Una verdad simulada

The earlier post on being respectful was motivated because there is a growing feeling that I am being unnecessarily argumentative about minor things. If I don’t agree with someone else’s beliefs, there is no need to argue about it. The point I tried to make in that post was that it is not disrespectful if I express my disagreement with elders, even their closely (or loosely) held beliefs.

The point I make in this post is that superstitions are not without consequences. And how does one distinguish one person’s (innocuous) superstition with other person’s (non-innocuous) superstition?

Due to her belief in vaastu / Feng Shui, someone wanted to build a water tank next to the entrance to their house (this is a true story). If someone falls in that tank, who is to blame? Why is this belief in vaastu not criminal if someone does fall and lose his/her life? [edited]

Its summer right now and temperatures can surge in early 40 Centigrades. Still, there are millions of devotees lining up for a quick darshan at Tirupati (and other temples). Some of these people put their infants in great peril by standing in queue for a few hours in blazing sun. Where and how do you draw a line?

Recently, Phil Palit wrote about fifty people in Kottayam lost their eyesight by looking directly at the sun in hope of “seeing” Virgin Mary. Let me quote the Bad Astronomer:

[…] “What’s the harm in believing in a little nonsense?”

This is the harm: 50 people in India damage their eyes looking at the Sun hoping to see the Virgin Mary. They suffered photochemical burns to their maculae, a sensitive region in the eye.

All this apparently started when a hotelier, who has since moved, claimed statues of the Virgin Mother had been crying honey and bleeding oil and perfumes.
Yeah, caveat emptor, right? But at what point can you blame the believer for being foolish, versus the scam artist (perhaps a true believer as well) who started this? If people don’t know enough to know they don’t know enough, then it’s hard to assign blame to them. The fault lies in the system, which sometimes actively fights against reality and truth getting to the masses. (emphasis added)

The hotelier was perhaps a true believer or perhaps a scam artist. Based on actions and its effect, is it even relevant if he was either of the above? How do we take his word for it? And what else we have to go by besides that?

[P]eople believe in fantasies which can hurt them physically, financially, and emotionally. It destroys their ability to think critically. […]

So I will continue to point out nonsense like seeing Jesus in baked goods, and I will continue to poke fun at them and at other things which may at first seem harmless. Because, at some point, this stuff isn’t harmless any more.

Exactly! So if you are someone who believes fasting for a week will miraculously make your code give you the correct results, I will call you an idiot. (And you should call me the same if tables are turned someday.)

Tags: General //