Discourse on dissent, science, and absolute truths

 

In science when an alternate theory is presented that makes an older but more widely accepted theory invalid, men in white coats do not fight wars with other men in white coats to determine whose theory is the one true thesis. It is, as they say, self evident, so much so that even the author of the older theory is compelled by the rigorous discipline of science to accept the new theory as the new if transient truth. But science is not a compendium of absolute truths by any stretch of the imagination, any theory, even theories by the most illustrious and celebrated scientists, can crumble if and when it is faced with an alternative vision of truth that scientifically disproves it.

 

Sadly, the same cannot be said of religious belief. Such beliefs are so deeply internalized and interwoven into our culture that any attempt at introducing an alternative vision of truth is violently rebuffed. The dissenter who dares to suggest an alternative thesis is branded a traitor and blasphemer, crimes for which the most violent retribution is exacted. Some religious authorities through out the ages have justified such punishments as boiling in oil, mutilation of soft tissue, burning alive, and disemboweling, as spiritually necessary for the cleansing of the errant soul. If people think such violent retributions conducted either by fanatics or by entranced mobs are mere historical artifacts and that humanity has moved on from such mindless barbarity, think again.

 

If psychologist Stanley Milgram proved anything with his experiments on obedience, it is that figures of authority, spiritual or otherwise, can drive ordinary ethical people to obey orders that have horrific consequences. But the experiments also show the tug of war between the subject’s moral center and the experimenter’s authoritative if calm command to give electric shocks at ever higher voltages to the learner in the next room who screams out in pain with every jolt as he asks for the shocks to stop. Some subjects experienced intense stress and even hysterical laughter, some were clearly anguished, and yet they obeyed orders. This shows how ordinary people can turn to obedient tools in the hands of mass murderers.

 

In some systems, open discourse on faith is merely uncomfortable and people just avoid it, in other faith systems the unambiguous command is to end the life of a dissenter. Such a command does not come from a human experimenter in a white lab coat; it comes from the supreme power in the universe and thus must be obeyed. That command maybe relayed through a cleric, but it is unquestionable and obedience is compulsory even if the person obeying the order is clearly conflicted and anguished by it.

 

In our human world there are far more important things, believe it or not, than absolute truth. We have a more pressing need to feel protected and loved something our broad familial structure supplies. But whether our family is a commune, a cult, or a group of people with a common gene pool, obedience to the family’s beliefs is a must for membership not to be terminated. It is not surprising therefore that in ancient Greece those sentenced to death were given the option of exile instead. Exile from the city gates meant exile from the known world, from family and loved ones, a fate for the Grecian as bad as or even worse than death.

 

In our own small world and corner of the Middle East, and it is small, marriage with someone of a different faith can mean banishment and exile from family and loved ones, in some extreme cases the errant family member may be killed, especially women who adopt the religion of their spouse. In fact, changing one’s religion is so frowned on and uncommon in tight knit tribal societies that it rarely happens without some negative repercussions, if only a few comments and disapproving looks.

 

In Lebanon, religious affiliation is akin to tribal and regional affiliation, and a political dispute between various parts of the country, like between the haves and have-nots, the right and the left, can quickly descend into a conflict with religious connotations as happened during our own civil war. From a political argument over ideology and tangible things to a chaotic fight between fanatics determined to prove that God is on their side, thus the original impetus that drove the country over the edge into civil war was forgotten: equality and fairness, equitable development of all parts of the country, the reinvention of government from one dominated by one sect to a more equitable distribution of power between all sects. The Taif Accord went a long way to achieve that, and it can go further still if those in power are willing to implement it fully. Sadly, what the Lebanese have learnt, or one hopes they have, is that the fight is not between sects, but between classes of people: the have-too-much and the have-too-little. The total domination of unrestrained capitalism is not just limited to the market place her, but it dominates every corner of our small society, in education, in healthcare, in State welfare provisions, in the legislature and in government.

 

Far from a fight between alternate religious visions, our political struggle today is one between one group of haves and another group of haves. Each one uses religion as a useful prod every now and then to spur their hapless followers on, all in the name of “our version of faith is better than the other guy’s” and all the while the mini battles take place in poor neighborhoods, among the youngest and least educated, further impoverishing the overwhelmingly poor majority in this country. This makes them even more willing and pliant pawns in the hands of the oligarchy that dominates and control everything in this country. A dissenter here has no place. At best he can be viewed as a clown and a caricature from a bygone age, at worst he can be viewed as an annoyance and silenced.

 

The fact remains, that poverty, lack of quality education, lack of real freedom (freedom from hunger and destitution which requires adequate State welfare to achieve), will mean that for the vast majority of Lebanese democracy is meaningless rhetoric, something that has no impact on their daily lives. But what does have impact and a significant one is their tribal/religious network of assistance from which, if they pay adequate homage, they may receive the blessings of food, shelter, and work. Thus many Lebanese remain chained in place, powerless to change their own circumstances or other people’s. The really sad thing is that expatriates who leave this country and do change their circumstances, naively return years later and assume their country has miraculously changed into a pluralistic nirvana where everyone who works hard is rewarded and people can change their circumstance without help from their feudal masters. Most are soon disappointed and leave, others remain and with their new found wealth at least try to carve for themselves a position in this feudal society that is slightly higher than that of serf by paying homage to a feudal overlord. As long as business goes on as usual, profits role in, and the violence is limited to certain poor neighborhoods, no one really cares.

 

Dissent requires courageous discourse on uncomfortable issues, like ‘truth and reconciliation’ which never happened after the civil war, like the role of religion in our political system, or the under-taxation of the obscenely wealthy. Without political discourse and dissent nothing will ever change.

 

 

Jaan Hus, the great dissenter