I don't know!
 

People are so sure about themselves. Their opinions are the only right
ones, and all the others are wrong. Therefore, they think they have the
right to ridicule and prosecute people with a different viewpoint. Wars
and terrorist attacks are the ugly results for this kind of vanity. But
it is not only religion which has a monopoly on this narrowminded,
fundamentalist approach to reality. Politicians, scientist, and all those
who consider themselves wise suffer from the same disease.
The first step to real wisdom is to put your own opinion into perspective,
and create some space in your mind for new information.
Like in the wellknown parable: you cannot get fresh new tea when your
tea cup is full of the old stuff.

 
On this page:
ABOUT SCEPTICISM
ABOUT RELIGION   (NEW)
 
 

Scepticism, and how the social consciousness is formed and shaped.
 

An important part of spiritual growth is rising above your old ideas
and  prejudices. But to be able to do this you have to start by
doubting. For some reason, however, people who doubt are sometimes
regarded as weak and unassertive. This is part of the black-and-white
philosophy adhered to by people who lack a sense of distinction.
Well, there is no reason why we shouldn't strive for something we are
90 per cent certain about instead of 100 per cent. And what about the
ideas we are only 60 or 30 per cent certain of? Do they have to be
binned?
People interested in extra-terrestrial matters, spiritual issues, mysteries
and cover-ups, find it hard to get sufficient evidence to settle the issue
once and for all. The best approach is to regard any information as
another possible stepping stone towards a more complete view  of
reality, and keep it in the back of your mind until new information
comes your way to help you to make a better judgment.
As a well known saying has it: extraordinary claims need extraordinary
evidence. The weak point in this argument is that the decision of what
is improbable, and therefore extraordinairy, and what is not, is a highly
subjective one. People usually end up declaring that their own opinions
are self-evident and don't need any further proof, whereas the viewpoint
of others is improbable and needs extraordinary evidence. This is the
mindset of many sceptics and debunkers: other people's opinions will be scrutinized to the last detail, and any slight inaccuracy on some minor
issue pounced upon as the ultimate proof that everything is wrong,
whereas sceptical statements like: These people are deluded, hoaxers,
frauds, the evidence is false..., etc., can be made without any supporting
evidence. Silly arguments made by uninformed sceptics get reported in
the media because they sound so logical and rational. News is often
made under time pressure, and most reporters are satisfied with cheap
and easy explanations provided by so-called experts. Besides, they are
far more likely to get a mocking letter from a hoaxer claiming that they
have been fooled (whether true or not), than to be sued by angry aliens
who feel they have been misrepresented.
There is confusion between probability and logic. To illustrate this,
consider the following two arguments:
 

- Venusians have longer tails than Martians.
- Martians have longer tails than Plutonians.
So: Venusians have longer tails than Plutonians.

and:

- Farmer old McDonald has an animal.
- A cow is an animal.
So: old McDonald has a cow.

The former argumentation is a logical one, although highly improbable,
the second one is likely but sins against the rules of logic. Too many
people will make the mistake of regarding the former as illogical and
the latter as logical, and the sad thing is that these people will proclaim
that  they are the mouthpieces of common sense and logic.
In order to find out what is true and what is false, you have to study and
investigate. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, which often happens
because many issues are quite elusive, at least show other people the
decency of respecting their opinions, especially if they have had
experiences that we haven't had.
 

Physician: "Sorry, Mr.Sceptic, I have to tell you that your wife is dead".
Wife: "No, I'm not dead".
Mr.Sceptic: "Hey, who studied medicine, the physician or you?"
 

   Getting around in circles
 

Of course, some people are deluded, hoaxers, frauds or madmen, but in
order to determine this, one first has to refute their statements, and not the
other way round: proclaiming that they are deluded  ...etc. and use that as
a refutation.

A quality that is highly valued in our culture is intelligence. Everyone likes to be considered intelligent. The naïve approach would be: make a lot of intelligent statements, and then, of course, you will be considered intelligent. The problem is, the audience can only determine whether a statement is intelligent if it is intelligent as well. Statements that are very brilliant and are way above the grasp of the audience will be considered 'crazy', 'false', 'illusions' etc. No, the truth is, in order
to be considered intelligent, one has to make statements that have the ring of intelligence. On top of that, one has to have the approval of the ones that are already considered intelligent. It all boils down to this: the question whether a statement is intelligent is not a matter of logic, but a matter of mass psychology.
The sad situation is, that very few people are willing to think for themselves. Whenever they are confronted with new information, they wonder: "What
do the experts say?" And then they happily copy the opinion of the experts,
mostly without checking their argumentation.

All people are unique, when they are born. Most people die as a copy
of someone else.

Again, we have to say, since it is hardly possible for a single individual to
evaluate correctly a statement that divide the pundits, one can do little else
then listen to the argumentation of these experts, and try to make up one's
own mind as good as possible. But, please, don't make the mistake by
thinking that by copying the opinion of the experts who seem to have the
most convincing arguments, at this moment in time, you have attained the
ultimate wisdom.

