Cherished beliefs

[catsittingstill]

There is a belief in Africa (possibly in other parts of the world too) that children can cause harm to their parents and neighbors using supernatural powers.  People who suspect a child of causing harm with supernatural powers punish the child.  Machetes sometimes feature.  So does acid, drowning, beatings, starvation and burnings.

Some people offer exorcism services to drive the evil spirits out of the children.  Which, it turns out, in addition to being very expensive, also feature machetes, acid, beatings and starvation.

The Independent has an article.
So does the New York Times.
So does CNN
And MSNBC

Of course, suggesting that the supernatural doesn't exist, or that the idea that anyone, much less a child, could cause harm by supernatural means is bollocks, would be mockery.  And some believers resent that rudeness and attack skeptics physically.

Part of the problem here is that well-respected individuals often share these evidence-free beliefs.  Even senior police officers may genuinely believe in witchcraft, leaving the children, and the skeptics who would like to protect them, with nowhere to turn.

So when you're mad at skeptics, because the evidence for a cherished belief some people hold isn't strong enough to convince them yet, remember that a little skepticism can prevent a lot of harm, and that having someone say something that makes you think they think you are dumb when you're not is pretty small potatoes in the larger scheme of things.

Comments

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Errr... I seem to have given entirely the wrong impression; sorry.

I haven't seen the TV show that Smallship_1 is reacting to, since I don't have a TV and live on the wrong side of the Atlantic to boot.

I don't think he is picturing, in his proposed rewrite of the offending scene (in which the skeptic originally apparently urged the ufo enthusiasts to, ah, broaden their interests) the ufo-believers doing anything more than chiding the skeptics for being, as smallship sees it, rude. Smallship is just not the kind of person who would advocate making dark-but-deniable threats; trust me on this.

I am so sorry I gave you this impression; that wasn't what I intended to be getting at at all.

Eeep!

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[keristor.livejournal.com]

The impression was given in that you chose to link to his post, which was not about being "mad at skeptics[1]" but about being annoyed with media portrayal of 'believers', especially those who are confused with SF fans and told to "get a life" (I have one, thanks, and I don't play anyone on TV). If you had linked to one of his earlier posts where he was indeed getting annoyed with sceptics in general, it may have been a valid point (although it would still look as though you were equating him with people who burn non-believers). Or, indeed, if you hadn't linked at all to a specific person (there are plenty of examples of people who dispute with sceptics after all).

[1] Aside: is the version with 'k' a US variant? I think I always write it with 'c' and it looks odd with 'k'; definitions I've seen don't have any indication.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yes, "skeptic" is the US spelling of the word. I've seen it spelled "sceptic" and it looks odd to me; I have to reread it a couple times to make sure tht it isn't "septic," which is, of course, something else altogether.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Indeed, and I've had to read multiple times as well. But 'skeptic' made me think of the big bird-type creatures in Dark Crystal (Skepsis? something like that).

Thanks for your comments here, I agree with you about Z's position.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I guess I misinterpreted his intent. I am sorry.

In any case I am sorry that I wrote something that gave other people the wrong idea about him. That was an accident, but sloppy and careless on my part.