My wife turned me on to Andy Norman's book, "Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think." She's listening to it via the audiobook. I'm reading the print edition.
The Covid pandemic has taught us all a lot about immunity against viruses. Vaccines help us fight off a Covid infection by strengthening our defenses against the viral invader. Likewise, Norman argues, minds are prone to being infected by bad ideas.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get a shot that wards off bad ideas. Instead, his book describes ways we can protect our mind from being taken over by them.
Norman is a philosopher who developed his approach through many years of trying out ways to get his students engaged with the ideas he was teaching. I've shared a lengthy excerpt below from his The Ethics of Faith chapter. You'll see that Norman is a careful thinker who uses reasonable arguments to make his point.
Sure, that's what most of us aspire to. But often we fall short of that ideal, for reasons made clear in "Mental Immunity."
I liked how this excerpt ends with an important conclusion. Often we focus on whether a belief, faith-based or not, is true or false. That's important, but beliefs also can be useful or harmful. So a religious belief could be false, yet useful to the believer.
A related notion is that a belief can have "upstream" evidence and "downstream" implications.
Meaning, evidence from the real world can flow upstream and provide evidence for or against the belief. Separately, though, is the downstream effects that flow from the belief, whether or not the belief is supported by evidence.
This is why religious believers who comment on my blog posts often cite the benefits they've gotten from their beliefs. That's a downstream effect. Again, this may have little or nothing to do with the upstream evidence about whether the belief is correct.
Here's the excerpt.
Stories like these are the backbone of William James's defense of faith. He calls them cases "where faith in a fact can help create that fact." I call them cases of self-fulfilling belief. His point is that our attitudes frequently "run ahead of scientific evidence." And often, that's a good thing.
What are we to make of this argument?
For starters, we have to acknowledge that people need confidence, hope, trust, commitment, and resolve -- five secular cousins of religious faith -- and for many, religious talk works to bolster these attitudes.
Second, these attitudes tend to be conducive to mental health: a confident, hopeful, trusting, and resolute mind is healthy almost by definition.
Third, these attitudes are ingredients of what biologists call "prosociality" -- they tend to build social capital in ways that benefit not just the self but also others. We should all be grateful, then, for the well-meaning efforts of religious people devoted to building trust, hope, and moral commitment.
James saw that Cliffordian scruples could impinge on people's "right" to willfully boost healthy attitudes. For this reason he labeled evidentialism "insane." He had a point. For it would be unwise to prohibit all use of non-evidence-based mind hacks.
Suppose that a castaway on a desert island allows herself to believe that she'll be rescued. Suppose she does this in utter defiance of the evidence, but harms no one, while quadrupling her odds of survival. How could such believing be unethical?
I'd like, at this point, to apply my training in dispute resolution to mediate the centuries-old dispute between religious and secular outlooks. What if each side has a piece of the truth? What if we don't have to choose just one of these truths and throw out the other? What if, instead, we opened up a "both..and" alternative to the traditional "either...or"?
Many religious beliefs require the believer to willfully suspend disbelief. Belief that Jesus rose from the dead, for example.
The problem is that this involves the willful suspension of basic standards of cognitive accountability -- standards that apply in other domains. But what if there were genuine alternatives -- mind hacks that promote healthy, prosocial attitudes without requiring us to violate important norms?
What if we could have the benefits of religion without pretending to know things we don't really know?
Do such alternatives exist? I believe they do. Consider Defense Exhibit A, where "precursive" faith in a stranger's friendliness helps to bring about a friendship. James implies that the friendship "cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming," but is this true? Are there really no alternative paths to the hoped-for result?
Here, off the top of my head, are four:
Option 1: Infer from the evidence of past experience that any given stranger is likely to prove friendly. Here the belief is not definitive ("This stranger will prove friendly") but probabilistic ("This stranger is likely to prove friendly"). It has the virtue of being evidence-based, though, and can still have the salutary effects. (Notice, by the way, that blind trust in all strangers is probably more trusting than is warranted, wise, or safe. This observation shows that it makes sense to temper pro-social attitudes with evidence.)
