Learning How To Be One Of The Good Guys
The disadvantage of being one of the good guys is that you have to work within certain rules. When you see a change that needs to be made for the better, sometimes you can't acheive it because it would mean doing something wrong. This compromise is an age-old tale. The effort to make the world of strangers into a better place, and the effort to do direct, first-hand good to the actual people you meet and talk to, sometimes conflict. For instance, how many people have invented cures for horrible diseases and lost their families in the process?
There was once a documentary film made which, in one segment, depicted a man who collected personal photographs of Nazis. Officers of the Third Reich eating dinner with their families, opening presents on Christmas morning, and playing catch with their cherubic offspring. Had it not been for the uniforms they were wearing in these lovely family scenes, you would never have known they just got done gassing people the day before. My point is certainly not to make any comparisons that would invoke Godwin's Law. It's just to say that, like the man in the film said, sometimes a person can be really evil and also normal. Normal people are not cardboard cutouts, they have tremendous good and evil mixed together. But if you point out the evil, you're not going to have any friends or family. Religion is evil, and everybody reading this has loved ones who are religious.
In the society we live in, the same person who thinks God will burn your flesh off for eternity, and refers to that fate as nothing less than you deserve, will also pull over to the side of the road and change the tire of a total stranger without fail. I love them one minute and bitterly despise them the next. It is not a situation where I feel "tempted" to mock and ridicule people of faith and eventually give in with a lot of struggle and rationalization. No. The way it happens is, I just hold them in contempt, from the sincerest and most real place in my heart, and then I remind myself about the tire change and remember I shouldn't do that.
It's ugly, and you would probably rather I be beautiful than true. I'm truly sorry. I want the world to change, and I swear I still haven't figured out how to do it without collateral damage to the feelings of nice people. I don't like collateral damage, I don't consider it acceptable, and I don't excuse it.
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers declare that the emperor simply has no clothes. And who throws fruit at them? Not just creationists. Liberals who should be on their side. They are the Good Guys I was referring to earlier. But what are they doing to solve the problem? I ask you. Educated progressives are often so sheltered, so out of touch with the damage being done, that not only are they on the sidelines in the fight, they'll actually get in the way. They remember the time a religious person pulled over and changed their tire, and will not call them on their outrageously evil bullshit.
And then we wonder why we lose. I hope you will read P.Z. Myers' post which was just nominated for a Koufax Award:
You would be surprised at how much email is sent to me telling me to stop being so derisive, that harsh language and ridicule turn people off and repel the very ones we're trying to persuade. My reply is like the one above; by refusing to ridicule the ridiculous, by watering down every criticism into a mannered circumlocution, we have created an environment where idiots thrive unchallenged. We have a twit for a president because so many people made apologies for his ludicrous lack of qualifications—we need more people unabashedly pointing out fools."
There exist popular beliefs which you literally cannot speak intelligently about in a respectful way, such as the belief that you deserve to have your skin burned off for all eternity, but God still values you and you're his favorite kid. It is so far out, so impossible to respect, that intelligent disagreement automatically constitutes disrespect.
I do not have the type of personality that tends toward depression, at all. But there is one thing that occasionally makes me feel like I have no reason to get out of bed ever again, and that's reading very persuasive essays by people I respect, such as this, that tell me I need to lay down and stop fighting. I'm serious when I say these are really persuasive and deflating. When I get done reading, I feel like I have nothing to live for. How do you fight for what you care about without any spirit?
But then I look into the eyes of my loved ones, and then I go to meet my friends on Monday night, and I say to myself, "you know, this is a pretty good thing for my life to be about."
It is a horrible choice to have to make, and sometimes I sense the wary compromise weakening. I have no answer. I have no ending for this essay. You can take it from here.
Comments
rachelann1977 on Jan. 31, 2006 9:39 PM
Just so you know, to quote a cheesy Billy Joel song, "We love you just the way you are." Those of us who love you know your beliefs and some of us may even have some inkling of why you pursue them the way you do. It's part of what makes you who you are, and I don't think any of your friends seriously expect or want you to change. (Maybe some of the Christian ones hope for it, I don't know, but that's not the same, to me.)
I, for one, am most likely well on my way to be converted to a way of thinking that more closely resembles that of yours, and P.Z.'s, and Dawkins's, and am extremely glad to have been exposed to a new way of thinking. It wasn't exactly a radical change for me. My life has been a series of slow changes, always leading in the same direction. But I realized watching Dawkins that for most of my childhood and a good part of my adulthood, that I have had a bias against atheism that had no rational basis. It's how I was raised. My parents didn't mean to do it, it just happened.
