A passing thought

[avevale_intelligencer]

Just read this post, following a link from Clement's blog, and was intrigued by the way the writer describes how being exposed to creationism and other pseudo-science at an early age caused him to start thinking and questioning what he'd been told. This parallels my own experience; reading von Daniken caused me to question conventional science, from which I passed as a natural consequence to questioning von Daniken.

And that's one of the things that bothers me about the perennial claim that religion, or creationism, or pseudo-science, causes people's brains to shut down; the people making that claim have obviously encountered these things themselves, and it's had quite the reverse effect, as it had with me and the writer of the article. Either he, and I, and a select few, are examples of a superior race whose enhanced brains are immune to the numbing effect of the opiate of the people so decried by Marx (a suggestion which I view with a certain scepticism)...or ideas are just ideas, and people have control of their own brains, and it's just as easy to choose to be asleep at the wheel whether you believe in Richard Dawkins, YHVH or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all. And just as easy to choose to wake up and question. (I should perhaps make clear that this latter is the explanation I favour. I don't have an enhanced brain.)

Comments

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Yes, but which is better: To wait a few generations for one or two lone rebels to spontaneously rise up out of the herd and start a revolution (i.e. start leading the herd in a different direction to the one they were being led before - and not necessarily a better one), or to to make sure that the herd all get taught "intellectual rebellion 101" at a suitable age?

'Cos my experience is, even when you do the latter, less than 10% actually take any notice. But at least then that 10% get to having discussions like "wel, I think the rebellion needs to go in *this* direction", "yeah, but this evdience says we should be going in *that* direction", and thus all the ideas get a chance to be properly evaluated from multiple perspectives, continuously, as we gardually home in on the truth; instead of just one half-baked world view being overturned by another.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I suspect the reason few people take any notice is that you can't actually teach rebellion in the context of the thing rebelled against. I'm reminded of all those earnest young teachers in the days of my youth who tried to "get with the kids".

It may be that I'm just a hopeless romantic, but it seems to me that the energy of rebellion, and the fact that it has to be a genuine rebellion, are both important factors and are closely interlinked. I imagine a class being taught "some say this is true, and some say that's true, and there are lots of schools of thought but you'll have to make up your own mind" (in a Liverpool accent for some reason) and I don't see it inspiring the passion that I've seen in your writing about science and religion, or in Lil's for that matter. In fact, I can see it inspiring cynicism and apathy, of which there are demonstrably increasing amounts nowadays.

So no, I'd encourage rebellion by providing a good stout target (or, as in your case, several) in the form of a dogma, and inciting the young (indirectly, of course) to shoot at it. And, it goes without saying, by making sure the information they need is available when they go looking for something to replace what they've abandoned. And only ten per cent might take any notice, or even fewer, but if that's the way it is then that's the way it is. You can't make people freethink; it defeats the object. Which is where I came in.