Option 2: Admit that you don't have enough evidence of the stranger's friendliness (and thereby decline, on evidentialist grounds, to believe it) but all the while remain resolutely hopeful that the stranger will prove friendly. The hope can function in place of the belief and pave the way for the friendship, but without violating evidentialist scruples.
Option 3: Just commit to being friendly to strangers -- regardless of their likelihood of reciprocating the friendliness -- on the grounds that it's the right thing to do. On this approach, you needn't pretend to know something you don't really know; you simply act friendly because that's the kind of person you wish to be. The hoped-for friendship can then form without irresponsible believing entering the picture.
Option 4: Smile anyway.
The trust involved in Option 1, the hopefulness of Option 2, the moral commitment of Option 3, and the smiling demeanor of Option 4 are all dimensions of cognitive health. Arguably, they're what faith advocates have been after all along. But none of them are inherently religious.
And that's the point: the valuable aspects of religious faith can be had without willful self-deception.
The intellectually questionable supernatural trappings can be left behind, because there are honest, evidentially responsible ways to achieve the same result. The same healthy attitudes that religions have long been in the business of cultivating can be induced in other ways.
Is it fair, though, to describe religious belief as "willfully self-deceptive"? Does it invariably involve "pretending" to know things you don't know? Or pretending to believe things you don't really believe? Perhaps not. Perhaps sincere religious belief is none of these things.
The self-fulfilling beliefs James likens them to, however, are all of these things.
In Exhibit 1, a man pretends to know that a stranger will prove friendly. In Exhibit 2, a woman wills herself to believe that she has what it takes to do the job. In Exhibit 3, Cassius Clay psyches himself up with extravagant claims of his own greatness. In Exhibit 4, a woman helps herself to the comforting (and quite possibly delusive) belief that God will provide.
In fact, the way James defines it, faith is inherently delusive. For "faith in a fact" can only "create the fact" if the belief starts out false.
Think about it: James was arguing that it's okay to pretend that the not-yet-actual is already actual -- providing the pretense has the potential to change the world and, in so doing, mitigate the falsehood. There's no escaping it: James was endorsing willful dishonesty -- of at least limited duration.
Of course, he was also laying the groundwork for a revolutionary reinterpretation of religion. James showed us that we can understand religious wisdom as functionally useful even when it is not literally true. The first step is to recognize that religious beliefs are, at bottom, expedients for inducing desirable attitudes.
A religious claim doesn't have to be true to feel deeply right. The feeling of rightness can stem instead from its power to express allegiance. Also, believers throughout history have argued for religious claims on the grounds that they're useful.
Claims about heaven and hell, for example, are often explicitly defended on the grounds that they help keep people in line. More generally, religious claims also have a pragmatic usefulness that is mistaken for truth. The idea that "God will provide," for example, can be marvelously calming whether or not it is true. "Jesus loves me" may meet a psychological need more reality-based believing can't.
I was a Quaker for about a decade because my mother loved the Quaker idea that "there is that of God in everyone." She lacked upstream evidence that we are in fact God-infused but had a clear grasp of the idea's downstream consequences. By dignifying us all, the idea makes it harder to mistreat people. She liked it and signed us up.
There's a larger lesson here, and it applies to secular as well as religious beliefs.
Beliefs have both logical properties and causal properties. They can be true or false and they can be useful or useless. Likewise, they can be evidenced to this or that degree and they can be more or less harmful. Ethically speaking, all of these properties matter, and responsible agents take account of them all.
But here's the thing: they do so without confusing them. Useful does not mean true; nor does well-evidenced mean harmless.
I don’t think anyone is in a position to proclaim whether life carries on after death until they have been to the other side. And, of course, if there is no life after death then they certainly won’t be able to come back and tell us. But how insane is it to claim evidence when you have none.
Why demand that everyone else accept the assumption you have owned? Prove to me that there is no life after death. Really prove it and I will have no other choice to believe you. But you haven’t died yet so you don’t know yet.
Posted by: Sonia | September 12, 2021 at 10:41 PM
The only intelligent thing you can possibly say about the existence of life after death is I don’t know.
No one can prove the existence of a soul or spirit to anyone other than themselves (and I use the word “proof” lightly—more like belief).