It's good to encourage people to think about their beliefs, and to be as rational as possible. And I think, for the most part, you can do this and still have friends and family, etc.
I admire your enthusiasm deeply, and I think it is part of what makes you so charismatic. It is contagious, and wonderful, and I hope you never try to change that part of yourself.
Just my 2 cents (why is there no cent symbol on the keyboard?)
dionysus1999 on Jan. 31, 2006 10:45 PM
I'm in your camp, Matt, the atheist camp, anyway. I've struggled with these same thoughts. My in-laws are fundamentalists, intelligent fundamentalists. I wonder how their heads don't blow off from cognitive dissonance.
I still haven't been convinced that religion is evil, though, even if I equate it to same realm as belief in UFO's or the Tooth Fairy. People commit evil or good acts despite their professed religious inclination. People justify their bigotry and hate with sacred texts. In at least some cases, its not the religion that endorses the behavior but the individual looking for a good excuse to attack group X or belief Y.
Religion is just another fall guy for morons (G.W.), hustlers (Robertson, etc) and other stranger creatures. If it wasn't Xianity, it would be something else they'd be pinning their homophobia, ignorance and greed on.
matt-arnold on Feb. 1, 2006 2:02 AM
When beliefs are not thought through, they are often no more than nominal beliefs. I can shake hands with such a person and go on with business. A lot of religious people are purely nominal, and their beliefs are not integrated into their attitudes in a harmful way. The degree to which such beliefs translate into bad actions and internalized attitudes is the degree to which I would approach someone and confront them. Or at least I'd make them uncomfortably aware that they are harmful and attacking, if they don't realize it.
Remember, C.I.T.O.K.A.T.E. Criticism is the only known antidote to error.
trav13369 on Feb. 1, 2006 3:47 AM
Oh damn, do I have a person for you to "confront", heh heh...
Co-worker, name's Michele, raised Baptist, recently went HARDCORE Pentacostal over a year ago (mentioned her repeatedly in the MIRC chatroom as "Windtunnel" LOL). Seems all getting saved did for her was exacerbate already-present traits in her that I've endured for years from her: self-centeredness, intolerance, closedmindedness. Basically a brat, now also nearly to the point of insufferability. I've known her for 12 years, a fair enough amount of time to gauge a person, and I've noticed this also-she spends more time telling herself and others that she's agood Christian, than actually trying to BE one. Hell, I'M a better Christian than her, if what you should typically do as one is the to-do list for that.
You even say ANYTHING that contrasts the Bible, she goes off. Oh, I told her about how the Xmas tree was a pagan contribution,.....Holy Ground Zero, I thought I was at Alamogordo LOL! And I've been witness to her temper-when it happens, I say her "bitch switch" has been flipped on LOL
At this point, I've given up starting conversations with her or trying to tell her about my life (crazy as it is), and just let her ramble. I'm patient for when someone gets on her with management about pressing religious matters in the workplace.
Just my .02
natashasikorsky on Feb. 1, 2006 10:03 PM
I told her about how the Xmas tree was a pagan contribution
That's a common misconception, but at least it's an attempt to build a bridge rather than blow one up.
Where did the Christmas tree come from? Three versions that I'm aware of:
In Scandinavian tradition a tree is cut down on the Solstice and a large log is cut from it and burned. While it burns there is feasting. It's called the Yule log. Some people think this is the origin of the Christmas tree.
Some druidic traditions hold that the evergreen tree is a symbol of everlasting life since it keeps it's form through the winter. Branches from evergreens are used as decoration in tribute to the power of the sun.
A better explanation comes from German origin. To stop the Germanic peoples from offering sacrifices to trees, specifically oak trees, the missionary St. Boniface chopped down a great oak sacred to the people called the Donar Oak and replaced it with a fir tree, which he decorated. There is a Christian myth about an act of God making the felling of the tree require just one blow, but the truth is likely that he just chopped the thing down and the non-Christians were probably quite upset and the Christians ran with the decorated fir tree as a new tradition.
It wasn't an adoption or a co-opting of a pagan ritual, it was the attempted stopping of a pagan ritual.
self-centeredness, intolerance, closedmindedness.
And where I do I see this? Hmmm... can't... quite... put my finger on it...
trav13369 on Feb. 1, 2006 10:58 PM — ok....
The Xmas tree thing, I should have said this: "The Pope just didn't come out and say "Christ's birthday IS Dec. 25, everyone put up a pine tree and decorate it." I heard the Church made concessions with the pagans to get them to join the Holy Roman Empire.
