Reason, Skepticism, Cynicism, Personality Disorders, and Paranoia
Rev. Paul Beckel
March 5, 2006
CHILDREN’S FOCUS
A man stood on a bridge, leaning against
the rail, fishing. Across the bridge to one side lay his hometown. Looking the
other direction, you would see fields and forests and a big wide world. As the
man stood fishing from the bridge, he would often meet travelers on their way
into town. Some were just passing through, some were looking for a place to
settle down. On this particular day he happened to have conversations with two
different travelers, a few hours apart. And this is how those conversations
went:
The first traveler came along in the
morning, greeted the man on the bridge and asked: “What’s it like living around
here? The people in this town – are they good neighbors?” Our fishing man
responded: “Well, it seems to me that people are pretty much the same all over.
Tell me about the people that you’ve known in the other places you’ve lived. “Well,”
replied the traveler, “It seems like wherever I go I’m surrounded by people who
are foolish and unkind. They only look out for themselves; I can’t stand it.”
“Yes,” the old man nodded. “And you’ll
probably find about the same sorts of people here.”
“In that case,” said the traveler, “I
guess I’ll keep going until I find something better.”
“Good luck and blessings on your
journey,” said the man on the bridge.
A few hours later another traveler came
by, asking the same question: ”I’m looking for a place to settle down, what’s
it like living here? Are the people in this town good neighbors?” I think you
can guess how the man on the bridge responded: “It seems to me that people are
pretty much the same all over. Tell me about the people you’ve known in the
other places you’ve lived.” “Well,” said the second traveler, “I’ve been lucky.
Everywhere I go I seem to find people who are kind and good natured. We mind
our own business, but we also help each other out as needed.”
And I’ll bet you can guess, again, how
the man on the bridge responded: “Yes, and I suppose you’ll find about the same
kinds of folks here in this town.”
“Great!” replied the traveler. “Thanks
for your help, I think I’ll stick around. And she did.
==
If you are on a journey today... if you
are unsure about whether it is possible to make a connection with the world
outside your own skin... but still hopeful and willing to give it a try, then
take a few moments now to greet someone whom you’ve never met before.
MESSAGE
Reason is a tool which, like all tools,
can be misused. And reason has its limits, which we sometimes fail to
acknowledge. But it remains among the most-prized tools in the Unitarian
Universalist toolkit.
In order to understand and appreciate reason – in order to value healthy rational thinking – we have to acknowledge that there are unhealthy ways of thinking. There
are thought processes which weaken us, disable us, and sometimes even harm
those around us. Those of us who profess tolerance and moderation get skittish
when we hear a thought process being labeled “unhealthy.” Isn’t this just a
step or two away from coercion and censorship – telling people what to believe,
or setting limits on how people can express themselves? No. To acknowledge that
mental illness does exist, to state clearly that we should offer to help to
change deluded states of mind, is as important as acknowledging that a
cancerous growth needs to be checked and destroyed.
I’m not calling for legislation against
unhealthy thoughts. Nor am I suggesting that we draw boundaries around our
religious community to keep out those whose private practices or opinions we
can’t understand, or find offensive.
On the contrary, let me begin by quickly
noting four recent examples of people over-reacting to what they find offensive
– situations bordering on censorship which have been unhealthy for us as a
society.
First,
The
second example hasn’t occurred yet, but is threatened. Under the guise of
protecting people from pornography, legislation has been proposed to force
cable TV companies to offer consumers the option of picking individual
channels. Now it’s great when consumers have choices, but this needs to be
negotiated between business and consumer. You don’t see Charmin required by law
to sell toilet paper one roll at a time. Government should get involved only if
these private parties are cheating or harming one another. Ironically, I
believe that such legislation could have an unintended consequence, and in the
long run harm both consumers and business by killing off many fledgling
communication channels which have minority audiences or viewpoints.
Third example: The City Council of
Sheboygan will vote tomorrow on whether to hold an advisory referendum on the
matter of the local brat-eating contest. Should Johnsonville Brats continue
their annual pig-out, which some believe glorifies gluttony and gives their
town a bad name? In my opinion, a referendum is not a good idea – even if it’s
only advisory...even if Johnsonville says they care what the citizens think.
This does not belong on a public ballot. It is not up to the voters to decide
what is disgusting.
Fourth and finally, the cartoons
published in a Danish newspaper which have set mobs of angry Muslims who feel
offended at the cartoons to wreak havoc in the streets, causing fires and loss
of life. The mobs themselves are frightening. But the idea that we might need
to start censoring ourselves in order to be “sensitive” or “tolerant,” or
because we are afraid of offending people – that’s even greater cause for
alarm.
==
Reason, skepticism, cynicism, personality
disorders, and paranoia. I wonder if there is a continuum here. If so, I did
not plant “cynicism” in the middle of the list so that I could later recommend
that we walk the middle path. But let’s acknowledge that in the grey area where
most of us live, we exercise both healthy and unhealthy thought processes.