But the FACT is you don’t know. None of us KNOW. We each choose to believe what we want to based on our own life experiences and that’s it.
The three scariest words are “I don’t know”. Truly terrifying. Terrifying but true. We’re so afraid of the unknown that we create elaborate belief systems to justify what we want the truth to be and seek others who believe similarly in order to validate our mental creations. But the fact is, we don’t know.
Posted by: Sonia | September 12, 2021 at 11:09 PM
Even when we go on holiday we believe we are going to have a good time.
When we take the ride on a bicycle we believe we will arrive sound and sane.
When we research and commit to science we believe it will bear fruits
Without that "will to believe" james spoke of, we would not act.
When i lift my cup pf coffee i have so many believes, not just one but many ...endless things can occur and I believe that just some will occur, those that I anticipate to occur.
There are those that doubt their believe or even know them to be not true but would like them to be true for their own convenient reasons. They are the ones that try to convert others to believe what they want to believe. For the simple reason that if more people around you say they believe what you want to believe, even if you don't, it does raise its value, its statue as an belief to be true. It starts already in school when children try to have their friends do things they know are not allowed like smoking, drinking and drugs.
If you are realy believing your holidays are going to be pleasant there is no need to converse with people ... and most do not do it.
The same holds for religious and spiritual beliefs,
And .... a believe that one cannot prove to one selves in experiencing what one previous assumed to be the outcome, as an hypothesis, is not worth having it.
The believe is of secondary importance. what really matters is practice, action, experience....life! ... it is based on believe.
The man on the donkey using a stick with a carrot to have his donkey walked and focused uses that believe to make the donkey walk through a field of carrots.
Posted by: um | September 13, 2021 at 02:02 AM
"The Covid pandemic has taught us all a lot about immunity against viruses. Vaccines help us fight off a Covid infection by strengthening our defenses against the viral invader. Likewise, Norman argues, minds are prone to being infected by bad ideas". Also; "Infectious ideas and mind parasites."
An interesting read. This line of thinking was originally aired by Richard Dawkins where he introduced the idea of a mind meme in addition to a body gene. His idea was later taken up by Susan Blackmore in her well-researched book 'The Meme Machine'.
In this book, she discusses how we are easily susceptible to the influence of memes. Its quite informative in aiding us to see how our various beliefs are installed in us and whether they are useful or not - just or positively harmful.
Posted by: Ron Elloway | September 13, 2021 at 02:09 AM
We often use the term belief when we mean hope or trust.
Hope is a desire or expectation for a thing to happen.
Trust is based on confidence in someone or something, on past reliability.
Both can be called belief as indeed belief can be hope or trust. We need to be clear about what constitutes one's beliefs in deities, heavens, angels and the such like, and everyday beliefs that are better described as hope and trust.
Posted by: Ron Elloway | September 13, 2021 at 03:34 AM
"There's a larger lesson here, and it applies to secular as well as religious beliefs.
Beliefs have both logical properties and causal properties. They can be true or false and they can be useful or useless. Likewise, they can be evidenced to this or that degree and they can be more or less harmful. Ethically speaking, all of these properties matter, and responsible agents take account of them all.
But here's the thing: they do so without confusing them. Useful does not mean true; nor does well-evidenced mean harmless. "
.......I think those last two sentences are the key part of this discussion, as represented in the excerpt you've presented here. Clarity is everything. Without clarity, any benefit derived, from anything at all, is merely accidental, happenstance, and susceptible to reversal at any time at all.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 13, 2021 at 07:32 AM
Incidentally, this recalls a discussion we'd had on a thread here a good while back, about atheism vis-a-vis anti-theism.
Atheism speaks to belief, while anti-theism speaks to (one's perception of) the effects of theism. While generally speaking anti-theists are atheists, nevertheless it is possible to arrive at anti-theism even while remaining a theist (that is, believing the effects of theism in general, or perhaps some specific instance of theism, are baleful, even while retaining belief.
The observe is true too, I guess. As discussed here, I suppose it is possible to be an atheist, and still recognize the benefits that might accrue from theism, absolutely, why not?
