Reason | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'reason'

The relief of religious deconversion

Published

on December 7, 2007

. 5 Comments

Responding to No Way’s comment after I mentioned my relief when I stopped being a Christian:

Now that intriques me. I would love to see that post sometime soon. After all, if I stopped believing the feeling would be the complete opposite of relief.

I’ve written about it in the past (interestingly, in one of this blog’s earliest posts, How I’ve become an atheist), but I’ll try to answer your question specifically: why the relief?

Well, first consider this: what if Christians are wrong and Muslims are right? If that is so, Allah will send you to “the fire”. Scared yet? There are so many religions (and variations of each religion) out there that the odds of picking up the right one are very, very small. And most of them say their gods are “jealous”, so you can’t pick several at the same time. The fact that you’re a Christian and not a Jew or Muslim or Hindu, or that you’re, say, a Protestant instead of a Catholic, depends just on one thing: where you were born. And while you may have a more liberal theology (“anyone who accepts Jesus is saved”, or even “God wouldn’t send anyone to hell, even though it says he does in the holy books”), that’s a relatively recent thing, and you’re probably in the minority, not to mention that the holy books don’t agree with you. So, statistically, if there is a god or gods and there is a hell, then each individual has very good odds of ending up in it — and of that happening just by chance, because you were born in the “wrong” place and raised in the “wrong” faith. To me, that would be very, very scary indeed, and losing that fear would certainly be a relief. Most believers (including myself, when I was one) avoid living in constant fear of their statistically probable eternal damnation simply by not thinking about this at all; their faith is the “right” one, automatically, because they were raised in it, and it’s “obvious”, so, end of story.

However, my own relief was more related to intellectual honesty; I was always inquisitive, with “the soul of a scientist”, so to say, and only managed to keep my faith by not thinking critically about it, by stopping myself whenever I started to consider the implications, before going “too far” — and, with time, the lines of thought I had to avoid became more and more in number. I knew, subconsciously, that if I thought about it, I would lose my belief, and come to the natural conclusion: that all religions are man-made, self-contradictory, and teach morally wrong — sometimes even repugnant — things. And that the reasons I had for not believing in every other religion could apply perfectly to my own. So, my mind served me so well at school, at college, at work, and to solve problems regularly in life, but it had to be “chained” for me to keep a belief that would not survive a good, hard look? Can you imagine how dishonest, how “fake” that made me feel? To have a part of my life that I had to constantly avoid thinking rationally about? To have two separate standards of reasoning, one I applied to reality and life, and the other to a belief that I just “had” to keep… or else? And yet I blamed myself, not the belief — because I had been taught so.

It’s as Martin Luther said, reason is the enemy of faith. I just disagree with him on which side to pick.

Orcish wisdom: "I do not know."

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on May 9, 2007

in quotes, reason, religion and science

. 7 Comments

The beginning of wisdom is the statement “I do not know.” The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn.

– Thrall (from the Warcraft series)¹

A common argument by theists is this: the universe exists. It couldn’t have appeared out of nothing, so there must be a creator. That is, God.

However, we used to be equally sure about the divine origins of, say, the weather. Storms? It was obvious that the gods were angry, or fighting among themselves. But now we know better. We may not know everything, but a lot of it has been successfully explained by science… and, guess what, it’s all natural, so far. No divine intervention required.

Science has been widely successful. It has moved us from the cave to the hut to the skyscraper, more than doubled our life expectancy, and explained a lot of phenomena — once attributed to gods or demons — as natural. But it is not perfect. And it “knows” it. It is always prepared to discard an hypothesis when it comes up with new data that contradicts it. While some would accuse science of “flip-flopping”, of not providing us with absolute, final certainties, that is actually the best thing about science: it’s about understanding reality, but it’s reality itself that is “in charge”, and no scientific hypothesis, or even scientific theory (which is something a lot stronger — tested against available evidence, peer-reviewed, etc. — than what the word “theory” suggests in common language: merely an idea or wild fancy, as in “I have a theory…”), is ever set in stone.

In short, science is capable of saying “I do not know.”

In the opposite corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have religion. Religion doesn’t know the words “I don’t know;” it replaces them with “God did it.” Both in primitive times, when little was known of the workings of the world, and now, religion always claims to have a perfect, complete answer to everything. “God did it.” How? “Who knows? God works in mysterious ways. No need to understand; just have faith.”

