Giblets is My Co-Pilot
As is so often the case, Fafblog says it best:
Things I will not do the next time I live through 2004
...open my eyes at any time; the scary part does not end
Here's hoping for a better and brighter 2005.
Posted at 11:35 AM | link | follow-ups | no comments
Belated Musical Griping
With the religous tolerance comment thread closing in on 50 posts (or 0.25 Making Lights), I probably ought to try to capitalize on that and post on some other Big Issue or another. But that kind of thread is really kind of exhausting, so I'm going to gripe about Christmas music instead.
I know, I know, the time to do this was a week or two ago, as was done at the Whatever (draft New Year's resolution: stop linking to Scalzi five times a week) and Making Light. But between the digital cable music channels, Web radio, and iTunes, I managed to more or less completely avoid hearing Christmas music this year, outside of the occasional shopping trip. It wasn't until we got to my parents' that I was forced to listen to Christmas music for any length of time.
The fact that I just don't like Christmas music is a recurring source of holiday family conflict, as my sister gets very annoyed if I try to play anything else, or even watch tv rather than listen to Christmas CD's. (I was good this year, thanks in large part to Old Man's War, which was diverting enough that I didn't pay attention to what was on, but I still got snarked at a couple of times for wanting to watch football.) Coming back to find the holiday music post at Making Light, and the usual collection of fascinating comments, got me thinking about why it is that I don't like the stuff, and I thought I'd write down some of my thoughts.
There really isn't a single reason for it-- more a collection of reasons that each knock out a large chunk of the Christmas classics. For one thing, I just don't get into classical music, which knocks out a bunch of stuff right away, but we'll restrict this to songs with, you know, words.
Right at the start, I'd like to say that I really like the distinction Tris McCall makes (via Bill Higgins) between Christmas carols and Christmas music:
Christmas carols are very old, and are by and large about Jesus. Christmas music is mostly from the latter half of the Twentieth Century, and generally replaces Jesus with Santa Claus.
I think this is dead on, and while he goes on to really badly overanalyze the whole Santa/Jesus thing, the basic distinction is a very useful one.
Taking the two groups separately, the problem with the Santa-positive Christmas music is that most of it is either insipid, or crass, or both. Add in the fact that the whole Sinatra/ Crosby/ Cole crooner thing doesn't do much for me, and, well, there's not much here for me to like. There are some songs whose craftsmanship I can admire, and some really disgustingly effective earworms, but by and large, I just don't care for this whole class of stuff.
Which brings us to the Christmas carols. These start in a slightly uneasy position, given that they tend to be explicitly religious, and I'm, well, not. But then Christmas really is a religious holiday, so I'm actually more or less OK with that. To be honest, I'd prefer more angels singing to shepherds and fewer chestnuts roasting on sleigh rides.
The problem with the carols isn't really with the songs themselves, so much as the way they're presented. My parents have a big collection of Christmas CD's and tapes, mostly put together by Hallmark, and they all do the same thing: they try to turn "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" into Bach. Big orchestras, complicated arrangements, huge choirs with lots of different parts running simultaneously. They take simple songs, and try to render them into spectacle.
And for me, that really misses the whole point. With the exception of "O Holy Night," the main virtue of Christmas carols is that they're eminently singable. They've survived through the years (or just became popular in the first place) not because they're grand and timeless explorations of the best that orchestral music has to offer, but because they're catchy, memorable, and can be sung effectively by large groups of people who don't necessarily have any musical ability, but who have some enthusiasm for the subject.
Tarting these songs up with big choirs and complicated arrangements drains all the life out of them. It takes a moving participatory number, and attempts to turn it into Art, to be admired from a distance, preferably behind glass. It's like doing symphonic arrangements of early Rolling Stones songs-- sure, you can do it, but why would you want to?
Yeah, fine, "Joy to the World" is impressive when sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir backed up by the London Philharmonic. But it's moving when belted out by tone-deaf farmers as the recessional at Midnight Mass. They don't have the technical ability of professionals, but it means enough to them to be standing there singing at one in the morning, and that's worth a lot. You lose that when you add the strings and the nineteen different vocal parts.
And that's the problem with most recorded Christmas carols: they take simple songs, and make them needlessly complicated. They turn what ought to be a participatory experience into something where it seems almost rude to sing along, if you can even manage it.
And I don't even want to talk about what results when they give the same treatment to Christmas music. The horror... the horror...
(Stepping out of the Christmas subgenre, I have similar feelings about a lot of Celtic and pseudo-Celtic music. I really enjoy the Pogues, but most of the other recordings I've heard of that sort of music have had a sort a cold, preservationist quality to them. "Whiskey in the Jar" isn't Beethoven's Ninth, to be played flawlessly note for note (and it's not a goddamn dirge, Jerry Garcia). It's, well, "Whiskey in the Jar," and it should have some life to it. If the singer gets drunk and is fuzzy on the words, well, I've heard 'em before, so it's all good as long as it's lively.
(I've realized that it's not so much that I like traditional Irish songs, as that I like the Pogues singing traditional Irish songs. I like the anarchic just-this-side of complete collapse feeling, and I love the "we've got every instrument we could find, and if you'll just move into the kitchen, Shane will bang on the sink" arrangements. Recommendations of more bands in that vein would be welcome.)
Posted at 8:48 AM | link | follow-ups | 10 comments
Schedule Conflict? What Schedule Conflict?
Monday
10:50-11:55 - Physics 17 Lecture (Section 02)
12:05-1:10 - Physics 17 Lecture (Section 03)
2:30-3:30 - Office Hours
Tuesday
9:00-10:40 - Physics 17 Lab (Section 02)
10:50-12:30 - Physics 17 Lab (Section 03)
2:30-3:30 - Office Hours
Wednesday
10:50-11:55 - Physics 17 Lecture (Section 02)
12:05-1:10 - Physics 17 Lecture (Section 03)
2:30-3:30 - Office Hours
Thursday
9:00-5:00 Research/ Grading/ Quiet Gibbering
Friday
10:50-11:55 - Physics 17 Lecture (Section 02)
12:05-1:10 - Physics 17 Lecture (Section 03)
2:30-3:30 - Office Hours
4:30 - 6:30 Happy Hour
Posted at 11:42 AM | link | follow-ups | 4 comments
Rules of the Game (Translated from Dog)
Things You Need to Play the White Stuff Game:
1) White stuff. A couple of inches will do. Without white stuff, it's just "Fetch." Fetch is dull.
2) A human. It's very difficult to play without a human. They have thumbs, and can pick stuff up.
3) One of these. It's called a "Hurl-a-Squirrel," or maybe a "Heave-a-Beaver," or even a "Chuck-a-Duck." Best. Toy. Ever.
How to Play the White Stuff Game:
1) The human will throw the squirrel. Go get it.
2) Shake it vigorously, to make sure it's dead.
3) Chew on it a bit. It's fun.
4) Shake it vigorously. Squirrels are tricksy.
6) Dig it back up. Repeat steps 5 and 6 to make a fun trench across the back yard.
7) Shake it vigorously. You can never have enough shaking.
8) Take it back to the human, and wait for him to throw it again.
It's hours of fun!
Posted at 8:55 PM | link | follow-ups | 4 comments
When in Doubt, Send Money
I wish there was something insightful I could say about the unfolding earthquake/tsunami tragedy in Asia, but really, there's nothing to say.
In lieu of commentary, then, I'll just link to a couple of resources:
- There are a number of places you can send money in this Making Light post and comments.
- If you're looking for a way to parlay those holiday-season Amazon gift certificates into disaster relief contributions, while still ending up with a Return of the King DVD set, John Holbo's your man.
Posted at 2:09 PM | link | follow-ups | 1 comment
NIST Standard Reference Kate
We currently have three dogs in the immediate family, and the contrast between them is pretty amusing. Kate's parent's have a 20-lb Boston Terrier named Truman, our Emmy is about 50 lbs, and my parents' yellow Labrador RD is a big, friendly, 87-lb lunkhead. It's always strange to go from one to another, because the size shift is so striking.
Of course, as any good scientist will tell you, if you're going to compare things in different places (and bringing all three dogs together would be a total disaster), you need to have something to compare them to. Thus, we present the Chateau Steelypips Family Dog Comparison (larger version available here), with Kate serving as our constant-size reference. (Another amusing comparison is between RD now, and when they got him...)
In other news: Digital cameras still entertaining. JPEG at 11.
Posted at 9:25 AM | link | follow-ups | 2 comments
A Study in Contrasts
Here's a bit of Christmas cheer from PZ Myers, on vacation in The City:
I’m definitely an atheist. Here it is, Christmas Day, and we walked by the Cathedral of St. Patrick with its bells pounding and mobs of people milling inside, and I looked at that building and discovered what ‘visceral revulsion’ felt like. It’s hideous. I saw that looming overly ornate lump of gray and thought there really ought to be a burning eye suspended at the top. My wife insisted we go inside, so we went through the annoying security checkpoint and stood at the back while a fat priest in fancy robes sermonized at the front of the place. I felt nothing but contempt, and we fought our way through the crowds to get out. So much money, so much effort wasted on ostentatious display for wicked superstition…I felt like I’d found the rotting heart of evil in New York City.
Here, a week and a half earlier, is John Scalzi (whose novel Old Man's War everybody should go buy right away) on talking to his daughter about Christmas (a very long excerpt, but there's nothing there I want to cut):
And what will I teach her about Christmas as she gets older? Everything I think is important, and also everything she wants to know (which may not always be the same things). I'll read to her the Biblical stories of the birth of Jesus; I'll also explain to her one of the reasons we celebrate Christmas when we do was a matter of the Church co-opting Solstice observances to accommodate previously pagan converts. We'll sing Christmas carols; I'll explain the history of the Christmas tree and Santa Claus. I'll answer the questions she asks, and help her find the answers for herself. I think over time she'll get a good understanding of Christmas as a religious holiday and as a secular gift-exchange extravaganza. And in the end, if all goes as planned, she'll make her own decisions about the importance of each of these aspects to her. But it's critically important she understand that at the root of it all is the birth of a child many consider divine. As they say, it's the reason of the season.
As I'm not personally religious, some of you may ask why I would make the effort to teach Athena the religious aspects of the holiday. The reasons are several. The first is that even if one doubts the Christhood of Jesus, one may still admire him as a man, a thinker, and an icon of peace. You don't have to be a Christian to want your child to know that Jesus is at the heart of Christmas. The second is that it's my job as a parent to teach my child these things; I don't want my child picking up theology on the proverbial street corner because we don't teach her about it at home. That seems a fine way for her to pick up some dubious knowledge from dubious people who might eventually get her in trouble. Better that we introduce her to that sort of thing. Third, it's not a bad thing to reinforce the idea that when Athena does have questions about any subject, she can come to us, and we're going to tell her as much of the truth of things as we can.
Also, unlike a fair number of the non-religious, I'm not antagonistic toward religion per se, or Christianity specifically. As I've said elsewhere, I think Christianity is a fine religion, and I wish more Christians practiced it. And, not entirely separately, of course one reads a story like this, in which Christians were so incensed that a manger scene was taken out of a school play that they voted down much-needed funds for their school district, or that they've mandated teaching "intelligent design" in high school biology classes, and one wonders why so many Christians seem to believe that Jesus wants their children to be dumb as lard, as if there's some sort of natural opposition between accepting Christ as one's savior and increasing one's knowledge of the world to the limits of one's God-given abilities. But that's not about Christianity, or religion in general; that's about some people's thick-headed interpretation of it and the religious impulse. I don't blame Jesus for the stupidity of some of his followers; we don't get to choose our fans.
I am not religious, but I would not be disappointed if my daughter decided to become so, over the fullness of time and through a depth of knowledge, since it is not a failure of the either the human intellect or spirit to seek the divine. Where I would have failed her is if her religious impulse were to take on a close-minded, fearful and intolerant cast. I would have equally failed her if she were non-religious but also close-minded, fearful and intolerant of those who had such an impulse.
In the end, I want to teach my daughter about Jesus so she can understand him, understand those who see him as the son of God, and understand how he fits into her own view of the world. Making sure she understands why Christmas exists is a good starting point. It's early in her understanding of all of this, of course. But better early than too late.
Ask yourself which of these two you'd rather be when you grow up. And the important phrase here is "grow up."
(And if you think that the difference between them is just that Scalzi has a higher tolerance for idiots, well, you haven't been reading the Whatever. And you might also find it instructive to look at the Christmas Eve post on Making Light, because Teresa has a lower tolerance for idiots than either of them.)
Posted at 9:21 AM | link | follow-ups | [ hide comments ]
"I really can't approve of John Scalzi's Laodicean attitude."
Two points to make here.
1. I couldn't possibly care less if you approve or disapprove of anything I do.
2. Even if I did care, I'd be hestitant to weigh your approval with any concern, since you're clearly reading poorly in regard toward my opinion of religion. There's nothing Laodicean about it: I don't believe, period, end of sentence. I can't imagine how one gets the impression that I am wishy-washy about it, even if only reading the excerpt Chad's posted here, in which I say a Simonesque three times that I am *not* religious. Please go back and read it again; move your lips if that helps with your comprehension.
Perhaps what bothers you is that I am not actively *antagonistic* toward religion as a general concept, or that it fails to throw up a great wall of revulsion in me. If that's indeed the case: Whatever. A great number of non-religious people rather stupidly believe that religion in itself is a great enemy, just as a great number of religious people equally stupidly see science and rationality as enemies. Personally speaking, I see no reason to act as stupidly as either of these groups.
Make no mistake: I am resolutely opposed to people who wish to spread ignorance in the guise of religion. I am opposed to people whose own irrational hatred of religion, for whatever reason, causes them to betray the very principles of tolerance many of them espouse.
This isn't a wishy-washy or Laodicean position; simply put, ignorance, prejudice and intolerance bother me regardless of who performs it. If this doesn't fit conveniently into your worldview, that's your problem.
Two points to make here.
1. I couldn't possibly care less if you approve or disapprove of anything I do.
2. Even if I did care, I'd be hestitant to weigh your approval with any concern, since you're clearly reading poorly in regard toward my opinion of religion. There's nothing Laodicean about it: I don't believe, period, end of sentence. I can't imagine how one gets the impression that I am wishy-washy about it, even if only reading the excerpt Chad's posted here, in which I say a Simonesque three times that I am *not* religious. Please go back and read it again; move your lips if that helps with your comprehension.
Perhaps what bothers you is that I am not actively *antagonistic* toward religion as a general concept, or that it fails to throw up a great wall of revulsion in me. If that's indeed the case: Whatever. A great number of non-religious people rather stupidly believe that religion in itself is a great enemy, just as a great number of religious people equally stupidly see science and rationality as enemies. Personally speaking, I see no reason to act as stupidly as either of these groups.
Make no mistake: I am resolutely opposed to people who wish to spread ignorance in the guise of religion. I am opposed to people whose own irrational hatred of religion, for whatever reason, causes them to betray the very principles of tolerance many of them espouse.
This isn't a wishy-washy or Laodicean position; simply put, ignorance, prejudice and intolerance bother me regardless of who performs it. If this doesn't fit conveniently into your worldview, that's your problem.
John Scalzi, 12.27.2004, 5:25pm [link]
I am unsure if I should respond. Chad: should you decide to delete this comment, I will understand.
John:
1. "I couldn't possibly care less if you approve or disapprove of anything I do." Nor should you. But Chad had held up the attitude demonstrated by your post as preferable to Paul Myers's. I objected.
2. I did actually read the excerpt from your post, moving my lips to make sure I heard the tone right. To deny being religious is not equivalent to asserting disbelief in a particular religion. I thought the pronoun pattern in the second paragraph of the excerpt revealing: the "I" of the first sentence, the "one" of the third and the "you" of the fourth all seemed to refer to the same person, who merely doubted the Christhood of Jesus, rather than actively disbelieved in it. But you have now clarified your position.
The members of the Church of Laodicea believed in Christ. They just didn't insist on it with their neighbours. They preferred doing business with them and boasted of their riches. It seemed to me that the position exemplified in the excerpt that Chad posted, and reinforced in your response, was the mirror image of that of the Laodiceans. You personally don't believe--aren't religious; but it's OK if other people do or are, even other people very close to you. You may, if you like, reject the adjective. It still seems to me to apply.
You are, however, right about the source of our disagreement, and the reason, therefore, in the competition Chad set up, I prefer Paul Myers. You view religion--"the divine", "the religious impulse"--as something which can be abstracted from the behaviour of its adherents and separately judged: "Christianity is a fine religion, and I wish more Christians practiced it." I do not.
John:
1. "I couldn't possibly care less if you approve or disapprove of anything I do." Nor should you. But Chad had held up the attitude demonstrated by your post as preferable to Paul Myers's. I objected.
