I believe things because it pleases me to do so. I don’t require my belief to be anchored in verifiable truth. I’d sooner find allies, others who believe as I do. Doesn’t everyone behave like this, at the same time as denying it? Surely I am Everyman.
Already in a few words I have placed the indulgence of “what pleases me” above the virtue of Truth. Sure, some people believe that Truth is a powerful god, to be sought out and slavishly obeyed. Perhaps that’s what they believe but it’s not how they actually behave. Does anyone, really?
When shaken by shock or emotion, I stop believing in my beliefs for a short spell, ending up naked and disconsolate like King Lear on the blasted heath in a storm. When anyone has the temerity to attack my belief, I leap to its defence, or I may find it easier to counter-attack. Some enjoy the fight, but I don’t, or at any rate, I believe that I don’t. My actions often show otherwise: I make pre-emptive attacks on other people’s beliefs when they challenge my own. For I am Everyman, recognizing in others the smugness of their virtue, enraged at their “evidence”. If they are going to fight their war with evidence as the weapon of choice, then I am forced either to surrender immediately (huh! no way) or fight back with some weapon of my own. My belief pleases me. To me, that is evidence enough. It gives me strength to continue the fight. But if my belief fails to please me, if it’s a baleful heritage that makes my life wearisome, I’ll still defend it; merely because I have been attacked. If all else fails I’ll defend it with real weapons, the ones invented by my enemies, conventional or nuclear. Or failing that, my bare hands. For I am Everyman. My very identity is fashioned out of beliefs.
Someone may tell me that sea-salt is good, because it contains 75 minerals, whereas “refined” salt is bad, and raises your blood pressure. I don’t find this easy to believe. I thought ordinary salt is dug out of salt-mines. Until I saw the above photo from the Wieliczka Salt Mine near Cracow, where salt has been mined for 900 years, I assumed you just dug up salt, crushed it small and packed it ready for sale. I consulted Wikipedia. “Someone” was right. It does get refined, and seeing that photo, I’m glad it does. But is it likely that my body analyses the salt content in the food I eat, to see if it’s mixed with 74 other minerals, so that it knows whether or not to let my blood pressure rise? That I find hard to believe. When “someone” tells me it’s so, I shall shrug indifferently—unless he is my own child, in which case I shall put him right with the superior wisdom of my contrary belief, constructed on the spur of the moment. Now suppose he is indeed my child, now aged 45 *. I shall neither confirm or deny the truth of this supposition. We may assume he has attained the age of reason. But this does not mean I should reason with him. On the contrary, it is good that he buttresses his chosen dietary regimen with a set of corresponding beliefs, so he may appear virtuous in his own eyes. Who doesn’t want that?
I ought to give some examples of the kinds of things I believe, or would like to believe—I’m not sure there’s a difference between the two. Like you probably, I am stuffed with beliefs in practice, though I’ve said here more than once that I try to have no beliefs, to be an agnostic on everything. My favourite beliefs can neither be verified or refuted.
Examples: I believe all creatures to be intelligent; that evolution itself is intelligent, rather than blind and mechanical. I believe a giraffe’s neck is long because its ancestors desired to reach the high branches. I believe that the conscious mind, the I that has to forge a path in this dangerous world, is less important than commonly acknowledged. True self-awareness and true safety owes more to unconscious, the autonomous processes of the body. Sometimes they show that they, not this clever mind, are truly in charge by making us ill, to stop us in our tracks, and send us messages: “Don’t go this way!” Poor Nietzsche believed this too, he who had more than his share of illness. It was he who, in a certain context, said “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” That was his belief: that his illness was some kind of blessing. Scholars and medical scientists may surmise that his terrible health and ultimate breakdown was due to syphilis, contracted from a singular visit to a brothel. I hope that he remained ignorant of any such surmise but continued to sustain himself with belief, until his wits gave out.
It is perfectly rational to do whatever pleases us, justifying our chosen behaviour with belief. It props us up, especially when others are hostile. To attack someone else’s belief is metaphorically to vandalize his property: not a crime in most cases, but certainly not good form. May I learn to live and let live! Truth—whatever that is—can go look after its own haughty righteous self. It shall not be praised by me.
* The entire post was inspired by my elder son, who took me to a funky Chinese restaurant in London’s Soho. It had bare unpolished floorboards, table and chairs. I felt it was like entering a Zen monastery.
a wayfarer’s notes 
I guess Nietzsche had to say that – “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” since he was sick so often. I love him, but I must differ because that which tries to kill me but doesn't succeed can often make me weaker. And this for me is how beliefs work. They depend or are relative. As such they certainly aren't truth. The nice thing about beliefs is they can be ever-changing. I used to be an agnostic, then an atheist and now, I entertain the idea of God again.
Yes, I believe you are Everyman.
LikeLike
“Evidence is nothing but ammunition, to fire at your critics.”
