Conservative author Dinesh D’Sousa has written a new book to follow up on his best-seller, What’s so great about Christianity?–called, Life After Death: The Evidence [http://townhall.com/columnists/DrPaulKengor/2009/12/09/qa_dinesh_dsouza_on_life_after_death?page=1]. I have a copy of the former, as well as others of D’Sousa’s books, including The End of Racism. For those who don’t know about him, D’Sousa immigrated from India as a teen during the 1970’s, and became a senior domestic policy analyst for the Reagan Administration. His analysis is typical of people who immigrated from Asia and attended American schools; the quality is better than anything about 90% of native-born Americans can produce.
There is, however, one issue in his last two books, where D’Sousa’s analysis fails–utterly. One claim made by atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Hatrris, etc., is that Heaven is a wish fulfillment concept, and thus, so is religion. That is, earth life is so bad, we dream up a place that is wonderful beyond imagination to console us.
D’Sousa’s answer is that he can certainly understand why somebody whose life isn’t that nice might imagine a place waiting for us that is. He has problems, however, understanding hell as a wish-fulfillment. Hell, of course is WORSE than any place that exists temporally, and worse than what humans can imagine–even a Nazi concentration camp is paradise compared to hell.
While hell-as-wish-fulfillment is certainly incongruous with those for whom hell’s existence serves as incentive toward holiness, like, say, Mother Teresa, for most of us, hell’s existence serves as a wish fulfillment as a tool of cosmic justice, which doesn’t exist here on earth. That is, in our worst moments, we might wish hell upon our enemies–those we don’t like. Thus, liberal Democrats wish hell upon former President Bush–and his supporters, “birthers” wish hell upon that “African Muslim Socialist,” President Obama (He isn’t–at least the former two; I’ll explain in a later post.)–and his supporters, and anti-Mormons like Bill Keller (http://www.votingforsatan.com/) wish it for the Latter-day Saints–and those like the late Governor Lilburn Boggs [D-MO] actually attempt to send us there.
Thus, for most of us, hell is indeed a wish-fulfillment concept, and for the rest of us, it is evidence that we are nuts.
Personally, I think a better response–though less dramatic than D’Sousa’s–is Daniel Peterson’s rule of comparative religions: If a person who is undoubtedly sane and intelligent in other subjects adheres to a religion that an observer thinks crazy or stupid, the problem is more likely with the observer’s view than with the religionist’s beliefs [http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040315respecting.html].
What do you all think?
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding D’Sousa and hell. It is very easy to see hell as wish fulfillment for “bad” people (however defined).
Peterson’s position is certainly better – but it isn’t a very high bar to clear when measured against D’Sousa. The notion that otherwise sane individuals have seemingly bizarre beliefs suggests that the beliefs are actually reasonable is not a very useful rule in any general sense.
People can be otherwise sane and believe in UFO abductions or be otherwise sane and believe in elves and fairies (e.g., much of Iceland). That an otherwise sane and intelligent person believes something bizarre doesn’t mean that belief should be re-classified as non-bizarre. For some reason, I thought you had read Michael Shermer’s “Why people believe weird things”, but maybe I am confusing you with somebody else.
Besides, it is a somewhat odd position for defenders of a ‘one, true’ religion to be staking – it is far more universalist than can reasonably be accommodated by a ‘one, true’ approach. Should LDS really be concerned about the possibility of currying disfavor with Shiva because a Hindu friend is otherwise sane and intelligent?
Hi Zax!
Though I’ve read Shermer’s article, you may be thinking of somebody else. 😉
As to your critique of Professor Peterson, I don’t think he is saying that nutty positions are non-nutty because sane people believe it. Rather, I think he is saying that rather than condemning an otherwise sane person for being as nutty for believing something we think crazy, we should instead look at the reasons that person believes it. It may be that there are good reasons for belief–even if they aren’t persuasive.
For example, I disagree with many of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrines. Instead of dismissing them as nuts I ask for their reasoning. While I understand the texts they cite differently, fairness compels me to acknowledge that their understanding is certainly plausible–and possibly appropriate.
Similarly, while I’m not about to worship Shiva, as an economist, I realise that most people have rational reasons–even if inapplicable, for their beliefs. Just as the LA County DA’s office is not required to believe that OJ is innocent because they failed to convince a jury of his guilt, neither are Hindus required to practise Mormonism because they failed to demonstrate Shiva’s superiority.
And, of course, we aren’t required to give up Mormonism because the likes of Ed Decker is unconvinced by our arguments! 😉
Do I make sense?
I think Dinesh D’Sousa is a big fat idiot, that’s what I think. 🙂
On a more serious note, Mr. D’Sousa is not working on promoting facts, but on building an ideology. He believes in his Imagined Community and all his work is to build that Imagined Community up to what he envisions it to be, damned be all the facts.
If I must listen to an Indian-American, I prefer Fareed Zakaria to D’Sousa.
What about my number one reason… I have a comment but I’m too damn lazy at the moment to force it out of me.
