Recently, I've been thinking a lot about how one negotiates community and personal identity. A couple of weeks ago my niece was baptized into the Mormon church. My sister asked if I wanted to stand in the circle (a big deal in the Mormon community) for her confirmation since I have the Melquisedec priesthood. I wasn't sure how to respond as I wanted to support her and my niece, but had to admit to her, as she already knows, that I don't believe in God let alone the notion of a priesthood. This didn't really bother her as she is not much of a literalist and has just recently gotten involved in Mormonism for the community stuff. Eventually she had me be a witness at the baptism which also requires the Melquisedec priesthood I believe. In part I think involving me was one way of helping my sister and my mother have someone from the family involved--my sister is divorced and her not-so-beloved ex did the baptizing.
Thinking about this decision connects, I think, to Spontaneous Expression's recent comment on my last post which you can find here if you scroll down. I was struck by the insight she gained when attending a church (not a Mormon church): "It made me reconsider the potential benefits of a formal organization, Mormon or otherwise." And then later in her comment she gives a typical SE zinger: "Let the believers believe in peace." Yes, I too want to let the believers believe in peace. I wish they could let me believe in peace, but I realize I can't let my actions to be contingent upon theirs.
And this is where I have to part ways with the likes of Richard Dawkin's and other new atheists who sometimes seem to want to get in a fight with religious folks. I have no desire to do this--well, only on bad days. In trying to find a new community, I bristle when "atheists" make judgments of religious people as simple-minded and fanatical. To me these kinds of blanket pronouncements only serve to reproduce the very same fanaticism these atheists proclaim to denounce, ultimately narrowing what it means to be human and spiritual. Of course I allow some leniency because this is such a minority voice and it can easily get completely squashed--still it ain't where I'm headed. And as long as there is a gap between our understanding of the world, there will be a place where art and religion seek out meaning. Even if I prefer art, I can see why religion fulfills this same desire, is experienced as art by some, and is preferred by many. To simply say religious people are wrong is simple-minded--clearly a creative and artistic imagination often-times flourishes in a religious environment.
I'm even uncomfortable with the term atheist. It seems to define me by what I am not--not a believer in God. This is similar to terms like "non-member" or "non-white," a type of term which helps create silly questions based on assumptions, "How can you not believe in anything?" As Greg Epstein, a humanist Chaplain (yes, chaplain, educated in a humanist rabbinical school), argues in his recent interview on Speaking of Faith, he is a believer, a believer in humanism, in life, in his family. I'm not ready to give up on belief as an important part of being human.
I turn to a quote from André Comte-Sponville's, a French philosopher, The Little book of Atheist Spirituality. It was part of the Speaking of Faith program I refer to above; again, as I've mentioned before in my blog, check out the program particulars created for each SoF program--they include extended quotations, titles to music, links, and images referred to in the program.
The quote below helps me to begin articulating the positive side of my beliefs, the what I believe in rather than the what I don't believe in. It's still wrapped up with God talk and religion, but it's a start:***
Where morals are concerned, the loss of faith changes nothing or next to nothing. That you have lost your faith does not mean that you will suddenly decide to betray your friends or indulge in robbery, rape, assassination and torture. "If God does not exist," says Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamazov, "everything is allowed." Not at all, for the simple reason that I will not allow myself everything! As Kant demonstrated, either morals are autonomous or they do not exist at all. If a person refrains from murdering his neighbor only out of fear of divine retribution, his behavior is dictated not by moral values but by caution, fear of the holy policeman, egoism. And if a person does good only with an eye to salvation, she is not doing good (since her behavior is dictated by self-interest, rather than by duty or by love) and will thus not be saved. This is Kant, the Enlightenment and humanity at their best. A good deed is not good because God commanded me to do it (in which case it would have been good for Abraham to slit his son's throat); on the contrary, it is because an action is good that it is possible to believe God commanded it. Rather than religion being the basis for morals, morals are now the basis for religion. This is the inception of modernity. To have a religion, the Critique of Practical Reason points out, is to "acknowledge all one's duties as sacred commandments." For those who no longer have faith, commandments vanish (or, rather, lose their sacred quality), and all that remains are duties—that is, the commandments we impose upon ourselves.