And I KNOW I'm not the "it" you're trying to put a finger on LOL. My co-worker rams Pentacostal propoganda down my throat daily, even telling me that I NEED to be saved. After about two years, even my patience is tested. She wants to worship her way? Fabulous. Just don't browbeat me with it-my connection to the cosmos is my own.
natashasikorsky on Feb. 1, 2006 11:39 PM — Re: ok....
The Pope just didn't come out and say "Christ's birthday IS Dec. 25
He didn't? D'oh! :-)
My co-worker rams Pentacostal propoganda down my throat daily
She's being obnoxious and presumptuous. That's a far cry from evil, in my book. My, urmmm... good book :-)
Amy
trav13369 on Feb. 2, 2006 12:07 AM — Re: ok....
I was raised Catholic, and have been under the impression that being a good Christian is better than going around saying you are. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Also, don't get the picture that Michele is someone I hate. Far from, it's that being saved has made it where she talks about nothing else! I understand that if it works for you, great! Just use it for you, don't browbeat others. Everyone has their own path of the spiritual (on dating profiles, I choose "Spiritual but not religious"). I jokingly uses Matt's phrase "puts the "mental" in "fundamentalism"" for Michele. Michele knows I have been with her through the last decade or so of crap in her life. I've dropped what I was doing to come to her side on many an occasion, and listened to her talk about family, her outside life, etc., ad nauseam.
Michele is just kinda the pain in the ass kid sister (she's 2.5 yrs. my junior). I love her dearly, it's just that getting saved part. Getting saved from what? I see her in no physical danger, and the whole Heaven/hell thing? Jury's still out on that in my court. She had hit rock bottom in her life and chose religion as her way out.
flutterby68 on Feb. 1, 2006 11:37 PM — Intolerant? TRAV???
I've known Trav for years, and he is my best friend. He is one of the MOST tolerant people I know, particularly when it comes to the differing spiritual beliefs of people he knows. Windtunnel (and yes, the name fits) is someone I've known both before and after her sudden religious epiphany. She was an intolerant, humorless, self-righteous bitch BEFORE she found religion. Now she's still an intolerant, humorless, self-righteous bitch, who figuratively beats you over the head with her bible because she can't come up with an original thought of her own.
She is the living embodiment of the type of fundamentalist christian that is vilified by other christians as a bad example. I have met her on several occasions, and since she was an important part of Trav's life at the time, I honestly tried to like her. However, it's hard to like someone who goes out of her way to be as abrasive and judgmental as possible.
She reminds me of something I heard from a friend, and I think it bears repeating: Sharing Jesus is like sharing a sandwich; you share it with someone who is hungry for it, you don't cram it down anyone's throat.
natashasikorsky on Feb. 1, 2006 11:40 PM — Re: Intolerant? TRAV???
I was referring to Matt. Thought that was clear from context. I don't think I know who Trav is.
trav13369 on Feb. 1, 2006 11:50 PM — Re: Intolerant? TRAV???
Amy, you replied to my post, I got the notice in my private e-mail. The context, therefore, would have been that you replied to me and were calling me intolerant and close-minded. I've been through two divorces in eight yrs. so I KNOW I've been called much worse LOL ;).
I'm an acquaintance of Matt's-I know him through Flutterby68 and my roommate, known as Eoghnved here on LJ. I find his posts to be thought-provoking, and this one about religion hit some small nerve in me. So I enlightened him to my daily "trav"-ails with my co-worker. A flame war on religion, I was NOT looking for.
natashasikorsky on Feb. 2, 2006 12:02 AM — Re: Intolerant? TRAV???
Many apologies for my mis-communication. I did not, and still do not, have any reason to believe you are intolerant.
trav13369 on Feb. 2, 2006 12:08 AM — Re: Intolerant? TRAV???
s'all good, no autopsy, no foul LOL
sarahmichigan on Jan. 31, 2006 11:20 PM
In the society we live in, the same person who thinks God will burn your flesh off for eternity, and refers to that fate as nothing less than you deserve, will also pull over to the side of the road and change the tire of a total stranger without fail.
Once on the phone with my mother, I badgered her into telling me that she thought I was going to hell. I just wanted to hear her say it.
I try not to hate and feel contempt for the unquestioning religious, too, especially since they're family, but it's hard. I had a hard time not throwing up when I saw that my sister and bro-in-law were using pro-creationist videos to teach their home-schooled kids about genetics. Bleh.