Well, that's certainly a cynical attitude.
Of course, I could argue all these points with you, but you and I have been down this road so many time that they're going to start to selling souvenirs along the wayside one of these days.
So, I will graciously let someone else take a stab at this.
LikeLike
Yes, Rubye, and of course while Nietzsche was saying that, he was getting weaker too, but he was defiant; and for all we know, he managed to pull some kind of special strength out of the disaster of his physical health. And you are so right about beliefs. They are not truth, they don't of themselves change the bricks and mortar. But we're human. It's not enough to have bricks and mortar, whether it be solid or crumbling. We gain enormous comfort, or otherwise, from the wallpaper on top. Wallpaper, like beliefs, can be changed.
LikeLike
Yes, Bryan, we have indeed been down this road many times, and I was hoping that we might one day stroll down as allies, brothers in arms, over the site of our former battles; and buy some of those souvenirs to take home.
But I see now I made a slight mess of the attempt to draw a new map over the same ground. I shall change a few words, and report back.
LikeLike
Bryan, I went wrong in the second half of my third paragraph. I wanted to be Everyman but ended up as Bryan's usual antagonist, which is a complete bore, I agree.
So I have altered the offending words to align myself more clearly with Everyman and not just partisan Vincent who enjoys lobbing salvoes at Bryan. Please consider this and tell me if we can now be brothers-in-arms.
LikeLike
Yes, I like the change. It seems more honest somehow.
Of course, I've also mentioned this human tendency to put evidence at our disposal, rather than putting ourselves at the disposal of evidence:
Sometimes we rely on evidence not just as a map of reality, but also as a way of tracking landmarks in our flights of fancy, something to tell us that we might not just be kidding ourselves. And we all do this. We all get out ahead of our more sober judgment at times, pursuing the intriguing possibilities.
I guess it's all a matter of how you put. My statement here is – at least it's meant to be – a positive statement about speculation, about an indispensable dose of imagination in our attempts to understand the world. Your original statement struck me as more…opportunistic: this idea that we're not interested in facts; we just care about being right. That may very well be with many people, but I certainly wouldn't celebrate the notion. Seems like a pretty bitter pill to swallow.
The rewritten portion expresses a similar idea, but the spirit in which that idea is presented makes all the difference. Yes, we all have an understandable resistance to people crushing our dreams and beliefs beneath piles of evidence. I can understand that.
LikeLike
I used to really enjoy a good rhubarb with those who had beliefs that I thought were wrong. Like you and Bryan, I'd dicker and debate for hours on end and even occasionally come to physical blows for the sheer joy of it.
Now I just tend to walk away and think “What a fool…”
LikeLike
You are indeed Everyman. Would that there were more of us for life to be happier.
LikeLike
Yes, that's pretty much how I think I see beliefs, my own and others. Beliefs grow and wither, few people know why. Most beliefs are too evidently grounded in a need and a manner of life. And the single-minded pursuit of The Truth is often distinguished by enormous errors that a fuzzier person would never make.
But such is self-deception that I sometimes think I may wake up (in the after-life, perhaps) and find that I was really obsessed with Truth the whole time. That is, I'm also sceptical about scepticism, relativistic about relativism. I am tolerant in hyperspace and in the abstract. Within my intimate circle, where the stakes really matter to me, I don't seem to be very flexible. Values of some kind constantly police the territory; shy of the parade-ground but hard-bitten and implacable.
LikeLike
Everyone claims to “know the truth.” They don't claim to know all things, but they claim to know some things are True. The Truth they claim is in direct opposition to the Truths of others, but they still “know,” and if you only thought more like them, you could know too.
They think these things even in opposition to the beliefs of people whose intelligence they acknowledge exceeds their own.
They must know some Truth, or they are not really so different from a rose or a weed, and that is one Truth they cannot abide.
Like you, I am a self-proclaimed agnostic. I have lots of opinions and I know nothing.
LikeLike
From memory, so I will probably misquote slightly:
These roses under my window make no reference to former ones or to better ones. They are for what they are. They exist with God today. There is no time to them. There is simply the rose. It is perfect in every moment of its existence – Ralph Waldo Emerson
LikeLike
Maybe I can answer the latest five comments in one. When I tried to write as 'Everyman' it was to try and see how by delving deep into myself, beneath all the personal prejudices, I'll find the common ground which unites me to everyone and makes it possible to be a spokesman for them too.
Then I see that my prejudice itself is part of that common ground, if you ignore the differences between one person's prejudice and another's.
And if we are all prejudiced, then that is our human nature. Nature is admirable, even though a mother cuckoo is immoral (and illegal too) by human standards. Even the spiders in my bathroom behave despicably by my standards. The grand-daddy under the bath is so huge and gross that it could not catch the clumsiest fly; no web could be strong enough to bear its weight. When I rescue a medium-sized spider from the bath, and place it gently on the floor, the grand-daddy makes a swift move and gobbles it up.
