by Scott Birch

Created on: December 12, 2008   Last Updated: December 13, 2008

Of the following two ideas, which is more valuable: a) an idea that is surely true or proven scientifically, or b) an idea that may or may not be true but might serve a purpose in regards to the preservation and well-being of our species.

Generally, I believe the former to be more valuable. However, there are a few special cases (at least one that I can think of) where ignorance is preferable to knowledge.

For example: if it were to be scientifically proven that one race was superior to another it would be in the best interests of humanity to keep the public blind to these new findings.

That being the special case, we must not glaze over how dangerous it can potentially be to hide the truth from the masses. It is degrading to our own species to believe that we cannot handle the truth or that we must be kept behind a veil of naivety and ignorance in order to maintain a civilized and working society. In addition to being a horribly condescending position ("Who are they to know what I know? They couldn't handle it!), it is also untrue. Humans are much more capable than we are (mostly) made out to be and truth should be strived for, if not for its own sake, then for the sake of our own evolutionary progression and ultimately our own survival.

Religious belief may be argued by many as an untruth that could have devastating effects if it were to be eradicated any further than it already ihas been. 'What would millions of people do without that comfortable father figure that they may use as a scapegoat for their sins and responsibilities?' I have more respect for my fellow creatures than to say that we would be helpless without this crutch, in fact we would be better off.

I mean not to imply that religion hasn't helped millions of people through a variety of hardships. Convincing people that a force beyond themselves and this world certainly has its psychological benefits. However, we cannot ignore that this bed of moderate faith has made a comfortable breeding space for fundamentalists. If one may be convinced to take not only the existence of God on faith, but also what He thinks about which gender to sleep with and which substances are allowable for consumtion, what happens when they are asked to take it on faith that this same caring and comforting God has enemies, and they're all the people who do not conform to His laws?

His laws may keep people off drugs, but depending on the circumstances, His laws may also cause the pious to destroy others and themselves for the sake of redemption and salvation. Doubly troublesome is the undercurrent of one particular implication that seems to run beneath the surface of all religious doctrines. This is the belief in the redeeming qualities of the end of time, the ultimate salvation of the pious and the complete eradication of evil, the end of the world.

This is an example of how far an untruth can erode our ethics, even to the point of the near loss of our most basic self-preservation instincts. Does the good justify the evil? In my view the answer is obvious. In this case, as in many, it would benefit humanity to know the truth.

Although I do believe it would be a positive shift in the zeitgeist, if that were not the case I would still aim my fire directly at the heart of religion. In this case, we must strive for the truth regardless of the repercussions.

What could be the higher purpose of humanity than to be free? And how is one to become free in a sea of untruths that may or may not deliver an ultimately worthless and short-term benefit? We must liberate ourselves from the veil. We must rise above the infantile ideologies of our species. Only through this will we able ourselves to live as if we were free.

Learn more about this author, Scott Birch.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.