When I first became interested in psi phenomena, I went through a period of trying to convince other people that there was good evidence for many paranormal claims. But after a year or two of fruitless and sometimes acrimonious debate, I realized that most folks are not open to persuasion on this topic, and that arguing with them only makes them dig in their heels — a natural reaction.
It took me quite a while longer to learn something more important — that it is not only impossible but actually undesirable to “convert” others.
I’m not talking about an exchange of views with someone who is looking for a new, more spiritual path. I’m talking about trying to change someone’s worldview when he is perfectly content with the outlook he already has (as most skeptics and materialists presumably are). If someone has a worldview that works for him — a basic outlook on life that makes him happy and intellectually satisfied — then it is probably the right worldview for that person. After all, people tend to develop and hold on to the worldview that best suits their temperament, values, priorities, and needs.
And if a given individual has a worldview that works for him, who am I to challenge it? Who am I to claim that I know what he needs, and that he doesn’t? Isn’t it far more likely that he has a better grasp (consciously or not) of his own needs and interests?
Moreover, a worldview is more than just another intellectual position that can be modified or discarded at will. It is an essential part of most people’s sense of self. Ask the average person to define himself in terms of fundamentals, and he will very quickly start talking about what he believes — how the world works, what is true and false, right and wrong, good and evil. These basic beliefs are incorporated into a person’s identity at a deep level. To challenge them is to challenge his very personhood — his sense of who he is and what he’s all about.
Such a challenge will almost certainly be perceived as hostile. More important, such a challenge all too often really is hostile. Though it may be rationalized as “loving” or “helpful,” a frontal assault on another person’s selfhood is almost always an aggressive (or passive-aggressive) act. It’s a way of saying, There’s something fundamentally wrong with you, and I can fix it.*
Hard as it may be for us to accept if we are of a more “spiritual” bent, materialists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are not wrong in holding to a worldview that works for them — an outlook that organizes and structures their thinking, grounds their values, informs their intellectual work, and defines them as persons. They are wrong only in believing that everyone else “ought to” see things as they do.
But let’s not judge them too harshly. Who among us hasn’t made exactly the same mistake?
—
*A patient in therapy may need to be confronted with a direct challenge to his assumptions. But this is a special case, and requires the skills of a trained therapist.