What is the origin of the universe? God. How did life appear? God. Where does mankind come from? God. What is the source of morality? God. What happens to us after we die? God.

“God”, as an answer to a question, is nothing more than the fear of saying “I do not know”, even to oneself. Apparently, such an honest admission is scary to many theists; it is much more comfortable to cease all questioning, stop any investigating, turn your mind off, and say “God did it. That’s good enough for me.”

Good thing it wasn’t “good enough” for many people throughout history, or we would still be living in caves, huddled in the dark, afraid of terrible demons and unknowable gods. We don’t live like that anymore, however, all because some people were honest and brave enough to say “I do not know”… and then went and did something about it: they began to learn.

more about the character here. [↩]

Irrational and Rational Atheism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 14, 2007

in atheism and reason

. 36 Comments

A recent exchange of comments between me and Niki, starting with this one, has made me think about what “atheism” really means.

Technically, it’s simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. That much, I believe, can’t be disputed (even though theists like to say that we are simply “in denial of God”, or that we have “faith in the non-existance of God”). vjack of Atheist Revolution seems to confirm it:

Skepticism and atheism are clearly separable and far from synonymous. Most atheists are skeptics, however many are not. I have encountered atheists who believe in a number of supernatural entities besides gods. Many skeptics are atheists; many more are not.

I certainly can’t disagree with that. But, in the discussion I mentioned above, my own reply to Niki, in a way, “betrayed” me:

Niki: to me, “atheism” includes “there is no such thing as the supernatural”. Other people may (and do) redefine the term…

Wait a minute. Am I not contradicting myself, there? Am I not “adding” to the dictionary definition of atheism?

In a way, you can say that I am. However, I believe that it all depends on the reasons that lead to one’s atheism.

If you’re an atheist because “you felt like it”, it’s possible that you believe in things like an immortal soul, reincarnation, ESP, talking to the dead, and so on. If so, then, technically, since you don’t believe in any gods, you’re still an atheist… but you’re guilty of as much wishful thinking — or, to use the more PC term, faith — as the average theist. You’re as irrational as they are. Both let desires or fears overcome rational judgment.

If, however, you’re an atheist because you’ve thought about it, looked at the available evidence for each claim, and decided that you won’t believe in any mumbo-jumbo without evidence, even though that belief may “feel good”, then — and this is a claim that’ll ensure I’ll be called “arrogant by some — you simply can’t believe in an immortal soul (zero evidence), reincarnation (zero evidence), ESP (zero evidence), and so on.

They all fail the same “tests” that should lead one away from believing in things without evidence. Why have double standards? Why demand evidence for a god but not for “something, unseen and completely undetactable by science, remains of you after you die”? Could it be that such a belief is comforting, so you refrain from asking for evidence? Isn’t that exactly why theists believe in their “all-loving” deity? The belief its comforting, so you believe despite a total lack of evidence?

Note that I’m not trying to expand the dictionary definition of “atheist” here (not that I could, even if I wanted to). My point is just this: if you’re an atheist because you don’t engage in wishful thinking and demand evidence, it makes no sense not to demand evidence for everything else. Therefore (2nd arrogance warning! :)), a rational atheist shouldn’t believe in the supernatural.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - whether they’re about a god, a dragon in the garage, or “I’m the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte”.

Accepting the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 15, 2006

in honesty, logic, reason, religion and thinking

. 4 Comments

On the previous post, I quoted Ebon Musings, and one of the quoted parts was the following:

Consider honestly the possibility that you might be wrong, accept the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, and then ask yourself: Does the evidence make more sense from this perspective? Is the world I live in the one I would expect to see if this hypothesis is true, or is this the world I would expect under its negation?

I believe that part is so important that it deserves a post of its own.

Now, answer me honestly: how often do you do the above? How many times in your life have you stopped to consider an opposing point of view, an opposing theory, hypothesis, or explanation, and actually thought about whether it better explains the universe around you? Whether it is simpler, and you need to come up with fewer rationalizations or exceptions of your own?

Though this is certainly not related just to religion (we could easily apply it to politics, for instance), consider the following example: young earth creationism.

A young earth creationist (YEC), these days, has a lot of explaining to do. He believes in the Bible, literally; to him, it’s, by definition, the absolute truth. Therefore, anything that happens differently, must either be ignored, or explained somehow.