2. I did actually read the excerpt from your post, moving my lips to make sure I heard the tone right. To deny being religious is not equivalent to asserting disbelief in a particular religion. I thought the pronoun pattern in the second paragraph of the excerpt revealing: the "I" of the first sentence, the "one" of the third and the "you" of the fourth all seemed to refer to the same person, who merely doubted the Christhood of Jesus, rather than actively disbelieved in it. But you have now clarified your position.
The members of the Church of Laodicea believed in Christ. They just didn't insist on it with their neighbours. They preferred doing business with them and boasted of their riches. It seemed to me that the position exemplified in the excerpt that Chad posted, and reinforced in your response, was the mirror image of that of the Laodiceans. You personally don't believe--aren't religious; but it's OK if other people do or are, even other people very close to you. You may, if you like, reject the adjective. It still seems to me to apply.
You are, however, right about the source of our disagreement, and the reason, therefore, in the competition Chad set up, I prefer Paul Myers. You view religion--"the divine", "the religious impulse"--as something which can be abstracted from the behaviour of its adherents and separately judged: "Christianity is a fine religion, and I wish more Christians practiced it." I do not.
"You view religion--'the divine', 'the religious impulse'--as something which can be abstracted from the behaviour of its adherents and separately judged: 'Christianity is a fine religion, and I wish more Christians practiced it.' I do not."
And by not doing so, you would implictly equate the actions and attributes of Quakers with the actions and attributes of the people who attend Rev. Fred Phelps' church and who picket funerals of gay men with "God Hates Fags" signs; you would implicitly equate a sufi mystic with a suicide bomber expecting to get 72 virgins in paradise after he's blown up a Haifa cafe. All are equivalent because by your assessment the actions cannot be separated from their religions. But make no mistake, it is not Christ's dictum to love others as yourself that causes Phelps to glory in the death of a gay man; it is not the Islamic ideal of submission before Allah that gets a 16-year-old madrass graduate to slip on the C4 and go for a stroll.
Denying the separation of the ideals of a religion and the practice (or lack thereof) in its self-proclaimed adherents is to deny the possibility of individuality in the adherents of the religion, or the possibility that the religion in itself could be made of finer ideals than the least of its adherents. It would be rather like denying the separation of the Constitutional ideals of the United States and the practice of it by the its least knowledgeable and most bigoted citizens(I could additionally say "The US Constitution is a fine system of law, and I wish more Americans lived by it," and it would be an equally fervent wish).
As it happens, I believe that Quakers better represent the ideals of Christianity than Fred Phelps' flock; I believe the Sufi mystic is closer to the heart of Islam than the suicide bomber. I may or may not be wrong about this, but either way, lumping all of them into one immutable category for which one feels little but revulsion seems to be a profoundly ignorant position.
Re: Lacodicean -- nice attempt at backtracking, but the word's contemporary usage (to the extent it is used at all) strongly implies a lukewarm sort of faith, the sort that Jesus is presumed to have commented upon in Matthew 7:21 ("Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."). It's used when someone doesn't quite meet up to one's own doctrinal standards.
Using it as you do in a "mirror" equivalence for non-belief seems to imply that tolerance for religion or for the religious impulse is suspect, and that I'm not living up to some pre-established doctrinal standard for non-believers. If that is indeed the case, I'm happy to disappoint you.
And by not doing so, you would implictly equate the actions and attributes of Quakers with the actions and attributes of the people who attend Rev. Fred Phelps' church and who picket funerals of gay men with "God Hates Fags" signs; you would implicitly equate a sufi mystic with a suicide bomber expecting to get 72 virgins in paradise after he's blown up a Haifa cafe. All are equivalent because by your assessment the actions cannot be separated from their religions. But make no mistake, it is not Christ's dictum to love others as yourself that causes Phelps to glory in the death of a gay man; it is not the Islamic ideal of submission before Allah that gets a 16-year-old madrass graduate to slip on the C4 and go for a stroll.
Denying the separation of the ideals of a religion and the practice (or lack thereof) in its self-proclaimed adherents is to deny the possibility of individuality in the adherents of the religion, or the possibility that the religion in itself could be made of finer ideals than the least of its adherents. It would be rather like denying the separation of the Constitutional ideals of the United States and the practice of it by the its least knowledgeable and most bigoted citizens(I could additionally say "The US Constitution is a fine system of law, and I wish more Americans lived by it," and it would be an equally fervent wish).
As it happens, I believe that Quakers better represent the ideals of Christianity than Fred Phelps' flock; I believe the Sufi mystic is closer to the heart of Islam than the suicide bomber. I may or may not be wrong about this, but either way, lumping all of them into one immutable category for which one feels little but revulsion seems to be a profoundly ignorant position.
Re: Lacodicean -- nice attempt at backtracking, but the word's contemporary usage (to the extent it is used at all) strongly implies a lukewarm sort of faith, the sort that Jesus is presumed to have commented upon in Matthew 7:21 ("Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."). It's used when someone doesn't quite meet up to one's own doctrinal standards.
Using it as you do in a "mirror" equivalence for non-belief seems to imply that tolerance for religion or for the religious impulse is suspect, and that I'm not living up to some pre-established doctrinal standard for non-believers. If that is indeed the case, I'm happy to disappoint you.
John Scalzi, 12.27.2004, 11:24pm [link]
1. "I couldn't possibly care less if you approve or disapprove of anything I do." Nor should you. But Chad had held up the attitude demonstrated by your post as preferable to Paul Myers's. I objected.
I did, and I do prefer John's attitude to Paul's. It's as much a matter of politeness as anything else-- even though I find many Christian beliefs to be foolish, and many of the policies that spring from those beliefs to be objectionable, that doesn't mean it's not rude to ridicule a symbol of Christian beliefs as "the rotting heart of evil in New York."
It's also counter-productive. The next time somebody at Pharyngula starts maoning about how unjust it is that atheists don't get any respect, they need to take another look at the post I quote above, because the answer is right there.
To be worthy of respect, you need to treat others with respect. John's post does that, and as a result is by far the more admirable of the two.
(To forestall an obvious objection, I do realize that the Barad-Dur comparison is intended as humorous exaggeration. The problem is, it's not all that big an exaggeration.)
I did, and I do prefer John's attitude to Paul's. It's as much a matter of politeness as anything else-- even though I find many Christian beliefs to be foolish, and many of the policies that spring from those beliefs to be objectionable, that doesn't mean it's not rude to ridicule a symbol of Christian beliefs as "the rotting heart of evil in New York."
It's also counter-productive. The next time somebody at Pharyngula starts maoning about how unjust it is that atheists don't get any respect, they need to take another look at the post I quote above, because the answer is right there.
To be worthy of respect, you need to treat others with respect. John's post does that, and as a result is by far the more admirable of the two.
(To forestall an obvious objection, I do realize that the Barad-Dur comparison is intended as humorous exaggeration. The problem is, it's not all that big an exaggeration.)
Chad Orzel, 12.28.2004, 12:15pm [link]
I don't find either response to Christianity &/or religion entirely satisfying, though it is clear from his earlier remarks that Mr. Scalzi "couldn't possibly care less" about what I think. Meyers' account has all the problems associated with a doctrinal atheism: in essence, the requirement of a positive belief in the non-existence of God(s). (Aside: There is a group of science-bloggers, mostly biologists, who seem to have been driven into a bit of a frenzy by the attacks of the Christian right on Darwin & evolution. I sympathize with them--it can't be easy to have the core principles of one's discipline constantly discounted by those who clearly & often wilfully fail to understand them.) At the same time, Scalzi's bland inclusiveness doesn't convince. His attitude is Lacodicean, but toward the secular rather than the religious. And since he is by his own account a non-believer, this strikes me as strange & self-contradictory. As for his inclusiveness, I wonder if it extends to other religious traditions. Will he also tell his child the stories having to do with Buddhism & Hinduism & Islam? We live in an increasingly overlapping cultural world & his daughter is likely to grow up with friends whose families practice these & other faiths. How inclusive can one be before everything becomes a gray porridge of attitudes rather than belief? Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism. Some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians & many evangelical Christians would reject the idea that a Quaker could be a Christian. Seems to me that if you want to defend Christianity, you have to defend its mainstream. Same goes for Islam. If you want to defend Islam, citing Sufi mysticism is not fully convincing.
Joseph Duemer, 12.28.2004, 5:18pm [link]
Joseph Duemer writes:
"Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism."
(rolls eyes)
First, I'm not defending Christianity. I'm pointing out that not separating out the ideals of the religion from the practice of that religion by individuals is simply not very smart. I can't help you if you cannot parse the distinction.
Second, entertain the idea, if you will, that the purpose of providing two extreme examples is to show the breadth of people who identify themselves as Christians -- and that as a matter of presentation of their faith to the world, the Quakers and the "God Hates Fags" folks are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum, and that suggesting equivalence between them is stupid.
One *could* equally well say that saying how a Catholic and a Lutheran show their faith are equivalent is equally stupid, since as a matter of doctrine there are substantial differences (my personal favorite being the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation). But speaking *rhetorically* I like the Quaker - Fred Phelps example better; it's more dramatic and grabs the reader. Being someone who makes a living being a writer, I try to go for the more interesting rhetorical construction when I can. *You* may not like it, but so what.
As for airly suggesting that some Quakers "barely" consider themselves Christians: That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. Either one is in the Grace of Christ or one is not; it's a binary thing (as a matter of doctrine, Quakers do see conversion as a process, but also note there is a discrete and actual moment when one begins a new life in Christ). Perhaps what you mean to say is that the Quakers do not see themselves within the "mainstream" of Christian churches, which may or may not be true. But that is *not* the same as saying one is "barely" a Christian. I commend you to http://www.quakerinfo.com/qi_list.shtml, which features a wealth of information on Quaker doctrine and specific articles about Quakers and their relationship with Christ. Perhaps you will become less ignorant therein.
The suggestion that "some" Christians would not consider Quakers "real" Christians is utterly aside the point, since one's relationship with God is personal, not subject to peer review, and if a Quaker believes he or she has a relationship with God through Christ, that's all that's required. I would agree that perhaps some Christians would arrogate to themselves the role of deciding who is saved and who is not; I would suggest they re-read their Matthew. It's not for them to decide, just as, incidentally, it's not for *you* to decide whether they are Christian "enough."
"Will he also tell his child the stories having to do with Buddhism & Hinduism & Islam? We live in an increasingly overlapping cultural world & his daughter is likely to grow up with friends whose families practice these & other faiths."
So in addition to being an expert on Quakers, you're an expert on where I live? As it happens, I live in town where 99+% of the residents are white (predominantly of German and English stock). The county I live in is 98+% white (before you ask, I checked the Census information for these stats). My daughter may one day run into Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in my town, but they're likely to be just passing through. However, she is very likely to *grow up* with Amish and other variation of Mennonites, as well various mainline protestants and Catholics.
However, as it happens, we have indeed talked about other Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism, as well as Judiasm (all in a very superficial fashion, mind you, as my daughter is six, after all). As I am reasonably knowledgeable about the particulars of these religions and several others, I'll be happy to share all I know and then if she's curious beyond the limits of my knowledge, help her find additional information so that we may both learn together. Why *wouldn't* I teach my child about all these religious traditions? Are you under the impression I want my child to be ignorant?
"Scalzi's bland inclusiveness doesn't convince."
Given what appears to be your general lack of understanding of the things you have chosen to opine about here, I'm not sure I see the utility of going out my way to convince you of anything.
Be that as it may, and as you seem confused about many things, a primer for you. I'm going to use small words here. See if you can keep up.
*Being a non-believer does not mean you have to be intolerant of those who believe.
*Being a non-believer does not mean you have to be ignorant of the beliefs of those around you.
*Being a non-believer doesn't mean you need to keep your children ignorant of the beliefs around you either. Withholding information from your children is a very bad way to help them make responsible decisions.
*Being a non-believer does not mean you can't empathize with the religious impulse in others.
*Being tolerant of belief, knowledgable about beliefs and empathetic toward the desire for belief does not maked one less of a non-believer. It makes one tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic.
*I believe that my tolerance, knowledge and empathy makes my own non-belief stronger, because I know *why* people believe, and *why* I don't.
*I believe that in being tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic, I encourage those who believe to be tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic toward me.
Now, you may choose to call that a Lacodicean attitude, with all the contempt that such a label implies. However, I would suggest doing so says more about your and your beliefs than it does about me and my non-belief.
"Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism."
(rolls eyes)
First, I'm not defending Christianity. I'm pointing out that not separating out the ideals of the religion from the practice of that religion by individuals is simply not very smart. I can't help you if you cannot parse the distinction.
Second, entertain the idea, if you will, that the purpose of providing two extreme examples is to show the breadth of people who identify themselves as Christians -- and that as a matter of presentation of their faith to the world, the Quakers and the "God Hates Fags" folks are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum, and that suggesting equivalence between them is stupid.
One *could* equally well say that saying how a Catholic and a Lutheran show their faith are equivalent is equally stupid, since as a matter of doctrine there are substantial differences (my personal favorite being the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation). But speaking *rhetorically* I like the Quaker - Fred Phelps example better; it's more dramatic and grabs the reader. Being someone who makes a living being a writer, I try to go for the more interesting rhetorical construction when I can. *You* may not like it, but so what.
As for airly suggesting that some Quakers "barely" consider themselves Christians: That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. Either one is in the Grace of Christ or one is not; it's a binary thing (as a matter of doctrine, Quakers do see conversion as a process, but also note there is a discrete and actual moment when one begins a new life in Christ). Perhaps what you mean to say is that the Quakers do not see themselves within the "mainstream" of Christian churches, which may or may not be true. But that is *not* the same as saying one is "barely" a Christian. I commend you to http://www.quakerinfo.com/qi_list.shtml, which features a wealth of information on Quaker doctrine and specific articles about Quakers and their relationship with Christ. Perhaps you will become less ignorant therein.
The suggestion that "some" Christians would not consider Quakers "real" Christians is utterly aside the point, since one's relationship with God is personal, not subject to peer review, and if a Quaker believes he or she has a relationship with God through Christ, that's all that's required. I would agree that perhaps some Christians would arrogate to themselves the role of deciding who is saved and who is not; I would suggest they re-read their Matthew. It's not for them to decide, just as, incidentally, it's not for *you* to decide whether they are Christian "enough."
"Will he also tell his child the stories having to do with Buddhism & Hinduism & Islam? We live in an increasingly overlapping cultural world & his daughter is likely to grow up with friends whose families practice these & other faiths."
So in addition to being an expert on Quakers, you're an expert on where I live? As it happens, I live in town where 99+% of the residents are white (predominantly of German and English stock). The county I live in is 98+% white (before you ask, I checked the Census information for these stats). My daughter may one day run into Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim in my town, but they're likely to be just passing through. However, she is very likely to *grow up* with Amish and other variation of Mennonites, as well various mainline protestants and Catholics.
However, as it happens, we have indeed talked about other Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism, as well as Judiasm (all in a very superficial fashion, mind you, as my daughter is six, after all). As I am reasonably knowledgeable about the particulars of these religions and several others, I'll be happy to share all I know and then if she's curious beyond the limits of my knowledge, help her find additional information so that we may both learn together. Why *wouldn't* I teach my child about all these religious traditions? Are you under the impression I want my child to be ignorant?
"Scalzi's bland inclusiveness doesn't convince."
Given what appears to be your general lack of understanding of the things you have chosen to opine about here, I'm not sure I see the utility of going out my way to convince you of anything.
Be that as it may, and as you seem confused about many things, a primer for you. I'm going to use small words here. See if you can keep up.
*Being a non-believer does not mean you have to be intolerant of those who believe.
*Being a non-believer does not mean you have to be ignorant of the beliefs of those around you.
*Being a non-believer doesn't mean you need to keep your children ignorant of the beliefs around you either. Withholding information from your children is a very bad way to help them make responsible decisions.
*Being a non-believer does not mean you can't empathize with the religious impulse in others.
*Being tolerant of belief, knowledgable about beliefs and empathetic toward the desire for belief does not maked one less of a non-believer. It makes one tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic.
*I believe that my tolerance, knowledge and empathy makes my own non-belief stronger, because I know *why* people believe, and *why* I don't.
*I believe that in being tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic, I encourage those who believe to be tolerant, knowledgeable and empathetic toward me.
Now, you may choose to call that a Lacodicean attitude, with all the contempt that such a label implies. However, I would suggest doing so says more about your and your beliefs than it does about me and my non-belief.
John Scalzi, 12.29.2004, 3:21am [link]
I would just like to note that prior to this thread, I can't recall ever seeing the word "Laodicean" used as an insult, or much of anything else. Shows what I know, as Google turns up lots of colorful stuff.