So nature is not pretty. We find ugly behaviour in ourselves and high ideals too. Within our own selves we find every tendency. the personal is the universal.
Having written this I see I have not responded to any of the comments. Sorry. Will try again maybe.
LikeLike
Looking for Truth is admirable, I think. It's an expression of idealism, and as Michael says, it may be self-deception either way. We think we are not and yet we are. We think we are and yet our search for Truth is so brief we spend most of our time knowing that we are right, which is the most dangerous delusion of all.
LikeLike
I pitched an alternative to “because it pleases me” in a comment on an earlier post where you referenced this idea.
However, I will not contradict you here. The context you provide in this post pleases me.
While some things feel more real, true, than the alternatives. It does indeed please me to believe some things.
In addition, I have felt relief that comes with abandoning one belief for another. It feels better to adjust to a more comfortable mindset than to force yourself to confront one you find disturbing.
In the back of my mind, I may fully understand that my belief is in fact, not true. However, I am happy to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy some peace of mind.
LikeLike
Looking for the common ground of humanity is an admirable endeavor, but it seems like you took to the task with the same songs I've heard a million times from you: “There's no such thing as truth”, “Conflating Reason and Rationalizing” and that golden oldie “People only tell themselves what they want to hear.” As a result, these familiar tunes become all the more alarming because now you're claiming to speak for all humanity. I would hope that if you took a genuine dip in the universal mind, you would at least come back with some fresh material.
LikeLike
Now, at the risk of encouraging the souvenir shops, let's talk about truth and reason for a moment. Not reason as that cold, abstract, ugly thing of numbers and measurements that you harbor such animosity towards. Let's talk about reason in real life, in real time:
Earlier this week there was a shooting at one of the local high schools. Three kids were killed; two others were wounded – their condition remains questionable. I work with the mother of one of the kids that were killed. I know her…somewhat, but enough to have fairly strong feelings about this tragedy.
Now, obviously in a situation like this there is a lot of speculation. Fact and rumor mingle and fly about, and it's hard to tell one from the other. I heard some people I work with talking about how they had said on the news that this could have resulted from a dispute over drugs. My gut reaction to this was denial, even anger that these people were bringing this up. I didn't really want to even consider anything that would tarnish the memory of this woman's son, even though I didn't really know the kid or know anything about him. And someone pointed that out to me. They said, “We really don't know what happened.” And I had to admit that that was true. And I had to admit that it was true because THAT, my friend, is reason, as simple an example as I can give. And it is something that is desperately, desperately needed in a situation like this, where emotions run hot, where people are upset and afraid. Otherwise, you risk the whole thing degenerating into a mob mentality. There has to be a fall back position where someone can take a stand and go, “Hey everybody shut up and calm down for a second and try to be sensible!”
And yet, you seem to have made it your mission in life to undermine that position. They tell the seething mob, “be sensible; listen to reason”, and you pipe up and say, “There's no such this as 'sensible'; 'reason' is just another word for lying to yourself.” The investigators try to piece together the truth, so that justice can be served and minds can be set at east and things can be laid to rest, and you pipe up and say, “Nope, there's no such this as truth. The family of the victim believes one thing. The family of the shooter believes another. And no one can say which one is right.”
Can you see why I have a problem with this?
And it's not just a situation like this. Our very survival depends on us being reasonable and trying to tell the difference between what's true and false. And you try to take this away!
And what really upsets, far more than the fact that you say these thing – which I've come to expect – is that I seem to be one of the only followers to take issue with this! No one else has a problem with your constant diatribes against truth and reason? I just don't get it.
(I don't mean to vent on you here, but it's been a rough week. I hope that we can move on as “brothers in arms” as you say, but also hope that we can move beyond this (self-contradicting) “no such this as truth” business in the process.)
LikeLike
Sorry. I don't know why I felt the need to write all that, but I think I'll let it stand all the same.
LikeLike
Let me see if I can't sum this up:
There are thousands – if not millions – or situations all over the world even as I write this, where justice, or a person's well-being, or even a person's very survival depends on someone listening to reason and coming to know and accept an unpleasant truth. Do you have any idea how hard it is, in a situation like the one I mentioned above where are people are extremely upset, to get someone to listen to something that they don't want to hear, but yet when it's something they absolutely NEED to hear? Truth and reason are the only things a person can appeal to when dealing with someone like that. I once spent months dealing with someone who was on the very brink of losing touch with reality, and I can tell you that whether it's trauma or tragedy or just basic denial, it is pain-stakingly difficult.
And yet here you are saying, “Nah, it's all just lies either way.” What if someone reading this actually buys into what you're saying, and they're faced with that moment of crisis where their life depends on someone talking sense to them, and they reply, “I don’t require my belief to be anchored in verifiable truth.”? When someone begs them to reconsider, promises them that what they're telling them is the truth, they respond, “Evidence is nothing but ammunition, to fire at your critics.”? And they will be lost. Do this bother you at all? It certainly bothers me.