Of course, most things have both positives and negatives. And absolutely, it makes sense to derive benefit from the positives, even while recognizing the negatives. But, to digress a bit from the thrust of Brian's main post, and to expand the discussion to an evaluation of whether in sum the positives of religion/theism outweigh the negatives, or vice versa, I was wondering, a purely linguistic question:
Is there a term that captures this, a word that conveys the sense that someone believes that the effects of religion/theism are in sum beneficient (without necessarily speaking to their belief in the truth value of theism) --- just as the word "anti-theism" speaks to the opinion that the effects of religion/theism are in sum baleful (without necessarily speaking to one's position as regards the truth value of theism)? If there isn't, then there should be!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 13, 2021 at 07:46 AM
@ AR
Faith
Posted by: um | September 13, 2021 at 08:50 AM
Hey, um.
Do you offer "faith" as the word I was asking for? Or were you going for something else there? Some elaboration please!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 13, 2021 at 09:31 AM
It is a shame that so many who don't "believe" never get the full and powerful benefits of the Placebo effect.
"It's just the Placebo effect" has been shown to reduce stress, anxiety and pain, all necessary for survival as other treatments take place in their own timeframes. Faith in the Placebo can also be faith in the entire set of treatments for any condition or situation. It has given folks peace of mind and helped provide meaning to the struggle, and alignment to the various treatments and strategies.
But so long as it is regarded as "Placebo" all those very real, well-evidenced internal mechanisms are never fully engaged, by the single-minded devotion required for their activation.
And so the reality of these things labelled in general as "Placebo" and all their health and psychological benefits, are just out of reach of the non-believer.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | September 13, 2021 at 09:54 AM
@ AR
This has been put before me:
Faith, is something which accepts what reason cannot ecplain or prove.
First comes faith and then, through practices, one proves for himself, the truth of what has been accepted.
All systems that are after knowledge, be it science or mystical schools, use this strategy, to prove to oneself or to oneself AND others, what first was accepted as possible.
In our family we call this the "orange prove" ... are there oranges in the house? Yes, they are to be found in the storage room in a box. If you want oranges, you have to get up, move your legs, gor to that room and open the box. If one asks questions the like of "how do I know it is correct what you say ... the answers .... probably you are not in need of oranges ... that is alright.
Posted by: um | September 13, 2021 at 09:56 AM
Even where "spontaneous remission" is the label for any disease, including cancer, that simply disappears, it is the Placebo effect that can help keep one sane, focused and active during that healing process.
Thinking it is an either / or is where people get into trouble. But a true Believer understands that whatever options arise that make logical sense, are there for our full use. Including prayer and meditation, and every medical intervention that is appropriate. And time and nature as well, in combination.
So, be a good scientist, and have a strong and complimentary Faith in a higher power that you can put your whole devotion and focus into, to keep you going, to restore your well being through it all.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | September 13, 2021 at 09:58 AM
@um
"Faith, is something which accepts what reason cannot ecplain or prove."
..........I can go with that definition of faith, sure.
"All systems that are after knowledge, be it science or mystical schools, use this strategy, to prove to oneself or to oneself AND others, what first was accepted as possible."
..........I agree with that sentence, by and large. But "accepting something as possible" isn't faith, is it? Look at your definition, it talks about accepting as true, not accepting as possible. Merely accepting something as possible, that isn't faith, at all. What am I missing here?
In any case, I'm still not clear about the context of this comment about faith. Is it related to my own earlier comments on this thread, or was it just a general observation?
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 13, 2021 at 10:20 AM
@AR
One my dad phone me, asking for my help in his business. I told hem that at the moment I am bussy with certain things. He said; Son, did I ask you about your activities. On answering "no"he said .. then, why do you start discussing with me?
You see AR ... I come from an tradition where we were traine to hear what others had to say, without arguing, without "yes, but ...". We were not and never asked to agree with what was said ... that ... was up to us. Having heard what was put before us, it was our right to deal with it as we deemed fit, and that is what we all did.
So whatever comes before me, by word of speech or written, remains the "words of this or that person" it never is handled as an "absolute" truth. It doesn't mater who is the source of these words, nor his or her social and cultural status.
This opens the door for listening and hearing with an more ore less "open" mind as there is no obligation felt whatsoever to agree, or prove or whatever.
