Rethinking the debate

Looking at the disaster that has been the US government for the last few days, at how some even refuse to believe on evolution. In Europe extreme right parties exist in every country, despite the evidence that integration has improved things a lot for all of Europe. Leninist Marxist parties exist after the fall of the iron curtain. People still deny climate change, or that it is man made, fight genetically modified organisms even if there's no evidence that they cause any harm. Refuse to vaccinate even if it is clear that the argument for autism being caused by vaccines was false.

There's evidence enough that we don't change our mind when presented with opposing evidence to our opinions. This particular study was carried out using university students on facts presented by misinformation which they had just read, and were unlikely to have any emotional attachment to it. So of course when referring to peoples long held ideological or religious beliefs, to which they have strong emotional attachment, no one will change their mind and presenting evidence will most likely backfire.

Liberals and atheists should be the ones able to reshape the debate.

After 9/11 the response of religious people was to turn more into religion. I remember walking out of church (yes I do attend sometimes out of respect to my catholic family) at a family ceremony because the priest had the guts to blame Islamist terrorism on the "godlessness" of our modern world. So our reaction as atheists was in a way expected, and justified, I was also angry on the face of it all.

Liberals and atheists (with some exceptions) happen to be the only groups who recognize everyone else's right to believe whatever they well damn please (even if Dawkins sometimes would make you think otherwise, he's open to people being religious, as long as they don't impose it on anyone, like their children). If we are not going to be able to change anyone's mind by presenting evidence, well then let's rethink the discussion entirely.

It's not about whether you believe in god, Allah, Yahweh, or the flying spaghetti monster, its about getting a sense of community and being a better human being. So how about we get on with it?

It's also not about whether the historical imperative must move on, or whether previous socialist regimes made mistakes or not. It's about getting everyone a better living standard. We all just want everyone to have better quality of life, so how about we stop the shouting and get on with the job.

Politics won't be easy, but a start might be made if we all agree we want the same stuff. In the end, if I were left to survive on social benefits, maybe I would also support the idea of everyone having a basic salary to meet their basic needs (which I honestly consider a rather idiotic idea, but more on that on other posts, later). So I must in a certain Buddhist way, remove myself from the equation.

It's not whether I'd be better off at this particular moment under a different government. It is about how we empower everyone to pursue their dreams and improve living standards for all inhabitants.

I realize some of this discussions will still go terribly bad, and might backfire. But if we reshape the debate and start talking not about what's wrong with "their" ideas, but about our common goals and how we can get there, the evidence might be better accepted and allow us to get on with the job.