Alain puts it beautifully in his Letters to Sergio Solmi on the Philosophy of Kant: "Ethics means knowing that we are spirit and thus have certain obligations, for noblesse oblige. Ethics is neither more nor less than a sense of dignity."Should I rob, rape and murder? It would be unworthy of me—unworthy of what humanity has become, unworthy of the education I have been given, unworthy of what I am and wish to be. I therefore refrain from such behavior, and this is what is known as ethics. There is no need to believe in God—one need believe only in one's parents and mentors, one's friends (provided they are well chosen) and one's conscience.
***It helps, as Epstein argues and we can experience in this last quote, to connect my own beliefs in humanity to many great thinkers of the past. There's a lineage of folks throughout time who felt similar to me--that's community too. And just maybe these connection will help me, when appropriate, allow others to believe in peace, to even participate amongst them with all of our differences and similarities.
8 comments:
Ron,
Nicely stated, and "blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Your acts to maintain peace and docility are admirable.
I gotta disagree here though. (I know huge surprise) "And this is where I have to part ways with the likes of Richard Dawkin's and other new atheists who sometimes seem to want to get in a fight with religious folks."
I have watched many of Dr. Dawkins appearances, read his books (all of them), and much of his published research as well. That he is perceived as "fighting" is beyond my comprehension. He is usually in a public forum... he supports his assertions with sound reasoning... he follows roberts simple rules of order (no butting-in, talking loudly, calling names, etc.). HE simply puts his point of view out there for consumption. If the religious want to take umbrage it may be that they have no rebuttal to his assertions. So the only thing left is to take offense. But he is no bully.
Sad that when someone descents from religion they are perceived as bullying. Why should religion get a free pass when it comes to discourse involving doubt? Sorry, my decent fellow, but your caricature of "Dawkinsians" just doesn't work. Most Atheists I know share SE's view. Let the believers believe in peace. Seems rather the norm than the exception. In fact, if anything, it is the believers who wish to bully and fight. I can't remember the last atheist missionary who knocked on my door at 9:00am on a Saturday morning. I can't remember the last time that "athiest" general conference pre-empted my basketball game. I can't remember the last time my money said "there is no god now get over it. and be kind to your fellow man." I can't remember the last time someone was sworn in with their right hand resting on the writings of Epicurus, Spinoza, Ingersoll, or Darwin. I can't remember the last Atheist President, Congressman, or Judge. Yup we Atheists had better stop pushing our beliefs down others throats.
For my own part, I refuse to treat nonsense with kid-gloves. If religion comes up in the conversation then it is open for discourse. If people want to boo-hoo because I cast doubt on the existence of the tooth fairy, santa, allah, elohim, etc. then let them cry. No offense is intended, if some is perceived then where is the offense coming from?
I admire your tolerance (don't understand it, but admire it none-the-less). I have told my family that I will not attend a baptism. It is brainwashing pure and simple. Social manipulation of a child who has no alternatives, and is pressured into believing it is a "free" choice is just too much damned dishonesty for my palate. Further, I know your ex-BIL. That HE is "worthy" and you are not is the most absurd thing ever. That, of itself, is enough to show that nothing supernatural, wise, ethereal, or just is behind the curtain.
Finally, I agree that the term "athiest" is vaccuuous. What is the term for people who don't believe in Santa... ASantaists? I think it better to couch it in terms of postive belief. Rationalist... Realist... Humanist... Naturalist... all sound better to me. As you state lineal pedagogy has a lot to offer when considering the morals, taste, and compassion which informs our actions. And it ought to be enough.
