Contradictory Belief Systems

A friend of mine once visited a faith-healer, one of the religious variety from the United States who periodically come to New Zealand to swell their bank balances. She attended the meeting because of a persistent pain in her elbow. Despite my suggestions that it was only tennis elbow, she was worried and thought perhaps the pain was serious. She had an aisle seat near the front and during the proceedings the “healer” approached her and asked about the pain in her arm. Apparently she hadn’t told anyone why she was there. She was impressed.

“How did Pastor S. know that I had a pain in my elbow?” my friend asked. “I hadn’t told him? He knew exactly what was wrong with me. He told me, well, all of us,” she said, “that pain is caused by evil spirits moving around the bloodstream. When they stop, they manifest themselves in the form of pain. Mine had stopped in my arm. He could tell. He had the gift.”

“Oh, come on.” I replied, “You used to teach biology. You know that pain is not caused by evil spirits. What about when you break a bone?”

(I should perhaps explain here that my friend had given up teaching biology because she felt the whole syllabus, including the classification of plants and animals, was based on evolutionary principles, and this contradicted her strong belief in creationism.)

“If you didn’t have evil spirits inside you when you broke a bone,” she responded curtly, “you would not feel the pain.”

She was deaf to my suggestions that perhaps the spirits were not all bad, since without pain indicating that something was wrong we might not attend to our hurts.

“All pain is bad.” she insisted.

“What else happened at the meeting?” I asked.

“I had to go and stand at the front, with other people who had pain or sickness. Pastor S. laid his hands on my arm and demanded, in the name of God, that the evil spirits leave my body. He drove them out.” Her eyes shone as she brought back the memories.

“How does the arm feel now?” I asked.

“Oh, much better, thanks,” she smiled, “Pastor S. said the pain would go quickly now, but I could help by resting it.”

Of course the pain did lessen. Tennis elbow is susceptible to rest. Despite my protestations, my friend insisted it was due to Pastor S., driving out evil spirits. The devastating part of the whole story for me is that though she has been scientifically trained, has a university degree in fact, she is content to go through life holding two mutually exclusive beliefs — one based on common sense and rational thought, where it applies to everyday events and can’t possibly undermine long-held views, and another resting on superstition and religious arguments for its authority. All credit to her, though, that she finds it possible to remain friends with a “sinner” such as myself.

Science Teachers

Having taught for many years, in four schools and one university, I have met quite a number of science teachers. Being insatiably curious (many would say intrusive) I take every appropriate opportunity to talk to them about their beliefs. Despite their education, the holding of two mutually exclusive belief systems by science teachers is common.

In an informal survey I considered some of the science teachers I have known well enough to discuss matters of belief over the last few years. There have been 21, whom I categorise as follows;

  • 7 “Standard” Christians, who attend a mainstream church on a regular basis at least a few times a year. One in fact is an ordained Anglican minister
  • 4 “Fundamentalist” Christians, who meet in religious gatherings at least once a week
  • 5 Theists, who hang on to belief in a god but do not attend any religious meetings
  • 1 New Ager, who, surprisingly, believes in such things as aromatherapy, homeopathy, and the like
  • 1 into Transcendental Meditation
  • 1 Anthroposophist
  • 1 Theosophist
  • 1 Atheist, with strongly-held views

At least 14 of these, I suggest, hold mutually exclusive belief systems. For example, the majority of them believe that miracles have occurred at some time or other, despite this contradicting scientific laws they promulgate every day in the classroom.

Most avoid providing explanations for miracles, but some believe that God has the ability to suspend scientific laws to accommodate them. More logically perhaps, some suggest that scientific knowledge at present is not profound enough to provide adequate explanations for miracles. I have included under the heading of miracles, virgin birth and resurrection.

So, where does that leave us? All of us, I think, expect the natural laws of science and logic to apply to everyday events, but many of us subscribe to an additional belief system that transcends common sense. This second system allows the unthinkable to happen. It can be important to us, especially when we are apprehensive about the future. In such cases we can “cross our fingers and hope for the best”, even for a miracle to occur.