Anonymous on Jan. 31, 2006 11:34 PM
You live to fight?
matt-arnold on Feb. 1, 2006 1:30 AM
I'm a scrapper, but I know how to pick my battles. I don't live for fighting in the abstract, and fighting is no good for its own sake. But there are a lot of people who feel that good things are worth fighting for. We accept the conflict that comes with acheiving and preserving them. That's often the mission or calling of our lives. In my case, I'm trying to make sure that my fight is only one of many things that I hope will be talked about at my funeral.
overthesun on Feb. 1, 2006 1:57 AM
There are only 2 pieces of this that I don't wholeheartedly agree with:
Religion is evil
I would like to throw in a vote for my Favorite Non-Theism, Buddhism.
It's ugly, and you would probably rather I be beautiful than true.
Nope. We have a lot of people already spouting their heads off, trying to make it all pretty. We *Need* you out there pointing at the truth.
Beyond that, don't feel that you are extremist at all. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone who has managed to twist their religion into an excuse to mistreat others were struck dead right now . . .. . And I would, personally, not grieve more than ten or fifteen minutes for the good parts of those people.
On the flip side, I do not blame the religion, even though I am often tempted to. These people wanted an excuse, and they found one there. They would have found some other sort of excuse, if that one was not present. Just look at the non-religious Communist China, and you can see that clearly.
An excuse will be found. The fault does not lie at the foot of the excuse. It lies at the foot of the person who lifted that belief, and wielded it as a weapon. It lies at the foot of the leader, who used that belief to create an outside threat, to better solidify his power.
It just turns out that Religion is a Meme that is well able to defend itself from outside interference (By using blind belief as a shield), and easily manipulable into a weapon (Through it's absurd complexity), or into a Powersink (Through a combination of the two). Hoiwever you should remember the EcoTerroritst's from the 80's and 90's. . . . There are definitely other Meme's available to fill the void, if this one falls down.
However, Meanwhile, it is a great sorting mechanism, to sort out the ones most prone to other-abuse, from those who at least try to walk another path.
matt-arnold on Feb. 1, 2006 3:59 AM
Most of my problem stems from bad verbal habits. I just don't regard a decent non-supernaturalist, such as many Buddhists, as "religious".
I'm glad you mentioned absurd complexity, because this is part of the proces of being a sheild. Due to the endless complexity of religious variation, we lack a sufficient vocabulary. I have to rely too much on my listeners understanding who and what I am talking about through context. I just can't get specific enough in my choice of phrases to avoid seeming to criticize other people who I have no problem with.
trav13369 on Feb. 1, 2006 11:11 PM
We get lazy. Instead of pulling out the whole, proper term for something, we use a shorter term. This could be a contraction, slang, or being too damn lazy to find the time to say the proper term.
Just more of the dumbing down of America....
avt-tor on Feb. 2, 2006 6:54 AM
I don't agree with your basic method. "Criticism" is not the only "known antidote" to "error". This assumes that you possess perfect truth, and it seems to indicate that confrontation is the only way to persuade people. Neither of these is consistent with my experience.
If anyone possessed perfect understanding, then science would be done. But just around the time that Charles Duell declared that everything that could be discovered, had been, Michaelson and Morley proved that Isaac Newton was wrong. We can always come to a better understanding.
Any time you assert that you are right and the target of your argument is wrong, it comes across as arrogant, thereby unpersuasive, thereby irrelevant. Occasionally you might encounter someone who is just as arrogant about their point of view and willing to "debate" in a closed-minded way, but more often, you'd just be ignored.
It is said that wisdom is the ability to hold contradictory ideas at the same time. Most people assume that their knowledge of the world is imperfect, so their experience of the dialectic search for truth is more than just a simple binary coin-flip of this or that. But in any case, you can only persuade people by starting from shared assumptions; you have to understand and respect someone else's perspective before you can shift them out of it.
Not being religious, I don't believe that beliefs matter; only the actions a person takes is worth trying to change. Talking about beliefs is only a means to this end, and not the only means.
I think that, in many cases, religion leads people into harmful paths. However, history clearly shows that societies that repress all religions are usually much worse than the alternatives.
I'm not suggesting give up the cause. I'm just saying you might want to use more effective tactics. You inject a lot of anger and a lot of verbalization into your efforts. This diminishes the impact of what you are saying. It seems clear that you are reacting to a negative experience in your past, but when you show that, it allows people to dismiss your point of view as just an overzealous reaction to one small group of bad preachers. If your methods hinder your goals, then you need to evaluate which is more important to you.
matt-arnold on Feb. 2, 2006 2:38 PM
I wrote this post precisely because I realized the things you are saying here about inflammatory verbalization and effective tactics, and because I feel helpless even to imagine what it's like to do what you describe. It's going to take a long time and a lot of work.