I can tell you this, now. I can promise you. No matter how you package this idea, I will never, ever, agree with you on this. I hope I'm not the only one.
LikeLike
One last thing, Vincent, and hopefully this will be my final word on this subject, because I'm just too tired to go on arguing:
But suppose that I could go back, or someone could have talked to this kid that did the shooting beforehand, could have tried to get him to listen to reason, could have tried to get him to listen to the truth, could have told him, “You don't want to do this. You have your whole life ahead of you. You will regret this this moment it is done. Lives will be ruined, and it will accomplish nothing!”
My God Vincent, look at this kid. He's so young, it literally brings tears to my eyes. Maybe it's crazy to hope that anyone could have gotten that kid to listen to reason. But that's the only hope there is against this sort of thing.
LikeLike
Bryan, believe it or not I strongly sympathize with your perspective on this. In fact, I may have been a more persistent thorn in Vincent's side at one time. Vincent can attest to this.
I am an atheist, a skeptic, and a realist. I used to be pretty hard core with people on virtually every topic. Much in the same way you are.
I fully appreciate the need for a reality check with people who are in danger, and situations that are tenuous. I also have little tolerance for people who refuse to accept important factual information as it relates to issues impacting the health and welfare of those I care for.
I have softened my approach in the last few years as it relates to the scope of things I view in these terms. I cannot possibly be an expert in all things. As much as I try, I will always have doubts as to the “truth” behind many things I encounter.
I will always seek the truth regarding things that are important to me. However, if I choose to believe something that is less than true, regarding things that have little impact on my life, in order to feel better about myself, or my circumstances. I am OK with that. I cannot afford the time and energy it would take to pursue the truth in everything.
I pick my battles. When engaging with others, if you are continually pointing out the fallacies in their beliefs, they will become irritated. No one wants a constant reminder of their failings.
In addition, I want to leave the conversation with each of us having our dignity and respect intact. I have no desire to tear down others in order to win an argument. I may leave frustrated that I failed to win them over to a more rational view, but I won't try to make the other person feel bad about it.
Repetition of
LikeLike
Thank you Charles.
Yes, I'm sure there are others who are bothered by this, but who don't press the matter out of politeness or they just wore themselves out arguing with Vincent a long time ago.
And I agree that we may not always know the absolute truth, and I know that we are all capable of deluding ourselves from time to time. Vincent just seems to take these things too far. He discredits the notion of truth altogether and seems to insist that ALL we ever do is delude ourselves.
This is not good.
LikeLike
must be brief. responding from kindle. i have every sympathy with your viewpoint and situation bryan.no argument with facts and the need for reason.or indeed truth. the purpose of my post was different and directed against the conflict arising out of opposing beliefs. you oppose me i know but my beliefs on this issue i claim are no more harmful or beneficial than yours. i am sorry that you so passionately feel the need to condemn what i said. i still think i am your brother in arms and would fight by your side against a common enemy.
LikeLike
Back on my computer now. I'm really sorry to have distressed you Bryan.
Charles I do remember we once had an altercation about something, I think it was something you quoted and I took it a different way. Something a child allegedly said, and I said it must have been conditioned to say that, because such a young child would not think that?
So far I haven't used the get-out-of-jail card in the title: that everything I wrote was to be taken with a pinch of salt.
It doesn't seem fair to play that card now.
I grovel and abase myself, short of taking back anything.
LikeLike
And Bryan, I don't recognize myself in the Vincent you describe – the one who angers you. Still feel responsible for him though, even though he does not exist!
LikeLike
I know, Vincent.
I could say that you're deliberately encouraging people to live in denial, but I know that isn't your intention, even though that's where you leave people when you tell them to disregard truth and reason.
Still, I know that your intentions are positive. I know – at least I hope – that you're not intentionally sowing the seeds of chaos and disaster.
Rather, I think that a lot comes from a sincere intention to encourage tolerance and open-mindedness towards spirituality and religion in general (perhaps not organized religion; perhaps I've misjudged the situation altogether. Anyway…) With that in mind, I'd like you to consider for a moment why these religious extremists feel the need to bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. You see, when you take reason off the table as a civilized means for people to settle the differences between them, you'll find that it's practically inevitable that sooner or later someone will resort to violence to settle their disputes.
Let's say you have a Muslim over here, and there's a Christian over there. They have two very different points of views; two very different ideas of what the truth is. And there really is no hope of the one rationally and convincingly explaining their point of view to the other, because there's no sense or reason behind that point of view to begin with. The one isn't going to go, “Ohhhh! Okay, I see it now.”, and then convert to the other's religion on the spot. It's like they speak two different languages with no possibility of translation. They both more or less believe two separate, interchangeable, fairy tales, and they believe them for completely arbitrary reasons that are really just a result of their birth-place and the culture they were raised in. A Christian can't conceive of WHY someone would be a Muslim, and a Muslim can't conceive of WHY someone would be a Christian. There's no middle ground where there can be a meeting of the minds, so instead someone is eventually driven to strap a bomb to their chest to prove, as George Carlin so crudely put it, “that my god has a bigger dick than your god.”
