S11 #01 - Liberal, free-religion and the discipline of Verification–Deliberation–Accountability (VDA) - A thought for the day

The full text of this podcast with all the links mentioned in it can be found in the transcript of this edition, or at the following link:

https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2025/10/liberal-free-religion-and-discipline-of.html

Please feel free to post any comments you have about this episode there.

Opening Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass) 

Thanks for listening. Just a reminder that the texts of all these podcasts are available on my blog. You'll also find there a brief biography, info about my career as a musician, & some photography. Feel free to drop by & say hello. Email: caute.brown[at]gmail.com

Transcript

A short “thought for the day” offered to the Cambridge Unitarian Church as part of the Sunday Service of Mindful Meditation 

—o0o—

In 1938 the founder of the Religious Society of Czech Unitarians (Náboženská společnost českých unitářů), Norbert Fabián Čapek, began revising the third edition of a book first published in 1925. The original was called “Mood and Its Conscious Creation: Themes for Reflection on the Depths of the Soul”, but this third edition, to be published in 1939, was titled “To the Sunny Shore: A Guide to Living Joyfully” (K slunnému břehu: Průvodce do radostného života).

As some of you will know, I’m currently translating this book with Ruth Weiniger, a professional translator and member of the Religious Society of Czech Unitarians (Náboženská společnost českých unitářů). Consequently, during my sabbatical I’ve been deeply immersed in its contents, and have paid close attention to the dark historical background of its composition, as well as to its contemporary relevance. Today, I want to bring before you one of the themes that speaks directly to our time.

In 1938/39 Čapek was acutely aware that the Nazi propaganda machine was efficiently spreading misinformation and lies that justified Hitler’s territorial demands on the Sudetenland, claiming that Sudeten Germans were being mistreated by the Czech government and that Czechoslovakia posed a present threat to German security and national unity. This propaganda was spread not only to the German population but also to German-speaking Czechs in the Sudetenland and to the international community. The latter effort succeeded, and Britain and France were persuaded to betray Czechoslovakia at the Munich Conference of September 1938, after which Neville Chamberlain proclaimed “peace for our time.” As we know, the Allies’ policy of appeasement failed; by March 1939 Hitler had occupied most of the rest of Czechoslovakia; on 1 September he invaded Poland, and the Second World War began. To put it colloquially, the Nazi propaganda machine was able freely to throw rubbish into the minds of everyone. Holding this in your own mind, let’s read some words by Čapek from chapter 10 of his book, “Controlled Thinking”:

“If only people would at least accept only thoughts that are valuable, truthful, and noble! But what do we see? They take, for example, a newspaper, read indiscriminately, and fill their minds with rubbish. Someone sits down to breakfast and with every bite of bread swallows a murder. Before finishing their coffee, fifty corpses have passed through their mind. They go out on the street, and someone is shouting: “A big murder, a train collision, eighty injured.” They come to the office or the factory, and someone greets them with the words: “Have you heard about that scandal?”
     What would we say if someone threw rubbish into our room through an open window? And yet, isn’t the same thing happening in the realm of thoughts, when someone throws their mental rubbish into our consciousness and subconsciousness, from which bad moods then inevitably arise?
     The way some people, instead of engaging in directed thinking, allow themselves to be ruled by undesirable thoughts reminds me of a lady we saw walking with her little doggie. It tugged her here and there, and the lady followed it everywhere. At times, the doggie stood on its hind legs, and the lady pulled and scolded it until it deigned to run to the nearest post. This is unworthy of a person.”

Those words were written, remember, in 1938/39, but do they not powerfully remind us by similar processes that are unfolding again before our eyes, not just in the USA, mainland Europe and the United Kingdom, but across the world. In connection with misinformation and lies, the propaganda machines have been given a steroid injection by social media and the algorithms that drive them. To this, we must now add the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to intensify further the production and delivery of misinformation and lies. It’s got to the point where, to a greater or lesser degree, all of us are being led about by “little doggies” looking for posts they can mark so as to claim territory or attract mates—although in this situation I am talking about the posts in question are more likely to be social media posts rather than a lamp or fence post. As Čapek saw, this behaviour is unworthy of us; now, as then, we must find a way to close our windows so the authoritarian nationalists et al., via their algorithms, cannot, willy-nilly, throw misinformation and lies into our rooms and into our heads and hearts.

