Socially Perceived Plausibility
One phenomenon that shields bad ideas is what I'm calling "Socially Perceived Plausibility". This is when even people who don't believe an idea think it's more likely than it actually is, and defend proponents of the idea from criticism.
People who criticise the idea are labeled as extreme or impolite.
If you've been reading my blog long enough, you can probably guess that I'm talking about religion.
This idea also sounds suspiciously like the Overton window. Indeed, it can be reformulated into Overton window terms, but I think that the difference in emphasis is important.
How does it apply to religion?
Well, here's one way to think about it. How do people treat belief in the following propositions:
- Norse Mythology
- Greek Mythology
- Scientology
- Elvis is still alive
- Alien abductions
- Santa Claus is real
- Leprechauns exist
- The Earth is flat
People that believe in any of those propositions get ridiculed. People won't hire them. They certainly won't elect them.
What about the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father will make you live forever if you eat his flesh and accept him sacrificing himself to himself so that he could forgive you for being descended from a rib-woman who was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from the wrong tree?
Is there any reason why Christianity is any less insane than any of the beliefs I listed above?
And yet if someone treated Christians or Muslims the way that proponents of those other beliefs are treated (often by Christians and Muslims), then they would be lambasted by the rest of society. Even most atheists would say that this intolerance is unacceptable.
Now, I am not asking for it to be socially permissable for me to mock Christians, or discriminate against them. If anything, I want them to leave Scientology alone.
This phenomenon doesn't just protect Christians from mockery, I think it's the driving force behind Agnosticism, and it's what makes it difficult to criticise Religious people for immoral behaviour.
Where does this come from?
Well, in the case of religion, religion used to be far more widespread. When someone loses a belief, such as religion, no one is checking ideological inventory and making sure that the ex-believer is returning all associated beliefs. Many of the beliefs aren't even encoded propositionally, they're "felt". E.g being disgusted by pork or homosexuality. Sometimes leaving the belief can soften it. This can be extrapolated socially. Before, criticising religion was blasphemy, which was one of the worst things you could do and deserved serious punishment. Now, society is not quite serious enough to kill you for that, but it exacts a heavy social price. No switch has been flicked, instead the reaction has been softened. It's easy to see the people with the axes as the bad guys, but the enforcers of decorum? They're just being considerate.
Religion is not the only thing that uses Socially Percieved Plausibility. Many institutions rest on bad science that laymans are not aware of, but once something has been in an institution for one lifetime, even people who aren't especially fond of it can't imagine not having it.
Here are a few examples:
- Schools starting early despite scientific consensus claiming that this hinders key development
- Boys being punsished for playing despite importance for childhood development
Philosophy also suffers from this. Philosophers spend ages entertaining ideas that have nothing to do with reality, treating utter lunacy like live options.
However, Religion more than any other view is seen as plausible even by non-adherents, which is something I haven't really seen elsewhere.
What's wrong with this?
I think that it's unhelpful, and a massive waste of resources. It gets in the way of getting at truth.
Fighting against widespread false views is difficult, but it's made even harder when even non-proponents defend it from criticism.
I'm hoping that by giving this phenomenon a name, I can point it out more easily when people do it, and help them see what's wrong with it.