Now, here's where I might stop and speculate on what I think you're proposing as a solution to this little problem. But instead, I'll just ask: What would you suggest as a solution to this?
LikeLike
“Rather, I think that a lot comes from a sincere intention to encourage tolerance and open-mindedness towards spirituality and religion in general”
Perhaps, “belief” would have been a better choice of words. My question still stands though.
LikeLike
I’m very interested in your question, Bryan. I’d like to consider the case you mention, of the Christian and the Muslim. I live on a short street with a Mosque at the other end, with a Baptist Church next door to it. The mosque is busy seven days a week, because a devout Muslim prays several times a day, and many of them like to go and pray in the mosque, especially the elderly ones. The church is only open for one or two services on Sunday, and these seem to be poorly attended. There is great friendliness and fellowship on the street between the Christians and Muslims when they encounter one another on Sunday. I think both sides get a glow from this. They feel like good Muslims, good Christians. I estimate that 95% of the residents of this street are Muslims.
Whilst I am not a Christian (and if I was, I wouldn’t be a Baptist) nevertheless I can easily see the Christian point of view, and feel perfectly at ease with it.
Islam, on the other hand, is totally foreign to me and I cannot imagine why anyone would become a Muslim. I would be sad if they did. I am sad that Cat Stevens turned into Yusuf Islam, because I greatly admire him as a musician and for many years his religion stopped his music altogether.
Muslims are my neighbours and I am sad for them having to be Muslims, sad for their cultural baggage passed on from generation to generation, because it seems to me an inferior deal. I don’t feel that way about Christianity, because of the Christians I’ve known and those in my own family.
I could try and apply reason to my prejudices, but I really am not motivated to do so.
You say “With that in mind, I’d like you to consider for a moment why these religious extremists feel the need to bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings. You see, when you take reason off the table as a civilized means for people to settle the differences between them, you’ll find that it’s practically inevitable that sooner or later someone will resort to violence to settle their disputes.”
I don’t know how to start considering that stuff. For me it’s hearsay. I don’t at all deny it happens, but I don’t have enough evidence to attempt an answer. What I observe in daily life is that people stick with those they understand and do their best to be polite and decent when they cannot understand how the other people live.
I have my own prejudices. This is a fact and I observe it. I make efforts to ensure that this does not affect my behaviour, because it is obvious (to me) that this would be harmful to everyone concerned. So I am sorry and sad rather than hostile.
You say “There’s no middle ground where there can be a meeting of the minds, so instead someone is eventually driven to strap a bomb to their chest.”
I’m sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me. I don’t think this has anything to do with the lack of a meeting of minds. I don’t think this has anything to do with my preferring Christianity to Islam or vice versa. I live on the street. We are neighbours. If the bombs and shootings took place here, then of course I would be like you asking “why?”
You say that I deliberately encourage people to disregard truth and reason. I don’t encourage anyone to do anything. I agree with you wholeheartedly that truth and reason help keep chaos and disaster from our doorstep. I’m pretty sure that almost everyone knows this.
I hazard a guess that bombings and shootings result from a powerful fear: the fear of invasion and destruction of all that one holds dear. I hazard a guess that a reasonable person will be less panicked by fear, will look for a sensible solution based on truth. But when someone feels mortally threatened by alien hostile forces, that’s the moment when it’s hardest to be reasonable, hardest to see what’s true and what’s merely imagined. One can feel sympathy in such a situation. Those who can appeal to reason, those who can sift truth from rumour and hallucination, can help. But when the fear is strong, the fearful look to the quick fix, and may seek retaliation.
LikeLike
I have no idea whether these words answer you, but these are the words I come up with.
LikeLike
That's a fair and comprehensive answer (a pretty sensible one too.). You've given me some stuff to think about.
LikeLike
Here's something you might find interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRqyw-EwgTk&list=FLzae_WSQ5SAGar7S8X6gV0Q&index=21&feature=plpp_video
…although I'm not sure how relevant it is to the matter at hand. Still, I think you'll get a kick out of it.
LikeLike
I did get a kick out of it! And what it illustrated, i.e. post-rationalisation, is the basis of a game I play all the time with my wife. Every time I forget to do something, make a wrong decision etc, I instantly come up with a fake excuse for my action, e.g. Her: “Why didn't you throw away the remains of the fish, as I asked you?” Me: “I was saving them for the stray cat, it looks so hungry.” I never fail to come up with something, just like every politician, every apologist for every vested interest. It's easy, everyone can play. We teach our children to do it, when we threaten them with punishment for errors of commission and omission.