HH =)
Maybe pick a fight wasn't the best choice of words. Possibly completely discount religious thought would have been better. Still, his recent book title, The God DELUSION, certainly has let's-get-in-a-fight mentality.
But back to how Dawkin's totally discounts anything he sees as unscientific--his total rant against postmodernism. Of course I know this example will not convince your behaviorist soul. While I find many of Dawkin's ideas useful and insightful and I'm glad his voice is out there, I would argue he struggles to embrace ambiguity and those institutions/theories developed to deal with such ambiguity, paradox etc. Science can't answer or explore all questions; as I've argued before with you, experience must needs be wrought through imperfect, symbolic, constructed, biased LANGUAGE.
Religion and ritual does do something for people and I'm unwilling to completely discount it. Even though I do not "believe" in a literal sense in anything religious or Mormon, I like to sing certain hymns with my mormon neighbors. Your portrait of a baptism is reductionistic at best. Not that I don't worry about social manipulation. Clearly it's social manipulation but it's BOTH/AND (here's my reference yet again to the postmodern theorists Deleuze and Guitarri): both manipulation and potentially liberating; both sacred and profane; both hoaky and divine. Neither you nor Dawkins seems willing to engage the paradox and complexity of human behavior caught up in an imperfect system of symbols and, you guessed it, language.
My own LDS mission experience serves as an example. My decision to go was clearly caught up in the Mormon social pressures and hopes to marry my Mormon girlfriend. But it was ALSO an expression of my independence from my parents who were/are not religious and my desire for adventure. Was I brainwashed? Sure, but I also had meaningful relationships with real people--I learned about who I was and wasn't. I became both a better and worse person.
Still, as I've written here before, it does bother me that religion often gets a pass on reason and that any critique or questioning of religion sounds like screaming. This seems to happen to me too, so as I said in my original post, I think we should be lenient in our judgment of these voices in the same way I would for other minority voices.
I applaud your efforts to define the "positive side of your beliefs" and to resist being pigeon-holed by the opposition. I feel the same way about the word anarchism, which is why I've started calling myself a communitarian instead. When people hear the word anarchist, just as when they hear the word atheist, they think of what someone is against and not what he/she values. Granted, some atheists, like some anarchists, feed this misunderstanding, but that doesn't excuse it.
I also agree that there is a certain sub-group of atheists--and I do think Dawkins belongs to this group--who are reactionary and snobbish in how they deal with people who don't subscribe to their views, in how they deal with not only religious people but other scientists, postmodernists, artists, and so on, as well.
On the other hand, I have to tell you that I'm absolutely sick to death of the whole liberal fetish with tolerance. It's an absolutely meaningless word. When someone says that we need to be more tolerant of others, what they mean is that the remedy for our problems is to do absolutely nothing. By saying that intolerance--and not racism, misogyny, economic inequality, institutionalized violence, or industrial waste--is the problem, you essentially say that emancipation and political resistance are not part of the solution. This is what Walter Benjamin described as the "culturization of politics", which renders differences conditioned by inequality and oppression into cultural differences--into different ways of life that can't be overcome; they just have to be tolerated. In Benjamin's words: "The cultivation of tolerance as a political end implicitly constitutes a rejection of politics as a domain in which conflict can be productively articulated and addressed, a domain in which citizens can be transformed by their participation."