So if the food in a restaurant is not according to my taste, I find an other place to eat. Eating, to my pleasure was and is my intention to enter such place, I am not interested in the people, the owner, the staff, the chef's or the other guests and what I hold of them is immaterial.
Posted by: um | September 13, 2021 at 10:40 AM
@um
"whatever comes before me, by word of speech or written, remains the "words of this or that person" it never is handled as an "absolute" truth. It doesn't mater who is the source of these words, nor his or her social and cultural status.
This opens the door for listening and hearing with an more ore less "open" mind as there is no obligation felt whatsoever to agree, or prove or whatever.
So if the food in a restaurant is not according to my taste, I find an other place to eat. Eating, to my pleasure was and is my intention to enter such place, I am not interested in the people, the owner, the staff, the chef's or the other guests and what I hold of them is immaterial."
.......I'm parsing that to mean you tend to focus on issues and ideas, rather than the people holding those ideas or holding forth on those issues. And I agree wholeheartedly with that approach!
.
Not to beat this to death, um, but I still don't understand what your comment about "faith" had to do with my earlier comments, or what this comment now has to do with anything we've so far discussed!
No issues, though! :--) Like I said, I do agree, fully, with your approach of, as you say, addressing ideas and arguments stand-alone, as it were, and removed from the people advocating (or opposing) those ideas.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 13, 2021 at 10:52 AM
@ Ar
What I wrote was a reflection of what happened on reading your words. It speaks for itself.
The painter, has no say in how his art is received, and there are as many reactions as there are people. Some smile looking at the painting others weep and again others get angry.
Then there are those who have studied art, that tell both the artist and the onlookers what there is to be seen, why and how it has to be seen.
There are artist that have an intention and there are those that just paint because they love painting, love the landscape they see.
Posted by: um | September 13, 2021 at 11:08 AM
Ha ha ha, that's ...abstract!
And, I never knew I was a latent Picasso!
*bows with appropriately artistic exaggeration*
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 13, 2021 at 11:13 AM
Well AR .... do not mingle with the "enemies" ... those that discuss art, sell art and call themselves knowers, experts etc .
Posted by: um | September 13, 2021 at 11:31 AM
@ AR : [ Is there a term that captures this, a word that conveys the sense that someone believes that the effects of religion/theism are in sum beneficient (without necessarily speaking to their belief in the truth value of theism ]
apprecireligio - 5 syllable word "ap-preci-re-lig-io, best spoken in a
reverent tone, is the belief that the effects of religion/theism are in
sum beneficient without necessarily speaking to their belief in the
truth value of theism. [credit anonymous monk known as A.R., AR,
or Appreciative Reader in B .Hines Church of the Churchless blog]
Posted by: Dungeness | September 14, 2021 at 12:06 AM
Heh, nice, Dungeness! This is one word that kind of screams out to be coined, if there isn’t one already --- and it seems there isn’t. “Apprecireligio” is a cool coinage, captures the sense perfectly. Thanks! [And that “best spoken in a reverent tone” was a nice touch! :--) ]
.
Although, if one may pick nits, wouldn’t “Apprecitheo” be closer to what we want convey? Or maybe 'Appretitheo', to go back to the Latin instead of directly using the English derivative?
Then again, I suppose the Latin and Greek roots of those two parts don’t quite seem to fit, so there may be an argument right there for your “Apprecireligio” (or maybe 'Appretireligio') over the broader “Apprecitheo” (or “Appretitheo”) purely on esthetic grounds!
.
In any case, I don’t know, all of these constructs, they sound a trifle clunky, don’t they?
Anyone here who’s conversant with Greek? (Spence maybe? He seems to know stuff about almost everything that happens to come up here! :--) ……Said literally, by the way, and, yes, entirely appreciatively, and without the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm!) ------- Is there a word that captures the sense of “appreciate” in Greek, would you know, and how that might sit with “theos” to form a compound word that doesn’t sound overly clunky in English?
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 14, 2021 at 06:47 AM
@ AR : [Is there a word that captures the sense of “appreciate” in Greek, would you know, and how that might sit with “theos” to form a compound word that doesn’t sound overly clunky in English? ]
Philotheos maybe but it's already in use ("friend of god").