It is important to remember that the point of disseminating misinformation and lies is, in the first instance, to change our mood and engage our emotions, and that, in a nutshell, by the way, is why Čapek’s book, directly concerned with mood and its conscious control and creation is worth translating, and I hope, then reading.

But the point of disseminating misinformation and lies deliberately to change our mood and engage our emotions is vital to understand because, as Eliot Higgins, CEO of Bellingcat—an investigative journalism group specialising in fact-checking and open-source intelligence—points out, social media algorithms are built to maximise engagement, not truth. Generally, the most engaging content is that which most strongly engages you emotionally—that which changes your mood and makes you, as Higgins puts it, “happy, sad, angry or horny.” Algorithms—and those who deploy them—aim to alter your moods so that, in an emotionally charged state, you are encouraged to share things regardless of whether what you share can be verified as true.

As I have already indicated, from my reading of his book, Čapek was far ahead of the game here because, even in a pre-internet, pre-social media age, he saw the vital need to keep control of our moods and emotions, because when we don’t, we soon start to behave like the lady with her little doggie, and our religion and spirituality quickly becomes dark, negative and depressive. Given that Čapek thought that “the touchstone of higher religion is its ability to remove fear, lead one out of sorrows, and heal one from illnesses” and the “more joy, healing atmosphere, mutual empathy, and awakening of all good forces within a person, the more there is of true religion, regardless of how much is spoken about God” (Chapter 14—“Think Joy”), any religion shaped primarily by dark, negative and depressive moods—especially moods that are being generated by lies and misinformation—is something that we, at least in our liberal, free-religious tradition, cannot countenance, and must resist.

So, Čapek is clearly encouraging us to close the window so as to stop this rubbish being thrown into our homes, heads and hearts. But note, the metaphor of “closing the window” does not mean wholly shutting out the world. A closed window still lets us see and hear; it simply blocks certain kinds, certain levels of unwonted rubbish from being thrown in. In other words, Čapek’s metaphor is about inserting an appropriate barrier or filter into what has become an unchecked, seamless process which is designed deliberately to trigger bad moods and emotionally heightened states that, in turn, means we can be much more easily manipulated by malign political and religious actors.

This leads me back to Eliot Higgins, CEO of Bellingcat, because he repeatedly talks about VDA—Verification, Deliberation, and Accountability. VDA can, I think, act as the closed window of Čapek’s metaphor:

Verification: the idea that information can be checked—through the scientific method, editorial controls, and so on. It is an ideal we aim for, but of course, rarely fully reach.

Deliberation: we discuss verified information with others in community—through parliaments, courts, committees and other civic forums, including congregations such as our own.

Accountability: collective responsibility to verified truths and commitment to a shared deliberative process.

All the foregoing was true in Čapek’s time, and it remains true in our own, with one crucial difference. For both better and worse—and, alas, it’s all too often for the worse—we now live in a peer-to-peer, many-to-many ecosystem in which we are no longer simply recipients of information; we are now also distributors. We are now gatekeepers of the information we choose to share.

This means, first, that each of us needs to slow the flood of information—much of it rubbish—pouring in through the windows of our TV, computer, or phone screens. We need to close Čapek’s window by rationing screen time and seeking sources that make the processes of verification visible—the Bellingcat site and similarly rigorous outlets are a good place to start.

Secondly, we need to take any verified information and bring it into a critical and deliberative space—into a community alert to the issues Čapek raised in 1938/39, which are once again urgently pressing in upon us.

Thirdly, we need to ensure accountability to corporate deliberation based on verified facts rather than basing our actions wholly upon emotions and moods triggered by misinformation and lies.

And, lastly, because in today’s world, more than ever, we are gatekeepers of the information we choose to share, we must endeavour never, ever to share anything—whether on social media or through any other networks you may belong to—that we have not genuinely attempted to verify, and have not deliberated with others who are concerned with fact rather than fantasy.

Of course, this is not easy, but this kind of thing never was, is, or will be. However, to paraphrase one of my great heroes, Spinoza, if the way which, as I have just outlined, seems very difficult, it can nevertheless be found. And, we begin, most effectively, at the local level, with communities peopled with individuals who do not allow themselves to be triggered by rubbish—that is to say, lies and misinformation.