The Ignorance of Religion: Applying the 80/20 Rule

In 2008, an American TV political commentator/comedian produced and starred in a documentary called, Religulous, in which he examined and attempted to point out the ridiculousness of organized religion.  

His point is show how religion and faith seem to foster ignorance in that “faith makes a virtue out of NOT thinking.” And although his attempts were meant as a negative, as we’ve discussed here, faith is a part of who we are, it influences our instinctive character and therefore does make a virtue of not rationalizing, of reacting spontaneously, and exactly as he stated… of not thinking. 

But where there is good, there is also bad, and Religulous aims to point out the latter. 

It’s true; there is much ignorance in faith-based groups because faith is about trusting beyond reason and logic.  But where is the line between discernment and faith?  Or how can we avoid the ignorance of faith and NOT live in a constant state of doubt?

Discernment starts at the acquisition level, before knowledge becomes a part of core beliefs.   However, a lot of our core beliefs come from our childhood, and how discerning are we at 5 yr old, or 8, 12, even 16?

We all start somewhere with something.  Yet at some time in our lives, we all need to leave the “faith of our fathers” to forge our own.  It’s not a path many choose to take willingly. That takes the ability to accept a core part of who we are is…. well… could be… possibly… wrong. 

For some… reality hits them hard in the face, and they are forced to re-evaluate things.  For others, it begins with a choice whether to even consider the possibility of going through the anguish of re-evaluating.

This is the first step at becoming truly discerning.  Some have their lives accustomed to change and applying new information, others have set their lives firmly around what they have grown know and therefore any change in that core is quite dramatic. Regardless of how difficult it may be, it needs to happen, in order to continue developing productively.   That is where the 80/20 rule comes into play.  

To explain this point, I’ve re-cycled an older article about the 80/20 rule to World Peace which applies to the development of personal discernment. 

The 80/20 rule to World Peace. 

Three’s Company was popular TV comedy that ran for 8 years in the early eighties about 2 women and 1 man living together to share rent. The basic plot for each show revolved around a misunderstanding, mis-communication and crazy attempts to get out of situations caused by the conflict. Phrases like, “It’s not what it looks like,” and “If only they would listen to my side of the story,” made their lives more interesting and their conflicts laughable.

But in real life, too many times, the situations that result are far from comedic:  Families torn apart, relationships severed, communities uprooted, lives destroyed, even war. Imagine how much conflict could be avoided in relationships at work, politics, even international affairs, if the rush to judgment would be replaced with patient discernment? 

This is the basis for the 80/20 rule to World Peace.

The 80/20 rule to World Peace implies that 80% of world conflicts can be resolved if everyone accepted a 20% chance that they COULD be wrong.

Have you ever been in an inter-personal conflict and NOT think to yourself, “I’m right.” Have you ever continued conflict thinking, “Maybe, I’m wrong?”

The problem with conflict is everyone believes they are right, or everyone else is wrong, which is, in fact, true, from their own perspectives. Everyone believes they are right because that is the basic way we know how to interact with our world. Every decision we make is a reaction to what we believe to be true. So not only are each of us right, but everyone does what they believe to be in their best self interests.

Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews all are right from each of their own perspectives. Russians, North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and Americans; conservatives, liberals, progressives, each believe likewise.

The “I’m right,” culture leads to a world of absolutes causing people to stop listening, stop learning, and refusing to look at other perspectives. This leads to ignorance, intolerance, and eventually conflict.

Therefore the 80/20 Rule to World Peace asks that since EVERYONE is right, in order to give peace a chance, simply adopt an attitude towards conflict that accepts a 20% chance that MAYBE you’re not. Or, for the especially proud, like myself, an adjustment to the rule would be to accept a 20% chance that MAYBE you don’t have all the information.

From a psychological perspective, people are uncomfortable with lingering questions. We prefer to live in conclusions and certainty. Therefore judgment is quickly made based on the information that is known or perceived. The information that is not known or even in conflict is then assumed to be what is the most common or logical based on our experience so a conclusion can quickly be made. And because we are “always right,” those conclusions usually become beliefs. This is what causes misconceptions, misperceptions, and miscommunication. This is what draws out our impulsive physical and emotional reactions to events.

By consciously acknowledging a lack of information, “Huh?” and a willingness to linger in uncertainty for a little while, we avoid the automatic judgments, “I can’t believe you did that,” which then turns on the inquisitive side of our psyche, “What the hell are you doing?”

This is called, discernment.

It is the difference between trained and untrained, mature and immature, educated and uneducated. It is, or should NOT, be the difference between primarily logical and emotional decision-makers. But it should be included at the  base of curriculum principles within ALL formal learning.

Should everyone accept the 20%, the result is at least 80% of the world’s conflicts could be resolved or even avoided from playground arguments, to marital conflicts,  even world wars.

Most conflicts occur from one of three reasons: Pride, Desire, or Resources, translated into, “I’m right,” “I want,” “I need,” or any combination thereof, and each of them driven by absolutes.

What this is NOT is an abolishment to faith. Rather it is a willingness to accept an attitude of humility that MAYBE I don’t know everything.  This provides the opportunity for an openness to seek further information, to gain a broader perspective, and to make more informed decisions.

The truth is, conflict will always exist. But reducing it would be a huge help. With discernment comes a life where conflict, like a comedy, can be a lot more laughable. But, don’t take my word for it, there is a 20% chance I could be wrong…

A Nobel Acceptance Speech

The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to First Term US President Obama has made the Nobel committee an international laughing stock. The decision for the President to accept the award has done the same for him, especially directly following the Olympics fiasco.

Yes, it wasn’t his decision to be named as this year’s award winner. But it was his decision how to respond. With it, he was given a great opportunity to win political points at home and abroad for both him and the US.

Here is what he should’ve said:

“I’d like to thank Nobel Committee for acknowledging the efforts WE in American have been making to encourage peace and democracy within America and around the world. This for the most part has always been our understood mandate.

Since it is apparent that both the Nobel Committee and the US share these similar values, we would like to recognize those who have not only strived and sacrificed, but also succeeded in their efforts.

Therefore we will accept this award in the name of …….”

At this point, the president could name any number of deserving people at his discretion and who embody issues he would like to raise attention to. Here is an example with the person who many believe really should have won:

“Therefore we will accept this award in the name of an incredible accomplished woman fighting for the well being, rights, and democracy of her own people in Afghanistan, Dr. Sima Samar. Dr. Samar, the Chairman for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Dr. Samar was forced to flee after her husband was arrested. He was never heard from again. In Pakistan, Dr. Samar worked to set up medical services for Afghan refugees. In 1987, she helped open the first hospital for women, staffed by women in Quetta, Pakistan. In 1989, she established the Shuhada Organization, a non-governmental and non-profit organization committed to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan with special emphasis on the empowerment of women and children.”

Now he would have been in a position to win points AND create support to do what he needs to not only conclude the war in Afghanistan but also attack its corruption.

To outright reject the award, although appropriate since it was undeserved, would have been greatly damaging and embarrassing the Nobel people. Instead, simply deflecting the award to worthy candidates would not have only boosted his dignity but also the issues that are dear to him.

It would be nice to see Obama's administration take a page from Reagan's who kept as a working principle: There is no limit to what can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit.

But alas, it seems the NOBEL has lost its nobility