Back to our friends, the reporters, again. Whether we like it or not, they
are the ones who have a great amount of power to determine what we
are able to think and what not. If they want to, they can ignore a new idea
totally, so that most people will never hear about it. If the new idea has
some persistence, the reporters have a second opportunity to silence it: by
criticizing or even, by mocking.
It is not that journalists are by nature conservative and evil people. They
will consult the experts, but experts are already trained in a certain way of
thinking. They know a lot of facts that their old theory is able to explain,
while the new theory is still searching for answers. For example, one
cannot expect Darwin, when he presented his theory of evolution, to claim
to know how each and every one of the many thousands of species that
are on earth have developed from its predecessor. Every new theory needs
a time to mature. One can go wrong if one doesn't allow new theories a
proper maturation time, and starts attacking and ridiculing them in an early
stage.
That a new theory is questioned is just normal, and helps this theory find
answers for matters that are still unexplainable. And, of course, not every
new theory is correct. Some, or maybe most of them, shouldn't be accepted
after a reasonable time of scrutiny. But, I may ask, what reasonable role
plays mocking and ridiculing in a scientific proces of testing theories?
Mocking and ridiculing are, for immature people, ways of expressing
themselves.
A lot of statements don't fall into the august realm of expert science. Many
of these can be investigated by doing a little research. But a reporter has to consider the opinions of his superiors and collegues, the readers and other members of his public. The easiest way out is just confirming to the opinion
that has the reputation of being the most reasonable. He/she has to consider
his/her reputation, and, moreover, mostly reporters are paid for the amount
of articles they write, and not for the time they spend on research.

Anyhow, once again, what will be published or in any other way presented
to the public is a matter of psychology and economy.

Very shaky 'pillars of wisdom' indeed!

Sceptic's logic: if it looks like a UFO, flies like a UFO, and sounds like
a UFO....
it's a duck!
 

  The dragon in Longtan Park, Beijing

A symbol of wisdom?

Traps religious people have to avoid.

The story of Jonah

Jonah's claim to fame was that he spent some days in the belly of a whale, as most of us probably know. However, this biblical tale contains more elements
that are worth considering.

The full story is as follows: Jonah is summoned by God to go to the city of Nineve, telling that God is very displeased with them and He will destroy the city and its inhabitants. But Jonah is reluctant to deliver this unpleasant message, and decided to sail away instead. But, at sea, a fierce storm arose, and sailors wondered who was to blame for this. Who has enraged God in such a way, that He decided to send a horrible storm like this to this unlucky ship. They decided to draw lots, and it turned out that Jonah was the one who caused the storm. Now it was determined who the culprit was, Jonah was thrown into the sea, after which he was swallowed by a whale. After three days the whale spit him out on the beach, and Jonah understood that the only thing he could do was delivering the message to the wicked people of Nineve. The Nineveans, however, turned out to be so impressed by Jonah's message that they decided to fast and repent their sins. God was pleased by this reaction and had mercy. So, He spared the city of Nineve, much to the dissatisfaction of Jonah, who hoped that his prophecy would come true.

Why is this story so interesting?
First, we hope that the action of the seamen will not become a standard procedure in these days. In what kind of world would we live when people are thrown overboard because they might have enraged God or some angry spirits. In the Middle Ages innocent people were burned on the stake because they were supposed to have magical powers, which were tried to put to the test in the most cruel ways. We also wouldn't like it when people, who abide the law, will be chased from their neighbourhood because, according to their horoscope, they might be child molesters.
Earlier, we were poking a little fun at the expense of our sceptic friends, but we really need their contribution. We just hope that their critique will be to the point, that they come up with sensible arguments against the message and not against the messenger.
Anyhow, just pray that people will keep using their common sense and will not fall for superstitions.

We don't want to suggest that our religious friends are by definition superstitious. It is fine if people will get some comfort and inspiration out of the Good Book.
But we have to warn against a too literal interpretation. Some people are building their whole life and everything they do on their understanding of the Bible. No matter how true a book might be, our daily lives might require some common sense and logic, and understanding of the circumstances, and not a copy of what one might think that God might have meant.
Some deluded people think they understand the Bible and God so well, that they can act as His mouthpiece, and that they themselves speak words of divine wisdom. They speak about God as if His ways and thoughts are crystal clear to them. And if they only would consider these insights they have to be a guideline for their own lives, well, who are we to resent their happiness? Unfortunately, these people often use their knowledge to criticize others, and feel very righteous because they speak the words of God. And some even claim to be in a position to make prophecies, telling others that doom and gloom will await them. One might wonder if they know their own Bible that well, and particularly the story of Jonah. Because Jonah actually heard the voice of God, and God put him right on the spot, were he had to speak His words. And even in that case, where there can absolutely be no misunderstanding about God's words and intentions, even then, the prophecy didn't come true.
How, in heaven's name, can a person, or a sect, in this day claim that they can do a prediction, based on the Bible, or on what they consider to be the will of God, and be sure that this will come true? In the past, God once changed his plan, in a few days time, and He might do it again. These are not the words of a heretic, mocking Christianity, but it is straight out of the Bible (as we know it; we, ourselves shouldn't fall into the trap).
In fact, now some 2000 years have past in which God has had plenty of time to change his mind.
If you still claim to be able to predict what He will do, be prepared to make a fool of yourself.
(In fact, sometimes, we -modestly- are inclined to think that is part of God's plan: to make the boastful ones, who have the audacity to claim to speak in His name, looking like fools.)

Believe what you want, but realize: God's ways are unfathomable.
 
 

Whether you're thoughtlessly bleating silly nonsense or you're thought-
lessly bleating divine wisdom, you are, and will be, a sheep.
 
 

                                                                                                 BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE