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.