Based on a quick reading of some of those sites, I don't think I really agree with applying the term to non-believers. Denouncing people for being insufficiently vehement in their disbelief seems to me to implicitly elevate atheism to a faith in its own right, which I think is a horrible idea.
John can obviously speak for himself, but I do want to follow up on one comment of Joseph's:
Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism. Some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians & many evangelical Christians would reject the idea that a Quaker could be a Christian. Seems to me that if you want to defend Christianity, you have to defend its mainstream.
Of course, it's not all that hard to find evangelicals who would reject the idea that a Catholic could be a Christian. If you're going to let the wing nuts define what counts as "real" religion, it's no surprise that you end up with a nutty image of religion.
And the sort of evangelical who would reject Quakers and Catholics is not a representative of "mainstream" Christianity, no matter what the media image may lead you to believe. To the best of my knowledge, Catholics still outnumber evangelicals by a large margin-- if you want to argue with "mainstream" Christianity, you need to talk about Catholics and Episcopalians, not Fred Phelps and his band of loons.
Based on a quick reading of some of those sites, I don't think I really agree with applying the term to non-believers. Denouncing people for being insufficiently vehement in their disbelief seems to me to implicitly elevate atheism to a faith in its own right, which I think is a horrible idea.
John can obviously speak for himself, but I do want to follow up on one comment of Joseph's:
Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism. Some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians & many evangelical Christians would reject the idea that a Quaker could be a Christian. Seems to me that if you want to defend Christianity, you have to defend its mainstream.
Of course, it's not all that hard to find evangelicals who would reject the idea that a Catholic could be a Christian. If you're going to let the wing nuts define what counts as "real" religion, it's no surprise that you end up with a nutty image of religion.
And the sort of evangelical who would reject Quakers and Catholics is not a representative of "mainstream" Christianity, no matter what the media image may lead you to believe. To the best of my knowledge, Catholics still outnumber evangelicals by a large margin-- if you want to argue with "mainstream" Christianity, you need to talk about Catholics and Episcopalians, not Fred Phelps and his band of loons.
Chad Orzel, 12.29.2004, 10:20am [link]
Just as there is a kind of inteolerance (Meyers) that narrows ones field of vision, so there is a kind of tolerance that broadens it to the point of meaninglessness. I've always loved this couplet of the late J.V. Cunningham:
This Humanist whom no beliefs constrained
Grew so broad-minded he was scatterbrained.
As for the Quaker & Sufi business, I'm merely noting that Quakers don't speak for most Christians & Sufis don't speak for most Muslims. Religion cannot be separated from the actions of its adherants -- not in the real world --, so if you are going to be tolerant of religion, honesty demands that you consider the whole of a religion and not merely the "nice bits," as jam says above.
So when Scalzi writes: First, I'm not defending Christianity. I'm pointing out that not separating out the ideals of the religion from the practice of that religion by individuals is simply not very smart. I can't help you if you cannot parse the distinction what we have is a fundamental disagreement, not, I think, a lack of an ability to parse & a consequent lack of smarts.
As an aside, I really do need to remark that for such a tolerant human being, John Scalzi has a very insulting manner of responding to honest disagreement. Roll your eyes all you want, my boy, but beware they might get stuck somewhere up inside your head. God knows, I am ignorant about many things, but there are other discussions of Quakerism that support my view. The Britanica article onf Quakerism, for one. So way my remark really "one of the stupidist things you've heard"? You toss around accusations of stupidity pretty easily. It is an unbecomming intellectual habit.
A note to Chad: You started this discussion by commending Scalzi's tolerance as a virtue. I find him a classic example of a bore. That's a word with one syllable.
This Humanist whom no beliefs constrained
Grew so broad-minded he was scatterbrained.
As for the Quaker & Sufi business, I'm merely noting that Quakers don't speak for most Christians & Sufis don't speak for most Muslims. Religion cannot be separated from the actions of its adherants -- not in the real world --, so if you are going to be tolerant of religion, honesty demands that you consider the whole of a religion and not merely the "nice bits," as jam says above.
So when Scalzi writes: First, I'm not defending Christianity. I'm pointing out that not separating out the ideals of the religion from the practice of that religion by individuals is simply not very smart. I can't help you if you cannot parse the distinction what we have is a fundamental disagreement, not, I think, a lack of an ability to parse & a consequent lack of smarts.
As an aside, I really do need to remark that for such a tolerant human being, John Scalzi has a very insulting manner of responding to honest disagreement. Roll your eyes all you want, my boy, but beware they might get stuck somewhere up inside your head. God knows, I am ignorant about many things, but there are other discussions of Quakerism that support my view. The Britanica article onf Quakerism, for one. So way my remark really "one of the stupidist things you've heard"? You toss around accusations of stupidity pretty easily. It is an unbecomming intellectual habit.
A note to Chad: You started this discussion by commending Scalzi's tolerance as a virtue. I find him a classic example of a bore. That's a word with one syllable.
Joseph Duemer, 12.29.2004, 11:46am [link]
Actually, from this exchange, it would appear that the the difference between Scalzi and his critics is that Scalzi knows perfectly well when he's being offensive. As opposed to people who querulously monger bigotry disguised as dispassion.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, 12.29.2004, 12:35pm [link]
"God knows, I am ignorant about many things, but there are other discussions of Quakerism that support my view. The Britanica article onf Quakerism, for one."
Really? Which Briannica article is that? The one on "Quaker" which begins with the sentence "byname of Friend, member of a Christian group (the Society of Friends, or Friends church)..." or the one on "Society of Friends," which begins "also called Friends Church , byname Quakers Christian group that arose in mid-17th-century England..."?
Ref. URLS: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9109452
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9062149&query=Quaker&ct=eb
Given that both of the references in my version of Britannica (which is the online and thence most up to date version) both refer to Quakers as Christians *in their very first sentence* I'm curious as to which version of the Britannica states that Quakers are "barely" Christian. Please provide references, and ease my burden of assuming that, in fact, you continue *not* to know what you're talking about.
You are of course welcome to suggest that I toss around accusations of stupidity easily. I would say that I am simply not shy about accusing appropriately. If you don't want me to suggest you are saying stupid things, then I would suggest that, indeed, you stop *saying* stupid things. Really, it's a simple solution.
As for Quakers not representing "most" Christians -- well yes. There are thousands upon thousands of generally recognized Christian churches; there are also, I imagine, millions of Christians who do as Jesus suggested and keep their worship private, and therefore do not belong to one established church or another. None of these churches or individuals represents "most" Christians -- certainly not in the United States, where the largest single coherent church affiliation is to the Catholic church, which is the religious home to 23% of Americans. 23% is hardly "most." By pointing out that Quakers do not represent most Christians, you are, ironically enough, pointing out that in this regard, the Society of Friends is like *all* Christian Churches. No one Church speaks for all Christians. No one Church even speaks for most Christians.
Once again: The ideals of Christianity are *not* the same as the practice of individual Christian churches, or the worship practiced by individuals. To go back to an earlier form to frame this discussion, Christianity is the Platonic ideal, whereas the practice of it by individuals and individual churches are the flickering shadows on the wall. This is axiomatic in Christianity, since the ideals of Christianity are godly, and all the practicioners of Christianity are human, and therefore fallable sinners. Christians *aspire* toward the ideals of Christianity; but as humans, they will probably never embody all of those ideals. They *can't*. Within the Christian belief system, only one human *could,* and he was more than simply human.
This is why arguing that "honesty demands that you consider the whole of a religion and not merely the 'nice bits,'" is a fundamentally ridiculous statement. Honesty *demands* I recognize the ideals of Christianity aren't the "nice bits," as our earlier friend dismissively refers to them, they are the essential core, without which any *human* interpretation of Christianity -- whether by believers or by non-believers -- is woefully and ignorantly incomplete. Honesty also *demands* that one recognize that the expression of the religious impluse is not equivalent across individuals or individual churches or sects, nor does one thereby have to treat all expressions of that faith with the same equanamity of moral judgement -- a moral judgement that springs from *my* own estimation of what it moral and (also) what is Christian.
Which is why I can say I believe that Quakers (as just one variation of the Christian theme) are probably following the precepts of Christ better than, say, the Fred Phelps Hate Brigade. If I were a Christian, mind you, I would have to admit that it is not my place to say such things, and that only God can judge, but fortunately I am not and I can judge judge judge all I want. This is also why I can say that judging the *ideals* of a religion by the *practice* of its most ignorant, hateful members is a pretty damn stupid argument to make.
I firmly believe there are a lot of bad Christians out there. I don't necessarily believe that Jesus is to blame for the stupidity of his followers. In *the real world,* as you say, one ascribes responsibility for the actions of the individual to the individual, not to the guy he calls God and uses as an excuse for his own venality and hate, particularly when that guy had as his primary exhortation a commandment to love all others as one loves oneself.
Now, back to you.
"As an aside, I really do need to remark that for such a tolerant human being, John Scalzi has a very insulting manner of responding to honest disagreement."
Golly, Joseph. I know I have a coupon redeemable for a free hug here somewhere. But in the meantime, allow me to suggest that someone who casually refers to a group of people as "barely Christian" for some impenetrable reason and then decides to characterize my personal decision to raise my daughter in an atmosphere of knowledge about her world as "a gray porridge of attitudes" and who then cries piteously for tolerance when he's responded to in contempt is not *exactly* a sympathetic character. Although I do find it very interesting that you appear unable to distinguish between your own reflexive contempt and an "honest disagreement," but that's a problem a lot of people have. Self-awareness is a difficult thing.
Look, Joseph, it may be that you live in a world where people let you say stupid and ignorant things and then give you a pat on the head and a lollipop and say "at least he's *trying*." But I don't give much credit for trying. I assume you have a brain, I assume it works reasonably well, and when reasonably smart people say things that are ignorant and stupid on their face, I don't see much value in pretending they haven't in fact, done that. You have an obvious contempt for religion, and you're pretty clearly ignorant of it, too. If you want to live that way, then go ahead and have fun with yourself (this is where tolerance comes in). But don't expect me to pretend that your contempt and ignorance is anything but what it is, and don't expect me to respect it.
Really? Which Briannica article is that? The one on "Quaker" which begins with the sentence "byname of Friend, member of a Christian group (the Society of Friends, or Friends church)..." or the one on "Society of Friends," which begins "also called Friends Church , byname Quakers Christian group that arose in mid-17th-century England..."?
Ref. URLS: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9109452
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9062149&query=Quaker&ct=eb
Given that both of the references in my version of Britannica (which is the online and thence most up to date version) both refer to Quakers as Christians *in their very first sentence* I'm curious as to which version of the Britannica states that Quakers are "barely" Christian. Please provide references, and ease my burden of assuming that, in fact, you continue *not* to know what you're talking about.
You are of course welcome to suggest that I toss around accusations of stupidity easily. I would say that I am simply not shy about accusing appropriately. If you don't want me to suggest you are saying stupid things, then I would suggest that, indeed, you stop *saying* stupid things. Really, it's a simple solution.
As for Quakers not representing "most" Christians -- well yes. There are thousands upon thousands of generally recognized Christian churches; there are also, I imagine, millions of Christians who do as Jesus suggested and keep their worship private, and therefore do not belong to one established church or another. None of these churches or individuals represents "most" Christians -- certainly not in the United States, where the largest single coherent church affiliation is to the Catholic church, which is the religious home to 23% of Americans. 23% is hardly "most." By pointing out that Quakers do not represent most Christians, you are, ironically enough, pointing out that in this regard, the Society of Friends is like *all* Christian Churches. No one Church speaks for all Christians. No one Church even speaks for most Christians.
Once again: The ideals of Christianity are *not* the same as the practice of individual Christian churches, or the worship practiced by individuals. To go back to an earlier form to frame this discussion, Christianity is the Platonic ideal, whereas the practice of it by individuals and individual churches are the flickering shadows on the wall. This is axiomatic in Christianity, since the ideals of Christianity are godly, and all the practicioners of Christianity are human, and therefore fallable sinners. Christians *aspire* toward the ideals of Christianity; but as humans, they will probably never embody all of those ideals. They *can't*. Within the Christian belief system, only one human *could,* and he was more than simply human.
This is why arguing that "honesty demands that you consider the whole of a religion and not merely the 'nice bits,'" is a fundamentally ridiculous statement. Honesty *demands* I recognize the ideals of Christianity aren't the "nice bits," as our earlier friend dismissively refers to them, they are the essential core, without which any *human* interpretation of Christianity -- whether by believers or by non-believers -- is woefully and ignorantly incomplete. Honesty also *demands* that one recognize that the expression of the religious impluse is not equivalent across individuals or individual churches or sects, nor does one thereby have to treat all expressions of that faith with the same equanamity of moral judgement -- a moral judgement that springs from *my* own estimation of what it moral and (also) what is Christian.
Which is why I can say I believe that Quakers (as just one variation of the Christian theme) are probably following the precepts of Christ better than, say, the Fred Phelps Hate Brigade. If I were a Christian, mind you, I would have to admit that it is not my place to say such things, and that only God can judge, but fortunately I am not and I can judge judge judge all I want. This is also why I can say that judging the *ideals* of a religion by the *practice* of its most ignorant, hateful members is a pretty damn stupid argument to make.
I firmly believe there are a lot of bad Christians out there. I don't necessarily believe that Jesus is to blame for the stupidity of his followers. In *the real world,* as you say, one ascribes responsibility for the actions of the individual to the individual, not to the guy he calls God and uses as an excuse for his own venality and hate, particularly when that guy had as his primary exhortation a commandment to love all others as one loves oneself.
Now, back to you.
"As an aside, I really do need to remark that for such a tolerant human being, John Scalzi has a very insulting manner of responding to honest disagreement."
Golly, Joseph. I know I have a coupon redeemable for a free hug here somewhere. But in the meantime, allow me to suggest that someone who casually refers to a group of people as "barely Christian" for some impenetrable reason and then decides to characterize my personal decision to raise my daughter in an atmosphere of knowledge about her world as "a gray porridge of attitudes" and who then cries piteously for tolerance when he's responded to in contempt is not *exactly* a sympathetic character. Although I do find it very interesting that you appear unable to distinguish between your own reflexive contempt and an "honest disagreement," but that's a problem a lot of people have. Self-awareness is a difficult thing.
Look, Joseph, it may be that you live in a world where people let you say stupid and ignorant things and then give you a pat on the head and a lollipop and say "at least he's *trying*." But I don't give much credit for trying. I assume you have a brain, I assume it works reasonably well, and when reasonably smart people say things that are ignorant and stupid on their face, I don't see much value in pretending they haven't in fact, done that. You have an obvious contempt for religion, and you're pretty clearly ignorant of it, too. If you want to live that way, then go ahead and have fun with yourself (this is where tolerance comes in). But don't expect me to pretend that your contempt and ignorance is anything but what it is, and don't expect me to respect it.
John Scalzi, 12.29.2004, 1:13pm [link]
My, the imperiousness is getting thick around here! I invited Patrick Nielsen Hayden, via email, to please tell me if he meant me when he referred to Scalzi's critics as bigots, only to be informed, "If you have anything to say to me, say it in the clear light of day where other people can see you. Private email is not invited." And here I thought I was politely offering him an opportunity to clarify his remarks before I responded to them in public. Well, then, Mr. Neilsen-Hayden, Are you calling me a bigot? If you are, please provide the evidence. Otherwise, retract your statement.
And now it is time for me to roll my eyes at Mr. Scalzi. Perhaps I have been unclear, John. I haven't actually made any statements directly about religion in this exchange; what I have done is offer some observations in support of my reservations about the viability of of the sort of tolerance you supposedly represent. I do in fact think that tolerance of the sort you propose to teach your daughter hs its limitations. That was where I began what I thought was going to be a conversation. You insisted on turning it into a pissing match. So be it. You had already done so in your response to jam, so I was forewarned.
At its worst, liberal tolerance of the sort you propose leads in the direction of Cunningham's Humanist. In his "metalogue" "Why Do Things Have Outlines," the late anthropologist & philosopher Gregory Bateson offers a conversation between a father & his daughter, as follows:
Daughter: Daddy, why do things have outlines?
Father: Do they? I don't know. What sort of things do you mean?
D: I mean when I draw things, why do they have outlines?
F: Well, what about other sorts of things--a flock of sheep? or a conversation? Do they have outlines?
D: Don't be silly. I can't draw a conversation. I mean things.
F: Yes--I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean "Why do we give things outlines when we draw them? or do you mean that the things have outlines whether we draw them or not?
D: I don't know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?
F: I don't know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he had written "Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them" but in another place he'd written "Madmen see outlines therefore they draw them."
D: But which does he mean? I don't understand.
F: Well, William Blake--that was his name--was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.
D: What was he mad about, Daddy?