I have two comments. Although this has been discussed, I wanted to piggy back on Zak’s line of thinking as it relates to Steven Danderson’s closing thought: “If a person who is undoubtedly sane and intelligent in other subjects adheres to a religion that an observer thinks crazy or stupid, the problem is more likely with the observer’s view than with the religionist’s beliefs.” This logic (if you can call it that) is deeply flawed. According this line of thinking:
1. If person X is sane and intelligent(as subjectively confirmed by “me”), then what they believe is sane and logical.
2. Person X believes that aliens from the planet Bartinok-13 inhabit our bodies in microscopic spaceships shaped liked Egyptian pyramids and excrete an undetectable fluid called sneezium which causes rapid lung exhalations.
THEREFORE, the belief that aliens from the planet Bartinok-13 inhabit our bodies in microscopic spaceships shaped liked Egyptian pyramids and excrete an undetectable fluid called sneezium which causes rapid lung exhalations is sane and logical (and, in all likelihood, true)
Seriously!?! Let’s take this idea a bit further, shall we? If an observer of a sane and intelligent person’s faith system finds the faith system to be un-sane and illogical, then the observer is, by default, faulty in their observation. If this were true, then ALL religions would simultaneously be sane/crazy, intelligent/stupid once any single observer concludes (which inevitably happens) it is crazy and stupid. Mr. Danderson, you missed the mark in providing a compelling, or valid, religious-pluralist ethic quote. Although I understand your clarification regarding the reasonableness of one’s argument as the unifying thread, individual reasoning is often subjective, usually biased and potentially flawed. It would be better, if one is truly interested in the reasonability of another’s religion, to establish a set of rules for what is/is not reasonable and then pass every argument through this code. Alas, this is seldom done (even with our own beliefs).
My second comment relates to Dan’s posting: “Mr. D’Sousa is not working on promoting facts, but on building an ideology. He believes in his Imagined Community and all his work is to build that Imagined Community up to what he envisions it to be, damned be all the facts.”
Alright Dan, let’s first realize that no religion is in the business of promoting facts. Every faith system has unique doctrines and ideas (especially of an “Imagined Community” as you call it) but do not have facts to support such beliefs (they simply believe it independent of confirming/non-confirming data). Mormonism is no different. What are the “facts” whereby we “know” we will eternally progress, or be with our families forever, or (potentially) create our own worlds? What are the “facts” you insinuate exist whereby D’Souza would be convinced of the fallacy of his Imagined Community? Are they the “facts” of your religious ideology? Let’s not forget that everything you believe (if I am right in assuming you are LDS) is fundamentally and thoroughly based on beliefs independent of (and sometimes despite) tangible evidence; belief in Jesus’ life/death/resurrection, the creation/flood/exodus, the Great Apostasy, the golden plates, the first vision, etc.
It’s best not to critique a reflection. Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind…..
Daniel:
There are some things you are missing:
1. Just because something is rational, it doesn’t follow that it is right. In my econ classes, I show this joke VW commercial to my students, asking them if the terrorist therein is rational:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbcADoSz9bg
The answer, of course, is that the terrorist is rational, because he uses his intellect to take action to realize his values (In his case, he values dead infidels more than life.). Of course, rationality is NOT the same as intelligence! 😉
2. My point with Dr. Peterson’s argument here is not that Mormonism–or even Christianity is right (although I am convicted that it is!), but that one thing that YOU think irrational does not make an otherwise sane person nuts.
Indeed the thrust is not unlike that of Professor Kirke in CS Lewis’ book, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; Since there is no evidence that Lucy was lying and nothing (except the story about the wardrobe leading to Narnia) indicating that she is insane, then it follows that she is being truthful. Either she DID go to Narnia, or there is some unknown that would account for any false sensation of entering the witch’s winter empire.
Similarly, nutcases don’t build what US News and World Report considers the 71st best–in the world (There are tens of thousands of them!) [http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/provo-ut/byu-3670]. And liars don’t maintain reputations of sterling ethics for very long (BYU ranked #2 in that department, according to the Wall Street Journal; see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118961224646225232.html).
So, if Mormons aren’t nuts and aren’t liars, then MAYBE there might be something to it. Or are you willing to dismiss such scientific luminaries as Anthony Flew, Frank Tipler, and Isaac Newton–all of whom are or were believers when alive. Indeed, Newton wasn’t only a scientific genius, he also was the ECONOMIC genius who, as Master of the Mint (the UK’s equivalent to the Chairman of the Fed), improved the British Pound Sterling from worthless paper into the world’s “key currency”–a spot it held for more than two centuries.
3. Believe it or not, atheism is the “new kid on the block”–at least compared to theism. As such, atheism has the burden of proof, not theism. There is a sound reason for this conservatism, where the new idea has the burden of proof: uncertainties of the new thing often impose costs on people which make that new thing not cost-effective–especially when the OLD thing works adequately.
Unlike many new religious groups, the LDS have a way to reduce those costs of uncertainties, doing an “end around” those constraints in knowledge. I shall write about it–later. 😉
4. Just because you don’t see evidence, it doesn’t follow that it isn’t there. Similarly, just because I’m not convinced of the theory of organic evolution (as is taught today) or the reality of global warming (Indeed, I see deep flaws in both concepts!), it doesn’t follow that either concept is wrong–or that their adherents are irrational.
We humans all must live under constraints–and knowledge isn’t exempt from that. It is pretty arrogant for those who cannot see what strikes me as plain as day to impose their unbelief on me!