If you know YECs, how many times have you heard “explanations” such as:

“God made the fossils appear much older to scientific tests in order to test our faith.”
“When God created the stars, he made it so that the light from them was already arriving at the Earth, and so they appear much older.”

… and so on?

Now, do you believe that an YEC has actually, ever, stopped to think about the opposing point of view? And, sincerely, wondered if that other explanation doesn’t fit reality around him much better, and without the need for so many excuses, exceptions, explanations, and so on? Whether - frighteningly enough - “the other side” might actually be on to something?

I doubt it.

As I said, this doesn’t apply just to religion. There are many times when we should stop for a minute and consider “the other side”’s position, just to see if it fits with what you see. Stop demonizing your opponent for a moment, and think about his reasons for his viewpoint. You may find out that you’re right… or that you’re wrong. Either way, you learn and improve.

It’s a rare “skill”, though…

Religion: not really harmful?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on November 14, 2006

in christianity, reality, reason and religion

. 21 Comments

An argument I’ve seen before, in blogs, forums and so on, is this: that it doesn’t really matter whether God exists or not; religion does good, makes people live happier lives, and so it should be accepted, perhaps even encouraged.

It’s not something a fundamentalist theist would say, of course, but both liberal theists and some non-theists have argued for that. Do you agree with them? Or do you see a problem with it?

I do see a problem. Several, in fact.

First, we must question whether religion really does good. One could, here, cite the usual examples: the Inquisition, crusades, witch burnings, the harassment of scientists, the slaughtering of other cultures, and so on.

To which the proponents of that point would reply: that’s mostly in the past. Religion also does charity work around the world. And, anyway, believing in an all-loving God, in life after death, in going to a place of eternal bliss (if you behaved and believed, that is) after you die, makes people feel better, more comfortable. That’s a good thing, right?

Well, first of all, while those examples are mostly past ones, there are still many bad things coming from religion these days: banning of contraceptives, pedophile priests, “intelligent design” / anti-evolution / anti-science teaching, banning of stem cell research, attacks on abortion, and the general anti-reason, pro-blind faith teachings.

Second, it’s not necessarily true that religion makes people feel better. Even though many Christian sites try as hard as they can to convince readers that atheists must undoubtedly lead sad lives of grey emptiness and hopeless despair, it’s simply not true - as you can confirm by reading many atheist blogs and sites. Not wanting to start that discussion again (at least for now), many Christians tend to believe that this world is Satan’s, that there’s no point to this life except as a “test” to see whether you go to heaven or hell, that there’s no reason to try, in any way, to make either the world, or your life, any better, since it’s not “the real thing” anyway. It’s certainly not all of them, but there are far too many Christians of the “take me, lord Jesus!” variety for it to be a coincidence. And most Christians, to put it simply, believe that their lives don’t actually belong to them. How is that different from earthly slavery? How is that “good”?

However, even if it was shown that theists, on average, were a little happier than non-theists, there would still be a problem with encouraging belief, independently of whether God actually exists. A huge one, in fact.

Reality. And the (then) necessary evasion of it.

Young children live in fantasy worlds of their own making, and that’s perfectly normal and healthy. But adults aren’t supposed to live like that. We’re supposed to live in the real world, no matter how much we love fantasy or science fiction (and I do!). Any scientist, any inventor, any creator, was only able to do what he did because he dealt with reality on its own terms. Because he accepted that reality exists, that it’s not fluid, and that only by dealing with it honestly, without deluding himself, could he begin to understand it, to learn how it works, and how to use it to his own advantage.

Suppose you end up on a deserted island. You’re hungry. Do you try to find some berries to eat? Try to make a rudimentary weapon to hunt or fish? You’re cold. Do you attempt to build some kind of shelter?

Or do you simply refuse to believe in the facts around you? Believe as if you’re in a dream, and will wake up at any minute? Or, perhaps, simply sit and pray to God to save you?

The first case is of a man who accepts that reality is real, and deals with it honestly. The second one doesn’t, and, while he may have some comforting delusions for a while, he’s the one — I think you won’t dispute that — most likely to die of starvation in a couple of days.

Honesty isn’t just something desirable when dealing with others. It’s not merely something “social”. Honesty, when dealing with reality, can mean the difference between life and death.