And the doctrine of intolerance isn't just typical liberal bullshit--it isn't just a declaration of impotence--it also, as Slavoj Zizek has suggested, actively supports the status quo and endorses a strong western bias. No one really believes in tolerance as a remedy, so defending it only results in absurdities such as "let the believers believe in peace". No one really believes that. No one thinks it's okay to believe in pedophilia or genocide or Nazism or labotomies. What people really mean when they advocate tolerance is that they don't want to take responsibility for their thoughts and opinions; they don't want to take political action. So when someone says "let the believers believe in peace", what they mean is that those "believers" are victims of their culture--and culture can't be changed. What they mean is that misogyny, racism, hierarchy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Polygamy and its offshoots of rape and child molestation, lying, money-laundering, and so on are okay, because that's part of the believers' culture--and culture, except by gradual "evolution", can't be changed. So by transforming politics into culture you eliminate politics altogether. Pacifism becomes the norm, and no one is ever expected to do anything to affect change--other than read books and meditate, I mean. Your ivory tower is secured. And that's the whole point: if only culture exists, then those who can choose their culture--the elites--can elevate themselves above all the swine whose cultures choose them. By praising tolerance, that is, you praise the only people capable of practicing tolerance--Western elite individualists--individualists who shape their culture instead of vice versa.
And aside from making Westerners feel superior, tolerance doesn't really mean much. Fact is, people sometimes ARE wrong and need to be told so. Everyone understands this at some level.
You wrote:
To simply say religious people are wrong is simple-minded--clearly a creative and artistic imagination often-times flourishes in a religious environment.
Saying that it's simple minded to say religious people are wrong strikes me as ... well, simple-minded. I can't believe that's what you really meant to say. Do you mean it's simple minded to say that religious people are factually wrong when they claim that Native Americans are descendants of Jews? Or do you mean that it's simple minded to say that religious people are morally wrong to engage in misogynist and racist lifestyles? Is it simple-minded to say that a doctrine describing the world as "your dominion" is a bit ego-maniacal?
And what do creative and artistic imaginations within religious communities have to do with anything? Herman Hesse had a creative and artistic imagination. Does that mean the German Fascist environment he grew up in was "right"? Ezra Pound was pretty creative and artistic--and a supporter of Hitler. Does that mean Hitler was "right"? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.
What you might be saying is that it isn't okay to condemn all religious people as ethically "wrong" just because the doctrine is wrong (both ethically and factually). If so, then why not say that out right? Why not say "FUCK tolerance. Your religion is WRONG (both factually and ethically). More than that, it's EVIL! Still, I think you're an alright person. You've got a lot of qualities I admire, qualities I wish I had in more abundance. I can learn a lot from you--about topics other than religion, anyway. And you're a smart, creative and artistic person--a complex person who is worth getting to know. But none of that changes the fact that your religion is WRONG."
Obviously, you touched a nerve with this post. I hope I didn't go too far. I once would have nodded my head vigorously in approval of what you've written here. I think the doctrine of tolerance is especially ubiquitous in the academic circles that both you and I run in, which is why I'm now so tired of hearing about it. I'm not really criticizing you as much as I'm criticizing the ingenuousness of academic culture. I certainly don't mean to imply that you're ingenuous--but--and I say this much without apology--I do think, in this matter, that you're wrong.
;)
PS: You wrote:
Neither you nor Dawkins seems willing to engage the paradox and complexity of human behavior caught up in an imperfect system of symbols and, you guessed it, language.
I agree.
And this is a great way to back your point up:
My own LDS mission experience serves as an example. My decision to go was clearly caught up in the Mormon social pressures and hopes to marry my Mormon girlfriend. But it was ALSO an expression of my independence from my parents who were/are not religious and my desire for adventure. Was I brainwashed? Sure, but I also had meaningful relationships with real people--I learned about who I was and wasn't. I became both a better and worse person.
Well said.
This is a conversation I've had in many iterations with a variety of people. I don't think that unthinking tolerance is beneficial to anyone, but perhaps there is some middle ground between the sort of attacks represented by Dawkins (and I do think that he is fighting; he's awfully dismissive) and meaningless tolerance. What about talking--openly and sincerely--with people we disagree with. Certainly people with religious belief can be wrong, violent, manipulative and so on. But certainly so have atheists. This is what bothers me about the fight, discussion, whatever over religion vs. atheism. We're all human and all at some point fuck-ups. We are all on this planet not really knowing what the hell we are doing and we all have our own ways of dealing with that. For some people, that's fierce rationalism. For others, that's religion.
