(Completed June 21, 2002)

Do I feel that the publication of a critique of this nature can be justified? Obviously, the answer had better be yes, otherwise how could I dare post this material? But, there is a philosophical point to be addressed here, so let me do so, at this point.

In the past, I have commented on how well the leaders of groups have done, in living by their religions, but I have been reluctant to comment on the merits of those religions, themselves, for philosophical reasons made clear elsewhere. I recognize that a personal experience may be legitimately be had by one, without being had by all, and that it is to our own personal experiences that we are to turn in matters of faith. This is why I am opposed to evangelism - it becomes an act of pure hubris, in that it seeks to sway the listener from the path that his own experiences would lead him to, and thus, from that which God would lead him.

Even a good principle, though, can be exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Taken to a mindless extreme, this reluctance to question the religious beliefs of another would be the end of critical thought, and even of morality itself; anybody could shield any position he wished from criticism, merely by declaring it to be "part of his religion". This is no merely hypothetical possibility. We have seen medical quacks do so with Wicca, and Afrocentric cranks do so with Kemetic Orthodoxy. On no level of our society can we make do without common sense, and if there is one lesson that you should draw from all of the bizarre experiences that you've seen chronicled on this site, it is that when we give up the right to criticize what our neighbor says, and stop listening to criticism ourselves, common sense will be the first thing we lose. Common decency will seldom be far behind.

So, how do we get out of this bind?

By remembering that in philosophy, the arguments are more important than the conclusions. We have to remember, not only what to do, but why we do it, so that when the assumptions that guided our previous actions break down, we'll know that our previous argument no longer applies.

Why were we hesitant to criticize another's beliefs? Not because it would hurt his feelings. That matters, but only up to a point. As I have said, we do not wish to sway the worshipper from that path that the gods would guide him to, through the experiences they send his way. That is why we should not ask that he be guided only by those experiences which can be externally confirmed. But he should be guided by all of his experiences, not just the ones that he personally chooses to notice.

When he fails to notice that which can be externally confirmed, he ignores that which we know he has the opportunity to see, at least in principle. We are not diverting him from the path that experience has layed out for him, but instead, reminding him to return to it. Given this reality, under our philosophy, not only is it permissible to point out those errors which verge on the empirically verifiable, but it is, in fact, obligatory to make a conscientious effort to do so.

By this, I don't mean that we should hunt down the 'errant believer' and evangelize. Such methods are, again, almost invariably unethical, because the level of their effectiveness is not dependent on the validity of that which the evangelist would convince his would-be convert of. In practice, the convert often is not so much persuaded as bullied, caving in just to get the evangelist to be quiet. To assert the rightness of such an approach, is to assert that the certainty that one is correct is so great, and the importance of one's being believed is so great, that one is justified in short-circuiting another's free will, and disturbing his peace of mind as one violates his spirit. Far better, in less dire cases, where the issues aren't as clear-cut as they would have been at Heaven's Gate, to do as I have done here, and merely publish. The believer can come here, and read if he wishes; if not, I would say with some confidence that it is his error to make.

Is there more and worse to see? Maybe, maybe not. I'll leave that question for others to answer. Certainly, what I've seen already - the signs of grimness (as Bonewits would put it), hypocrisy, excessive adulation shown the leader, irrational dogmatism - would seem worrisome enough. But, to be blunt, I've done my part, and more, and if one is to have a life, one must give oneself permission to occasionally say "I've done enough". Let somebody else take up the task from here. I have other things to do, and it's time that I started doing them. Enough said. Let's move on.