F: But what was he mand about? Oh, I see--you mean "angry." We have to keep those two meanings of "mad" clear if we're going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad--really mad--crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn't have outlines. He called them "The Slobbering School."
D: He wasn't very tolerant, was he, Daddy?
D: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know--that's what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn't even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything. --that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.
D: Yes, Daddy.
F: No, that's not the answer. I mean "Yes, Daddy" is not the answer. All that says is that you don't know what your opinion is--and you don't give a damn what I say or what Blakes says and that school has so befuddled you with talk of tolerance that you cannot tell the difference between anything and anything else.
D: (weeps)
F: Oh, God. I'm sorry, but I was angry. But not reaally angry with you. Just angry at the general mushiness of how people act and think--and how they preach muddle and call it tolerance. [. . . ]
I probably should have just begun with Bateson & let it go at that, but I couldn't resist throwing a few spitballs of my own to see if I could tell more exactly what you meant by tolerance. As for the Quakers & Christ, I thought my original statement qualified itself pretty carefully. Richard T. Vann's Britannica article "Quakerism and World Christianity" begins:
"The cause of schisms in the past—the tension between entire reliance on the Inward Light and the profession of orthodox Christian doctrines—remains unresolved. As it has divided Friends among themselves, it has also tended to separate them from other Christians. The London Yearly Meeting in 1940 declined to join the World Council of Churches out of uneasiness with its creedal basis, though some U.S. groups of Friends sent delegates to the first meeting of the council in 1948. Looked at in the context of Christendom as a whole, Friends offer a distinctive opportunity for spontaneity of worship, fellowship in mysticism, and proving mystical insight in labour for a suffering world. Many alienated from institutional Christianity have found this combination attractive; they may well feel more comfortable identifying themselves as Friends than as Protestants or even as Christians. This may make it more difficult for Quakerism to be subsumed into a reunited Christian church; but the faith of most Friends has always been that of Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus: as "we do the work of Christ we shall come to know who he is."
By the way, I have not expressed "contempt" for religion, to my knowledge, anywhere in this discussion. As I said, I haven't really been talking about religion. As for Neilsen-Hayden's charge of bigotry, it is nothing but a nasty slur based on some weird caricature of what I have written. Neither of you, surely, will be able to find any place in this discussion where I have spoken about my own belief or non-belief, much less expressed my "contempt" for religion. So I don't give either of you much credit, especially for writers, for being able to actually read what is before you.
Now, let me conclude with a bit of agreement. You wrote above: "Honesty also *demands* that one recognize that the expression of the religious impluse is not equivalent across individuals or individual churches or sects, nor does one thereby have to treat all expressions of that faith with the same equanamity of moral judgement -- a moral judgement that springs from *my* own estimation of what it moral and (also) what is Christian."
I agree. Though I am no longer a Christian & don't believe in God, I have a very strong sense of the sacred in the everyday & in the ordinary course of life. I like Jesus, in so far as we can tease him out of the Gospels. I have also lived among Buddhists for long periods & find their tolerance more precise than that of any Christian I have met. I prefer that precision to tolerance.
And now it is time for me to roll my eyes at Mr. Scalzi. Perhaps I have been unclear, John. I haven't actually made any statements directly about religion in this exchange; what I have done is offer some observations in support of my reservations about the viability of of the sort of tolerance you supposedly represent. I do in fact think that tolerance of the sort you propose to teach your daughter hs its limitations. That was where I began what I thought was going to be a conversation. You insisted on turning it into a pissing match. So be it. You had already done so in your response to jam, so I was forewarned.
At its worst, liberal tolerance of the sort you propose leads in the direction of Cunningham's Humanist. In his "metalogue" "Why Do Things Have Outlines," the late anthropologist & philosopher Gregory Bateson offers a conversation between a father & his daughter, as follows:
Daughter: Daddy, why do things have outlines?
Father: Do they? I don't know. What sort of things do you mean?
D: I mean when I draw things, why do they have outlines?
F: Well, what about other sorts of things--a flock of sheep? or a conversation? Do they have outlines?
D: Don't be silly. I can't draw a conversation. I mean things.
F: Yes--I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean "Why do we give things outlines when we draw them? or do you mean that the things have outlines whether we draw them or not?
D: I don't know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?
F: I don't know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he had written "Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them" but in another place he'd written "Madmen see outlines therefore they draw them."
D: But which does he mean? I don't understand.
F: Well, William Blake--that was his name--was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.
D: What was he mad about, Daddy?
F: But what was he mand about? Oh, I see--you mean "angry." We have to keep those two meanings of "mad" clear if we're going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad--really mad--crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn't have outlines. He called them "The Slobbering School."
D: He wasn't very tolerant, was he, Daddy?
D: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know--that's what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn't even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything. --that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.
D: Yes, Daddy.
F: No, that's not the answer. I mean "Yes, Daddy" is not the answer. All that says is that you don't know what your opinion is--and you don't give a damn what I say or what Blakes says and that school has so befuddled you with talk of tolerance that you cannot tell the difference between anything and anything else.
D: (weeps)
F: Oh, God. I'm sorry, but I was angry. But not reaally angry with you. Just angry at the general mushiness of how people act and think--and how they preach muddle and call it tolerance. [. . . ]
I probably should have just begun with Bateson & let it go at that, but I couldn't resist throwing a few spitballs of my own to see if I could tell more exactly what you meant by tolerance. As for the Quakers & Christ, I thought my original statement qualified itself pretty carefully. Richard T. Vann's Britannica article "Quakerism and World Christianity" begins:
"The cause of schisms in the past—the tension between entire reliance on the Inward Light and the profession of orthodox Christian doctrines—remains unresolved. As it has divided Friends among themselves, it has also tended to separate them from other Christians. The London Yearly Meeting in 1940 declined to join the World Council of Churches out of uneasiness with its creedal basis, though some U.S. groups of Friends sent delegates to the first meeting of the council in 1948. Looked at in the context of Christendom as a whole, Friends offer a distinctive opportunity for spontaneity of worship, fellowship in mysticism, and proving mystical insight in labour for a suffering world. Many alienated from institutional Christianity have found this combination attractive; they may well feel more comfortable identifying themselves as Friends than as Protestants or even as Christians. This may make it more difficult for Quakerism to be subsumed into a reunited Christian church; but the faith of most Friends has always been that of Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus: as "we do the work of Christ we shall come to know who he is."
By the way, I have not expressed "contempt" for religion, to my knowledge, anywhere in this discussion. As I said, I haven't really been talking about religion. As for Neilsen-Hayden's charge of bigotry, it is nothing but a nasty slur based on some weird caricature of what I have written. Neither of you, surely, will be able to find any place in this discussion where I have spoken about my own belief or non-belief, much less expressed my "contempt" for religion. So I don't give either of you much credit, especially for writers, for being able to actually read what is before you.
Now, let me conclude with a bit of agreement. You wrote above: "Honesty also *demands* that one recognize that the expression of the religious impluse is not equivalent across individuals or individual churches or sects, nor does one thereby have to treat all expressions of that faith with the same equanamity of moral judgement -- a moral judgement that springs from *my* own estimation of what it moral and (also) what is Christian."
I agree. Though I am no longer a Christian & don't believe in God, I have a very strong sense of the sacred in the everyday & in the ordinary course of life. I like Jesus, in so far as we can tease him out of the Gospels. I have also lived among Buddhists for long periods & find their tolerance more precise than that of any Christian I have met. I prefer that precision to tolerance.
Joseph Duemer, 12.29.2004, 2:26pm [link]
Joseph Duemer, if you can't see why the statement
"Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism."
appears to be expressing contempt for Christianity, I suggest you recalibrate your prose interpreter.
You say that's not what you meant? Great! So glad we cleared that up. Stop "throwing spitballs," take a deep breath, and then see if you're moved to rejoin this conversation in a civil manner.
signed, your friendly neighborhood weak atheist
"Finally, I find it telling that to defend Christianity, Scalzi has to go to Quakerism."
appears to be expressing contempt for Christianity, I suggest you recalibrate your prose interpreter.
You say that's not what you meant? Great! So glad we cleared that up. Stop "throwing spitballs," take a deep breath, and then see if you're moved to rejoin this conversation in a civil manner.
signed, your friendly neighborhood weak atheist
Kate, you upbraid me for incivility? Good Lord! The world is topsy turvy today. I suggest you recalibrate your reading radar & go back & see just who began the pissing match.
In my remark on Quakers, it was pretty clear that I was commenting on the nature of Scalzi's argument, not on Christinity as such. It is easy to dismiss the homophobic Fred Phelps & equally easy to embrace the Quakers. The problem is with the behavior of all those other Christians. Some of which we like, some of which we don't. You know, those Anglicans are mostly OK, except when they oppose Bishop Robinson, and those Catholics are pretty good at helping the poor, but then there is that pesky business about a woman's control over her own body. If you--or scalzi--are going to talk about tolerance toward Christians, you owe it to your reader to be clear about what we are supposed to be tolerant of. Scalzi, in fact, seems to be advocating a tolerance of "Jesusism" & I can get behind that (see above), but his original post really did not make that clear.
And if you can't parse Bateson's remarks on Blake, then I have to resort to Scalzi's approach & remark that your inability is none of my concern.
In my remark on Quakers, it was pretty clear that I was commenting on the nature of Scalzi's argument, not on Christinity as such. It is easy to dismiss the homophobic Fred Phelps & equally easy to embrace the Quakers. The problem is with the behavior of all those other Christians. Some of which we like, some of which we don't. You know, those Anglicans are mostly OK, except when they oppose Bishop Robinson, and those Catholics are pretty good at helping the poor, but then there is that pesky business about a woman's control over her own body. If you--or scalzi--are going to talk about tolerance toward Christians, you owe it to your reader to be clear about what we are supposed to be tolerant of. Scalzi, in fact, seems to be advocating a tolerance of "Jesusism" & I can get behind that (see above), but his original post really did not make that clear.
And if you can't parse Bateson's remarks on Blake, then I have to resort to Scalzi's approach & remark that your inability is none of my concern.
Joseph Duemer, 12.29.2004, 3:05pm [link]
Well, this has certainly been a good comment thread for novelty-- first "Laodicean," and then Kate gets taken to task for incivility and lack of reading comprehension. I'm sure I'll be getting Viagra spam from Teresa Nielsen Hayden any minute now...
As for the actual substance of the discussion, the phrase "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" comes to mind. Though I'm not entirely sure it can stretch far enough to cover an argument which attempts to make Episcopalians morally equivalent to Fred Phelps.
As for the actual substance of the discussion, the phrase "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" comes to mind. Though I'm not entirely sure it can stretch far enough to cover an argument which attempts to make Episcopalians morally equivalent to Fred Phelps.
Chad Orzel, 12.29.2004, 3:23pm [link]
Might have been nice if Mr. Neilsen Hayden had mentiond his prior relationship with Mr. Scalzi (he is his editor at Tor) before dropping in and pretending to be a disinterested party. And I still have had no clarification as to whether Mr. N-H had me in mind when he described Scalzi's critics as bigots. Since he hasn't said other wise, I assume he did.
Chad, I did not accuse Kate of either incivility--read what I wrote--or of lack of "comprehension" -- only of ignoring the actual location of the incivility on this thread.
Chad, I did not accuse Kate of either incivility--read what I wrote--or of lack of "comprehension" -- only of ignoring the actual location of the incivility on this thread.
Joseph Duemer, 12.29.2004, 3:33pm [link]
Two things and then I'm done:
1. I did not mean Laodicean as an insult and am sorry that Mr. Scalzi has taken offence at it. Had I known, I would have used some other adjective. Chad says some have used it as an insult, but that's by no means universal: the title character of Hardy's novel is, in fact, the romantic lead and gets the girl in the end.
2. On Quakers. The Catholic Encyclopedia uses a very careful formulation: George Fox came up with "a system at variance with every existing form of Christianity." Which seems to say that Quakerism wasn't Christianity, but doesn't quite. It's actually worth quoting George Fox on churches (which he called "steeplehouses"). An example: "when I heard the bell toll to call people together to the steeplehouse, it struck at my life, for it was just like a market-bell to gather people together that the priest might set forth his ware to sale." Not that far from Paul Myers, really. And Fox hadn't seen St. Patrick's.
1. I did not mean Laodicean as an insult and am sorry that Mr. Scalzi has taken offence at it. Had I known, I would have used some other adjective. Chad says some have used it as an insult, but that's by no means universal: the title character of Hardy's novel is, in fact, the romantic lead and gets the girl in the end.
2. On Quakers. The Catholic Encyclopedia uses a very careful formulation: George Fox came up with "a system at variance with every existing form of Christianity." Which seems to say that Quakerism wasn't Christianity, but doesn't quite. It's actually worth quoting George Fox on churches (which he called "steeplehouses"). An example: "when I heard the bell toll to call people together to the steeplehouse, it struck at my life, for it was just like a market-bell to gather people together that the priest might set forth his ware to sale." Not that far from Paul Myers, really. And Fox hadn't seen St. Patrick's.
"As for the Quakers & Christ, I thought my original statement qualified itself pretty carefully. Richard T. Vann's Britannica article 'Quakerism and World Christianity' begins:"
I'm failing to see how this suggests that the Quakers are "barely" Christians, in terms of their relationship with Christ as their spiritual redeemer. What it suggests is that doctrinally they feel rather removed from the *practice* of Christianity that other churches provide. But again, this goes to my point that sweeping every practice of Christianty into one bin is folly.
"Perhaps I have been unclear, John. I haven't actually made any statements directly about religion in this exchange; what I have done is offer some observations in support of my reservations about the viability of of the sort of tolerance you supposedly represent."
You mean to say, the sort of tolerance you appear to think I represent, which as far as I can parse from your writing doesn't sound very much like the tolerance I actually espouse. It appears you are under the impression that my tolerance means I am not able to make critical qualitative distinctions, which is not the case. Nor do I see how a mushy "everything is okay" sort of tolerance can be twigged out of what I've written anywhere in the original article or the subsequent commentary. My brand of tolerance is based upon knowing things as completely as possible in order to understand them as completely as possible, not to wave blandly at it and say "well, that's what you/they believe and that's okay," so I don't have to think about it anymore. As I originally wrote: "In the end, I want to teach my daughter about Jesus so she can understand him, understand those who see him as the son of God, and understand how he fits into her own view of the world."
As for not making statements directly about religion in this exchange:
"Religion cannot be separated from the actions of its adherants -- not in the real world --"
"Some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians & many evangelical Christians would reject the idea that a Quaker could be a Christian."
"If you want to defend Islam, citing Sufi mysticism is not fully convincing."
Explain to me how these statement are *not* directly about religion. You are making flat, declarative statements in each of these cases; you do not offer these as opinions, but as fact. I would agree you've been unclear; indeed, you're so unclear you're apparently not even aware you have contradicted yourself.
"Neither of you, surely, will be able to find any place in this discussion where I have spoken about my own belief or non-belief."
You apparently believe that Quakers do not qualify as genuine Christians. You apparently believe Sufis don't qualify as genuine Muslims. You apparently believe religions should be entirely judged on the actions of its imperfect adherents. That's a fair amount of belief there, from which I and at least a few others have inferred a fair amount of contempt. You are free to disagree that these statements are evidentiary of an underlying contempt, but speaking for myself I go with what I have to work with. You say you don't give us credit for reading what's in front of us; consider also that you may not be aware of everything you've written.
On preview: Patrick is indeed my editor. Patrick and I also don't agree on everything. Patrick is responding on his own dime, not in defense of mine (he was also correct when he suggested that I know I'm being offensive and apparently others do not). As far as I can parse it, Patrick has not called you a bigot, he's said that there are people on this thread who "querulously monger bigotry disguised as dispassion." I do assume he means you. That one mongers bigotry does not necessarily imply one is actively a bigot; it may be that one is not fully aware of the bigotry evident in one's writing. It may be that one would be horrified and defensive when others point it out.
I'm failing to see how this suggests that the Quakers are "barely" Christians, in terms of their relationship with Christ as their spiritual redeemer. What it suggests is that doctrinally they feel rather removed from the *practice* of Christianity that other churches provide. But again, this goes to my point that sweeping every practice of Christianty into one bin is folly.
"Perhaps I have been unclear, John. I haven't actually made any statements directly about religion in this exchange; what I have done is offer some observations in support of my reservations about the viability of of the sort of tolerance you supposedly represent."