Therefore, a belief in something that doesn’t exist, that isn’t real, is dishonest. It’s an evasion of reality - an immature, cowardly one, too. Encouraging it is harmful - it holds back one’s development as a rational adult, leaving one like a crippled being who, as a supposed “grown-up”, still has to run to his little fantasies and delusions, because reality is too scary for him to cope with.

In short: the only reason, the only possible motive to encourage religion would be if it was true - that is, if God really existed, and did so according to people’s beliefs. Because they certainly only cause harm — both in the physical and mental senses — otherwise.

The Origin of Morality

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 21, 2006

in morality and reason

. 48 Comments

Note: this post is a reply to a comment by Matt in a previous thread.

Where does morality come from, anyway?

Most theists believe it comes from God. In other words, morality - or “good” - is obeying God. Whatever it is that God wants, becomes moral; it follows that doing what God doesn’t want is immoral.

Putting aside, for now, the problem of determining what God really wants (not to mention whether he actually exists), which should already be enough reason not to accept this definition of morality, there’s a more important problem here: it’s arbitrary.

If morality is simply obeying or pleasing some being (whether human or divine), what about that being’s own morality? What if that being is wrong, or actually “evil”? I’ve dealt with this one before, in The Morality of God. What most theists do, here, is say that God is “above morality” - that he can’t be judged by us, or by anyone, that whatever God does is by definition “good”, and any rules he gives us don’t apply to him. In other words, if I kill someone, it’s immoral (not because murder is wrong for any reason, but simply because God said so), but if God kills someone, he was moral in doing so… because he sets the rules.

I believe it stands to reason that morality 1) must apply to each and everyone, instead of having someone “above morality” (much like a ruler can’t be above the law), and 2) can’t come just from someone’s desires or whims. If I believed God existed, but was evil, I wouldn’t worship him anyway - and if the price for that was hell, then, as I’ve read somewhere, nobody would be safe from such a monster anyway.

Now, a great many people believe, instead, that morality comes from society, that it’s defined by what society believes - or, in other words, by what most people believe. To them, morality is simply a social construct, there’s no reason why this is moral and that is immoral, other than it being accepted so by society.

If you think a little about it, it should be obvious that this way of thinking has the same problem: it’s arbitrary. Who’s to say that the majority is always right? Not a long time ago, slavery was accepted. Was it moral, back then? Did it become “wrong” only after most people came to believe it was wrong?

What about some of the more primitive Muslim countries today, where women are seen as downright inferior beings, with no voice at all, and rape is OK? Is it “moral” to do so, just because that’s what most people there believe? What about racism? Just a few decades ago, non-whites were seen as inferior… were they really inferior? Was it “moral” to be a racist, at the time?

What should define “moral”, then? I don’t have an absolute answer, but, in my opinion, morality should come from one’s love of life, from empathy to other human beings, and from rational principles.

I don’t kill my neighbor for his money. Why don’t I do it? Not because some god told me not to. Not because society tells me not to. Not because of fear of punishment - either divine or legal.

Instead, I don’t do it - and I don’t feel tempted to do it - because I don’t want to live in a world where people kill their neighbors for their money. That’s not a rational, civilized world; it’s a world of brutes, of beasts, of predators. That’s not the world I want for me, for my family, for my friends, and for my kids (when I have them).

I want to live as a rational being, and, to me, it’s moral to do so. I need no “compulsion” from God or society.

The "death" of skepticism?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 18, 2006

in reality and reason

. 2 Comments

Steve Pavlina, whom I’ve already mentioned here a couple of times, is one of my favorite bloggers. His posts about improving one’s life are incredibly insightful, brilliantly argued, and a joy to read - not to mention that he (through his posts) actually helped in my decision of quitting my job and writing / blogging full time.

However, lately there’s been a growing vein of new age mysticism in his writing, which is worrying - and, in a way, enlightening about human nature. It also serves as a warning.

A recent example is this post, The Death of Skepticism.

Now, Steve, as I said, is obviously a very intelligent guy, and a great writer. But… there is something seriously wrong in a post like that one. I won’t dissect his entire post here, only some parts which should be ringing every alarm bell in any rational human being.

Apparently it’s cool to be a doubter these days.

Ahem… In which planet do you live, Steve? I’d like to move there, because it sounds much more rational and sane than the planet I live in, where skeptics are called “materialist”, “cold and grey”, and, if you’re in a more fundamentalist country like the U.S., you’re also a “communist”, “traitor”, “terrorist”, “anti-american”, and absurdities like that.