Instead of
talking about mental illness, there would have been other ways for me to
address failures of effective reason. I could speak (and I have) about logic,
and the fallacies of formal and informal logic which enable us to abuse reason
in commercial, scientific, and political discourse. (I’ve yet to offer a sermon
on math and statistics but of course that would be another way to examine the
use and abuse of reason.)
So why talk
about mental illness, which seems to be in a completely different category from
abstract ideas about “reason?” Mental
illness is a medical problem; it’s not something we think through, and choose.
It’s not typically cured by preaching or by laying-on of hands. Still, I put today’s
discussion in this context because I’d like to suggest that healthy and
unhealthy thinking processes occur not only within individuals, but within
groups, nations, cultures, and religions.
The word “paranoid” is used clinically to
describe persistent logically reasoned false beliefs. Severe paranoia is
psychotic – clearly out of touch with reality. Of course this is only one of
many possible ways to be psychotic. Mania, severe depression, schizophrenia are
a few of the others. People with these diseases, of course, are not always
psychotic, or out of touch with reality – not any more than people with HIV or
high blood pressure are always unwell.
Of course the word “paranoid” is also
used colloquially to mean even mild delusions of grandeur, or persecution.
Personality
disorders are harder to put a finger on, because the behavior of people with
these illnesses generally passes for normal. There are many kinds of
personality disorders, but they share enduring patterns of distorted perception,
and dysfunctional relationships characterized by a lack of awareness of own
actions, a lack of awareness of one’s affect on others, and a tendency to draw
other people into one’s own dysfunction. Two distressingly common personality
disorders are the dependent personality disorder and the passive-aggressive
personally disorder.
Those who suffer
from Dependent Personality Disorder have difficulty making everyday decisions
without excessive advice and reassurance. They need others to assume
responsibility for major areas of life. And they have difficulty initiating
projects.
Those with a
Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder suffer from procrastination,
inefficiency, and forgetfulness – thereby avoiding doing what they need to do,
or avoiding doing what they have been told by others must be done. A person
with this disorder may appear to comply with another's wishes, and may
even say that he wants to do what he has agreed to do. But the requested action
is either performed too late to be helpful, performed in a way that is useless,
or otherwise sabotaged.
It’s very
difficult to establish boundaries in a relationship with these people because
they consistently and inexplicably finds ways to confuse the boundaries. Whether
their behaviors are intentional or even conscious may not be relevant (though
it’s easy to get caught up in wondering.)
Oddly, those who
find themselves in a persistent pattern of “helping” such a person may start to
think of this as part of their identity, and have a very difficult time
breaking out of this rut. Only a strong intervention can interrupt the spiral.
There’s little effective treatment for personality disorders, so I’m not
suggesting that this is a solution – but to remain sane ourselves we will need
to drawn clear boundaries, and stick to them, even when the sufferer of this
disorder finds ways to blur the boundaries.
==
The Buddhist tradition recommends taking
the middle path. Aristotle recommended seeking the golden mean. But what is the
middle path? What is moderation?
Moderation is a good idea that can be
applied very badly. Should we, for example, walk the middle path between
stupidity and ignorance? Should I aim for moderation, try to keep a fine
dietary balance somewhere between potato chips and ice-cream? Is there a
glorious golden mean between the anti-intellectual genocide of Pol Pot and the
racist genocide of Hitler? If I’m
fleeing a fire and have three escape routes, should I choose the middle path,
even if that’s the one that’s blocked by the fire?
In the comic strip “Dilbert,” yesterday,
Dilbert tells his boss: “We can do this project right for $100,000 or do it
wrong for $25,000.” His boss replies: “I believe the wise King Salmon would say
‘Split the difference and do it for $50,000.’” Is that the middle path?
Half-way between right and wrong (or given the mathematical aptitude of
Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss, a little closer to wrong than to right)?
How about in religion? Should one take
the middle path, the path of religious moderation, as opposed to religious
extremism? Or is religious moderation just a dysfunctional state of
indecision? Is religious moderation just
a passive-aggressive way to make nice with the fundamentalists? Is religious
moderation just a failure to explicitly renounce the absurd superstitions of
the fanatics?
“Moderation” of course, is in the eye of
the beholder. The location of the middle depends on where you mark the
boundaries. And so most people probably think of themselves as moderates. Most
people probably think of themselves as reasonable.
==
What’s the difference between someone who
uses their faculties of reason successfully, and others who simply believe themselves to be reasonable?
The rational thinker checks evidence
carefully and doesn’t rely on uncertain evidence. The paranoid thinker grabs on
to a few pieces of evidence and defends them inflexibly.
The rational thinker looks for realistic
answers in simple and familiar processes. The paranoid thinker invokes complex,
unrealistic scenarios controlled by powerful forces behind the scenes.
The rational thinker is a skeptic. She
accepts only what can be critically assessed. The paranoid thinker deals in
explanations which cannot be critically assessed.
Not that everything can be critically assessed. The rational thinker is willing to live
with some unresolved questions. The paranoid thinker demands immediate global
explanations.
The rational thinker accepts evidence
even when it goes against his theory. The paranoid will not accept negative
evidence under any circumstances.