Equine Pseudoscience

Do horses really have a distinct set of personality types or is it just a load of equine excreta?

There are times when I think all taxonomy is pseudoscience. It certainly seems to have a predisposition that way. For example, people have been classified by their star signs, the pattern of whorls and loops on the skin of their finger tips, their birthplace, shape of head, colour of skin, handwriting, and so on. Some of these are without doubt useful in given situations, others seem arbitrary to say the least.

When it comes to classifying species, we have a workable system based on evolutionary principles. It is well understood despite at times being difficult to apply. However, how do we fare classifying individuals of species other than our own?

Take horses for example. Why horses?

Well, for me they are an vere present factor in the equation of life. My partner and three daughters are besotted with the creatures.

On any non-working day they can be found washing them, grooming them, dressing them, undressing them, riding them, talking to them (or about them), or any combination of the aforementioned.

Consequently there are a lot of horse books in our home. Recently I picked up one entitled Professor Beery’s Illustrated Course in Horse Training; Book 2 Disposition and Subjection (published in 1962). What a load of … pseudoscience! It begins with a classification of horses into four types by disposition;

  1. Teachable, kind
  2. Stubborn, wilful
  3. Nervous, ambitious, determined
  4. Treacherous, ill-tempered, resentful

Now there’s a nice piece of anthropomorphism. Apparently, according to Professor Beery, each kind of disposition is indicated externally by certain lines of the head.

Type 1 is characterised by a kind eye, a deep forehead and plenty of room between the ears.

Type 2 is recognised by a bulge below the line of the eyes and a heavy jowl.

Horses of type 3 have their eyes set far out to the side and forward, and are favoured with forehead furrows.

Type 4 have a prominent forehead (indicating treachery), a dished face, small eyes, and long narrow ears which are hairy inside. Some of these descriptions sound more like people I’ve met, but that’s another story.

Professor Beery assures us that type 1 horses are worthy of the utmost confidence when trained, and make perfect family horses. The type 2 variety take a long time to train and have no feelings when their senses are aroused (whatever that means). Type 3s act through fear and are liable to shy, or run away. They surrender unconditionally. Type 4 resist like bulldogs and are liable to kick, bite and bolt.

The impact of the theory is somewhat lessened by a strong implication that through good training a horse can overcome these natural tendencies. After all, as Professor Beery says, “Because a horse has certain natural inclinations there is no reason wby he should be spoiled or vicious. Many a man has become a public benefactor who would have been a criminal, if he had allowed his natural desires to govern him.”

Horses are not seen as being of one type. They may combine characteristics of two or more types. They can be described as being, for example, 3-2; a combination of types 3 and 2 with 3 predominating. An added complication is the fact that the lines of the head may not be immediately obvious, the eye may deceive. In many cases a horse’s true disposition can only be ascertained by running a hand down its face.

No head can be fully read from any one angle. The book describes many combinations of types viewed from the side, top, front and bottom of a horse’s head. Apparently some characteristics can only be discerned when lying flat on your back scrutinising the underside of the horse’s jaw.

An interesting paragraph describes how to classify mules, the majority of which are said to be 3-2 types, all having a smattering of 4. Professor Beery exhorts us to “Never allow a mule to get the better of you.”

Knowing that Arab horses have typically a dished face, I was intrigued to see how the author would handle their classification. He tells us not to let this one characteristic cause us to misjudge the horse’s disposition. Apparently, only an exaggeratedly dished face indicates that the Arab is treacherous, ill-tempered and resentful.

This is not a review and I am not recommending that you buy the book (although it is available from the Beery School of Horsemanship, Pleasant Hill, Ohio, USA). It’s just that a lot of the style seems familiar. What do you think? All those in favour say “Yes.” All those against say “Neigh.”