That having been said, the other section of your comment-- that about truth-- demonstrates itself to be wrong, as I'm sure you can see with a little help. If criticism were not the antidote to error, you would not be applying it. :) You have asserted that you are right and I am wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you not to do that; on the contrary, I approve. But in that section of this comment, you refute yourself. The problem was when you said not to do what you are doing. Or have I misinterpreted?
The fact that you are comfortable with self-contradiction indicates to me (correct me if I am wrong) that I have not misinterpreted. If you realize you're doing that, and you accept it, this leads to this form of hypocrisy and double-standard where you can tell me-- however innocently and accidentally-- not to do what you yourself are doing. :) That's why I refuse from the get-go to accept contradiction, because I noticed through a lot of experience and practice that hypocritical double standards kept inevitably resulting, and I don't like doing that to people. It is a non-starter for me, sorry.
No one posesses the perfect truth, but it's very possible to posess a much closer approximation. That's all I do. My search for truth is certainly not a binary coin-flip, since there are dozens of expressable potential answers to any question. But there is only one truth. We can only approximate it inside our fallible minds even at the best of times, but there can only be one reality "out there," outside our minds.
rachelann1977 on Feb. 2, 2006 10:23 PM
Inserting the smiley faces was a nice touch. :-D
avt-tor on Feb. 3, 2006 4:38 AM
I wrote this post precisely because I realized the things you are saying here about inflammatory verbalization and effective tactics, and because I feel helpless even to imagine what it's like to do what you describe. It's going to take a long time and a lot of work.
That's very true. Though you're doing the work anyway.
That having been said, the other section of your comment-- that about truth-- demonstrates itself to be wrong, as I'm sure you can see with a little help. If criticism were not the antidote to error, you would not be applying it. :) You have asserted that you are right and I am wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you not to do that; on the contrary, I approve. But in that section of this comment, you refute yourself. The problem was when you said not to do what you are doing. Or have I misinterpreted?
Heh. I think that's why I said "not consistent with my experience." Anyway, you like debate, so it's a method of communication that works with you. But in fact, no, I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm presenting an alternative for you to consider in light of your own observations in the future. I don't assume that any abstract discussion is likely to persuade anybody.
If you realize you're doing that, and you accept it, this leads to this form of hypocrisy and double-standard where you can tell me-- however innocently and accidentally-- not to do what you yourself are doing. :)
You're still using reductio ad absurdem here. To the extent you're interpreting this as simple contradiction, then you can see from your own reaction that that's not an effective method of persuasion. Though what I'm really suggesting is that you think about what you want to accomplish, and then evaluate whether you're using the best method to go about it, compared to the alternatives available.
When you say that you "refuse to accept contradiction from the get-go", it implies that you're not listening and you're not open to consider perspectives that differ from your own. When you project that, you get that back from people.
No one posesses the perfect truth, but it's very possible to posess a much closer approximation.
By learning from the contradictions, yes.
But there is only one truth. We can only approximate it inside our fallible minds even at the best of times, but there can only be one reality "out there," outside our minds.
That sounds like an assumption rather than a conclusion. In science, the quest for truth requires consideration of ideas that contradict what you already know. But when you are trying to share what you know with someone else, you have to find a method of communication that is meaningful in terms of their language and personal experience.
matt-arnold on Feb. 3, 2006 3:26 PM
But in fact, no, I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm presenting an alternative for you to consider in light of your own observations in the future.
In my paradigm, this is called persuasion. But it may be an opportunity for me to apply what you said about contradiction. I take what seems like contradiction and rather than discard one of the statements, imagine a way to resolve the contradiction. You really think you are somehow not committing the sin of persuasion, so if I figure out what your loophole is I can learn something.
However, it does have to resolve the contradiction. We don't learn from contradictions, we learn from what seem to be contradictions by noticing that they can resolved, and then they never were contradictions to begin with. If we embrace them unresolved, they destroy each other like antimatter, and we have nothing.
That is why the fact that there can only be one reality "out there" is a given. Non-contradiction is the means by which reasoning proceeds. Every if-then statement you have made, every "because of this, therefore that" statement you've made has assumed it, by doing it. It's not that I resist the possibility that more than one reality exists-- it's that the thought instantly turns against itself with no help from me.
Leave a Comment