow. That is actually a really, really good point.
Me: I appreciate it. I think about these things a lot. It was a pleasure meeting you both, I have to go. (shakes hands with both)
D: I'm not going to lie man, you have definitely given me some things to think about.
P: Yeah, same here.
Me: Good. I don't really care what people believe, I care why they believe it. Never questioning what you're told is dangerous and it leads to things like flying airplanes into buildings because you truly believe you're doing something righteous and honoring to your god's will. That's why I encourage everyone to ask questions, and hey if you ask questions and come back to your original conclusion, you're still a better person for having taken the journey.

How the Rooster is Responsible for the Sunrise

I have some very bad news for you. Your way of forming beliefs is very flawed. And so is mine. It's a condition of being human called "cognitive bias". If you ever feel like crying one day, or just rocking for hours in a fetal position, Google "cognitive bias" and spend some time sorting through at how terrible humans are at processing and interpreting information.

There are hundreds of cognitive biases, some more destructive than others, but one of the more relevant ones is called false causation. Also known as "false cause", "correlation not causation" or for any logic nerds, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after that, therefore because of that).

Let's say you begin working at a new job. Your new employer brews coffee each and every morning for the employees. The coffee is some off brand, it's not terribly good, but it's free. You quickly discover each time you drink the coffee, your mouth swells up, you start sniffling, and you just feel poorly in general. You drink a different brand of coffee at home, name-brand, and this never happens. So you quickly conclude that this off-brand coffee is causing this reaction.

There is an actual correlation. Drink off-brand coffee at work, immediately have a bad reaction. If you avoid drinking the coffee at work, then you never have a bad reaction. This is a correlation. Our cognitive bias immediately leads us to conclude that the correlation is the cause.  Unbeknownst to us, it's actually the cheap, off-brand dish soap that is used to clean the coffee pot that is causing the allergic reaction, not the coffee.

This is a harmless example. However, this bias manifests much more strongly in our cognition in other, more relevant areas of our lives. Not the least of which is superstition.  Maybe if we all grow our beards, we will win the world series! You can bet your bottom dollar the entire Red Sox baseball team will be sporting beards on opening day in 2014.

This bias is why people of antiquity believed things like sacrificing children could control the weather, or that slaughtering livestock could ward off sickness.  It's also how politicians can easily fool people.  Stop me if you have heard this one before, "unemployment has gone way down since I have been in office" or "during the Congressman's term, violent crime has double in his state."

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Politicians take credit for the good, and distance themselves from the bad. Their opponents hold them responsible for the bad, and disconnect them from the good.  I titled the blog thusly because I remember a presidential debate when I was a kid. I can't remember who it was exactly or which party said it but, the phrase uttered was "my opponent taking credit for the improvement in our economy is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise."  That statement always resonated with me, and it's a prime example of correlation and causation.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 

This phrase was made famous by Mark Twain. Twain speaks on how persuasive and misleading statistics are, mainly because of our cognitive biases. Unfortunately, this leads people to distrust any statistics that disagrees with their point-of-view because "statistics cannot be trusted."

Ironically, statistics are generally very accurate when conducted by a reputable organization. The reason that statistics are misleading is not because we cannot trust them to be accurate, it's that we cannot trust ourselves to make sense of the numbers because of the false causation bias.

Here is a good example, 99.8% of inmates in American prisons believe in God. That means only 0.2% of American prisoners are atheists, even though atheists account for about 10% of the American population. I have presented this information before to believers who cry, "bullcrap!" or "nonsense!" They absolutely refuse to even accept the correlation exists. That is because they believe that correlation equals causation (religion causes bad behavior, atheism causes moral behavior), the causation cannot possibly be true, therefore the correlation is not true.  This is a flawed way of thinking.  The correlation exists, but the causation probably does not.

Again this gets back to the idea that statistics are not unreliable in and of themselves, our ability to interpret and apply meaning to statistics is what is flawed and should be approached with apprehension and skepticism.  

Regarding the prison population in America, prisons are required to observe religious practices of inmates. Claiming a religion gives special rights and privileges to inmates that the non-religious do not receive. That is also why there is a high number of Muslim prisoners in America. Islam does not cause people to end up in American jails. When an inmate gets to jail, they often convert to Islam, because Muslims are permitted out of their cells eight times per day for prayer in many institutions. That is far more likely an explanation for the over-representation of theists in prisons and the under-representation of atheists.

We've Kicked God out of Schools, therefore School Shootings

I once saw a televangelist say that prayer was removed from public schools in 1962 by the Supreme Court. Then he began spouting off all of these statistics about how much worse things are in schools now. School shootings, drugs, etc. and claimed that we kicked God out of schools and therefore this is the results we get. This same mentality comes up after every school shooting in America. "We don't allow God in schools, so he can't save those children."