You mean to say, the sort of tolerance you appear to think I represent, which as far as I can parse from your writing doesn't sound very much like the tolerance I actually espouse. It appears you are under the impression that my tolerance means I am not able to make critical qualitative distinctions, which is not the case. Nor do I see how a mushy "everything is okay" sort of tolerance can be twigged out of what I've written anywhere in the original article or the subsequent commentary. My brand of tolerance is based upon knowing things as completely as possible in order to understand them as completely as possible, not to wave blandly at it and say "well, that's what you/they believe and that's okay," so I don't have to think about it anymore. As I originally wrote: "In the end, I want to teach my daughter about Jesus so she can understand him, understand those who see him as the son of God, and understand how he fits into her own view of the world."
As for not making statements directly about religion in this exchange:
"Religion cannot be separated from the actions of its adherants -- not in the real world --"
"Some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians & many evangelical Christians would reject the idea that a Quaker could be a Christian."
"If you want to defend Islam, citing Sufi mysticism is not fully convincing."
Explain to me how these statement are *not* directly about religion. You are making flat, declarative statements in each of these cases; you do not offer these as opinions, but as fact. I would agree you've been unclear; indeed, you're so unclear you're apparently not even aware you have contradicted yourself.
"Neither of you, surely, will be able to find any place in this discussion where I have spoken about my own belief or non-belief."
You apparently believe that Quakers do not qualify as genuine Christians. You apparently believe Sufis don't qualify as genuine Muslims. You apparently believe religions should be entirely judged on the actions of its imperfect adherents. That's a fair amount of belief there, from which I and at least a few others have inferred a fair amount of contempt. You are free to disagree that these statements are evidentiary of an underlying contempt, but speaking for myself I go with what I have to work with. You say you don't give us credit for reading what's in front of us; consider also that you may not be aware of everything you've written.
On preview: Patrick is indeed my editor. Patrick and I also don't agree on everything. Patrick is responding on his own dime, not in defense of mine (he was also correct when he suggested that I know I'm being offensive and apparently others do not). As far as I can parse it, Patrick has not called you a bigot, he's said that there are people on this thread who "querulously monger bigotry disguised as dispassion." I do assume he means you. That one mongers bigotry does not necessarily imply one is actively a bigot; it may be that one is not fully aware of the bigotry evident in one's writing. It may be that one would be horrified and defensive when others point it out.
John Scalzi, 12.29.2004, 3:53pm [link]
It being apparent that Joseph Duemer is reading an entirely different conversation from the one I see in front of me, I have nothing further to say to him, as doing so would accomplish nothing and make no-one happy.
Joseph,
I'm reading through the introductory quote you posted of the Britannica article on Quakerism and I'm struck by the fact that, at least in what you've quoted, there's nothing that says Quakers aren't Christian. It draws definite distinctions between how they are organized and *practice* their beliefs, but nowhere does it suggest they are somehow "barely Christian" (your words). In fact, the phrase "it has also tended to separate them from other Christians" tends to imply that they are in fact Christians who have a divergent interpretation.
You say, "In my remark on Quakers, it was pretty clear that I was commenting on the nature of Scalzi's argument, not on Christinity as such." Well, no -- it was not, in fact, clear at all. John is a writer who that rare and remarkable gift of being able to put down words that say what he intends to say. You do not appear to have that ability, since as a dispassionate reader I certainly got the impression you had a grudge against Christianity and saw Scalzi's comments as some sort of "defense." You need to watch your word choice; "defense" implies an attack. Words mean things.
You also seem to be confusing inclusiveness and tolerance. Scalzi's article was about teaching his daughter the origins of the Christmas holiday, which necessarily involve explaining why people think Jesus Christ is someone whose birthday should still be observed two thousand years or so after the fact. He specifically pointed out that his teaching would include the Church's realpolitik that resulted in the timing of the Christmas holiday. That seems to be the hallmark of a man who wants his daughter to have all the relevant facts. He wasn't saying "It's all good!"; he was saying, "Here are the key things to know about this topic." He makes his own decisions about what is good and valuable without looking down on others who after thinking it through for themselves decide differently (tolerance).
I'm reading through the introductory quote you posted of the Britannica article on Quakerism and I'm struck by the fact that, at least in what you've quoted, there's nothing that says Quakers aren't Christian. It draws definite distinctions between how they are organized and *practice* their beliefs, but nowhere does it suggest they are somehow "barely Christian" (your words). In fact, the phrase "it has also tended to separate them from other Christians" tends to imply that they are in fact Christians who have a divergent interpretation.
You say, "In my remark on Quakers, it was pretty clear that I was commenting on the nature of Scalzi's argument, not on Christinity as such." Well, no -- it was not, in fact, clear at all. John is a writer who that rare and remarkable gift of being able to put down words that say what he intends to say. You do not appear to have that ability, since as a dispassionate reader I certainly got the impression you had a grudge against Christianity and saw Scalzi's comments as some sort of "defense." You need to watch your word choice; "defense" implies an attack. Words mean things.
You also seem to be confusing inclusiveness and tolerance. Scalzi's article was about teaching his daughter the origins of the Christmas holiday, which necessarily involve explaining why people think Jesus Christ is someone whose birthday should still be observed two thousand years or so after the fact. He specifically pointed out that his teaching would include the Church's realpolitik that resulted in the timing of the Christmas holiday. That seems to be the hallmark of a man who wants his daughter to have all the relevant facts. He wasn't saying "It's all good!"; he was saying, "Here are the key things to know about this topic." He makes his own decisions about what is good and valuable without looking down on others who after thinking it through for themselves decide differently (tolerance).
Devin L. Ganger, 12.29.2004, 4:28pm [link]
I'll take this on home after this, but you know what? I don't really care if Sufis are "real" Muslims or Quakers real Christians. It is a matter of no concern to me since I am neither Sufi nor Quaker, Muslim nor Christian. That is, it is of no religious concern to me. But you used Sufism & Quakerism as examples in your argument for tolerance. My first, skeptical, Blakian "devilish" thought was to ask, well, just how much tolerance are we talking about here? And that is where I began my engagement with you. And that is the sense in which my comments about religion were about the shape of an argument rather than about religion per se. So, while I am happy to endorse the Sermon on the Mount, I think that endorsement carries with it a certain responsibility for intolerance toward forms of Christianity that pervert the words of Jesus. I am genuinely happy that there are good Christians & Muslims (& over the last few years have publicly argued against the Clash of Civilizations argument that pits Islam against the West as a vast oversimplification. I do not have contempt for Muslims or Christians as such, but I have nothing but contempt for the acts perpetrated by some members of those religions in the name of those religions. As non-deists, then, don't we have, in the name of rigor and honesty, to recognize the whole range of acts, good & bad? And I am still not sure how a religion exists in the world outside of the actions--good & bad--of its adherents.
As for your defense of Patrick Neilsen Hayden's charge of bigotry, you show yourself a fine parser of words indeed! How can one "monger bigotry" without being a bigot? The fishmonger smells of fish, after all & would not be a fishmonger without his fish to monger. If he didn't intend to call me and jam bigots, then let him say so for himself "in the clear light of day where other people can see [him]."
As for your defense of Patrick Neilsen Hayden's charge of bigotry, you show yourself a fine parser of words indeed! How can one "monger bigotry" without being a bigot? The fishmonger smells of fish, after all & would not be a fishmonger without his fish to monger. If he didn't intend to call me and jam bigots, then let him say so for himself "in the clear light of day where other people can see [him]."
Joseph Duemer, 12.29.2004, 4:39pm [link]
"As for your defense of Patrick Neilsen Hayden's charge of bigotry, you show yourself a fine parser of words indeed! How can one 'monger bigotry' without being a bigot?"
Luke 24:34 might have an answer for you. If you don't have a Bible handy, suffice to say that it's possible to say something and not be aware of how what you say is received. If you say you are not a bigot, I'm perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, should Patrick arrive, he may very well say that in fact, he did call you a bigot. I'm not my editor's keeper.
"And I am still not sure how a religion exists in the world outside of the actions--good & bad--of its adherents."
It would seem you can't get your head around the idea of a religion being both an instruction set (the goals, morals and ideals of a religion) and the end user of that instruction set (the guy in the pew).
To make a monstrously gross oversimplification using outdated technology: religion is both the VCR manual, and the guy who bought the VCR (life, naturally, is the VCR). If you follow the VCR manual, you will know how to operate your VCR fully. But if you don't, you can't ever get the VCR clock to stop blinking "12:00". It's not the fault of the manual the VCR owner doesn't bother to read it; it's the fault of the VCR owner for figuring that he can just wing it, and besides, how often is he going to use the clock feature *anyway.*
And then he convinces his friend to buy the same brand VCR, goes over to help set it up, and throws the manual to the side, saying "You don't need *that.* I can tell you how to get it running."
You can certainly criticize the people who choose not to read the manual ("you dumbass, your clock is blinking") and applaud those who do (and ask them to tape "Desperate Housewives" for you). But you probably wouldn't say the *quality* of manual should be judged by the actions of everyone who buys that brand of VCR.
This analogy breaks down in all sorts of amusing ways, and very quickly, but the point is: A religion is more than the actions of its participants, particularly the ones that dont Read The Friggin' Manual.
All I can say is, thank goodness I have TiVo.
Luke 24:34 might have an answer for you. If you don't have a Bible handy, suffice to say that it's possible to say something and not be aware of how what you say is received. If you say you are not a bigot, I'm perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, should Patrick arrive, he may very well say that in fact, he did call you a bigot. I'm not my editor's keeper.
"And I am still not sure how a religion exists in the world outside of the actions--good & bad--of its adherents."
It would seem you can't get your head around the idea of a religion being both an instruction set (the goals, morals and ideals of a religion) and the end user of that instruction set (the guy in the pew).
To make a monstrously gross oversimplification using outdated technology: religion is both the VCR manual, and the guy who bought the VCR (life, naturally, is the VCR). If you follow the VCR manual, you will know how to operate your VCR fully. But if you don't, you can't ever get the VCR clock to stop blinking "12:00". It's not the fault of the manual the VCR owner doesn't bother to read it; it's the fault of the VCR owner for figuring that he can just wing it, and besides, how often is he going to use the clock feature *anyway.*
And then he convinces his friend to buy the same brand VCR, goes over to help set it up, and throws the manual to the side, saying "You don't need *that.* I can tell you how to get it running."
You can certainly criticize the people who choose not to read the manual ("you dumbass, your clock is blinking") and applaud those who do (and ask them to tape "Desperate Housewives" for you). But you probably wouldn't say the *quality* of manual should be judged by the actions of everyone who buys that brand of VCR.
This analogy breaks down in all sorts of amusing ways, and very quickly, but the point is: A religion is more than the actions of its participants, particularly the ones that dont Read The Friggin' Manual.
All I can say is, thank goodness I have TiVo.
John Scalzi, 12.29.2004, 5:15pm [link]
Wow, I had a feeling I didn't want to get entangled in an email exchange with this Joseph Duemer creature. How right I was.
He's correct about one thing, though. I was indeed thinking of him when I referred to "people who querulously monger bigotry disguised as dispassion." I'm specifically thinking of his nasty, covert, and ever-so-deniable playing of the "so-and-so aren't mainstream Christians" card. No, I don't believe this guy is arguing in, you should pardon the expression, good faith. Quite the contrary, I think he's happy to muster the troops of intolerance on behalf of his own position when it suits him.
If I needed any further evidence of this guy's character, his suggestion that I should have joined the conversation with a big disclaimer about having edited one of John Scalzi's several books pretty much clinches it. Definitely, everywhere on line, we should all provide a complete resume of our every prior transaction with everyone else in the conversation before we open our mouths. Disclaimer: Teresa and I had lunch with Chad and Kate around the corner from Tor a few months ago! And we gave them a bunch of free Tor books. Now you know the corruption inherent in the system. Alternately: dry up.
He's correct about one thing, though. I was indeed thinking of him when I referred to "people who querulously monger bigotry disguised as dispassion." I'm specifically thinking of his nasty, covert, and ever-so-deniable playing of the "so-and-so aren't mainstream Christians" card. No, I don't believe this guy is arguing in, you should pardon the expression, good faith. Quite the contrary, I think he's happy to muster the troops of intolerance on behalf of his own position when it suits him.
If I needed any further evidence of this guy's character, his suggestion that I should have joined the conversation with a big disclaimer about having edited one of John Scalzi's several books pretty much clinches it. Definitely, everywhere on line, we should all provide a complete resume of our every prior transaction with everyone else in the conversation before we open our mouths. Disclaimer: Teresa and I had lunch with Chad and Kate around the corner from Tor a few months ago! And we gave them a bunch of free Tor books. Now you know the corruption inherent in the system. Alternately: dry up.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, 12.29.2004, 6:49pm [link]
Now you know the corruption inherent in the system.
'Elp 'elp, I'm bein'oppressedcorrupted!
Obontopic: I agree with the Orzel/Scalzi/Nielsen Hayden position and have gone to comment several times, only to find that someone has already said what I was going to.
'Elp 'elp, I'm bein'
Obontopic: I agree with the Orzel/Scalzi/Nielsen Hayden position and have gone to comment several times, only to find that someone has already said what I was going to.
It's a nice little club you have here. Enjoy yourselves. Bye.
Joseph Duemer, 12.29.2004, 9:12pm [link]
Everyone be sure to not to miss Mr. Duemer's rant at how horribly he was mistreated here. It's at his site at http://chujoe.net/index.php?id=272 .
John Scalzi, 12.29.2004, 9:51pm [link]
Patrick, this idea that you have to be motivated by your editorial status and have some kind of conflict of interest--I feel like I've seen it, or something like it, in online discussions before. Is this maybe part of the common misperception that you have to have connections, know someone, have an in, to get published? Because if you get published because you're all big chums with editors, then of course you all band together and defend each other. Hmmm. Or something.
(John, I thought you were very restrained in not pointing out that Chad *is* a big guy, and tends to be loud in bars too. Though his head isn't shaved.)
(John, I thought you were very restrained in not pointing out that Chad *is* a big guy, and tends to be loud in bars too. Though his head isn't shaved.)
It's a nice little club you have here. Enjoy yourselves. Bye.
Damn. He left before the part where I say nice things about John's book, bringing the conspiracy full circle.
For the record, I didn't want to see anybody run off. I was actually on the verge of asking for a cooling-off period, but I had a Nicoll Moment while cooking dinner, and by the time I swept up all the Pyrex shards, everything had already gone pear-shaped... I probably should've said something sooner.
Also: Hey, Devin. Long time, no see.
Damn. He left before the part where I say nice things about John's book, bringing the conspiracy full circle.
For the record, I didn't want to see anybody run off. I was actually on the verge of asking for a cooling-off period, but I had a Nicoll Moment while cooking dinner, and by the time I swept up all the Pyrex shards, everything had already gone pear-shaped... I probably should've said something sooner.
Also: Hey, Devin. Long time, no see.
Chad Orzel, 12.29.2004, 10:26pm [link]
Kate writes: "I thought you were very restrained in not pointing out that Chad *is* a big guy, and tends to be loud in bars too."
No kidding. If we ever want to break up a fight, we'd just have to have Chad stand up and look stern. That'd solve the problem nine times out of ten.
There's also the issue that I don't drink, and am thus only rarely seen in bars. But let's not get into that now.
Michael Rawdon posted a very wry comment on my site which I think is applicable here in relation to Mr. Duemer. He wrote:
"The Internet should come with a Surgeon General's warning. Something like:
'WARNING: The Internet may contain people and subject matter which you find offensive. Engaging in dialogues with other inhabitants of the Internet may expose you to ideas, comments and language which you find offensive. Further, you may be made fun of for being offended. You may particularly be made fun of for posting journal entries complaining about people disagreeing with or making fun of you.'"
That's about right.
No kidding. If we ever want to break up a fight, we'd just have to have Chad stand up and look stern. That'd solve the problem nine times out of ten.
There's also the issue that I don't drink, and am thus only rarely seen in bars. But let's not get into that now.
Michael Rawdon posted a very wry comment on my site which I think is applicable here in relation to Mr. Duemer. He wrote:
"The Internet should come with a Surgeon General's warning. Something like:
'WARNING: The Internet may contain people and subject matter which you find offensive. Engaging in dialogues with other inhabitants of the Internet may expose you to ideas, comments and language which you find offensive. Further, you may be made fun of for being offended. You may particularly be made fun of for posting journal entries complaining about people disagreeing with or making fun of you.'"
That's about right.
John Scalzi, 12.29.2004, 10:33pm [link]
I'm always bemused at the way someone pops up, seems like a relatively decent (if over-sensitive and wrong) fellow, and then proceeds to rapidly move into frothing lunacy.
I'm even more bemused that right at the moment they cross the line into full-on froth, they manage to misspell someone's name badly ("Mr. Neilsen-Hayden"). This merely confirms my belief that good spelling is a sign of mental health.
I'm even more bemused that right at the moment they cross the line into full-on froth, they manage to misspell someone's name badly ("Mr. Neilsen-Hayden"). This merely confirms my belief that good spelling is a sign of mental health.