LikeLike
Bryan,
If it is tolerance of religious dogma you are referring to. Again, I sympathize with your struggle.
Also, I think the kind of rhetoric we are exposed to here in the States is more vile and contemptible than what Vincent may have experienced.
It is a genuine struggle to combat the blatant ignorance and horrific distortion of truth that we experience daily. I wince several times a day at the extraordinary pomposity of the religious right in this country.
The recent tornadoes that have ravaged large swaths of the country over the past week have brought them out in droves.
Our President is attacked routinely on the basis that his religious convictions are not up to snuff or even worse, he may be a Muslim.
I could not help but think, that when Obama was elected, that in spite of the great progress that the election of an African American might represent, that it also shows how far we still have to go. What would it take to elect an Atheist?
It permeates so much of our discourse, that it wears on you. I can understand where your coming from.
LikeLike
(Re)reading this, it struck me that I reply to your posts much less frequently than I should, or would like to.
Asking myself why this is, it struck me that one of the main reasons is because they are generally so profound and well-crafted. My reaction is usually, “Ah, yes … welll … but … still …”
In the end, I think, my silence is more a thing of respect than anything else. I could talk to you for ages about the issues you think about and formulate so well, and we would often disagree. But this format is so unsatisfactory for the kind of dialogue I feel we deserve – a long walk through the nature you describe so well, followed by hours in a comfortable pub would be much more satisfactory!
What I particularly liked about this one was its beautiful portrayal of the grounds for tolerance. One of my favourite sayings is that of Oliver Cromwell, writing to the Synod of the Church of Scotland in 1650, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” What a pity he didn't apply it more consistently in his own life!
LikeLike
Charles, I'm sure there have been non-believing Presidents in American history. How would you envisage an Atheist President?
It seems to me that the divisiveness in American politics isn't about religion so much as a sectarianism. We have had this within our shores, in Northern Ireland mainly, and as you know it has been bloody as well as bitter. Originally it was not about religion. It was about cruelties done to the Irish by the English, historically.
The difference is with our British temperament. When we see an ugly fight developing, most of us stay out of it, keep a distance.
What I see is (as I said in an earlier comment) that conflict arises from fear. To have one's deepest beliefs called in question tends to provoke a furious defence and counter-attack, so that the original principles of one's belief are forgotten in the heat of battle.
Which brings me back to the whole point of my post, that we don't believe things because we have established by rigorous methods that they are the Truth. We believe them because they help make life tolerable.
And it seems to me that the Christian Right in America (a unique phenomenon unmatched in the world except perhaps by fundamentalist Islam, its mortal enemy) flourishes for one reason only: that its supporters feel fearful and affronted by the liberal atheists who rally under the flags of gay marriage, woman's right to choose, etc etc.
When the battle-lines are thus drawn, it will be bloody. To even speak of “electing an Atheist” is to taunt the enemy into firing the first shot.
In principle, peace would be simple. The majority of voters simply have to accept the obvious truth. Whether a President is a believer or a non-believer should not be relevant. A non-believing President should not draw attention to the fact, and should therefore conform to all relevant traditions: “In God we trust,” etc etc.
But please tell me if I am wrong.
LikeLike
Francis, thank you! I was replying to Charles at the same time that you were writing.
Now you have mentioned it, tell me if anything prevents that very thing you suggest. Do you visit England ever? It's not far, after all. Spring has almost sprung. There are still some good pubs here. The countryside is superb. Come!
LikeLike
Hi Vincent,
No president thus far has been an Atheist, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion.
Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, and Barack Obama were accused of being atheists during election campaigns, while others to hold the office used faith as a defining aspect of their campaigns and tenure.
– Wikipedia
The reaction you see from Bryan and I in this regard is a direct correlation to the intolerance of evangelical Christians who have dominated the rhetoric coming from Republicans and even some Democrats.
There is a kind of litmus test, in terms of Christianity, that serves as a right of passage to the presidency.
It manifests itself in all kinds of discourse. A test for Patriotism, credibility in areas of science, medicine, etc.
It seems to be a kind of pollutant. One that poisons otherwise useful and meaningful messages.
The true nature of it cannot be understood unless you experience it first hand.
LikeLike
If Christian belief is the litmus test of eligibility for the presidency, then no candidate is going to come forward parading the Atheist cause. That is political common sense. The same Wikipedia article admits that in many cases you cannot know what the President really thought in his heart about religion.
My point is that you will see a much better Christian if you stop fighting him, and learn to appreciate him. Christianity is not all bad. What you are observing is a polarized America, whipped into a frenzy by hate and fear because the partisans cannot leave one another in peace.
Until you and the others learn tolerance, restraint and love, in an act of unilateral disarmament, it will only get worse.
LikeLike
Vincent,
I agree. In fact, that was my original message to Bryan.