Why do we call one of these modes “healthy,”
and one of them “unhealthy?” Because rational thinking can empower us. Paranoid
thinking dis-empowers, isolates us, makes us feel scared, and victimized.
==
“Occam’s razor” is one method of
comparing theories to one another. Occam’s razor says that – all other things being equal – the simplest
explanation is probably the best.
We can apply this method to the question
of how did the Ten Commandments come to be here for us? Two ways to explain
their presence include that a supernatural entity provided stone tablets, and
the means to pass them, without error, through hundreds of generations and
countless translations. Another possibility is that a human being wrote the
Commandments, and other humans have passed them on with all the integrity they
could muster.
Does this simple analysis prove that the
supernatural-entity theory is wrong? No. But it reminds us that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.
“Occam’s Razor” is also helpful when we
look at conspiracy theories. Take your own favorite and consider these two
explanations: #1, an international cabal with a fleet of black helicopters has
precisely coordinated and successfully manipulated whatever it is you’re
worried about.
Or, explanation #2: chance, entropy, and
ordinary human fallibility have lead to the same situation. If (and I’m not
saying they do, but IF) the two theories do an equally good job of explaining
the situation, the simpler explanation is more likely to be accurate.
==
Stereotypes of rationalists, skeptics,
cynics, and paranoids... stereotypes suggest people who are joyless and
restrained. But that is certainly not a requirement for one who honors reason.
I recently saw a description of skepticism as “a love of being surprised.” That
is, to be wrong and to rejoice rather than hurt, offended, or defensive at
being corrected. To live in this way... instead of saying: “I know my facts and
I’m sticking to them even if I have to stick ‘em in your eye.”
The word is used in a variety of ways,
however. Herman Melville used the phrase “...the brutality of indiscriminate
skepticism.” I know what he means: doubt leading to distrust, cynicism,
despair, even hopelessness.
==
Last week I mentioned John Dietrich, who
was minister of the congregation where I first encountered Unitarian
Universalism in
Dietrich was a founding proponent of
religious humanism, the movement which came to practically define Unitarianism
in the 20th century. It was a religious movement which emphasized
reason and objectivity. So, for example, one should not ask where ideas come
from, don’t worry if they were handed to you by an angel, or written on golden
tablets, or burped from the mouth of a teenager. Ideas should be evaluated on
their own merits. If freedom and honesty and kindness and gratitude and hard
work are valuable, then they are valuable. Not more valuable or less valuable
because they were given or ordered by a supernatural being. Not more valuable
or less valuable because we know them to be true via our experience or our
intuition or our individual study, or by hearing them in a sermon.
Religious humanism emphasizes the
important of self-awareness, including awareness of ourselves as the observer.
It advises that we give up the illusion that we can know things as-they-are...
because we are always looking through the lens of our limited mind, our limited
reason, our limited bodies, our inevitably skewed experience.
This doesn’t mean we can’t know anything.
But we should give up the illusion of certainty.
Because certainty can lead us to cynicism
(when we think that no one else “gets it”). Certainty can lead to violence
(when we think that we must show them that we’re right, or at least that
they’re wrong). Or certainty can lead us to paranoia (the experience of being
completely alone in understanding a vitally important matter).
So if that’s what humanism teaches about
knowledge and objectivity, is it crazy for me to like John Dietrich because of
something as non-rational as the subjective connections that I make between him
and my wife and my friends and my bookshelf?
==
But it gets more confusing. Because in
general, we should not trust the people that we like. At least that’s what we
hear from apocalyptic doomsayers who suggest that the Anti-Christ will at first
seem like a nice guy who will draw us in with his charm and apparent good
sense.
Why does this superstitious nonsense seem
credible? Because we have real experience, real evidence of similar situations.
There really are personalities who groom their victims and draw them into their
evil intentions. Does that mean, however, that we must never trust anyone nice?
That we should be especially
distrustful of people who seem decent and caring? How can you respond
rationally to an argument like that?!
There are undoubtedly people in your life
who provide you with such logical puzzles. Your entire relationship with them
might feel like one of those stupid word tricks, like: “Are you still beating
your wife?” How can you respond??? I mean, not to the clever question, but to
those whose every move makes you feel crazy?
First, find out if you are crazy. Seriously.
Get an objective assessment from the people around you, and if you are unsure
whether to trust your own judgment, seek professional help. Second, draw
boundaries and stick to them. And finally, forgive.
It is not logically necessary, just because we were once cheated or abused, to
carry that baggage with us forever. To forgive is to interrupt the power
which the past can hold over us in the present.
Forgiveness is not on our continuum
between paranoia and reason. The severely paranoid person simply does not have
the capacity to make the choice to forgive. And the rationalist cannot prove
that forgiveness has any value. No, reason can show us what is, but there is no rational bridge from what is... to what
ought to be.
We cannot reason our way to love. But
this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a strong and healthy compatibility between deep love and sound reasoning. I trust that
there is. But to find it, we need to periodically let go of the bar which links
reason to paranoia.
[1] Sometimes “free expression” is used as a disguise for criminal harassment and intimidation, but our statutes already address this.