Mike Kozlowski, 12.30.2004, 2:02am [link]
*glee*
It's just like the old days, come back again! Somebody even summoned Devin.
Who wants to bet that "The Lurkers Support Him In E-mail?"
It's just like the old days, come back again! Somebody even summoned Devin.
Who wants to bet that "The Lurkers Support Him In E-mail?"
Skwid: No kidding. I was just about to say that I haven't seen a good old fashioned Usenet style pissing match this good in years.
Trent Goulding, 12.30.2004, 1:08pm [link]
What a strange thing to find, that I'm being accused of intolerance. Where is this intolerance? I missed the bit where I called for persecution of the infid...I mean, Christians. Or where I suggested that that ugly heap in NY be torn down. Or even where I suggested that we need to send a few Christians away to the re-education camp.
I'm afraid I simply despise religion as a corrupter of perfectly good minds. One sign of that is that people get outraged when people dare to disagree with it, and start throwing around accusations of intolerance and bigotry. It is not bigotry to find religion ugly, and especially not religion exemplified by an ugly building. Save those accusations for the day I start calling Christians ugly because they are Christians (you'll have a long, long wait for that, by the way.)
I'm afraid I simply despise religion as a corrupter of perfectly good minds. One sign of that is that people get outraged when people dare to disagree with it, and start throwing around accusations of intolerance and bigotry. It is not bigotry to find religion ugly, and especially not religion exemplified by an ugly building. Save those accusations for the day I start calling Christians ugly because they are Christians (you'll have a long, long wait for that, by the way.)
I'm afraid I simply despise religion as a corrupter of perfectly good minds. One sign of that is that people get outraged when people dare to disagree with it, and start throwing around accusations of intolerance and bigotry. It is not bigotry to find religion ugly, and especially not religion exemplified by an ugly building.
This whole thing got very pissy very quickly, and I probably should've tried to rein it in earlier. I'll throw in a late request for greater civility if this is going to continue.
Let me say, however, that I am personally about as lapsed a Catholic as you can get without tipping into outright hatred of the Church, and reading what you wrote about St. Patrick's made me feel guilty for not going to Mass on Christmas day. I found the references to "visceral revulsion," "wicked superstition," and "the rotting heart of evil in New York City" in poor taste at best, and extremely offensive at worst, and I'm not even religious.
If you don't understand how this could be seen as something short of entirely tolerant, well, I suspect it's just not going to be possible to have a productive conversation about this.
This whole thing got very pissy very quickly, and I probably should've tried to rein it in earlier. I'll throw in a late request for greater civility if this is going to continue.
Let me say, however, that I am personally about as lapsed a Catholic as you can get without tipping into outright hatred of the Church, and reading what you wrote about St. Patrick's made me feel guilty for not going to Mass on Christmas day. I found the references to "visceral revulsion," "wicked superstition," and "the rotting heart of evil in New York City" in poor taste at best, and extremely offensive at worst, and I'm not even religious.
If you don't understand how this could be seen as something short of entirely tolerant, well, I suspect it's just not going to be possible to have a productive conversation about this.
Chad Orzel, 12.30.2004, 1:51pm [link]
I have a complete lack of respect for religion. I am entirely tolerant of it. People confuse those two words "respect" and "tolerance" all the time: the key point is that tolerance is something you can only give to something you detest. It's not tolerance if you actually like it.
If you want to chew me out for my disrespect of religion, go ahead, I'll accept it (proudly, like a good heathen); you're barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me of intolerance, however.
For what it's worth, I've also read those 7 principles over on Scalzi's site, and found nothing in them that I disagree with, or that contradict anything I've said. They're a bit thin, since they're vague on what us non-believers actually think, but I can...respect them.
If you want to chew me out for my disrespect of religion, go ahead, I'll accept it (proudly, like a good heathen); you're barking up the wrong tree when you accuse me of intolerance, however.
For what it's worth, I've also read those 7 principles over on Scalzi's site, and found nothing in them that I disagree with, or that contradict anything I've said. They're a bit thin, since they're vague on what us non-believers actually think, but I can...respect them.
Just to confuse matters, allow me to remark as a cradle Catholic, intermittent theist, and frequent defender of religion, that I quite agree that religion is often a "corrupter of perfectly good minds."
To make an analogy, I'm generally in favor of sex, too, but that doesn't mean I don't notice that for some people sex is part of a path to personal ruin. The religious impulse is powerful stuff, and when combined with the temptation to help one's self to power over others, it can be a direct path to evil. For copious examples, see the history of the church I was raised in.
There are some very good web pages out there, most of them run by clerics of one sort or another, about "religious abuse," broadly defined as what happens any time religion gets used to justify abuse of power over the weak and vulnerable.
There are very good reasons to loathe religion. There are also very good reasons to cut one another slack and avoid language like "rotting heart of evil". Bishop Oscar Romero and Martin Luther King were not "rotting hearts of evil." Language matters. Being measured matters. You don't need religion to figure out simple ethical stuff like this.
To make an analogy, I'm generally in favor of sex, too, but that doesn't mean I don't notice that for some people sex is part of a path to personal ruin. The religious impulse is powerful stuff, and when combined with the temptation to help one's self to power over others, it can be a direct path to evil. For copious examples, see the history of the church I was raised in.
There are some very good web pages out there, most of them run by clerics of one sort or another, about "religious abuse," broadly defined as what happens any time religion gets used to justify abuse of power over the weak and vulnerable.
There are very good reasons to loathe religion. There are also very good reasons to cut one another slack and avoid language like "rotting heart of evil". Bishop Oscar Romero and Martin Luther King were not "rotting hearts of evil." Language matters. Being measured matters. You don't need religion to figure out simple ethical stuff like this.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, 12.30.2004, 2:31pm [link]
PZ Myers says "I have a complete lack of respect for religion. I am entirely tolerant of it."
I think what people are trying to point out to PZ is that claims of "tolerance" aren't very convincing when they're combined with language that is, frankly, brutal.
There are indeed things about which I myself use language like "wicked" and "revulsion" and "rotting heart of evil," but I don't demand that people believe I'm "tolerant" of these things. That's because that would be really, really silly.
I think what people are trying to point out to PZ is that claims of "tolerance" aren't very convincing when they're combined with language that is, frankly, brutal.
There are indeed things about which I myself use language like "wicked" and "revulsion" and "rotting heart of evil," but I don't demand that people believe I'm "tolerant" of these things. That's because that would be really, really silly.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, 12.30.2004, 2:37pm [link]
PZ Meyers says:
"They're a bit thin, since they're vague on what us non-believers actually think, but I can...respect them."
Well, thanks, PZ. That is appreciated.
They are vague on what non-believers think in no small part because I don't know that there's a consensus on what non-believers think, other than the initial declaration of non-belief. We are a panapoly.
"They're a bit thin, since they're vague on what us non-believers actually think, but I can...respect them."
Well, thanks, PZ. That is appreciated.
They are vague on what non-believers think in no small part because I don't know that there's a consensus on what non-believers think, other than the initial declaration of non-belief. We are a panapoly.
John Scalzi, 12.30.2004, 2:38pm [link]
Errm, but I do believe religion is evil. I find no grace in it, no redeeming character. I think it has done great damage to humanity in its history, and is a wicked superstition.
Yet I do tolerate it. What else can I do? I'm outnumbered. Most people practice a relatively harmless form of religion. All I can do is strongly condemn the beliefs, while letting the believers find their own way.
I feel the same way about bigotry that I do about religion -- it's an evil thing that I will speak out against. I will oppose any attempt to take social or political action to support it. But I can't dictate what people think. We just have to put up with that. And I just have to laugh at the people who get bent out of shape at the idea of others despising their religion.
I've also been accused of being bigoted against racists. It's the same funny story, really.
Yet I do tolerate it. What else can I do? I'm outnumbered. Most people practice a relatively harmless form of religion. All I can do is strongly condemn the beliefs, while letting the believers find their own way.
I feel the same way about bigotry that I do about religion -- it's an evil thing that I will speak out against. I will oppose any attempt to take social or political action to support it. But I can't dictate what people think. We just have to put up with that. And I just have to laugh at the people who get bent out of shape at the idea of others despising their religion.
I've also been accused of being bigoted against racists. It's the same funny story, really.
Just to confuse matters, allow me to remark as a cradle Catholic, intermittent theist, and frequent defender of religion, that I quite agree that religion is often a "corrupter of perfectly good minds."
Absolutely.
If I didn't agree with that, I'd go to church a lot more often.
There are very good reasons to loathe religion. There are also very good reasons to cut one another slack and avoid language like "rotting heart of evil". Bishop Oscar Romero and Martin Luther King were not "rotting hearts of evil." Language matters. Being measured matters. You don't need religion to figure out simple ethical stuff like this.
This is as good a summary of the point I'm clumsily trying to make as I could ever hope for.
There are indeed things about which I myself use language like "wicked" and "revulsion" and "rotting heart of evil," but I don't demand that people believe I'm "tolerant" of these things. That's because that would be really, really silly.
Indeed.
And when those terms are applied to something as inoffensive as St. Patrick's in NYC, it's hard not to think that the author has gone a bit off the deep end.
Absolutely.
If I didn't agree with that, I'd go to church a lot more often.
There are very good reasons to loathe religion. There are also very good reasons to cut one another slack and avoid language like "rotting heart of evil". Bishop Oscar Romero and Martin Luther King were not "rotting hearts of evil." Language matters. Being measured matters. You don't need religion to figure out simple ethical stuff like this.
This is as good a summary of the point I'm clumsily trying to make as I could ever hope for.
There are indeed things about which I myself use language like "wicked" and "revulsion" and "rotting heart of evil," but I don't demand that people believe I'm "tolerant" of these things. That's because that would be really, really silly.
Indeed.
And when those terms are applied to something as inoffensive as St. Patrick's in NYC, it's hard not to think that the author has gone a bit off the deep end.
Chad Orzel, 12.30.2004, 3:08pm [link]
I have a complete lack of respect for religion. I am entirely tolerant of it. People confuse those two words "respect" and "tolerance" all the time: the key point is that tolerance is something you can only give to something you detest. It's not tolerance if you actually like it.
I think we're suffering a bad connotation mismatch, here. To me, a claim that one is tolerent of something requires a bit more than grudgingly tolerating its continued existence because you can't do anything about it.
In fact, I would say that a statement like:
Errm, but I do believe religion is evil. I find no grace in it, no redeeming character. I think it has done great damage to humanity in its history, and is a wicked superstition.
is the very picture of intolerence. Out of however many milennia of human history, art, and culture, the vast majority of it intimately bound up in religion, you can find no grace, no redeeming character?
But really, the argument about the semantics of "tolerant" is a late addition. I didn't actually say anything about tolerance in my original comments. "Respect" is a better word, here, and as you say:
If you want to chew me out for my disrespect of religion, go ahead, I'll accept it (proudly, like a good heathen);
But it's not so much the lack of respect for religion that bugs me as the lack of respect for the religious, for the people who believe in religion of whatever sort. I'm fine with disrespect of religious doctrine, to a point anyway, but you come across as having a withering contempt for any and all believers, and that bothers me. I know too many good and decent and intelligent people of faith not to be offended by that kind of attitude.
I think we're suffering a bad connotation mismatch, here. To me, a claim that one is tolerent of something requires a bit more than grudgingly tolerating its continued existence because you can't do anything about it.
In fact, I would say that a statement like:
Errm, but I do believe religion is evil. I find no grace in it, no redeeming character. I think it has done great damage to humanity in its history, and is a wicked superstition.
is the very picture of intolerence. Out of however many milennia of human history, art, and culture, the vast majority of it intimately bound up in religion, you can find no grace, no redeeming character?
But really, the argument about the semantics of "tolerant" is a late addition. I didn't actually say anything about tolerance in my original comments. "Respect" is a better word, here, and as you say:
If you want to chew me out for my disrespect of religion, go ahead, I'll accept it (proudly, like a good heathen);
But it's not so much the lack of respect for religion that bugs me as the lack of respect for the religious, for the people who believe in religion of whatever sort. I'm fine with disrespect of religious doctrine, to a point anyway, but you come across as having a withering contempt for any and all believers, and that bothers me. I know too many good and decent and intelligent people of faith not to be offended by that kind of attitude.
Chad Orzel, 12.30.2004, 4:53pm [link]
PZ is welcome to refute this as mischaracterization if it's incorrect, but I think he tolerates religion in the same manner most of us would tolerate the KKK. I think this is a valid form of toleration (I despise the KKK, but barring its members committing actual crimes, I have no choice but to allow it to exist -- it's toleration in a minimal sense), but given the prevalence of religion in the US, PZ must be awfully uncomfortable all the time. For the sake of my own nerves, I am glad my own approach to religion is a bit more relaxed.
John Scalzi, 12.30.2004, 6:27pm [link]
Dammit, late again. What Chad, John and Patrick already said, and better than I would have anyway.
I'll just add that conflating criticism of PZM's frankly boneheaded attitude toward the religious with "being accused of bigotry towards racists" is about the most egregious case of special pleading I've ever seen: "My prejudice is rational, don't you see; I really am superior to the people I despise".
I'll just add that conflating criticism of PZM's frankly boneheaded attitude toward the religious with "being accused of bigotry towards racists" is about the most egregious case of special pleading I've ever seen: "My prejudice is rational, don't you see; I really am superior to the people I despise".
I have to disagree with John. I *suffer* the existence of the KKK; I do not tolerate them. I am compelled by law and by my belief in the principle of free speech, but that does not at all stop me from doing everything within my power to fight the ideals the KKK holds dear. I have no respect for them or their ideals and because I have no respect for them at all I have no tolerance for them, and within the framework of my ethics, morals, and the law of the land, I will happily work to remove them from the face of the earth.
I cannot be reasonably said to be tolerant of something that I would rather see disappear, regardless of what checks and balances may prevent me from actively working toward that end. I speak out against the concept of racial purity and the lie of white power; I actively work against them, even if that action is limited. That is not tolerance. PZM's reaction to religion seems to display that same quality.
Tolerance requires a component of "live and let live" that finds something of worth (respect) in that which we tolerate. Without that respect, there can be no true tolerance and "tolerance" becomes that "gray porridge" that Joseph Duemer spoke of.
I cannot be reasonably said to be tolerant of something that I would rather see disappear, regardless of what checks and balances may prevent me from actively working toward that end. I speak out against the concept of racial purity and the lie of white power; I actively work against them, even if that action is limited. That is not tolerance. PZM's reaction to religion seems to display that same quality.
Tolerance requires a component of "live and let live" that finds something of worth (respect) in that which we tolerate. Without that respect, there can be no true tolerance and "tolerance" becomes that "gray porridge" that Joseph Duemer spoke of.
Devin L. Ganger, 12.30.2004, 11:56pm [link]
I have to come down on PZ's side here. Toleration implies a less-than-favorable feeling toward something. It does not denote or connote any particular degree of distaste, only the existence of distaste. PZ has a high degree of distaste for religion, but he tolerates it. I disagree that toleration requires that one attribute any worth to that which is tolerated.
I think PZ believes that there is no god, as do I. I think he believes that is correct, as do I. Why would I believe something if I did not believe it to be correct? And, I think it is better to believe the correct thing rather than the incorrect thing. Why would I want to teach my children, if I had any, an incorrect thing? It is certainly reasonable to teach them about world religions, since we live in the world, and American religions, since we live in the US. But I also think it is appropriate to teach them about Greek mythology in the same way and with the same respect towards those who believed in it. I feel no need to give that ancient religion any kind of benefit, as if I thought it reasonable for a child to decide to follow that belief system. Nor would I feel any need to give modern religions any benefit, as if they were a reasonable belief system to follow. That would be encouraging them to believe something I believe to be incorrect.
I think PZ believes that there is no god, as do I. I think he believes that is correct, as do I. Why would I believe something if I did not believe it to be correct? And, I think it is better to believe the correct thing rather than the incorrect thing. Why would I want to teach my children, if I had any, an incorrect thing? It is certainly reasonable to teach them about world religions, since we live in the world, and American religions, since we live in the US. But I also think it is appropriate to teach them about Greek mythology in the same way and with the same respect towards those who believed in it. I feel no need to give that ancient religion any kind of benefit, as if I thought it reasonable for a child to decide to follow that belief system. Nor would I feel any need to give modern religions any benefit, as if they were a reasonable belief system to follow. That would be encouraging them to believe something I believe to be incorrect.
Mark, 12.31.2004, 1:37am [link]
Well. Some comment thread going here. Waving hello -- I'm a Scalzi regular who got pointed over here from the Whatever. For the record, John's a FOAF and Patrick hasn't published any of my novels. Probably because I haven't written any or contacted him.