However, it is hard to maintain a tolerant stance in the face of an onslaught of intolerance from the Christian Right.
I have many friends who have strong religious convictions. I will in now way sacrifice or jeopardize my friendship with them in an attempt to dissuade them of their beliefs.
I am not evangelizing an Atheist or Skeptic perspective.
I just wish my friends, with such convictions, were more tolerant of my point of view. Seems it is acceptable, to confront an Atheist on their lack of faith in such things. In fact, it seems that it is even a mission, to convert those of us who have not avowed themselves to such beliefs.
Even worse, to have your opinions discounted and ignored because you are not a believer.
Hard to take all that on the chin without saying a word in response.
LikeLike
I confess to being astonished, Charles, that you should be so treated. I can't see how this arises. There you are, not rising to the bait when your Christian friends close their eyes while someone says Grace, in a five-minute improvisation while the dinner goes cold. Then they suddenly notice that you are not one of them, and start preaching at you?
Perhaps you don't just keep quiet. You speak of having “your opinions discounted and ignored because you are not a believer”.
I wonder what opinions an atheist might have. Richard Dawkins, as far as I can see, would like to have religion wiped off the face of the earth. A view guaranteed to arous hostility to the “cause” he embraces.
The word “atheist” in itself, signifies someone who can see no use for God. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God, but plenty of Christians, perhaps most, are agnostic, whether they admit it or not: certainly plenty of clergy.
I imagine an atheist opines that the idea of God stands in the way of a better world. To avoid hostility from those who would be outraged, one could keeps such an opinion to oneself, just as a homosexual might have done with his own outlook in the days of strong prejudice.
There is one group that still hasn't come out of the closet: the asexuals. Imagine the discomfort they go through, the offence they take, with gays and straights alike flaunting their sexuality. But asexuals, so far as I know, haven't yet started marching for their rights, asking themselves what would it take to elect an asexual President.
In short, Charles, I am not trying to make fun of you, but ask a serious question: what are the opinions that you hate having discounted and ignored? Isn't it just that you are in a minority, and you don't like it?
You'd be very comfortable in the UK, then. There is an insidious campaign by atheists to get religion out of their sight. Here's an example: for centuries it has been the custom, in Parliament and in local councils across the land, to start the meetings of elected representatives with brief prayers. Now some atheist-activist has decided that this is offensive and distressing to atheists, and taken the matter to court. See this report.
To me as to many fellow-Britons, this act by atheists is a pre-emptive strike, a sure-fire way to create enemies where none existed before. They are trying to wipe religion off the face of the earth.
As I never tire of saying, I'm not a supporter of any religion, and an open-minded agnostic.
I used to think, in my Polly-Anna-ish way, that atheists like Christopher Hitchens were doing religion a favour, were helping it clean up its act, like Martin Luther and his ninety-five theses.
But now I think that they, the atheists, are at least half the problem, because they turn harmless religious people who merely want to carry on their centuries-old traditions into dangerous fundamentalists, fighting against the devil incarnate, as they see it. You and I both know how wrong they are but the best advice in the matter would come from Jesus: to turn the other cheek.
LikeLike
PS: In case you think I'm protected from it, Charles, in these calm waters, Christianity is reaching out to me from the States, in its preachiest form, e.g. my wife's aunt, aged 83, is arriving tomorrow. She's Jamaican but has lived in the States for a most of her life. Then there's another aunt, who wrote this in a card last week: “Vincent, May God bless you on your 70th birthday. Hold you in the hollow of his hands and Keep you in loving care. Through-out all your future years. From Auntie, with all my love and prayer for you Always”
Needless to say, when I write back, I shall not be making her a present of my own “opinions”. I won't be talking her language, because it doesn't come naturally, and would be hypocritical. But I feel the warmth and genuineness in her words. & even if they rang hollow, an aunt's an aunt, a friend is a friend, brotherly-sisterly love is what it is and there is nothing much we actually need to do; certainly not declare war on others' cherished beliefs, even if they are wrong, even if they feel duty-bound to share their blessings with us.
LikeLike
Vincent,
Oddly enough, my original comment was intended to engage Bryan, and make many of the points you are now directing at me.
The truth is I handle similar situations as you have suggested.
I don't directly challenge the beliefs of others, and often engage in their rituals. I do so in order to avoid the appearance of challenging their beliefs. In other words, I bite my tongue and go along. Many people I know are not even aware that I am an Atheist for this reason.
And yet, just like the response your giving now, I am targeted as the intolerant one. How is that so?
If I even make a suggestion that I am an Atheist, it is taken as an affront to their beliefs. I am not looking to change the mind of anyone else.
This reminds me of the struggles the Gay community has had. It is now more socially acceptable to declare that you are Gay, than it is to even hint that you might be an Atheist.
