WINNOW OUT ALL FORMS OF SELF-DECEPTION
- BE YOUR AUTHENTIC SELF
A mother is hit by her son who she adores. She convinces herself that she dreamt
it. She knows deep down that she didn't. But she turns off that voice that tells
her that. Now she seems to believe that he didn't do it. She is engaging in
self-deception.
Because she knows the truth and won't face it she is deceiving herself. She is
deceiving anybody who she tells that her son would never hit her. When she seems
to succeed in fooling them that confirms her denial - she finds it harder to see
her own foolishness. Even when she simply says he is good, one of her implicit
meanings is that he wouldn't hit his mother. So the deception goes deeper than
her simply denying her son has or would hit her.
We are so good at self-deception that psychologists and psychiatrists deny that
we can ever be completely unbiased and fair and objective. Christian
psychiatrist Andrew Sims admits this. Page 146 of his tome, Is Faith Delusion?,
says that all attempts to be objective or totally unbiased fall short in the
sense that there will always be a bias or subjective aspect. In short, the
unprejudiced observation does not exist.
Even the most devoted servant of God is practicing a degree of deceit in his or
her religious affairs and practices.
The atheist must be engaging in self-deceit too in order to be an atheist.
The best we can hope for is that everybody's statements and beliefs are or are
intended to be sufficiently accurate. Their accuracy and the intent to be
accurate will have been degraded by the self-deceit.
Self-deception influences all we believe and testify to. Suppose somebody
reports a miracle. Is it more probable that the claim arises because somebody is
deceiving themselves than that a real magical event happened? We have stronger
proof that people deceive themselves than we do of miracles. For example,
everybody practices self-deception but hardly anybody sees miracles. And when
they do they don't experience as many miracles as they do episodes of
self-deception. Also, people suffer and die for their self-deception but you
don't see anybody dying for belief in miracles.
Another problem is that a miracle can be caused by a magical violation of nature
or it can be caused by a natural law that we don't know of yet. The latter is
the most likely possibility of the two. Thus even miracles then cannot prove
that the supernatural exists. Maybe the secret natural law rather than causing
blood to come from a statue is actually causing people to think it came from the
state though their mechanism of self-deception?
Christianity says the testimony of twelve apostles is enough to make belief in
the resurrection of Jesus reasonable. The word apostle in the special sense is
used to mean those who have seen the resurrection of Jesus and have been
accepted as its official witnesses and missionaries. The Book of Acts say that
the apostles chose Matthias as a new apostle in the place of the traitor Judas
as he knew Jesus like they did. We say that the testimony of twelve psychiatric
patients that self-deception is very powerful makes it more reasonable to deny
that the testimony of the twelve apostles is enough.
Christians have twelve witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the
apostles. Did these witnesses deceive themselves? Christians say their testimony
is accurate. They cannot know that so they are deceiving themselves - they would
need to be the apostles to see if self-deception was at work.
We know of wives who died because they would not stop believing that their evil
monster husbands who murdered them were good people. The evidence that people
die for self-deception is better than the evidence that people die for the truth
or what they genuinely know is true.
The evidence for the reliability of human testimony to miracles is always
counteracted by evidence that people deceive themselves.
If religion makes self-deception worse or gives us another reason to engage in
it as if we don't have enough as it is then religion is a bad thing.
Rationalising means
- you call something rational when you have not thought it out for yourself.
Religion likes to say, "People say our religion is stupid and wrong. But if it
is, why do so many intelligent people even scientists support it?" Every
religion says the same thing and if a religion is ridiculous you need
intelligent people to make it look sensible. Calling yourself rational means you
take it for granted that you have to do the thinking yourself. Nobody has the
right to expect another to see them as rational - the person must give you the
reasons and let you test for yourself. You simply cannot know a person makes
sense without seeing they make sense.
- you make far-fetched excuses for holding a view that is wrong or improbable.
For example, Padre Pio was able to undergo surgery without anaesthetic yet he
claimed it was painful if somebody tried to touch his allegedly miraculous
stigmata marks. Another example. The medium Florence Cook used props and was
caught fraudulently pretending that she could call up the dead. She claimed she
did not know what she was doing for she was in a trance when these tricks
occurred. Mediums used props and tricks to supposedly help them focus their
powers to call up the dead. The powers can sometimes fail. The mediums said they
needed to resort to fraud when their powers let them down or were too weak
because the pressure to produce signs and messages could actually cause them to
fail. The excuse is that the tricks take the pressure off the mediums so that
they can be relaxed and more attuned to their powers. Mediums know that they
will keep enough of their followers and clients after being exposed for
cheating. Another tactic was to claim that the cheating was really a set up by
evil spirits.