So many good points have been made that I'll try to avoid reiteration, but I want to cover some ground that was missed:
First, I'm surprised to see that no one has leapt to the defense of humanism in this thread. The Petulant One unleashed a broadside against that as well, and I haven't seen the brilliant defense that one can have a fairly rigid system of beliefs even if they're not dressed up in centuries-old ritual. (Perhaps because since he's left, the rest of us take this as given.)
Regarding PZ's commentary, yes, I'd agree that it hardly qualifies as tolerant. But I read it as falling into that Internet hyperbolic zone, where you might call someone a festering putrescence, while in normal conversation you might merely say "unpleasant in polite company". I.e., I didn't think that the over-the-top language was *necessarily* as abrasive as it might have been if offered to a group of acquaintances at Starbucks.
That having been said, one should always be aware that such hyperbole may be taken as literal at any time.
Finally, on the topic of respect and in partial defense of PZ: what I read into his statements here is a perception I have myself, that it's hard for some nonbelievers to respect those who allow their beliefs to supercede their reason. My religion taught me about a merciful God who directly destroyed cities which displeased Him, and who loved his people when they slew their enemies down to the last man, woman, child, and beast of burden. I did not win friends in Hebrew school by pointing out the logical disconnect.
So for me, respecting the religous requires the religous person in question to include a grain or two of salt, an acknowledgement of believing impossible things before breakfast. For my own part, I have to say the same thing because I can respect both religions and the religious while expressly *disrespecting* this core aspect of both.
Finally, because I almost never see this point expressed in discussions of religion: my own theology notes that wishing doesn't make it so in other aspects of my existence, and observes with wonderment how both the believer and the athiest seems to make God the exception. I don't ascribe to humanity the ability to wish God into or out of existence. The afterlife is to us what quasar X-rays were to our ancestors -- or subspace transmissions, if you'd rather use the non-existent imperceptible wavelength. We can't tell if an afterlife is there or not, but there is a factual answer to this question which we will all learn in the next hundred years or so. How anyone can honestly believe that their choice on this issue will make one whit of difference to how the universe is designed just astounds me -- but if they choose to have faith in an afterlife for their own fulfillment in the here-and-now, that's another matter altogether.
So many good points have been made that I'll try to avoid reiteration, but I want to cover some ground that was missed:
First, I'm surprised to see that no one has leapt to the defense of humanism in this thread. The Petulant One unleashed a broadside against that as well, and I haven't seen the brilliant defense that one can have a fairly rigid system of beliefs even if they're not dressed up in centuries-old ritual. (Perhaps because since he's left, the rest of us take this as given.)
Regarding PZ's commentary, yes, I'd agree that it hardly qualifies as tolerant. But I read it as falling into that Internet hyperbolic zone, where you might call someone a festering putrescence, while in normal conversation you might merely say "unpleasant in polite company". I.e., I didn't think that the over-the-top language was *necessarily* as abrasive as it might have been if offered to a group of acquaintances at Starbucks.
That having been said, one should always be aware that such hyperbole may be taken as literal at any time.
Finally, on the topic of respect and in partial defense of PZ: what I read into his statements here is a perception I have myself, that it's hard for some nonbelievers to respect those who allow their beliefs to supercede their reason. My religion taught me about a merciful God who directly destroyed cities which displeased Him, and who loved his people when they slew their enemies down to the last man, woman, child, and beast of burden. I did not win friends in Hebrew school by pointing out the logical disconnect.
So for me, respecting the religous requires the religous person in question to include a grain or two of salt, an acknowledgement of believing impossible things before breakfast. For my own part, I have to say the same thing because I can respect both religions and the religious while expressly *disrespecting* this core aspect of both.
Finally, because I almost never see this point expressed in discussions of religion: my own theology notes that wishing doesn't make it so in other aspects of my existence, and observes with wonderment how both the believer and the athiest seems to make God the exception. I don't ascribe to humanity the ability to wish God into or out of existence. The afterlife is to us what quasar X-rays were to our ancestors -- or subspace transmissions, if you'd rather use the non-existent imperceptible wavelength. We can't tell if an afterlife is there or not, but there is a factual answer to this question which we will all learn in the next hundred years or so. How anyone can honestly believe that their choice on this issue will make one whit of difference to how the universe is designed just astounds me -- but if they choose to have faith in an afterlife for their own fulfillment in the here-and-now, that's another matter altogether.
Jeff Porten, 12.31.2004, 3:32am [link]
Scalzi-
"I'll also explain to her one of the reasons we celebrate Christmas when we do was a matter of the Church co-opting Solstice observances to accommodate previously pagan converts."
It's my experience that a lot of arguments never get explicitly made in time, before they spin out into contests of force that depend as much on the partisan votes of an audience as on any feats of logic or reason for their resolution.
That makes it a task indeed to get to the fundamentals, especially reading backwards as I am from Duemer's blog to here.
I'm guessing Scalzi and his supporters won't see anything in the quoted paragraph aside from benevolent paternal ecumenicism, or more simply, a nice tolerant father explaining Christmas to his daughter. But it's a tell.
There's a solstice festival, there's Christianity, there's pagan converts. And then there's Christmas.
It sounds like a kindly enlightened host family celebrating with a homesick foreign-exchange student. Kite Day in Passaic.
The list of wrongs in that co-option are pretty lengthy, but start with these:
The solstice is real, winter is real. For almost our entire history winter has been a time of scarcity and hardship and death. A celebration of the earth's returning toward the sun, toward light and warmth, was a celebration of the continual rebirth of life. Earthly life.
Co-opting that is more than simple gracious asccomodation, especially when the date is shifted, away from the actual moment of change, to an arbitrary date that has no connection to either the solstice or the historical birth of Jesus Christ. But it does have the psycho-social effect of breaking the "pagan" connection with the natural world.
That's the calendar background.
The blood slaughter that was visited on those pagans, the percentage killed compared to the percentage beaten into conversion compared to the relative few who willingly converted - that's the moral background. Scalzi teaching his child nothing about that means he's teaching her it never happened.
"I'll also explain to her one of the reasons we celebrate Christmas when we do was a matter of the Church co-opting Solstice observances to accommodate previously pagan converts."
It's my experience that a lot of arguments never get explicitly made in time, before they spin out into contests of force that depend as much on the partisan votes of an audience as on any feats of logic or reason for their resolution.
That makes it a task indeed to get to the fundamentals, especially reading backwards as I am from Duemer's blog to here.
I'm guessing Scalzi and his supporters won't see anything in the quoted paragraph aside from benevolent paternal ecumenicism, or more simply, a nice tolerant father explaining Christmas to his daughter. But it's a tell.
There's a solstice festival, there's Christianity, there's pagan converts. And then there's Christmas.
It sounds like a kindly enlightened host family celebrating with a homesick foreign-exchange student. Kite Day in Passaic.
The list of wrongs in that co-option are pretty lengthy, but start with these:
The solstice is real, winter is real. For almost our entire history winter has been a time of scarcity and hardship and death. A celebration of the earth's returning toward the sun, toward light and warmth, was a celebration of the continual rebirth of life. Earthly life.
Co-opting that is more than simple gracious asccomodation, especially when the date is shifted, away from the actual moment of change, to an arbitrary date that has no connection to either the solstice or the historical birth of Jesus Christ. But it does have the psycho-social effect of breaking the "pagan" connection with the natural world.
That's the calendar background.
The blood slaughter that was visited on those pagans, the percentage killed compared to the percentage beaten into conversion compared to the relative few who willingly converted - that's the moral background. Scalzi teaching his child nothing about that means he's teaching her it never happened.
Bucky, 12.31.2004, 6:21am [link]
Mark writes:
Why would I want to teach my children, if I had any, an incorrect thing? It is certainly reasonable to teach them about world religions, since we live in the world, and American religions, since we live in the US. But I also think it is appropriate to teach them about Greek mythology in the same way and with the same respect towards those who believed in it. I feel no need to give that ancient religion any kind of benefit, as if I thought it reasonable for a child to decide to follow that belief system. Nor would I feel any need to give modern religions any benefit, as if they were a reasonable belief system to follow. That would be encouraging them to believe something I believe to be incorrect.
Sure. My point is, there's a way to do this while maintaining a basic level of respect for the people involved in the process. What you describe is more or less what I read John as saying (he can obviously speak for himself), and I have no problem with that.
I'm just saying that it's possible to explain the basics of modern religious belief systems without also implying that anyone who believes has been brainwashed or bamboozled by "wicked superstition," or is just dumber than a tub of cottage cheese. And that I prefer that approach to PZ Myers's.
Jeff Porten:
Regarding PZ's commentary, yes, I'd agree that it hardly qualifies as tolerant. But I read it as falling into that Internet hyperbolic zone, where you might call someone a festering putrescence, while in normal conversation you might merely say "unpleasant in polite company". I.e., I didn't think that the over-the-top language was *necessarily* as abrasive as it might have been if offered to a group of acquaintances at Starbucks.
See, the thing is, as a regular reader of Pharyngula for the last N months, that wasn't all that hyperbolic. It's pretty much par for the course over there.
So for me, respecting the religous requires the religous person in question to include a grain or two of salt, an acknowledgement of believing impossible things before breakfast. For my own part, I have to say the same thing because I can respect both religions and the religious while expressly *disrespecting* this core aspect of both.
Absolutely.
The point of contention in the nasty parts of this comment thread really seems to concern how numerous those reasonable believers are.
I should note that I have no problem with disrespecting individual believers, or even particular groups of believers. I've never met Fred Phelps or any of his acolytes, but based on what I know of their beliefs, I'm perfectly happy to rate them somewhere below pond scum on the Great Chain of Respect.
I'm not comfortable with the idea that it's OK to disrespect religion in general, or religious people in general. As I said, I know too many good people who are religious to be comfortable with that kind of generalization, even when applied to groups that I have trouble with.
(I play basketball with a guy who's born-again, and you'd never really know. If you think about it a bit, he never actually swears (he says "Dang" a lot), and he did miss a game last year to go to a Promise Keepers rally, but he doesn't talk about religion, or push anything on people at work. And he's a terrific guy, even if he does shoot a little too much.
(As a result of knowing him, I'll be a little more moderate in my statements about the Promise Keepers in the future.)
Bucky writes:
I'm guessing Scalzi and his supporters won't see anything in the quoted paragraph aside from benevolent paternal ecumenicism, or more simply, a nice tolerant father explaining Christmas to his daughter. But it's a tell.
Again, John can speak for himself, but I'm willing to cut him some slack, and assume that he was merely eliding the details of the long, long list of things that are involved in teaching about the origins of Christmas. The original essay was long enough as it was.
Also, I really do not want to get into a discussion of who bloodily oppressed who nigh on two thousand years ago. Nor do I want to host such a discussion. Please save the catalogue of the many and manifest crimes of Christianity for some other blog.
Why would I want to teach my children, if I had any, an incorrect thing? It is certainly reasonable to teach them about world religions, since we live in the world, and American religions, since we live in the US. But I also think it is appropriate to teach them about Greek mythology in the same way and with the same respect towards those who believed in it. I feel no need to give that ancient religion any kind of benefit, as if I thought it reasonable for a child to decide to follow that belief system. Nor would I feel any need to give modern religions any benefit, as if they were a reasonable belief system to follow. That would be encouraging them to believe something I believe to be incorrect.
Sure. My point is, there's a way to do this while maintaining a basic level of respect for the people involved in the process. What you describe is more or less what I read John as saying (he can obviously speak for himself), and I have no problem with that.
I'm just saying that it's possible to explain the basics of modern religious belief systems without also implying that anyone who believes has been brainwashed or bamboozled by "wicked superstition," or is just dumber than a tub of cottage cheese. And that I prefer that approach to PZ Myers's.
Jeff Porten:
Regarding PZ's commentary, yes, I'd agree that it hardly qualifies as tolerant. But I read it as falling into that Internet hyperbolic zone, where you might call someone a festering putrescence, while in normal conversation you might merely say "unpleasant in polite company". I.e., I didn't think that the over-the-top language was *necessarily* as abrasive as it might have been if offered to a group of acquaintances at Starbucks.
See, the thing is, as a regular reader of Pharyngula for the last N months, that wasn't all that hyperbolic. It's pretty much par for the course over there.
So for me, respecting the religous requires the religous person in question to include a grain or two of salt, an acknowledgement of believing impossible things before breakfast. For my own part, I have to say the same thing because I can respect both religions and the religious while expressly *disrespecting* this core aspect of both.
Absolutely.
The point of contention in the nasty parts of this comment thread really seems to concern how numerous those reasonable believers are.
I should note that I have no problem with disrespecting individual believers, or even particular groups of believers. I've never met Fred Phelps or any of his acolytes, but based on what I know of their beliefs, I'm perfectly happy to rate them somewhere below pond scum on the Great Chain of Respect.
I'm not comfortable with the idea that it's OK to disrespect religion in general, or religious people in general. As I said, I know too many good people who are religious to be comfortable with that kind of generalization, even when applied to groups that I have trouble with.
(I play basketball with a guy who's born-again, and you'd never really know. If you think about it a bit, he never actually swears (he says "Dang" a lot), and he did miss a game last year to go to a Promise Keepers rally, but he doesn't talk about religion, or push anything on people at work. And he's a terrific guy, even if he does shoot a little too much.
(As a result of knowing him, I'll be a little more moderate in my statements about the Promise Keepers in the future.)
Bucky writes:
I'm guessing Scalzi and his supporters won't see anything in the quoted paragraph aside from benevolent paternal ecumenicism, or more simply, a nice tolerant father explaining Christmas to his daughter. But it's a tell.
Again, John can speak for himself, but I'm willing to cut him some slack, and assume that he was merely eliding the details of the long, long list of things that are involved in teaching about the origins of Christmas. The original essay was long enough as it was.
Also, I really do not want to get into a discussion of who bloodily oppressed who nigh on two thousand years ago. Nor do I want to host such a discussion. Please save the catalogue of the many and manifest crimes of Christianity for some other blog.
Chad Orzel, 12.31.2004, 8:18am [link]
Chad, I find your response to Bucky disappointing. Not that I expect you to invite a screed against Christianity or any other religion; but Bucky is making a point more bluntly that I have tried to make more abstractly over the last couple of days both here & at my own site: To sing the praises of religious tolerance without considering the crimes committed by religious believers in the name of religion is to fail the test of moral seriousness. Consider, for an example, the Magdalene laundries of Ireland, only abolished in the last decade. If the religion of Christianity is not responsible for imprisoning the victims of rape & incest for their "crimes" against conventional morality while the priests & fathers & brothers who knocked up these young women walked around free, then who or what is? Just a bunch of bad individual Irish people? No, that's logically absurd. The laundries were in every way a Christian institution. Religions are part of society & to abstract out one part of their "instruction set" while blacking out other parts of that instruction set strikes me as less than a full picture of what is going on.
Upon reflection, I reject John's "instruction set" view of religion in favor of something more empirical: the practices of believers. Does this mean that I hate all Christian individuals? Of course not. There are, as you note, too many people of faith who lead exemplary & moral lives. Religions, as human institutions, seem to have, like governments, the inherent power to produce both good & bad behavior. Intellectual honesty demands that we not turn away from the evil done by religions in the name of a superficial tolerance. To do so is the height of sentimentality.
Anyway, this is a discussion I have been having with Tor & Umop at my own site (though I haven't added to it today because I've been busy with family) & I have no desire to ignite more wildfires here at your place, nor to go to the mat again with John Scalzi, though, as I have said, I believe that his "instruction set" view of religion is flawed by an unsupportable philosophical idealism. Bucky was pointing to that sentimental lapse. I think he is right to do so & I don't think discussing this problem needs to amount to a catalogue of crimes committed by Christians. But, in any case, we do not need to pursue the conversation here: my blog comments are open for that purpose & I expect to have more to say on the subject sooner rather than later.
A note to John: I am grateful that we have begun to reach some sense of each other as persons & nothing I have said here is intended to diminish that mutual accomplishment. We have a disagreement. I'd like to have your thoughtful response & I will respond in kind. Given Chad's preferences, probably best to do it at my place, so in the morning, I will post this comment there as a new entry & we can see what develops.
Upon reflection, I reject John's "instruction set" view of religion in favor of something more empirical: the practices of believers. Does this mean that I hate all Christian individuals? Of course not. There are, as you note, too many people of faith who lead exemplary & moral lives. Religions, as human institutions, seem to have, like governments, the inherent power to produce both good & bad behavior. Intellectual honesty demands that we not turn away from the evil done by religions in the name of a superficial tolerance. To do so is the height of sentimentality.
