Continuing the conversation with Sean regarding Atheists and Development:
Sam Harris is an advocate for the power of conversation, for rational dialogue, and this, more than anything, is what irks him about religious faith: Faith is a real conversation killer. Harris also does a nice job of exposing (then breaking) the taboo of criticizing religious faith. Why give religion a pass, Harris asks, when we demand a basic standard of reasonableness is every other area of our lives? I couldn’t agree more. I also agree with the notion, put forth eloquently by Ken Wilber, that many disagreements and impasses in communication between humans come down to issues of development. Anyone who deals with children or adolescents on a regular basis understands how crucial an understanding of development is for facilitating change. The situation gets trickier, however, when we talk about worldviews and mores and adult human development.
Hec, the majority of Developmental Psychology departments in American universities don’t even discuss adult development, and the few programs in “Life Span Development” posit no quantum changes in human cognition beyond rationality. And although Wilber may be right that development continues in a fundamental way throughout the lifespan, the question remains “How do we best facilitate change?” – whether we’re talking about changing someone’s mind (a change within the bounds of a rational developmental stage) or moving from one developmental stage to another.
Harris argues that certain beliefs eventually become marginalized in a culture when those beliefs are shown to be inconsistent or incompatible with the prevailing evidence. While there is still an active “Flat Earth Society” out there, espousing ludicrous conspiratorial arguments against the “hypothesis” of a round earth, most reasonable people not only refuse to take flat-earthers seriously, we also wouldn’t hesitate to point out the ridiculous, irrational nature of their lame arguments, thus keeping such beliefs on the fringes of society. So, why couldn’t this happen in regard to religious faith? Harris thinks it can, and I agree. And while we can think of the issue in terms of development, such a theoretical pirouette doesn’t weaken the argument that rational, evidence-based, open-ended dialogue is the best catalyst for change we have available to us.
I need only recall my own personal development to understand this. How did I change my mind about religious faith? Or if you prefer, How did I develop to a more inclusive worldview? The answer to both questions is the same in my case: I was exposed, over time, to series of thoughtful, rational, evidence-based perspectives that eventually made utterly transparent the silliness, ignorance, and self-limiting nature of religious dogma. And until integral or developmental theorists can demonstrate a more effective approach to this problem, or any other for that matter, I will have to go with what’s worked for me.
“How did I change my mind about religious faith? Or if you prefer, How did I develop to a more inclusive worldview? The answer to both questions is the same in my case: I was exposed, over time, to series of thoughtful, rational, evidence-based perspectives that eventually made utterly transparent the silliness, ignorance, and self-limiting nature of religious dogma.”
same exact thing that happened to me.
well, i haven’t read Sam Harris. so i will have to go with what you’ve describe. rational dialogue is also a key. but then like you said, it’s tricky because for rational dialogue to really work, parties doing the conversing should be at the same level of psychological development. i remember watching a Richard Dawkins documentary, and man, that is NOT the way to do a rational dialogue. that’s only inflaming the issue.
i think a better way to do it is to gather people in different religions and faith who already are at the world-centric stage of development and do the rational dialogue with them instead of attemption to dialogue among the masses or even the hard-core traditional leaders of religions. something like a World Economic Forum for religions and faith-based groups. ah well. at least that’s a good start :)
as for Atheism, is it just me, or is Daniel Dennett not a good poster child for atheism because he makes atheism look grumpy? :)
~C (for Conversation)
I think the obstacle to converting God believers en masse to atheism is “meaning.” If their God and religion are taken from them — or if they, themselves, discard it all — what meaning are they left for living their lives?
Also, many believe that without religion there is no basis for moral actions. Would it open the door to much greater crime, corruption and murder if religion did not play a part in society?