I like your "apprecitheos" best. Can an "appreciatheos"
be lurking as its evil twin ;)
Posted by: Dungeness | September 14, 2021 at 07:58 AM
Evil, eh? We're only discussing the term here, and whether it is the apprecitheo that is evil (I give you the Taliban), or its obverse the appreciatheo (to be fair, I now have to give you the Chinese, or maybe the Soviets, as far as their purges on the Uighurs and the Russian Orthodox clergy respectively), that's a whole separate discussion! ;--)
-------
Damn, it's a rabbit hole, isn't it? Not an endless one, though. Thinking about this --- and, I realize, thinking about this way more seriously than is strictly appropriate, given your half-joking remark --- while I've not come across "philotheos", but the name "Theophilus", while not common, isn't unheard of; and no, it means something very specific, and very different.
What we're looking for is a more complex sense: not love of God, nor even appreciation of God, but appreciation of belief in God. I've no clue how to go framing a word to express that sense. Except maybe fall back on your initial suggestion of apprecireligio (or the somewhat amended appretireligio), except we're bringing in religion now.
Hm, appreciation of belief in God ... If something clicks, if some neat would-be word comes to mind, do please post it! Otherwise, the somewhat off-kilter nuance as far as the etymology notwithstanding, I second your vote for "Apprecitheo", and its obverse that you've now coined, "Appreciatheo". (There's clearly a difference as far as the sense conveyed by your latter coinage, and "Antitheism".)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 14, 2021 at 09:30 AM
How about ektimotheos (Greek combo) or aestumotheos (Latin combo)?
Posted by: Radh(erNot)Soami | September 14, 2021 at 09:48 AM
Hey, that's neat!
Seriously, I can see "Ektimotheos", or something very like it, do great as a mainstream word! Lovely, thank you! (As well as Dungeness's other coinage, Ektimoatheos, that too.)
.
You clearly know this stuff way better than I do ---- I confess I had to plug in "ektimo" into my search engine in order to check that it does mean what you're saying it means, that is, I did not actually know directly that "ektimo" does mean "appreciate" ---- so perhaps you could weigh in further on how one might anglicize the word somewhat? That is, the actual noun and the actual adjective, as one might use it in English? "Ektimotheos" is very cool, almost there .... almost, but maybe just a wee bit of detailing to be added, although I can't put my finger on it exactly?
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 14, 2021 at 10:04 AM
Oops, I realize we're derailing this thread along a track way different than the discussion Brian intended with his actual post.
Dungeness, Radh(erNot)Soami, and anyone else who wants to add to this: Perhaps we'd best take any further discussion on this to an Open Thread.
Here's the link to the latest Open Thread, which I'm copying below for convenience because it isn't immediately visible off the sidebar: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2021/07/open-thread-40-free-speech-for-comments.html
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | September 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM
"Think about it: James was arguing that it's okay to pretend that the not-yet-actual is already actual -- providing the pretense has the potential to change the world and, in so doing, mitigate the falsehood."
And in fact, that's often what religious faith does. It offers a pretense that, if believed, has actually changed the world for the better.
Case in point for RS aficionados and exers: Before there was an RSSB dera, the Beas region was a snake-filled wasteland. One can read the rssb website to see the countless ways that sevadars are helping humanity.
Case in point for the Western world: Before there was Christianity, Rome ruled everyone with an iron fist.
Case in point for today: Where are the people who were driven to despair and ready to take their lives, but were saved by atheism? It's a scenario that just doesn't happen. But the very opposite has happened, perhaps millions of times, where people who had no direction in life were radically saved by faith in the unseen.
Why faith in the unseen is somehow de facto a terrible problem that must be remedied is never explained.
Of course, one religion (our new ally apparently) does come to mind where religion is the cause of much human suffering, and we're seeing how that plays out in the nightly news.
Finally, there are countries like that which must not be named, where there's strict enforcement of government-controlled religion. They sure fixed those religious fanatics in Tibet, didn't they?
But upward and onward with the crusade, which always comes down to worrying about other people's freedoms, even their freedom of thought, and how they can be taken away in the name of progress.
Posted by: Tendzin | September 15, 2021 at 11:42 AM