This is nonsense in the highest degree.

First of all, the fact that said televangelist is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Federal prison for 58 counts of tax evasion and fraud notwithstanding, his entire premise is wrong. Prayer was not removed from American schools in 1962. The Supreme Court disallowed faculty-led prayer or religious programs in publicly-funded schools. Since 1962, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently upheld student's right to pray, form religious clubs, even use the school property for student-led religious events and meetings.  Public schools are required to allow students time for prayer.  The Supreme Court has been very clear on that.

Secondly, there were 24 school shootings in America in the 30 years prior to 1962. There were 25 school shootings in the 30 years after 1962. 

Thirdly, even if the fraudulent sleezebag's claims were accurate (and they certainly were not), then he has simply demonstrated a correlation and nothing more.  Determining causation is often really, really difficult.  In fact, when statistical studies are published the finders of said studies are required to offer numerous explanations for causation and then apply confidence levels to those explanations. The people who understand statistics and correlation the most, are the ones most apprehensive to state causation the most.

It should come as no surprise, then, the people who understand correlation and causation the least, are the most likely the ones to make a false connection between the two, and then vote a politician into office based on a flawed method of thinking.

Plato's Cave is More Relevant than Ever

If you have never heard the phrase “cognitive dissonance” it’s one you need to be very familiar with, because it affects you (and me) directly.  Cognitive dissonance is a bias which makes us hold onto beliefs, even when presented with evidence to the contrary.  It is a normal human process to resist new information. It’s normal to distrust evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.  It’s even normal to accept wildly outrageous beliefs in order to support existing beliefs.

Plato wrote a deeply poignant work on dissonance even before the cognitive bias was identified in his “Allegory of the Cave”.  Allow me to give a brief introduction to the Cave before I move onto why it’s more relevant than ever.

Humans do not experience true reality. Stay with me on this one. We experience a version of reality that we construct through our senses, understanding, beliefs, culture, etc. Our individual version of reality is called a “paradigm”. I am sure you have heard the phrase “paradigm shift”. A paradigm shift is when you gain some information that is so overwhelming, it completely changes your perception of reality in an instant.

Author Stephen Covey (“7 Habits of Highly Effective People”) tells a story in which he was on a subway train with a father of three screaming, wild children who did nothing to reign in their unruly behavior. He let them run wild on the subway while staring into space. Covey constructed the reality that this man was the worst father ever. After several minutes of all the passengers growing irritated Covey finally yelled at the man, “can you please get your children under control? They are annoying everyone!” Covey said the man snapped out of it and said, “I’m so sorry. We just left the hospital. My wife, their mother has died and I don’t know how to tell them.”

That’s a paradigm shift.  Your perception of reality changes in an instant based on a modicum of new information.

Plato compares our paradigm to sitting in front of a wall inside of a cave, chained to a chair. Behind us, a fire burns which casts shadows on the wall at which we are staring. Also standing behind us are puppeteers who are casting shadows on the wall in front of us. We interpret those shadows and images as true reality.

This is how most people will spend their lives, Plato asserts. Always sitting and staring at this wall, believing what they are told is reality without question or complaint.  Plato goes onto assert that the “philosopher” is the one who will look around, see the exit to the cave and wonder what is there.  Plato asserts the chains that bind us to the chair are illusory and we are free to leave at any time. However, most people, comfortable with their belief, may turn around to see the cave exit but the uncomfortable light will cause them to turn around immediately and stare back at the wall to which they are accustomed.

That is cognitive dissonance.

Some people, like the author of this blog, absolutely have to know what is outside that cave.  Others are more comfortable saying, “no, thank you. I do not know what is out there, and frankly don’t need to know, I’m happy and comfortable with this wall.”

Neither cognitive position is superior to the other, they are just different. Some people are not emotionally equipped to step outside the cave. I get that. I am the opposite. I am not comfortable remaining in front of the wall, when I know something else is out there.  I don’t want to believe, I want to know. Others don’t want to know, they just want to believe.

Plato goes onto say that the philosopher who courageously steps outside the cave are the ones who experience the full breadth of reality in its full terror, awe, brilliance, majesty, and fright.  The ones who remain inside the cave never experience reality, but always remain in comfort.

Plato asserts it is then the moral obligation of the philosopher to run back into the cave and attempt to liberate the others. However, Plato warns, the ones who remain chained will sometimes fight you, violently, in order to remain exactly where they are.

That is cognitive dissonance. Don’t drag me away from my chains, I want to stay here and will fight you to do so.

The philosopher will be cheered by some, and hated by others.  Either way, it is their duty to liberate as many people as possible from their illusory chains.