- you use speculation to ignore the problems. For example, the Bible's Book of
Daniel contains predictions that could have been made after the events. There is
no evidence at all that the book was really written centuries before the events.
The Christians say that Jesus who claimed to be God's prophet said it was
authentic and that settles it! But if Jesus was wrong he would have been a false
prophet! Why should we agree with the Christians? The Book of Mormon says the
wheel was used over a wide part of ancient America. No evidence has surfaced to
back this up. The Mormon excuse is that God laid waste the nation destroying the
evidence and its people became barbarians and lost the knowledge they once had.
- rationalisers say their religion is true and they try to explain away the
evidence against the religion being true all the while having little evidence
that the religion is true. Mormons say Joseph Smith their prophet knew the
future from God. They explain away his false prophecies. That approach would
only be fair if they could give us authentic examples of prophecies that did
impressively come true. This then would allow us to reason, "Prophecy 1 came
true and this must have been miraculous. Prophecy 2 seems to have failed. Let us
see if it really was a prophecy or if it really failed. Maybe there is something
wrong with our interpretation? Is the text correct?" If a person does not start
with the pro-evidence, that person is a rationaliser and a fraud and a
self-deceiving fool. Instead the person will try to explain away problems and
leave it at that.
- rationalisers will shovel rubbish into a system that makes it look believable.
For example, the resurrection of Jesus to eternal life is supposed to fit the
idea that God saves body and soul and wants us to have a community in Heaven.
But that does not make the story of Jesus' resurrection true or credible. If
somebody claims revelations say that Abel the son of Adam rose from the dead and
sanctioned and preached the philosophy that goes with resurrection and claimed
to be the only person who would resurrect before the end of the world that would
not make these revelations true. A rubbish doctrine that is slotted into good
philosophy is still rubbish. The good philosophy should not need it and will
not.
Rationalisation gives silly things a veneer of plausibility. It leads to rubbish
"ringing true".
Rationalising and deceiving yourself are one and the same thing. The
rationaliser tries too hard meaning he or she knows fine well that his or her
claim about the supernatural or paranormal is suspect or downright wrong.
Rationalising is dangerous for anybody. Most of us do it on naturalistic
grounds. That puts some limit on the scale of it. Belief in the supernatural
takes the limit away. If Jesus' bones turned up the Church might say that Satan
cloned Jesus's corpse for the real Jesus has risen.
Rationalising like all forms of lying can even make you think and feel you are
not lying when you in fact are!! It's a form of abuse for it is open to getting
others to abuse themselves by fooling themselves.
Reason is best seen as a tool for protecting yourself from fools and liars -
it protects you from what happens if you make yourself a fool or self-deceiver.
That takes away its off-putting cold clinical stereotype - especially when it is
called logic not reason - and makes it a warm safety net. Reason is a tool for
empowering yourself and society by distinguishing what is true from what is
untrue. It is judgmental in the sense that it is a tool for weeding out liars.
Reason is thinking without contradicting yourself for A cannot be B at the same
time and in the same way that A is A. Reason is about knowing when something is
a fact and holding beliefs that do not contradict it. A person who follows
reason in preference to religious dogma and emotional feelings is called a
rationalist. We can’t get away from reason. Even those who say that faith and
not reason should be listened to are reasoning that faith is better. Their
reasoning is bad for why their preferred faith and not another? But it is still
reasoning. Accordingly, it is only natural that we should check anything we are
told with commonsense and logic.
It is right to have a faith that exalts human beings as the supreme dignity and
which questions all things to get the right answers and is open-minded and eager
to hear all sides if you must have a faith. Keep away from religion. Religion is
bias and prejudice.
Reason will not answer all questions but encourages us to be fair and sensible
and consistent and we can fill the gaps with harmless hypotheses that we are
happy to change if need be and when they are disproved. It is a way of dealing
with what we are told and experience. Rationalism should not advocate reason
alone. That won’t work for we do need faith but we need godless faith that is
tested by reason which sees no contradictions or impossibilities in it. Feelings
are fine as long as they don’t control our thinking. We should experience joy in
our reasoning.
It is unreasonable to believe in reason alone because we need faith to help
ourselves and to fill the gaps. But it can be said we believe in reason alone
because we only have the faith that reason permits us to have and because reason
tells us to use faith and have it. Positive thinking is a virtue for even when
it is proved wrong it is still the best approach for it has less suffering in it
and it amounts to better rationality overall. Positive thinking is faith.
It is said that if we are rational, we will ignore our feelings. Being rational
is good. But being rational and enjoying it and feeling good about it is far
better. Our feelings will spur us on to passionate adulation for reason and
truth. Being rational and emotional are not only compatible but desirable. Our
feelings and desires must direct and fuel our rationality.