Philosophical Ramblings

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandi

Those who have the audacity to question the truth of a well-accepted public myth are quite often the subject of ridicule and accusations of blasphemy. Similarly, those who have the audacity to question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and call others to critically examine their own perceptions of this complex and deeply mysterious tragedy, are also either ignored, laughed at, or ridiculed as lunatic ‘tin-foil hatters’, moonbats and unpatriotic, anti-American conspiracy nuts – blasphemous traitors even. What crime have they committed to merit such an accusation of heresy? Simply questioning the orthodoxy of the widely-held faith. David Ray Griffin perhaps puts it best when he writes, “If some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. They ignore them, or denounce them as blasphemers.”

Contemplate, however, the numerous other apparent ‘blasphemers’ and ‘heretics’, who while proposing ideas that ran counter to popular and widely-held beliefs, turned out to be true. They too were at first ignored, then laughed at and ridiculed, even publicly shamed for questioning the established order and status quo. Numerous individuals throughout history have stood for ideas that have challenged popular public myths, and these individuals have endured ridicule for their skepticism and inquiry. What we must learn, however, as difficult as it may seem, is to persist in inquiry enduring whatever ridicule may come.

Galileo Galilee, a Tuscan physicist, mathematican, astronomer and philosopher, advocated the theory of heliocentrism, contending that the Earth revolved around the sun. Heliocentrism, which Galileo supported, ran contrary to the popular and widely held geocentric theory, which contended that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that all celestial objects orbited the Earth. Galileo was ridiculed by many for advocating such a belief, even called to stand trial under suspicion of heresy. Several centuries later, evidence appears to suggest that the vastly unpopular theory which Galileo supported, is true. Despite the ridicule Galileo received, the theory which he supported is the factually accurate one.

Martin Luther King, Jr advocated rigorously for an end to segregation and racial discrimination. The ideas that Dr. King vividly supported ran contrary to the popular beliefs held in society at that time. For challenging popular myths and social attitudes, King was ridiculed by many. No doubt that at the time many thought of him as a traitor as well denounced him as a heretic for his opposition to the inequalities of the established order. Despite this ridicule, King continued his non-violent course in advocating for civil rights, even unto his death.

English naturalist Charles Darwin, who publicized the theory of evolution via natural selection in The Origin of the Species, is still criticized to this very day for having supported evolutionary theory. If Darwin had advocated such a theory in the medieval era, one could assume that he surely would have been denounced as a heretic by the Inquisition.

Another victim of accusations of apparent heresy is Joan of Arc who was convicted and burnt at the stake in Rouen as a result of a politically motivated trial, despite there having been no guilt found as a later review would attest.

Reason is superior to ridicule, for ridicule is quite often baseless or a poor reflection of reality. It is, furthermore, weak as a persuasive device, for when ridicule is employed one can safely believe that the individual engaging in the ridicule does not possess enough insight into the facts in order to construct an appropriate argument along the lines of rationality.

The Wikipedia entry for Name-calling notes that:

“Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that an invoked bad name will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits.”

Labeling someone as a ‘heretic’ or a ‘traitor’ or denouncing them as a blasphemer is a strategy of ridicule employed to incite an emotional response from an audience in order to catalyze the formulation of a negative opinion of a certain party or their views. Name-calling, such as labels, appeals to stereotypes, accusations of heresy and ridicule function only to incite fear or arouse prejudices; they offer no substance and serve as a diversion from rational analysis and informed inquiry.

Despite whatever ridicule may come, inquiry must persist.