 Arguing with reptiles
Thinking leads to truth as much as driving
leads to a destination. The question here is what "truth" and
what destination?
Arash Sayedi
February 3, 2005
iranian.com
Pacifists argue that negotiation is a far more superior method
of solving disputes than war. And my aim here is not to refute
that argument but rather to question a premise that it is built
upon; one that so blindly holds that most humans are logical beings
who have come about their beliefs and arguments in a sound, logical
manner, and are therefore satisfactory candidates for rational
debate. But this could not be further from the truth.
It is true that all beliefs can be subject to the dialectical
method. But in order to engage in debate we first require the two
sides of the argument to hold truth in greater esteem then they
do their deepest beliefs and values. This, however, is such an
uncommon practice amongst so called educated people, that renders
rational approach somewhat tricky. And when dealing with the likes
of say, religious fanatics, it is so hopelessly futile that one
must rethink the whole concept of rational debate.
What I mean
by this I shall clarify further on. But for now I must hold that
it is indeed possible to engage in dialogue with a fanatic of
sorts and overthrow all his irrational arguments. But by doing
so one
will not have achieved much because as the saying goes; a man
convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. Often
the only
thing that can follow from such activity is bitter resentment
and in fact further resistance from one side of the argument. One
should
not forget that it was this accumulated resistance that forced
Socrates to drink the cup of hemlock, great men of history like
Galileo to back down from their arguments and caused still a
greater many to lose their lives.
But before I go further with this I must first shed some light
on the origins of our beliefs and opinions. And in order to do
so I must bring to the reader's attention that humans are conservative
beings by nature and very much creatures of comfort and habit.
We are biologically driven to defend our own from attack; whether
it be our possessions, our family or our opinions. Indeed our minds
do not place any distinction between an attack on a family member
and an attack on a cherished belief; there will merely be greater
priority placed on the former and the defense more fierce.
When
we adopt certain beliefs we take them in as our own. The ego
identifies with the belief and therefore any resistance to it is
viewed as
a threat to the organism and is thus subject to the flight or
fight response. Both kinds of attacks, whether it be on our physical
selves and family members or one on our beliefs and opinions
will
engage the same flight or fight mechanism with it's single concern
for one thing. Mainly survival; be it survival of the organism
or the opinions it holds. Again, no distinction is made in our
lower reptilian brain, just the mere acknowledgment that a threat
exists.
A great man once said that the human mind, a product of the struggle
for existence, is a food seeking mechanism and no more necessarily
a truth finding apparatus than the snout of a pig. I believe those
were the words of Lord Balfour.
If thinking alone led to the discovery of truth then we should
all be enlightened beings. Thinking leads to truth as much as driving
leads to a destination. The question here is what "truth" and
what destination? If we do not want to stumble upon arbitrary beliefs
and opinions then we must carefully examine all our thoughts and
weigh the truth of all our opinions. But how many individuals scrutinize
all their opinions and try carefully to place the origins of their
beliefs?
Many of us hold opinions that are accompanied by strong emotions.
And any belief which has roots in strong feeling is very likely
to have irrational origins, and yet these are exactly the views
we never dare question. The truth is that the majority of humans
do not come by their beliefs and opinions through a rational process
of thought, based on sound logic. Most of us simply adopt the ideas
presented to us through our environment. Through our family, religion,
peers, the state, the media and so on. Most of our beliefs and
opinions are not rational views, derived from sound argument but
are rather the irrational voices of the herd, whispered in our
ears from cradle to grave. And most of our so called reasoning
isn't reasoning at all but merely rationalizations that serve to
protect our current prejudices.
If you asked a Christian why he is a Christian he would no doubt
present countless arguments as to why he believes what he does.
He would have a myriad of rationales that would argue for the general
good and righteousness of Christianity but never the less, rationalizations
are all they are. Such arguments presented by the defenders of
different faiths for their beliefs are not the real reasons that
has driven them to believe as they do but are merely cloaks of
reason placed on irrational beliefs. If that very Christian was
born in a different part of the world, in an Islamic or Buddhist
family, then the chances of him presenting these very arguments
in favor of Islam or Buddhism would be very good indeed. So the
arguments he would present for his beliefs are not the real reasons
for them.