Steve, IT’S NOT COOL TO BE A DOUBTER THESE DAYS! I wish it was, but it isn’t. There are almost no skeptics left - it’s absolutely “uncool” to be one. Religious fundamentalism is rising. Cults and sects thrive everywhere. “Mediums” of all kind are getting rich, and more and more appear each day. If anyone is “persecuted”, or at least discriminated against, it’s atheists, secular humanists, and skeptics in general.

I realized that if the universe were actually subjective, I’d never recognize it as such if I believed it was objective, since I’d simply manifest an objective universe.

I see several problems with that:

1- did you never dream, or imagine stuff? As a child, didn’t you ever believe that there were monsters under the bed, or stuff like that? Did the monsters actually appear? Did they come into existence? I don’t think so.

2- are you the only being in the world? By your “logic”, if thoughts create reality but you weren’t doing it because you believed reality was objective, then others should have been doing it, anyway. Did you see anything? Did anything strange happen? Ever had a neighbor with “weird powers”? Sorry, but I’m betting otherwise.

Unfortunately, testing for subjectivity is an oxymoron. You can’t actually test for a subjective universe. The whole idea of testing implies doubt, and doubt will corrupt the test if the universe really is subjective.

Sorry, Steve, but this is nonsense. This kind of mentality requires - and ends causing - a conscious intellectual reduction, so that you begin to believe things your rational mind knows not to be true. You have to “repress” your reason, and force yourself to believe such things are true - and, after you do, since the human mind is easily influenced, it’s easy to “see” them, even if they aren’t really happening.

If you convince yourself that you have mental powers, that you feel precognitive “flashes”, then you will feel them, but you will only notice - and remember - those that coincided with reality. You’ll count the hits and ignore the misses - even if the “misses” are a much greater number, and the “hits” are no more than the average for any person. After all, you are forcing yourself to believe.

Looking at it from a different angle: if, for your “powers” to work, you need to be completely un-skeptic, free of doubt… then why not ask someone else to test them? You may be doubt-free, and leave the skepticism needed for testing to another person. Or are your powers so feeble that even someone else’s skepticism is enough to hinder them? Do they only work if you’re surrounded by blind believers, who believe anything? Is the proximity of a rational being like kryptonite to you?

Really, it actually does me good to see posts like this. It’s a lesson - even geniuses can fall prey to irrationality, to wishful thinking. Much like freedom, the price of rationality is eternal vigilance.

"Closed minds"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 13, 2006

in logic, reality, reason and relativism

. 13 Comments

Unless you’re some kind of religious fundamentalist, it’s likely that you will agree that an open mind is a positive quality. And, when arguing, both you and your opponents should be on guard against having a closed mind, that is, refusing to even consider the possibility that you are wrong.

However, some people - I see this from time to time - use the “you don’t have an open mind!” argument in a very peculiar way…

It goes like this:

Person A: “2 plus 2 equals 4.”

Person B: “That’s very closed-minded. You’re not even considering the possibility that you’re wrong, and that 2 + 2 equals something other than 4. You refuse to listen to any opinions or ideas different from your own. Other people may believe that 2 + 2 equals, say, 5, and who’s to say that you know better than them? How can you be so arrogantly sure? You talk about keeping an open mind, and yet you accept on faith than 2 + 2 equals 4, and refuse to think further about it. That’s dogmatic, like any religion.”

<sigh>

Yes, relativism is a terrible thing - it denies the existence of facts, of an objective reality. To a relativist, there are no facts, only opinions, and there’s nothing that says that one is better or truer than another. A relativist prides himself on “an open mind”, because, after all, he’s prepared to believe anything and everything, without judging, without using his mind at all.

However, that attitude is nothing more than a refusal to think and to deal with an objective reality on its terms. It’s pure cowardice - reality is scary, so you deny it.

An open mind does not mean denying the existence of facts. That’s just an absurd distortion of the concept.

A reply to my Anti-Intellectualism post

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 9, 2006

in reality, reason and religion

. 1 Comment

Kent Newsome has commented (thanks, Blogger Web Comments) on my post about anti-intellectualism, a few days ago. And I feel I must comment on one of his comments.

[...] I feel compelled to point out that I don’t buy the fact that intelligence and learning are inconsistent with religion and faith.

