“Disinformation is more than just lying: it’s the denial and twisting of reality in order to present some desired image to the rest of the world.” Will Hurd, an American politician, former CIA officer, and Texas representative in the US House.
“Refusal to believe until proof is given is a rational position; denial of all outside of our own limited experience is absurd.” Annie Besant, an English socialist, theosophist, freemason, women’s rights and Home Rule activist. She became the first female president of the Indian National Congress in 1917.
It’s hard to deny certain realities when you turn 80. Your mortality is in your face – literally and figuratively. Mirrors don’t lie.
Sadly, too many people have to face that reality when they are way too young. In Suleika Jaouad’s new memoir, The Book of Alchemy, she shares stories of how she has dealt with the likely death sentence of Leukemia since her diagnosis at age 22. She is still inspiring us with her creative practices in spite of her third relapse at 33. Her refusal to deny reality AND to make the most of every day took my understanding of acceptance, courage and creativity to a completely different level.
I was recently discussing the book, Children of the Same God by Susan Ritchie, with my daughter Rebecca. Ritchie traces the history of how UUs and Jews have been exiled from mainstream religion over the course of their respective histories. She also discusses how they have mutually influenced each over centuries of interactions and how both have been marginalized by the mainstream religions. I suggested that the number of people who subscribe to each religion lends credence to that point of view. Of the 8 billion people in the world today, there are:
2.3 billion Christians
1.9 billion Muslims
1.2 billion Hindus
500 million people Buddhists
14 million Jews
<1 million UUs
We were exploring why there are so few Jews and UUs in comparison with other religious institutions. One possible explanation is that religions that deny the reality of death build their memberships and hold onto power by reducing the sting of our mortality. People who prefer mystery to miracles tend to be those who resist the lure of identification, create space for radical ideas, fight for inclusivity, thrive on debate, and stay open to fresh ways of thinking. Sadly those views are not all that popular, and the price for that preference has been exile from established institutions that derive their power from ideas that have been severely questioned by sound historical research.
People who pride themselves in resisting exclusivity, intolerance, creedal litmus tests, anti-dogmatic inclinations, and miracles have been marginalized from religions that use the certainty and comfort of doctrine to attract converts. It turns out that denying the truth becomes a survival and growth strategy for institutions whose power is based on flimsy or false evidence. The numbers show that the strategy has worked well.
Clearly, denial is a powerful psychological mechanism. It often acts as an initial buffer against overwhelming realities, yet its prolonged embrace can impede the very process of change necessary for growth and societal well-being. While offering temporary respite from discomfort, denial obstructs the recognition of truth, thereby limiting possibilities and, in extreme cases, paving the way for authoritarianism to take root and flourish. Examining the denial of death alongside historical instances of religious and political denial reveals the pervasive and often perilous role this denial plays in hindering individual and collective adaptation.
The human confrontation with mortality is perhaps the most fundamental arena where denial manifests. Ernest Becker, in his seminal work The Denial of Death, posits that much of human behavior is driven by an unconscious terror of our own finitude. To cope with this anxiety, individuals construct elaborate “immortality projects”—cultural and religious belief systems, personal achievements, and identifications—that offer a symbolic transcendence of death. This denial, while psychologically protective in the face of an existential threat, can also lead to maladaptive behaviors. For instance, the pursuit of reckless ambition or the clinging to rigid ideologies might stem from an unconscious attempt to deny personal vulnerability and mortality. While a degree of denial might be necessary to navigate daily life without constant paralyzing fear, an absolute refusal to acknowledge the finite nature of existence can prevent us from appreciating the present, fostering meaningful relationships, and making choices aligned with our long-term well-being. Reminders of mortality can influence us to cling more tightly to our cultural and religious worldviews and exhibit defensiveness, or even hostility, towards those with differing beliefs.
Extending this psychological principle to the socio-political realm reveals how the denial of uncomfortable truths can have devastating consequences on a larger scale. The historical examples of the Vichy government in France and Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy towards Nazi Germany starkly illustrate this danger. Both instances involved a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the clear and aggressive intentions of an authoritarian regime. The Vichy government, seeking to maintain a semblance of power under German occupation, denied the full extent of Nazi brutality and the inherent injustice of their collaboration. This denial not only betrayed the French populace but also severely limited their options for resistance and ultimately prolonged their subjugation. Similarly, Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, rooted in a desire to avoid another devastating war, involved a denial of Hitler’s expansionist aims and the inherent danger of his ideology. By refusing to confront the reality of Nazi Germany’s ambitions, Chamberlain effectively enabled its early successes, squandering opportunities for a stronger collective response and ultimately leading to a far more destructive conflict. In both cases, the denial of an inconvenient truth—the aggressive nature of Nazi Germany—limited the range of possible actions and inadvertently facilitated the consolidation of authoritarian power.
