Unless we are very, very careful, wrote psychologist-turned-artist Anne Truitt in contemplating compassion and the cure for our chronic self-righteousness, we doom each other by holding onto images of one another based on preconceptions that are in turn based on indifference to what is other than ourselves. She urged for the honoring of others in a way that grants them the grace of their own autonomy and allows mutual discovery. But how are we to find in ourselves the capacity the willingness to honor otherness where we see only ignorance and bigotry in beliefs not only diametrically opposed to our own but dangerous to the very fabric of society?
Thats what Carl Sagan (November 9, 1934December 20, 1996) explores with characteristic intelligence and generosity of spirit in the seventeenth chapter of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark the masterwork published shortly before his death, which gave us Sagan on science as a tool of democracy and his indispensable Baloney Detection Kit.
Sagan considers how we can bridge conviction and compassion in dealing with those who disagree with and even attack our beliefs. Although he addresses the particular problems of pseudoscience and superstition, his elegant and empathetic argument applies to any form of ignorance and bigotry. He explores how we can remain sure-footed and rooted in truth and reason when confronted with such dangerous ideologies, but also have a humane and compassionate intention to understand the deeper fears and anxieties out of which such unreasonable beliefs arise in those who hold them
When we are asked to swear in American courts of law that we will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth we are being asked the impossible. It is simply beyond our powers. Our memories are fallible; even scientific truth is merely an approximation; and we are ignorant about nearly the entire Universe
If it is to be applied consistently, science imposes, in exchange for its manifold gifts, a certain onerous burden: We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are Because its explanatory power is so great, once you get the hang of scientific reasoning youre eager to apply it everywhere. However, in the course of looking deeply within ourselves, we may challenge notions that give comfort before the terrors of the world.
Sagan notes that all of us are deeply attached to and even defined by our beliefs, for they define our reality and are thus elemental to our very selves, so any challenge to our core beliefs tends to feel like a personal attack. This is equally true of ourselves as it is of those who hold opposing beliefs such is the human condition. He considers how we can reconcile our sense of intellectual righteousness with our human fallibility:
In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.
But kindness, Sagan cautions, doesnt mean assent there are instances, like when we are faced with bigotry and hate speech, in which we absolutely must confront and critique these harmful beliefs, for every silent assent will encourage [the person] next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice. He writes:
If we offer too much silent assent about [ignorance] even when it seems to be doing a little good we abet a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.
The greatest detriment to reason, Sagan argues, is that we let our reasonable and righteous convictions slip into self-righteousness, that deadly force of polarization:
The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if youre sensible, youll listen to us; and if not, youre beyond redemption. This is unconstructive Whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted. If we understand this, then of course we feel the uncertainty and pain of the abductees, or those who dare not leave home without consulting their horoscopes, or those who pin their hopes on crystals from Atlantis.
Or, say, those who vote for a racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, climate-change-denying political leader.
Sagans central point is that we humans all of us are greatly perturbed by fear, anxiety, and uncertainty, and in seeking to becalm ourselves, we sometimes anchor ourselves to irrational and ignorant ideologies that offer certitude and stability, however illusory. In understanding those who succumb to such false refuges, Sagan calls for compassion for kindred spirits in a common quest. Echoing 21-year-old Hillary Rodhams precocious assertion that we are all of us exploring a world that none of us understand, he argues that the dangerous beliefs of ignorance arise from the feeling of powerlessness in a complex, troublesome and unpredictable world.
In envisioning a society capable of cultivating both critical thinking and kindness, Sagans insistence on the role and responsibility of the media resonates with especial poignancy today:
Both skepticism and wonder are skills that need honing and practice. Their harmonious marriage within the mind of every schoolchild ought to be a principal goal of public education. Id love to see such a domestic felicity portrayed in the media, television especially: a community of people really working the mix full of wonder, generously open to every notion, dismissing nothing except for good reason, but at the same time, and as second nature, demanding stringent standards of evidence and these standards applied with at least as much rigor to what they hold dear as to what they are tempted to reject with impunity.