The Matrix is a science fiction take on Plato's Cave

I find myself in the sometimes dubious position of the philosopher. I have a voracious appetite for truth. I have to know what is true, even if it requires me to destroy beliefs that I have held for years.  I work very hard at pushing my tendency to be cognitively dissonant (as all humans are) aside in order to pursue truth.  Occasionally this causes me to engage others who passionately hold that their shadows on the wall are better than everyone else’s. Sometimes my challenging these notions is not appreciated.

I have to know what is true, even if the truth is horrible. I prefer an awful truth to a comforting lie.
So how and why is Plato’s cave more relevant than ever? Because of the Information Age. Humanity has more access to information than we have ever had in the history of humanity. The speed and ability at which we can share ideas with people around the world is mesmerizing.

The tidal wave of information we have available to us simply means that at some point in the coming years, remaining cognitively dissonant will become harder and harder for each passing generation. In other words, those bound to their chairs will no longer have to willingly walk to the cave exit. The cave exit is hurtling towards us with great speed.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Support Same-Sex Marriage

I am a believer. However, the issue of same-sex marriage is a personal one to me for several reasons. It's not so much that I am an ardent supporter of gay rights, it's that I see how people are being oppressed. I see how people are suffering, and I see the way in which christianity is being damaged because people are using the Bible to generate that oppression, and I believe Christ would be horrified by that.

1-You have no good reason to oppose it. 

I understand that Christians use the Bible as a moral guide, and that is totally fine. However, citing "because the Bible says..." is no more valid of a reason to legislate U.S. law than "because the Qu'ran says...." When we are deciding what is fair under the law, religious beliefs do not enter into the equation. Period. When pundits were giving arguments to the Supreme Court why DOMA should be upheld, not a single religious reason was mentioned because they knew the court would not, and could not, accept any reasons for supporting DOMA due to a religious belief.  Basing our laws on any religious belief is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It is fine for you, as a christian, to believe homosexuality is wrong. But people are going to be homosexual whether or not they receive equal treatment under the law.

2-Because "What will happen if we allow this?" is also not a valid reason.

Dogs and humans will not be permitted to marry if same-sex marriage is allowed. Neither will children and adults be allowed to marry. The reason is because neither animals or children have the capacity to enter into legally binding contracts under the law. Marriage is, and always will be, about mutually consenting adults entering into a contract to receive benefits from the government. The same benefits which are being denied to some because of their sexuality, also known as, discrimination.

Furthermore, saying we should not allow X because Y could happen is a logical fallacy known as "The Slippery Slope". You cannot base what is legal and right on some possible future scenario.  Possible future outcomes cannot be used to determine the morality of the issue at hand. Allowing same-sex marriage is either constitutional or its unconstitutional. What MIGHT happen as a result does not factor into the legality of it.

3-Because people are suffering as a result

In their recent DOMA decision, the Supreme Court listed about a dozen examples of how homosexuals are suffering real, actual harm as a result of not being allowed to marry their significant other under the law.

Did you know under HIPAA laws only family are allowed to be in the room with critical patients? There have been numerous reports of couples who have been together for numerous years who were not allowed to see their significant other in their last dying moments because they "were not married" or family.

Secondly, there have been many numerous instances where the unexpected death of a significant other has had their estate assets transferred to probate or to the deceased persons' parents who opposed the relationship. In short, a significant other never got a chance to receive legal assets that a married person would have no problem being entitled to.

We can cite a number of examples of how the suffering of people could be alleviated by allowing same-sex marriage. You can cite no examples of how you personally would suffer if same-sex marriage were legalized.

4-It's going to happen anyway.

The course of American history has gravitated, without fail, towards the inclusion of previously marginalized groups of people. And every time, the inclusion of the oppressed has been strongly opposed and history has judged the opposers as hateful, small-minded, bigots, fair or not.

Fifty years from now, same-sex marriage will be legal in every state. Your grandchildren will view your opposition to it in the same way you cringe when you hear your grandparents or great grandparents dropping the "N-word" or saying "colored people" without a second thought.

Don't be on the wrong side of history.

5-You are damaging the testimony of Christ

This is probably the most important reason for your consideration. I have heard christians screaming until they are blue in the face, that they are not hateful bigots. To be honest, I sincerely believe you. I understand that you hate the sin and not the sinner. But to reiterate, people will be gay whether you give them equal rights under the law or not. The fact of the matter is, people who are being oppressed and who are suffering as a result look at christians and say "these are the people denying my rights, I want none of what they are selling."

I know that it's probably an unfair label that they are applying to you. Regardless of whether its fair or not, it is how people are perceiving christians. Imagine how differently the world would see christians if they flocked to homeless shelters, rape crisis centers, and food banks the way that they have all flocked to oppose same-sex marriage. Do you think the world would have a different opinion of christianity then? Which do you think Christ would rather you do?