The essence of faith is to believe what you cannot prove. If you question it, if you can make the argument that it is logically impossible, yet you still believe it- that is faith. The more capable you are to question it, the stronger your faith is when you conclude that you believe it anyway.

True, that is faith. But how is that different from beliving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

If faith is knowing that something cannot logically, rationally, be true, and, yet, still believing in it… then why stop at one rationally impossible thing? Why not believe in anything that suits your fancy? Why not believe that all pink objects are alive and sentient, for instance?

If your mind and your reasoning tells you there probably isn’t a god, your eyes see no traces of a god, science explains more and more, up to a point that what is left for God, even if nothing further was explained by science, isn’t really that much… and you still believe there is a God… why? Why is that? What is the source of your belief?

Wishful thinking? A “feeling you can’t describe”? The need for “something greater than yourself”? Indoctrination?

And why “God”? Why not someone or something else, equally supernatural, unknowable and untestable? Why not several things at once? The existence of the supernatural already contradicts science and observation of reality, so why not believe - with all your heart, of course - in two different supernatural beings whose existence contradicts one another, as they are both supposed to have created the universe, at different times, and in different ways? After all, “faith is knowing that it is logically impossible, yet believing in it”… right?

Anti-intellectualism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 26, 2006

in intelligence, reason, stupidity and thinking

. 15 Comments

In my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the world’s most serious problems, these days.

What is it? It’s the belief that what is good are the “simple people”, the “common people”, who are supposedly more honest and “real” than so-called “ivory tower” intellectuals.

It’s also the belief that thinking and learning are trouble, that they lead people to unhappiness, sinfulness, asking too many questions, and such.

It’s geeks, or more intelligent students, being called “brainy” or “nerds” and harassed by classmates. It’s science being seen as a waste of time and money. It’s a political candidate winning an election because he successfully depicted his opponent as an “egghead”. Incidentally, it’s likely that one of the reasons America currently has one of its worst presidents ever is that, by being less educated and articulate than Gore or Kerry, he appeared “more in touch” with the common man (of course, one should then wonder if you really want the village idiot in charge of the most powerful nation in the world… but I digress.)

There are several sources of anti-intellectualism. Religion is an obvious one, of course, since being intelligent and learning makes one less likely to accept arguments from authority, and to question unproven assertions. An intelligent, learned man has no need for religion - therefore, we don’t want any intelligent, learned men (to paraphrase The Fountainhead’s Elllsworth Toohey).

Besides “normal” religion, there’s also the usual mystical, new age thinking, according to which the mind is “flawed” and imperfect, incapable of perceiving any real “revelations”, which you supposedly can only grasp with “your heart” or “your spirit”. The mind is human, and therefore imperfect, while the heart/spirit are filled with “the cosmos’s love” or any other generic, meaningless terms.

Another reason is populism, the belief that the honest, hard working “masses” are oppressed by the corrupt, privileged “elites”. While they certainly are, sometimes (in dictatorships, for instance), populism is wrong because of its belief of “the lower, the better”, and its worship of ordinariness. Populism, like most forms of collectivism, punishes people for ability and for success - therefore, it promotes mediocrity and sameness. And a populist certainly hates and feels threatened by anyone with more “brains” or education.

Dictatorships (communism, fascism, etc.) always strongly promote anti-intellectualism, for mostly the same reasons as religion does: an intelligent, educated person is much more likely to question, and to see “what’s rotten”. The “unwashed masses” are much easier to keep in line. Higher education is seen as “dangerous” and “subversive”.

Finally, a lot of people simply believe the lie that intelligence causes unhappiness, and stupid people are happier. Even today, at breakfast, I had this conversation with a co-worker, who strongly believes that lie: that most people are dumb (true) and happy (false), that most geniuses suffered their entire lives (if they did, which was not always the case, it was usually because they were persecuted), that intelligence and learning are mostly “theoretical” and are of no use in the real world, and can’t be used in order to improve your life, and so on. And I know a lot of people who think like her.

An intellectual isn’t necessarily someone more intelligent or with more knowledge than the norm. It just means that the person highly values the mind, thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. And it’s frightening, to me, how few intellectuals (by that definition) I personally know. Anti-intellectuals (people who deride the mind, who pride themselves on not thinking, on not using their reason), on the other hand, are everywhere.