The mechanisms through which denial limits possibilities and enables authoritarianism are multifaceted. First, denial fosters a state of ignorance. By refusing to acknowledge uncomfortable realities, individuals and societies remain uninformed and unprepared to address emerging threats or to recognize opportunities for positive change. This lack of awareness creates a vacuum that authoritarian leaders can exploit by disseminating propaganda and controlling narratives. Second, denial often leads to the suppression of dissenting voices. When a dominant group or leader clings to a particular worldview, any information or perspective that challenges this view is likely to be dismissed or actively silenced. This creates an echo chamber where critical thinking is stifled and the possibility of alternative solutions is eliminated. Finally, denial can erode moral responsibility. By refusing to acknowledge the consequences of their actions or inactions, individuals and governments can evade accountability and perpetuate harmful behaviors. This moral abdication creates an environment where authoritarianism, with its inherent disregard for individual rights and ethical considerations, can thrive unchecked.
Now, let’s apply all of that theory to the religious and political issues we are facing today. To begin with the religious applications, I was delighted with the selection of the new Pope, starting with the fact he chose the name Leo – who represents a long history of anti-laissez faire capitalism and pro social justice. He has already proclaimed his advocacy for the vulnerable and marginalized and has called out JD Vance for his statement about ranking who deserves love. Pope Leo may represent a powerful voice for the best of America, while Trump wields a megaphone for the worst of America. Having said that, Pope Leo will still have to deal with some profound denial issues.
First, A group of sexual abuse survivors filed a complaint against Cardinal Robert Prevost for mishandling two situations in Chicago and Peru involving priests accused of sexual abuse. Allegedly, Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV) allowed a priest accused of abusing 13 minors to live a block away from an elementary school. Independent of the truth of those allegations, Pope Leo will need to address this charge transparently and without any trace of denial.
Second, there is the on-going historical issue dating back to the 4th Century when Constantine chose the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as the foundational tenants of Christianity. At that time, there were several other gospels circulating like Philip, Thomas, Mary, Q, etc. that views that were contradictory to the New Testament gospels. For example, they emphasize the human nature of Jesus, the internal nature of God, and the central role of women. These texts, found in the Nag Hammadi library, offer alternative perspectives on Jesus’ teaching and the nature of the divine. The denial of these possibilities have been the source of conflict among religions for over 2,000 years. Pope Leo will have to own not only his own complicity in sexual abuse coverups, but also the Catholic dogma that keeps people from being open to new ways of looking at the world and Jesus’ role in it.
The political applications of denial in the current administration are even more profound. The whole Trump administration can be defined by denial: denial of constitutional law, denial of separation of powers, denial of the urgency of climate change, denial of the importance of scientific research, denial of the benefits of diversity and inclusion, denial of due process, denial of civil rights, denial of the value of qualifications in cabinet selections, denial of the importance of foreign alliances, and denial of any responsibility for the problems resulting from executive orders. This level of denial has also resulted in delusional thinking about the accuracy of impulsive instincts and the fact that things aren’t true just because they wish them to be true.
The question is: What is the opposite of denial and what would that look like? How would we know that denial was not playing an oversized role in our decisions, our religions, our governments, and our lives. One way would be to measure the prevalence of norms of acceptance and openness in our respective cultures. For example, in those cultures you might hear people say, around here:
- We value creative engagement with other religious communities.
- We do more than “tolerating” differences, we do out of our way to welcome different ways of thinking.
- We demonstrate interest in context and how ideas were formed.
- We value honest history.
- We believe in spiritual expansionism as opposed to simplistic reductionism.
- We seek wisdom from multiple teachings.
- Our traditions are based on creedal dissent and anti-complicity.
- We challenge authority, resist rigidity, and call out conformity.
- We question scriptural infallibility.
- We find meaning from multiple sources.
- We build meaningful connections.
- We find common ground.
- We value openness, inquiry, and discernment.
- We don’t belief there is any singular or official truth.
- We welcome new ideas, value hard questions, and seek to distinguish what is true and what is false.
- We acknowledge that “truth” evolves. It is not rigidly set in stone – no pun intended.
- We emphasize creativity, connection and community.
Returning to the conversation I had with Rebecca, perhaps the lack of those norms and values explain why UUs and Jews remain so small and have been exiled from institutions that value power and unquestioned authority.
One last thought. To me, the underlying problem is that we tend to deny the reality that we can’t ask people to do what they can’t do. That applies to physical issues as well as emotional, spiritual, and intellectual issues. You can’t ask a person with physical disabilities to climb a mountain. You can’t ask a person who has suffered emotional trauma to open up and make themselves vulnerable. You can’t ask a person who has not been blessed with a soaring IQ to solve abstract physics problems. You can’t ask a person who has been brainwashed their whole life with religious indoctrination to eagerly explore different ways to find meaning. I have found that following that principle has helped me to be more accepting and forgiving – particularly as I enter my 80s when I will need people to apply that principle to me.
To be clear, before ending this missive on death and denial, I have no idea what happens at death. I’m open to possibilities, just not personally reassured by resurrection stories.
I’m hoping we can quit twisting or denying reality to conform to some delusional image of the world. I’m hoping that we stop clinging to our limited experiences of life to make any definite conclusions about death. I’m hoping we can open our minds and hearts to diverse views. And I’m hoping we can accept reality for what it is and inculcate norms that may create a more harmonious and peaceful world. May it be so.