And, on a personal note, I left Mormonism and I have plenty of critiques about it but I can't ignore that my religious upbringing benefitted me in many ways. We all, I believe, have something to learn from each other. Perhaps discussion, rather than tolerance, is the way to go.
I think for me, the thing is that attacks just solidify people in their respective camps. If the goal is tolerance and mutual understanding--and there are of course people in both "camps" for whom that isn't the goal--then fighting words are not useful. I agree with Lis--whatever my current relationship with the religion of my upbringing, there are still so many things about it that are meaningful to me, including the fact that it is the closely held faith of my children and parents. To dismiss it utterly for me would be an unbearable wound, which is, I'm sure, why I respond as I do to those who dismiss it utterly in my hearing/reading (not speaking of anyone in this thread, speaking more generally).
Shane:
I think you are focusing on the passive element of "let others believe in peace" rather than the active element. While certainly it, and liberal tolerance, might be used to avoid needed conflict, it can also be a daring expression of our human frailty--our dependence on others, our utter inability to fully understand anything. As unhip says above, "we are all fucks ups" and each us, I believe, does our best to try to be a little less fucked up.
I do believe you are right that there are problems with the academic celebration and *belief* in tolerance and diversity as totalizing values. What that exactly that says about how we should respond and act in certain debate, I'm less certain of.
I want to retract a couple things in my first comment. I was writing late at night when I was tired and, I think now as I read what I wrote, a bit grumpy.
The sentence "No one really believes in tolerance as a remedy, so defending it only results in absurdities such as 'let the believers believe in peace'"
now strikes me as needlessly confrontational. I do believe the phrase "let the believers believe in peace' is an empty phrase, but, the way I expressed myself makes me seem dismissive. I wanted to make a point about the sloppy way that modern culture encourages verbal expression (which serves to thwart action and social change)--not to point out your own sloppiness. I'm sure I've said something similar to that phrase myself--if not the exact phrase, knowing its meaningless, but having a certain social purpose in mind just the same. I'm glad no one jumped down my throat when I did. In other words, it's the phrase I hate, not necessarily the sentiment that you and SE meant by it.
Also, the question: "And what do creative and artistic imaginations within religious communities have to do with anything?" is obviously rhetorical and doesn't accomplish much. I think I know what you meant to say, as I mentioned later in my comment, so there really wasn't any reason to harp on the wording.
So I'll slap my wrists three times and let the rest of my statement stand--as discussion rather than debate.
You wrote:
As unhip says above, "we are all fucks ups" and each us, I believe, does our best to try to be a little less fucked up.
Well, no, I wouldn't say each and every one of us tries to do that--but yes, we are all fuck-ups. I don't disagree with that at all. That, though, doesn't equate with moral relativism and "do nothing" but tolerate, either. That's all I was saying. As I said over at HH's place, oppression--and religious beliefs and their manifest practices most certainly are oppressive--should never be tolerated (in ourselves or from others), and I don't believe there is anything "daring" about doing so. Nor do I think that discussion is a particularly effective way of ending oppression. It's certainly better than tolerance, which ensures that the oppression will continue (which shouldn't be anyone's goal, to respond to Lisa b), but, as HH points out, I'm not sure you can have a discussion with a dogmatist, at least not about the issue the person is dogmatic about. You can, however, love and respect that person, as I previously mentioned. And I think that might be what SE was getting at by saying that we should "let the believers believe in peace". I have two awesome brothers and a grandma (and others) whom I love and admire--who can teach me all kinds of things about being a better human being--but I don't want them to believe in peace. I don't want them to believe at all, but, if they are going to believe, I want them to do it with as much angst as possible. The real issue, I think, is how to be respectful to the person without being respectful to the oppressive belief. Maybe that's what Lis is getting at when she wrote: "We all, I believe, have something to learn from each other."
Post a Comment