Anyway, this is a discussion I have been having with Tor & Umop at my own site (though I haven't added to it today because I've been busy with family) & I have no desire to ignite more wildfires here at your place, nor to go to the mat again with John Scalzi, though, as I have said, I believe that his "instruction set" view of religion is flawed by an unsupportable philosophical idealism. Bucky was pointing to that sentimental lapse. I think he is right to do so & I don't think discussing this problem needs to amount to a catalogue of crimes committed by Christians. But, in any case, we do not need to pursue the conversation here: my blog comments are open for that purpose & I expect to have more to say on the subject sooner rather than later.
A note to John: I am grateful that we have begun to reach some sense of each other as persons & nothing I have said here is intended to diminish that mutual accomplishment. We have a disagreement. I'd like to have your thoughtful response & I will respond in kind. Given Chad's preferences, probably best to do it at my place, so in the morning, I will post this comment there as a new entry & we can see what develops.
Joseph Duemer, 12.31.2004, 9:20pm [link]
Chad, I find your response to Bucky disappointing. Not that I expect you to invite a screed against Christianity or any other religion; but Bucky is making a point more bluntly that I have tried to make more abstractly over the last couple of days both here & at my own site: To sing the praises of religious tolerance without considering the crimes committed by religious believers in the name of religion is to fail the test of moral seriousness.
First of all, Bucky's post has every hallmark of someone with an axe to grind, and while I'm weirdly happy to have a comment thread break 50 posts (within an order of magnitude of TNH's best!), I'd rather he use somebody else's whetstone.
More importantly, however unserious it may be to failt to consider crimes in the name of religion, it is equally unfair to focus solely on the crimes, while ignoring good deeds done in the name of religion. If we must list off every wrong ever done by a believer in order to be "morally serious," then surely intellectual honesty demands that we also tote up the good deeds of religious charities, and schools, and orphanages?
And that way lies madness, by way of incredibly tedious moral calculus (how many pagan deaths are canceled out by the Church's role in preserving knowledge through the "Dark Ages"?). We could play the tit-for-tat game of "religion is responsible for Bad Thing X" and "yes, but what about Good Deed Y," but frankly, I think I'd rather remove my own appendix with a spork.
First of all, Bucky's post has every hallmark of someone with an axe to grind, and while I'm weirdly happy to have a comment thread break 50 posts (within an order of magnitude of TNH's best!), I'd rather he use somebody else's whetstone.
More importantly, however unserious it may be to failt to consider crimes in the name of religion, it is equally unfair to focus solely on the crimes, while ignoring good deeds done in the name of religion. If we must list off every wrong ever done by a believer in order to be "morally serious," then surely intellectual honesty demands that we also tote up the good deeds of religious charities, and schools, and orphanages?
And that way lies madness, by way of incredibly tedious moral calculus (how many pagan deaths are canceled out by the Church's role in preserving knowledge through the "Dark Ages"?). We could play the tit-for-tat game of "religion is responsible for Bad Thing X" and "yes, but what about Good Deed Y," but frankly, I think I'd rather remove my own appendix with a spork.
Chad Orzel, 01.01.2005, 11:56am [link]
Chad, I won't pursue this here, but take it up at my place. Thanks for sharing your bandwidth.
Joseph Duemer, 01.01.2005, 12:08pm [link]
People did those various good things you might recount if you were more enthusiastic about sporkage, not religion.
One of the many things I detest about religion is the way it appropriates the good that people do to itself, and the willingness of so many to assign virtue to it rather than themselves.
One of the many things I detest about religion is the way it appropriates the good that people do to itself, and the willingness of so many to assign virtue to it rather than themselves.
People did those various good things you might recount if you were more enthusiastic about sporkage, not religion.
And people did the bad things you're so eager to assign blame for.
Why is it that only the blame attaches to the institution?
And people did the bad things you're so eager to assign blame for.
Why is it that only the blame attaches to the institution?
Chad Orzel, 01.01.2005, 4:31pm [link]
Because religion is a lie.
It's really that simple. I'm willing to call a lie a lie. People do good, people do bad; it doesn't matter whether they are atheists or true believers. But the institution of religion is corrupt at its heart. Strip away everything else, and all you've got is noise and distractions.
I'm taking a strongly humanist perspective. It's the deeds and words of people that matter, and the evil is in tying everything to this false god-thing and taking criticism of the god-thing as an attack on people, as you have done here. What I see in this thread is a group of people who have so strongly identified themselves and their culture with this phony gaseous vertebrate of their priesthood that they take any insult to it as a personal affront.
It's really that simple. I'm willing to call a lie a lie. People do good, people do bad; it doesn't matter whether they are atheists or true believers. But the institution of religion is corrupt at its heart. Strip away everything else, and all you've got is noise and distractions.
I'm taking a strongly humanist perspective. It's the deeds and words of people that matter, and the evil is in tying everything to this false god-thing and taking criticism of the god-thing as an attack on people, as you have done here. What I see in this thread is a group of people who have so strongly identified themselves and their culture with this phony gaseous vertebrate of their priesthood that they take any insult to it as a personal affront.
Chad: "Why is it that only the blame attaches to the institution?"
PZ: "Because religion is a lie."
For the sake of argument, assuming it were so, PZ's answer does not adequately resolve, for me, what I see as the inconsistency of attributing Mother Theresa's good deeds to her goodness as a person, but blaming Fred Phelp's bad deeds on Christianity, as though a religion could only take credit for the bad and never the good.
Both people, after all, have done their deeds in response to what they believe their religion requires. The difference in their behavior suggests to me that A) Christianity itself is a mixed bag, containing in its holy book both the Sermon on the Mount and the laws of Leviticus, and B) some people's moral (or im-) character leads them to pay more attention to one or the other.
It is my experience that a beautiful lie can, in some, inspire beautiful deeds.
PZ: "Because religion is a lie."
For the sake of argument, assuming it were so, PZ's answer does not adequately resolve, for me, what I see as the inconsistency of attributing Mother Theresa's good deeds to her goodness as a person, but blaming Fred Phelp's bad deeds on Christianity, as though a religion could only take credit for the bad and never the good.
Both people, after all, have done their deeds in response to what they believe their religion requires. The difference in their behavior suggests to me that A) Christianity itself is a mixed bag, containing in its holy book both the Sermon on the Mount and the laws of Leviticus, and B) some people's moral (or im-) character leads them to pay more attention to one or the other.
It is my experience that a beautiful lie can, in some, inspire beautiful deeds.
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little, 01.01.2005, 7:29pm [link]
I'm taking a strongly humanist perspective.
No, you're not. At least, not consistently.
You're taking a strongly anti-religionist perspective, in which people do bad things because of religion, but people do good things in spite of religion.
You're begging the question-- you already know that religion is bad, therefore all the bad things that religious people do get charged to religion, but all the good things that religious people do are for some other reason, because religion is bad, and can't lead to anything good. QED.
A self-consistent "strongly humanist" perspective would either find that religion is a mixed bag, sometimes inspiring good, and sometimes inspiring evil, or that it's a non-issue, with good people doing good deeds and bad people doing bad deeds, and each using religion as an excuse for things they would've done anyway. See Nicole's comment for an example.
What you're pushing is a biased and inconsistent muddle maquerading as humanism.
No, you're not. At least, not consistently.
You're taking a strongly anti-religionist perspective, in which people do bad things because of religion, but people do good things in spite of religion.
You're begging the question-- you already know that religion is bad, therefore all the bad things that religious people do get charged to religion, but all the good things that religious people do are for some other reason, because religion is bad, and can't lead to anything good. QED.
A self-consistent "strongly humanist" perspective would either find that religion is a mixed bag, sometimes inspiring good, and sometimes inspiring evil, or that it's a non-issue, with good people doing good deeds and bad people doing bad deeds, and each using religion as an excuse for things they would've done anyway. See Nicole's comment for an example.
What you're pushing is a biased and inconsistent muddle maquerading as humanism.
Chad Orzel, 01.01.2005, 9:17pm [link]
What's really weird about this thread is how many people are trying to tell me what I think.
Where ever do you get the idea that I think all the bad things religious people do are due to their religion? It's not something I've ever said, and it's certainly not what I think. Fred Phelps is a rotten human being who would be just as rotten if he were an atheist.
Where do you get the idea that I think people working within religion can't do good for religious cause? I think Bach did some mighty fine work for his church, as just one example (but please, not Mother Theresa...I think she was an awful excuse for a human being who promoted more misery than help.)
And yes, I agree that religion is a complete non-issue as far as morality goes. We can find individuals who do good within the framework of their faith, and others that do evil.
So we strip away morality as a useful excuse for promoting religion, and what are we left with? Old fables that attempt to explain the natural world, and fail? Unreliable histories? Dogmas that lock people into strange behaviors? Institutionalized hierarchies that siphon off resources and energies wastefully?
Can anyone tell me what is so beautiful about this lie, or why it should somehow be more inspiring or more beautiful than the truth?
Where ever do you get the idea that I think all the bad things religious people do are due to their religion? It's not something I've ever said, and it's certainly not what I think. Fred Phelps is a rotten human being who would be just as rotten if he were an atheist.
Where do you get the idea that I think people working within religion can't do good for religious cause? I think Bach did some mighty fine work for his church, as just one example (but please, not Mother Theresa...I think she was an awful excuse for a human being who promoted more misery than help.)
And yes, I agree that religion is a complete non-issue as far as morality goes. We can find individuals who do good within the framework of their faith, and others that do evil.
So we strip away morality as a useful excuse for promoting religion, and what are we left with? Old fables that attempt to explain the natural world, and fail? Unreliable histories? Dogmas that lock people into strange behaviors? Institutionalized hierarchies that siphon off resources and energies wastefully?
Can anyone tell me what is so beautiful about this lie, or why it should somehow be more inspiring or more beautiful than the truth?
Uh, a quick catch-up here, since I've been out:
Devin Ganger says: "I have to disagree with John. I *suffer* the existence of the KKK; I do not tolerate them."
Heh. Well, you tolerate them in the sense that tolerance means "the capacity to endure hardship or pain." I doubt I like them any more than you, but I would rather tolerate their speech and work to counteract it than to have them silenced. And though I would seriously doubt if I would cry if each of its members hurled his racist ass in front of a bus, I wouldn't push.
Bucky: "Scalzi teaching his child nothing about that means he's teaching her it never happened."
As some fairly important people in my life classify themselves as pagans and wiccan, it seems reasonably likely Athena will learn a fair amount in that direction. However, in a general sense I would disagree with the formulation of when might be too late to learn certain things. Most of my education about religious groups and practices came in my teens and college years. I've been around devoutly religious people all my life (and specifically Christians) and like nearly all people had the "Heavy Christmas and Jesus, with a light sprinkling of Hanukkah" approach to the holidays ground into my head. And yet here I am, not only non-religious but also possessing a fair share of knowledge about quite a few religious practices. In short, Bucky, I do not think things are as dire as all that.
Mr. Duemer -- Yes, I'll swing by your site to continue that discussion. And likewise, I'm glad we've both agree to continue the discussion congenially.
Devin Ganger says: "I have to disagree with John. I *suffer* the existence of the KKK; I do not tolerate them."
Heh. Well, you tolerate them in the sense that tolerance means "the capacity to endure hardship or pain." I doubt I like them any more than you, but I would rather tolerate their speech and work to counteract it than to have them silenced. And though I would seriously doubt if I would cry if each of its members hurled his racist ass in front of a bus, I wouldn't push.
Bucky: "Scalzi teaching his child nothing about that means he's teaching her it never happened."
As some fairly important people in my life classify themselves as pagans and wiccan, it seems reasonably likely Athena will learn a fair amount in that direction. However, in a general sense I would disagree with the formulation of when might be too late to learn certain things. Most of my education about religious groups and practices came in my teens and college years. I've been around devoutly religious people all my life (and specifically Christians) and like nearly all people had the "Heavy Christmas and Jesus, with a light sprinkling of Hanukkah" approach to the holidays ground into my head. And yet here I am, not only non-religious but also possessing a fair share of knowledge about quite a few religious practices. In short, Bucky, I do not think things are as dire as all that.
Mr. Duemer -- Yes, I'll swing by your site to continue that discussion. And likewise, I'm glad we've both agree to continue the discussion congenially.
John Scalzi, 01.01.2005, 11:02pm [link]
Just a little clarity on my thing about slaughter etc. that I think caused you to say your thing about save the catalogue of "the many and manifest crimes of Christianity" which caused others to...
You probably wouldn't be that interested in the many paragraphs it would take me to distinguish what I see as responsible for those "many and manifest crimes", from Christianity as taught by its founder, so I'll do the short version.
3 elements. Christ the teacher; those teachings as a moral philosophy and spiritual discipline called Christianity; institutional Christianity.
The last is the one I meant.
The sidestep of accumulated guilt isn't unique to Christianity by any means.
Culpability in the context of group behavior is a seriously undefined moral question today, as we see everywhere - with corporate assertions of legal identity and demands for protection on one hand, and their complete abdication of moral identity and accountability on the other.
In that sense Christianity is a branded service provider, not a religion. My axe isn't with Jesus.
The Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, in the Guardian on Christmas Eve, puts the case succinctly and with restraint. Also irrefutably.
If I lived in Putney, I'd be down to the church to hear the vicar every Sunday, rain or shine.
You probably wouldn't be that interested in the many paragraphs it would take me to distinguish what I see as responsible for those "many and manifest crimes", from Christianity as taught by its founder, so I'll do the short version.
3 elements. Christ the teacher; those teachings as a moral philosophy and spiritual discipline called Christianity; institutional Christianity.
The last is the one I meant.
The sidestep of accumulated guilt isn't unique to Christianity by any means.
Culpability in the context of group behavior is a seriously undefined moral question today, as we see everywhere - with corporate assertions of legal identity and demands for protection on one hand, and their complete abdication of moral identity and accountability on the other.
In that sense Christianity is a branded service provider, not a religion. My axe isn't with Jesus.
The Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, in the Guardian on Christmas Eve, puts the case succinctly and with restraint. Also irrefutably.
If I lived in Putney, I'd be down to the church to hear the vicar every Sunday, rain or shine.
Bucky, 01.02.2005, 2:26am [link]
What's really weird about this thread is how many people are trying to tell me what I think.
Where ever do you get the idea that I think all the bad things religious people do are due to their religion? It's not something I've ever said, and it's certainly not what I think.
Looking back over the thread, I think your re-entry fell in a place where I mentally conflated some of your statements with some of Joseph Duemer's. I apologize for the confusion.
Where ever do you get the idea that I think all the bad things religious people do are due to their religion? It's not something I've ever said, and it's certainly not what I think.
Looking back over the thread, I think your re-entry fell in a place where I mentally conflated some of your statements with some of Joseph Duemer's. I apologize for the confusion.
Chad Orzel, 01.02.2005, 9:55am [link]
Uh, Chad, I have been making an argument with exactly the same logical form as yours, except that in addressing the Tolerance Movement, I suggested that if we were going to ascribe good stuff to religion, we had also to consider the bad stuff. Please recall that this discussion began with your contrasting Scalzi & Myers with your preference for Scalzi & his "instruction set" model of religion. My point all along -- developed more full at my site in comments with Tor & Umop -- has been that if you're going to credit religion with the glories of Bach, the prose of the King James Bible, the Alhambra, Angor Wat, or just generally making people nicer, that consistency demands you also credit it with the Crusades, the Magdalene Laundries, suicide bombers & making people nasty & etc. Of course, as you note, we could simply agree that religion is irrelevant in the consideration of these matters, but that is not what the initial thesis of Scalzi's piece was, not of your blog post contrasting it with PZ Myers' piece on St. Pats.
By the way, as long as I am correcting the record, a lot of people in this thread -- some of whom accused me of the inability to read clearly & reason, uh, reasonably -- kept quoting me as asserting the "Quakers are barely Christians" when what I actually wrote was that "some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians." John has remarked at his own site & possibly here that he values accuracy & precision in writing. So do I, which is why I cast that sentence as I did.
By the way, as long as I am correcting the record, a lot of people in this thread -- some of whom accused me of the inability to read clearly & reason, uh, reasonably -- kept quoting me as asserting the "Quakers are barely Christians" when what I actually wrote was that "some Quakers barely consider themselves Christians." John has remarked at his own site & possibly here that he values accuracy & precision in writing. So do I, which is why I cast that sentence as I did.
Joseph Duemer, 01.02.2005, 10:38am [link]
Bucky, Rev. Giles is very clear about the double nature of the instruction set. Thanks for the link. If I lived in Putny, I join you in the pew.
Joseph Duemer, 01.02.2005, 10:57am [link]
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED.
Please visit Uncertain Principles' new location at ScienceBlogs to comment.
I really can't approve of John Scalzi's Laodicean attitude. Believe, if you can. Disbelieve, if you must. But don't pick out just the pretty parts to pass on.
jam, 12.27.2004, 4:28pm [link]