I’ve seen this image floating around the web recently, supposedly quoting the Buddha. Of course, we probably cannot know if he ever said it, since the central texts about his life and teaching were not written until 400-500 years after he lived. (Unlike approximately 15 years for the earliest New Testament document, btw.) Regardless, what’s your reaction to the quote?

believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason, and your own common sense ~ buddha

In a sense, I agree with the quote. We of course should use reason and common sense.

But perhaps sometimes our own “common sense” is wrong. We sometimes develop bad ideas that need correction. If we rely upon our own “common sense” reasoning to decide whether an idea is true or false, won’t we naturally dismiss any ideas that differ from our preconceived notions? After all, our “common sense” can often differ markedly from that of a similarly reasonable person standing beside us.

So I have written, for your kind consideration, my own statement on this issue:

That’s just off the top of my head, maybe it’s not much of an improvement. Then again, I didn’t spend much time sitting around idly coming up with it. I guess the question comes down to in what sense we can really “know” things. The problem with the relativist viewpoint of truth is that no one actually can live consistently with the view that all truth is relative. What do you think?

Recently Sam Harris wrote a book called The End of Faith^*, which explains why he thinks faith needs to disappear. Here he describes what it means to him to be an atheist:

An atheist is not someone who can prove that there is no Thor. An atheist is simply someone who says, “show me the evidence,” and who is unconvinced by evidence like: “Here’s a book that was dictated by the creator of the universe, and in it, it describes all kinds of miracles that people claim they witnessed, but these people have been dead for 2,000 years, and in fact none of the authors of the book are the people who claim to have witnessed these events, and they wrote the book a hundred years after the events in question.” This is not a story that anyone would find plausible except for the fact that it was drummed into them by previous generations of people who were taught not to think critically about it. (Sam Harris)

If that is the best evidence that is available, then I wouldn’t be Christian either! This is what’s known as a straw man argument: a misrepresentation (caricature) of an opponent’s beliefs, created for the purpose of being easily defeated. Fortunately, arguments like the above are not what informed Christians believe. Even when some have faith because of arguments like this, that says nothing about the truthfulness of Christianity.

Secondly, Harris claims that there is no rational basis for faith. Perhaps he should speak to Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (see also here for Plantinga’s papers), William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Greg Koukl and Michael Horner among many others. Or there are many websites available on this topic, such as Rational Christianity, Skeptical Christian and Christian Thinktank. Although I’m sure Harris’ book contains many valid critiques of organized religion, the difference between a faith and its followers must always be kept in mind.

Harris does not just claim that religious are wrong, it is his claim that they are inherently harmful. Although he rightly discerns that different religions are necessarily incompatible (he uses the example of Christianity and Islam) he is one of many who misunderstands the concept of tolerance. Disagreement does not equal intolerance! People can disagree and still be tolerant of eachother. Most of Harris’ critiques seem to amount to argument from outrage, in the form of “look what terrible thing this religious group did, so therefore all religion must be false and evil”, or dismissive handwaving. Harris apparently advocates “laughing” at the people who believe what he misunderstands as being irrational … that doesn’t sound very tolerant.

And this brings us to the final point of this post. Sam Harris is entirely free to believe, write about, and try to convince others that his beliefs are correct. And I am entirely free to respectfully, tolerantly, disagree. The role of religious evangelism must be discussion, not coercion. After all, why do Christians have to bother people? Can’t they just keep their faith to themselves? Well, Christians do not share their faith because they hate non-Christians! We share it because we LOVE all people and want them to share in what we’ve discovered. Christians can’t keep the truth to themselves because faith, real faith, is in fact too wonderful to keep hidden.

What does being “openminded” mean? The Dictionary.com definition is “Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.” I think that’s pretty close. I’d say that openmindedness involves:

1. Receptively considering other people’s ideas
2. Evaluating new ideas to determine if they are true or false
3. Acknowledging that I might be wrong

The first point seems to be the most obvious and most intuitively understood. The second point is equally important. Like the old saying goes, “Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.” Hearing other people’s ideas is great. Being tolerant of the opinions of others is important. But it’s also important to weigh others’ opinions and come to a reasonable conclusion about the validity of their claims. Even when we disagree with someone, it can lead to deeper understanding of the reasons we believe as we do.

The third point is critical, and often overlooked: Acknowledging that I (you) might be wrong. For example, I am now a Christian. Before, I was not. It’s important to note that if I had not been openminded I wouldn’t be Christian today. I am now a firm believer in Christianity; but I know that I could be wrong. Does that mean I lack faith? No! It only means that I remain openminded, and if sufficient evidence were to convince me that Christianity were not true, then I would not (could not) continue to believe. It seems very unlikely that such a thing would happen, given that I have spent a lot of time evaluating both “sides”, but I can’t deny the possibility exists.

Sometimes Christians are accused of being “closedminded”. Some are. But the same criticism applies to everyone, because no one is without bias. If anyone (atheists and skeptics included) claims to be openminded on one hand but on the other hand precludes the possibility that they could be wrong, in what sense are they openminded?

Someone posted a comment on the Discuss Da Vinci Blog recently in the “Ultimate Da Vinci Code Question: Who is Jesus?” thread, where they commented “Lighten up, it’s just a stupid (fictional!) book. Faith is a personal thing. If your faith is strong, it shouldn’t be threatened by some hack’s novel.” Of course this comment didn’t really have much to do with the content of the original post. I replied, noting that Dan Brown doesn’t think that The Da Vinci Code is “just a stupid (fictional!) book” (see the “Ultimate Question” article above). I then linked some articles about some of the things Brown got wrong in the book. The person’s next comment was succinct: “Like I said emmzee, lighten up. Don’t be hatin’!”

This kind of attitude annoys me. Where did the idea that disagreeing with someone is “hatin” come from? I don’t hate Dan Brown, he’s free to believe whatever incorrect theories he wants, but he’s still wrong. And while some may view the issues discussed in The Da Vinci Code as unimportant, I certainly don’t. So why shouldn’t I try to correct the gross errors present in the work? As stated before, tolerance is only possible when people disagree; it is, to use the dictionary definition, “capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others”. Tolerance presupposes disagreement, and stating facts, if done in a respectful manner, is not “hatin”.