Once again the Atheist digest series draws to a close. I’ll offer some final thoughts on this year’s event and about the possibilities for its future after I address the subject contained in the title. Hopefully I’ll get some useful feedback on that front. Here’s a link to the rest of the 2011 series. The first -diary- er, post of this year’s series offers links to the two previous years.
Previous Diaries
8-5: I Didn't Choose to be an Atheist
8-10: On Anders Breivik
8-16: Athesim and Socialism
8-21: Unpacking the LGBT Comparison
On to the main topic:
Most of the ideas I explore in this series can be, and often have been controversial. I do my best to cover them as sensitively and tactfully as possible while still attempting to open up useful conversations and helping people understand each other a little more. My idea is not to pontificate (pardon the irony of the term) to a bunch of Atheists. Ideally, I want to draw in multiple perspectives and start some productive dialogue. One of the main obstacles my fellow atheists and I encounter in the course of these discussions is the cultural propensity many have toward treating religious beliefs as sacrosanct, and criticism of those beliefs as personal attacks. I realize how strong this instinct is, and I intend to lay out a case against anyway.
Belief is not a shield…
I’ve heard the idea expressed a thousand different ways, but it boils down to this: A great many people think that religious beliefs are off limits. “What’s wrong with this assertion?” You may be asking. Well, where do I begin?
First off, it is pretty clear that this dictum is applied unevenly. Imagine for a moment, that anti-Christian rhetoric was as widespread as the stuff the right-wing spews about Islam in this country. Imagine it getting the kind of mockery that is usually socially acceptable when directed at scientologists or some small, goofy cult. “These are my personal beliefs, you can’t criticize them” is a less and less effective defense as those beliefs become farther and farther from the mainstream. This applies both statutorily and culturally.
If I were to apply for a tax exempt status for my church that believed in underage drinking and legal prostitution as part of its creed, what chance would I have of having the government condone this religious institution? There is no way to objectively prove that I am any less sincere in my belief than those attending the Baptist services next door. That would not stop any rational person from concluding that my ‘church’ was a cynical ploy to gain legal acceptance of my high school kegger parties and drive through brothel.
When a large majority body cannot be criticized, but most others can, you have a tyranny of the majority. Is the solution to extend the ban on criticism to everyone? That scenario, in my opinion, is fundamentally against the spirit of our nation and our Constitution.
Political beliefs and religious beliefs are often compared or lumped together. Assuming you are a member of this website because you are a liberal, do you think it should be off limits to criticize someone’s political beliefs? After all, it can make a big difference to your life what the people you elect believe politically. Should you be able to criticize a Presidential candidate for believing Scoail Security is a Ponzi scheme?
It can also make a difference what people in a position to affect your life believe religiously. Does your neighbor think you should be stoned to death for being gay or having sex out of wedlock? Do you think you should be able to criticize and/or argue with that person’s beliefs even if they are based in religion?
I don’t think anyone should be allowed to hide behind their religion to avoid scrutiny of something potentially illegal, immoral, or against the interest of society in which they might engage. I certainly can’t and won’t use that excuse, and neither should anyone else.
What about things that don’t fit into the illegal, immoral, or against the interest of society categories? That leads me to my next point…
”I disagree with your belief.” ≠ “I despise you!”
No, I don’t think it makes sense to believe that this character in a centuries old book was the son of an omnipotent God who, for some reason, needed to die a mortal death and be resurrected to make up for a piece of fruit a woman made of dust and a rib ate just after that God created our universe complete with light from distant stars already on its way here. No, I don’t think you are a terrible/stupid/evil person for believing that or something like it. I don’t. Really, I don’t. I understand why people believe these things. If I point out that there is no real scientific evidence to support a belief in a supernatural being that in any way fits the description of a god, I am not doing so with a middle finger extended in your face. I want you to know why I don’t hold the same belief you hold. I don’t assert that this makes me better than you. I just mean that this is the thought process through which I arrive at the conclusions I draw about the world around me.
I am not, repeat NOT saying you must think the way I do, only that I think my point of view is worth considering. I will not take it personally if you attempt to make an argument explaining why I might be wrong not to believe the way you do.
There is a significant difference between “I don’t think you have a valid argument,” and “I don’t think you are valid.” Why are they so often conflated? Perhaps the answer lies in the possibility that many with spiritual beliefs feel a strong emotional connection to them. Perhaps I get the same kind of reaction from challenging your religious beliefs as I would if I told you your kid wasn’t very good at the cello. I might be totally right, and I might even be an instructor at Julliard, but, dammit, “That’s my kid you’re talking about.”
If that rings true to you, and your blood is simmering right now, know this: I don’t think you or your kids are bad, just that maybe they are not all the next Yo-Yo Ma, and I assert your right to disagree. It may be hard to believe, but I don’t mean it personally, and I acknowledge there's a chance I could be wrong.
What about atheists?
Does this apply to me? Absofuckinglutely. I have no problem defending my positions (call them beliefs if you like, but I might quibble with the exact use of that word). I welcome it. I don’t write these posts to have people slap me on the back and tell me how right I am. I want to discuss it. I don’t take it personally if its directed at my ideas, not me. “You’re wrong” doesn’t bother me. “You’re an asshole,” only bothers me if it’s a baseless conclusion. Just to be clear, challenging someone’s ideas is not the same as discriminating against them based on them. Perhaps I should have said that more forcefully earlier, but I assume that most people reading this blog know the difference.
Why do you care?
A common question I get. Why does anybody care? Aren’t we wired to care about this kind of thing?
There may be no chance I’ll ever convince you to be an atheist, and there is little chance you’ll turn me to your brand of theism, but there is still potential gain in the attempt. If nothing else, I really enjoy a good natured debate between opposing viewpoints. Maybe you don’t. That’s fine, but if you don’t enjoy arguing with me, why are you trying to convince me I shouldn’t be arguing with you?
You certainly won’t find me out there with a buddy of mine wearing ties and backpacks walking door-to-door. And, maybe it might not seem like it, but this series is not the cyber equivalent of that. It’s more like posting a sign in my yard that says: “Yes, I would find it interesting to hear what you have to tell me about Jesus Christ, and I have some questions for you.”
I don’t have a sign like that, but I do wish those people would come by some time when I have an hour or two to spare. I don’t find the prospect uncomfortable, and I would be disappointed if those hypothetical people refused to engage in a two way conversation. After all, if they are at my home to convince me their beliefs are best; shouldn’t they be able to defend them?
Thoughts on the series:
I found this AD series the least stressful of the three. This is most likely owing to my decision to fly solo this year. At the same time, I was a little disappointed by the relative lack of exposure. Perhaps it was some combination of the changes in the site; lack of selling power for and from the author; and meta wars and other events distracting from non-topical posts, but I just didn’t feel like many people participated this time around. No telling if I’m capable of turning that around in the future, and I’m not sure how willing I am to go back to investing many hours in correspondence with other contributors to make this as robust as it once was.
A few essays to write over the course of a month, one time a year does not make for much of a time commitment, but I really do have a lot going on in my life and it only stands to get busier over the next year or two. I’ll probably manage to pull off something similar to this next August, but I would like to know if I’m reaching anyone. Even if you didn’t rec the post or the tip jar, could you please drop me a quick note of feedback in the comments and help me figure out what direction I’m going to go with this series over the next year. Thanks. I hope you enjoyed it, and I look forward to conversing about this post or the series in general in the comments.
Thanks.
Discuss!
Authors note: I am autoposting this a little while before I can get back and read comments. I want to allow some time for people to read and respnd while I am away. I should be back to check in around 8 - 8:30 PM MDT