Case in point, for many years my wife (a Christian), and my daughter, attended a Lutheran church every Sunday. This church had a Gay, Female, Preacher. Many Gay parishioners and a congregation that welcomed the Gay community.
I never mentioned that I was an Atheist when I attended to hear my Daughter sing, or perform in a play. Over time, I came to know the preacher well. Eventually, I felt comfortable enough with her to broach the subject of my lack of belief. At first, she seemed very understanding. Even accepting. I felt as if we had come to a reasonable and mutually acceptable understanding.
She understood and appreciated the difficulties of carrying such a burden among those who would not understand, or would be inclined to demonize me for this. Clearly she had felt this kind of repression in her own life experience.
I have always been active in my community. And this church held some significance in the community as it would feed, clothe and occasionally house those in need. Handicapped, elderly and others who would otherwise be without a sufficient support system were assisted by the Church. It provided a place for the community to meet and for people to feel like they belonged. I supported these efforts and volunteered on occasion.
The congregation had a family originally from Ghana. The father taught the children to play drums and percussion instruments. I attended many performances that included my Daughter.
The family planned a trip to Ghana and invited others from the congregation to join them. My wife and I both thought this would be a wonderful experience for my Daughter. At great expense, and with some trepidation, we allowed our 13 year old daughter to join them on the trip.
I offered to drive some of the group to the Airport when they were leaving. Prior to the trip the gathered in a circle for a prayer. I stood to the side, abstaining, as I thought that the preacher now understood my discomfort with this. Instead, she singled me out in front of the others and insisted that I join them in prayer.
I reluctantly joined the circle and spoke when asked to speak as part of the ritual. It was very uncomfortable for me. And yet, I did this in support of my Daughter.
I don't believe any of the others would have batted an eye if I had been allowed to extract myself from this ceremony. I was the only person there who was not to be on the trip. I think it would have been viewed as a group prayer for those who were participating.
It was then that I realized that she had begun to make it her mission to convert me. I began to reflect on other occasions where I had been coerced to participate in rituals. I think she believed that I could be converted, if I continued to expose myself to their organization, it was just a matter of time.
And so it goes.
LikeLike
More concerning are the times when I am asked to consider issues that are on our political forefront. While I rarely initiate such discussions, I am routinely asked for my opinion, or prodded to agree with the opinions of others.
Are you suggesting the best approach is to keep my real feelings to myself and play act for their benefit? I'm sorry, I want to retain some dignity, some integrity. I don't believe I should stand in the shadows, and keep quiet under these circumstances.
LikeLike
I can well believe that it is now more socially acceptable to declare yourself gay than atheist.
Gays don't have the intention of wiping straights off the face of the earth. In declaring yourself atheist you have aligned yourself in their minds with the Enemy; because some atheists want to abolish religion.
I guess it's the same as in the Fifties, when the faintest hint that you might be a Communist would be enough to ensure persecution. McCarthy would sniff out your unAmerican activities.
No McCarthy has been appointed yet with a team of bloodhounds to track down the Atheists. They infiltrate society and many of them look innocent, behave blamelessly. But you never know. Unfortunately, the American constitution inhibits any law against atheists. Lynching would be frowned upon. You could put it on their employment record and try to prevent their being promoted. But these people around you must have decided that you look like a promising case for conversion. Why not consider this as a compliment? They want you as their ally, not their enemy. (I know you are not; but it's that word “Atheist” that rings the alarm bells. For all they know, you'll be lobbying for changes in the law, discriminating against church-goers. That will be the end of civilization as they know it.)
Dignity and integrity are the pearls of great price, without which we are abject curs. We must decide for ourselves how to retain them.
LikeLike
I just discovered this in my blog reading list: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/180018/the-fbi-spied-on-christopher-hitchens-because-of-his-political-ideology/
LikeLike
I am not a famous pundit spouting an anti-religion agenda. Nor do I pursue this agenda among those I come in contact with. I never have.
It appears that the mere suggestion that I am an Atheist is a threat. Like the McCarthy era targeting of communists, it is a label that carries with it fear and loathing.
I just want to live in a place that does not insist that I follow the dogma of religion. As Bryan eluded to in his posts, the other concern is that our laws, science and medicine are mixed with religious influence. Creationism taught alongside Evolution in schools, what can, and cannot, be covered by insurance based on religious concerns, Gay Marriage bans, etc.
So you see, I have no mission to attack religion in any way. I am not hostile to it, or aggressive in my approach to those who are believers. I simply do not share their beliefs, and do not want to be forced to do so. It is not my lack of tolerance that is called into question here. Unless you feel that to be tolerant, one must also be submissive.
LikeLike
“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom… What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values.” – Rick Santorum – Presidential Candidate
Defending the Crusades. Perhaps the Inquisition would be worth defending as well?
This is the type of thing we have to suffer through. I suppose we should tolerate this in order to preserve the peace?
LikeLike
[…] With a pinch of salt […]
LikeLike