The Freedom that Comes from Dissent

I've done some thinking recently about the purpose of this blog. Sure, it gives me an outlet for my thoughts...and it feels good to let it all out sometimes. This freedom of expression, however, has had some unexpected fallout. I've lost some friends in my passionate rejection of certain points of view. To be fair, they were not close friends...if they were, our similarities certainly would have outweighed our differences, and the disagreement would have resulted in nothing more or less than a heated discussion. I've been called names and been accused of perpetrating some sort of "left-wing propaganda" in my blog (surprisingly, by someone who is EXTREMELY outspoken when it comes to her own opinions, regardless of whom she offends).

Why bother with the headache? Why risk ostracizing myself or alienating acquaintances? Why not just keep my mouth shut about what I believe in? I truly don't have any hidden agenda in my blog. It's just me, putting my ideas out there. I hope I provide some food for thought, whether you agree or disagree with me.

In the case of the "friends" I have lost, they both spend a lot of time spouting their beliefs, unchallenged by most of their friends. They both surround themselves primarily with people who see the world the way they do, but I know they have friends who disagree. Most of those who disagree keep their mouths shut for the sake of peace. The problem with "keeping the peace," however, is that silence is often interpreted as agreement. While I may have been the one voice of dissent, I honestly hope it made them stop for a minute and think. Think about other friends who also may not agree with what they have to say. Think, if even for a moment, about another point of view.

I talk a lot about the importance of "coming out" as an atheist or a skeptic, and openly talking about what we believe. I recently re-read Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. A passage from that book illustrates why it is so important NOT to be silent...and also why care must be taken:

Clearly there are limits to the uses of skepticism. There is some cost-benefit analysis which must be applied, and if the comfort, consolation and hope delivered by mysticism and superstition is high, and the dangers of belief comparatively low, should we not keep our misgivings to ourselves? But the issue is tricky. Imagine that you enter a big-city taxicab and the moment you get settled in, the driver begins a harangue about the supposed iniquities and inferiorities of another ethnic group. Is your best course to keep quiet, bearing in mind that silence conveys assent? Or is it your moral responsibility to argue with him, to express outrage, even to leave the cab--because you know that every silent assent will encourage him next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice? Likewise, if we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition--even when it seems to be doing a little good--we abet a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.

I certainly try every day to achieve that balance, and to acquire that wisdom. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I fail. But when I reach the end of the day, I feel a little better knowing I didn't just sit back and offer silent assent for something with which I completely disagree. Maybe I even made someone think about something they never considered before. And for me, that is truly liberating.