Bean there, done that: Examining our beliefs

Grasp a bewitching bottle, the label reads of some religion, it doesn’t matter which. It’s filled to the brim with poison, or perhaps elixir, contingent on who you bother to ask. It is a rather easy task, many a missionary and apostle is stepping over the other’s feet to assist.

Yet, regardless of which you intoxicate on, religion in its gargantuan entirety, its origin, it’s effects, it’s purpose, is what encompasses many philosophical discussions and drug-infused orations.

A petition, perhaps, for its critic to venture out its intellectual and obsolete whole. Hand in pocket, standing in line at the grocers, lights flickering on their own accord, the floor sticky for He only knows when it has last been cleaned, a grubby gaudy child snivelling for candy...when else is god? where else is such a holy place? what other moment is more opportune?

As then the ever important question, the end is nigh, and it is either a bean or you! Which do you pick?

A puzzling inquiry to say the least, even rather dense, for yes, unlike what simpleton teachings promote, there are stupid questions. However, an imperative inquiry to make because the outcome of this legendary fable was far from self-evident. When it came to Pythagoras of Samos, an ancient Greek philosopher who, among other things, gave birth to the mathematical formula humbly named after himself, he valued that of the legume.

At least that’s how one of the tales of his death goes, certainly the most with any comical value. Imagine a man, at the youthful age of seventy-five, the wind blowing upon his chestnut beard, his loose white silk chiffon, more likely linen for it always quite hot in Greece, billowing out behind him. He tries to hold it up as he picks up his speed, in a manner nearly tantalizing for onlookers. A scene such that would have intoxicated Zeus himself, certainly angered Aphrodite, were it not for the mob that was at his pursuit. The reasons for this rabble are dubious yet hardly necessary to explore, for as our hero, Pythagoras that is, approached a field of beans he had a choice- to run through it or perish. Nipping any hopes the God of thunder might have held, he allows himself to be mauled by the aforementioned mob.

His reasons have been largely explored, yet one that is particularly interesting was his supposed belief in the holiness of beans. He taught that they encompassed souls, largely owing to their flesh like disposition. Thus their destruction would be murder and consuming them akin to eating human flesh: cannibalism. It certainly didn’t help that they weren’t particularly kind to the digestion system.

A discretion is needed at this point, the story is far from being affirmed, Pythagoras’s very existence, no matter how enticingly he is portrayed, has been countlessly questioned. Yet real or not, there is a sense of familiarity to be found in his demise. The thought that a wise man such as himself, one often given credit for coining the term ‘mathematics’ itself, could believe such a thing is rather bewildering.

One might argue, those were different times, beans could certainly appear mystical to the general populace in 495 BC! Yet, the first flaw in that argument would be that the general populace did not join in the Pythagorean brotherhood’s abstinence, and quite often even mocked it, as evident in the writings of the poet Horace who once tauntingly called beans ‘the relations of Pythagoras’. But more importantly, such intense devotions are far from being relics of the past.

The Rajneesh movement of the 1980s, first established in Mumbai and gaining its notoriety after getting the boot from India and moving to Oregon, had a certain flair to it that didn’t fall too far from bean martyrs. An ostentatious collection of nearly a hundred range rovers and allegedly brainwashing his thousands of followers are amongst the cult leader’s crowning accomplishments. Not to mention the largest bioterror attack in US history and the attempted assassinations of public officials on his behalf.

These tales of wonder aren’t hard to come by, the ‘FLDS Church’ is just another with similar obloquy. But, one might interject, that cults are notorious due to their rare and bewildering nature. There is nothing in common with the average religious Sapiens and those naïve, daft and impressionable beings that stumble upon these wild and uncanny groups. And while that argument may have some merit, it’s one with rather shaky roots. As instrumentalist Frank Zappa said, “The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate they hold.” And you know you his words are wise, for he is also the one to declare- “Tobacco is my favourite vegetable.”

Stumbling upon these beliefs, faith and the ungodly world that is- Religion! it can be often prickly to argue for anything but what you already believe. There is a term for this, just as there is a term for apparently anything, called the ‘confirmation bias’. The psychological theory that you’re wired to search out for information that’ll find itself awfully snug in your pre-existing world view. Another term that this breed of scientists will pen on paper and subsequently glue upon you is the ‘Endowment effect’, that makes you value your own beliefs more than others.

To this note might I add this observation - certainly the thing to value most about psychologists is their tendency to designate anyone they meet with a lovely label, which is particularly why they are such great guests for dinner parties, even more so if they are seated next to someone in, you guessed it, finance. ‘No sir, you shouldn’t pick up the check, that’ll only serve to your narcissistic- yes, I’m aware that you’ve asked me to move, but I must recommend this therapist- sir please put down the knife...’

Pompous beanfeasts aside, these ‘cognitive biases’ is exactly why it is so effortless, and also rather facile, to dismiss cults and continue attending Sunday services, practising Friday prayers or keeping Tuesday fasts (What is it with these claimed pious days anyway?). Because ‘other people’ aren’t us, that much is comically obvious. Yet, it’s rather uncomfortable to stretch this understanding to incorporate our beliefs, recognise the privileged treatment we provide them, the ‘free-pass’ so-to-say, from all criticism and logic. Their beliefs are naïve, mine are simply true.