The real reasons are usually subjective and can oftentimes be
traced to his childhood period. Finding arguments for beliefs is
not such a hard thing. "A savage can give all sorts of reasons
why it is dangerous to step on a man's shadow", says Professor
James Harvey Robinson.
So essential is the enquiry into the origins of our beliefs that
no truth could ever result from a process of logical thought without
it. Sound, logical arguments built on illogical premises are still
fallacies. And one of the worst kinds I might add. Likewise, it
remains a truth that the soundest of religious philosophies still
have roots in the periods of human savagery.
If you should ever happen to wake up one morning and find yourself
in a strange place with no knowledge of how you got there, the
first thing your mind would crave is an explanation. Likewise,
when humanity first crawled out of the woods and found himself
naked and confused in the world, he no doubt set about finding
explanations as to his whereabouts and general place in the greater
scheme of things. The human mind, it seems, requires an explanation
for everything it encounters, any explanation. Even a ridiculous
one.
All religious thought has roots in our humble origins. In absence
of objective, scientific knowledge, man was driven to find explanations
for the various phenomenon he encountered in nature. This he did
through mere guesses and speculation. Much like children they set
about explaining these phenomenon through stories and myth. Thunder
and wind were explained as angry gods and spirits. When they slept
they encountered dreams in which they traveled to distant lands,
visited the dead and did marvelous things. When they looked into
water they saw reflections of themselves and concluded that there
must be another person inside them; one that broke away from the
body and roamed about in dreams; and one that did not die after
the physical body attained death. This they concluded from having "visited" the
dead in their dreams.
 The origins of the idea of the human soul, separate from the
body, has roots in the most savage periods of human history. These
ideas are so ingrained and deep seated that they no longer deal
with the higher, rational functions of the human mind; but are
merely the fiercely protected possessions of the lower reptilian
brain. The higher faculties of human reasoning in case of the religious
fanatic are mere tools employed by this lower brain.. A savage
having adopted civilized means of argument is still a savage. Similarly,
the highly sophisticated religious philosophies of today, have
within them the notions and primitive reasoning of prehistoric
savages. Never mind the fact that they use sophisticated means
of modern argument to present their views. We must come to see
them for what they are.
The conservatism of the fanatic mind however is not limited to
religious spheres but can also plague the scientific community
all the same. Any belief that remains unquestioned for long will
be pushed further down into our subconscious and the means of having
attained it start to become ever more hazy. All sciences strive
to reach truth through empirical means. In this way we never really
attain "The Truth" but ever more accurate explanations
of the world we live in.
Having said this we have to remember that all our current findings
are merely a reflection of the workings of our universe and we
must therefore strive to constantly question all we have come to
accept as truth in the hope of achieving ever higher levels of
truth. Our knowledge of the world must therefore be subject to
the dialectic process at all times and always be under very close
scrutiny if we do not wish for our beliefs to become the possessions
of our ego and thus subject to conservative defense.
Now so far my argument has been laying the foundations of a question.
The question itself is a reflection of the conflict I feel within
myself. A conflict between the pacifist side of me that believes
even the evilest of knots can be undone by a process of rational
thought and the side of me that believes it is impossible to convince
a man of truth if he does not care for the truth. Is it possible
to sit down with a person who's only arguments are death to this
and death to that and engage in constructive dialogue with him?
Deep down the person you face might be fully aware of the fact
that he may be in the wrong and yet be still driven to defend his
position with blind animal rage.
 Pacifism is well and good in the civilized world where truth
is divine. But it is of the utmost importance to remember that
when you deal with a Christian, Jewish or Islamic conservative
(or anyone with fanatical beliefs regarding any subject for that
matter),
you are not conversing with a higher human mind that is struggling
to make sense of reality despite of his lower, irrational brain;
but rather you are dealing with the beliefs, opinion and emotions
of a reptilian brain in possession of the most powerful tool of
reasoning in the known universe.
Furthermore to that, when engaged in any kind of dialogue with
such a mind, one must take the greatest of cares not to be influenced
by it; lest the abyss should gaze back into one's self as Nietzsche
would put it.
*
*
|
Arguing with reptiles
