Getting One's Way By Cheating

[nemorathwald]

[Edited to add: In case there was any question, this post is about how grateful I am to my friends who identify as Christians, Buddhists, Pagans, and various buffet-style custom designer religions. It is about the kind of things that they would not do, which I can't even conceive them doing. When I started, I intended to bring that up as the point of this post. THANK YOU!]

From time to time I reiterate my position about faith as it concerns what I will and will not tolerate. I'm tolerant of anyone's devotional life. Granted, I may decline to praise it because I give myself permission to hold opinions; and I consider faith beliefs a reflection of the content of character, so it imposes a ceiling on intimacy. But I am pragmatic. That ceiling is probably higher than you think. I offer a wide range of friendship/association/relationship options.

What I do not tolerate is cheating. When you try to get your way with me or a group of other people by playing the faith card, you are manipulating us to win while being wrong.

This is no different from the line drawn in the sand by the wider social circles I travel in. Want to identify yourself as a Christian or an astrologer or what have you? I won't get prickly. Want to hold a worship service or practice voodoo rituals at a science fiction convention? We'll give you a room. However, if you start talking about the Lordship of Christ over the world, or whatever your religion's analogue is, this will not escape comment or scrutiny that you have just transitioned into a cheating asshole in your interpersonal transactions.

The only difference in this between me and fandom in general is that I'm one of the least politically correct. (Well, OK. Other than jer_.) It's fashionable to be all talk, and claim that ancient wisdom has something to offer*, and then totally ignore what it has to offer, while basking in the cost-free glow of superior enlightenment. I do not do this.

Sometimes I have been mistaken for an intolerant person. Why then am I involved in one particular project which offers nothing rewarding to me? (I will not name that project here, except that I assure you it is not a convention, it does not involve writing software, and it is not Lojban.) I have to summon vast reserves of toleration every single time I consume any of the product of that project. I do it in order to get out of my insulated bubble, and to get the other participants out of theirs. It's easy enough to mistake yourself for a tolerant person just by avoiding anyone who triggers you.

I've heard precious few of my friends offer an explicit rationale for where to draw the line of tolerance (jer_ has done so very well, thank you), but in practice they draw it in the right place. I will make the rationale explicit here.

When A believes something they can't prove to B, fine. But when A uses it as a reason for the group of A and B to make the choice that A wants to make, A is applying manipulating pressure to win while being wrong.

Even those who want to validate everyone around them will ally with me in this, when somebody uses their blind faith to vote on issues like sexuality. The voting booth is one place we get our way over other people. This imposes a responsibility to be able to defend that position.

Literalist bible-believers perceive this insistence on evidence to be monolithic secularism. But as I have attempted to show here, when reason and evidence end up as the default decision method of any pluralistic group, that isn't imposed artificially. It's a natural consequence of pluralism. Reason and evidence are neutral ground.

* Tolerant well-educated people, raise your patchouli-scented hand if you've read the Bible cover to cover. No? I have. Even Leviticus. I am Gother Than Thou. ;)

Comments

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

Reason and evidence are neutral ground.This may be true. However, I think you are particularly sensitive to this specific persuasion tactic, because there are a good dozen other methods (emotional appeal, bandwagonism, jingoism, transference, etc) that are used constantly by people in order to win over others in ways that have nothing to do with the actual merit of their opinion. They can be considered 'cheating' just as much as bringing God in to the picture.

In fact, you could say that's relying on a famous or authority figure's opinion, heh. Relying on the name of God to win an argument, I suppose.

I think it is reasonable to demand a rational opposition argument if one expects you to be swayed from your own opinion in group decision-making, but I don't think it is entirely reasonable to expect people not to employ persuasion methods other than strict reasoning and empirical fact, or to take that personally.

*your footnote

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

*raises hand*

cover to cover, 3 times

But of course, that's part of the reason I'm an atheist.

[thefile.livejournal.com]

I've read Torah cover to cover, does that count? :)

I think saying ...win by being wrong" is rather absolute, don't you think? Perhaps "...win by being not rational" would be better.

[zifferent.livejournal.com]

I'm really kind of glad that you added the edit, because I often miss the point of your rants. Maybe I can chalk it up to of view difference and leave it at that.

In any case I may mentioned before that I tend to believe that despite Big Religion's (including my own self-identified BR) protestations; a religion is a very personal thing. There are roughly 6 and a half billion people in the world and every one of them follows their religion label differently, because their understanding of the religion and it's related spirituality are different. No two people, despite their self-applied labels, in reality believes in the same shit, and hence where any two people are gathered, so there are two different religions.

My axiom: Religion is personal.
And this is where my ecumenicalism fits.

A few bits that I found interesting:

I consider faith beliefs a reflection of the content of character

I find this an interesting statement. Is it that you feel that the very existence of religious beliefs points towards a lack of questioning those beliefs? Or rather is it baggage from your past?

It's fashionable to be all talk, and claim that ancient wisdom has something to offer*, and then totally ignore what it has to offer, while basking in the cost-free glow of superior enlightenment.

I would tend to argue that part of Christianity (short of fundamentalist Christianity) is acknowledgment that we [Christians] are all posers, and being a Christian has something to do with occasionally making a firm effort to restore ourselves to Grace.
As for the "Cost Free Glow", in the social circles that I tend frequent, Christianity is near-equivalent to pariah status. If following the scriptures were easy; everyone would be doing it.
Lastly, I feel that enlightenment comes in fits and starts and rarely comes about because I studied a religious tome. Even if it is the way that Catholics generally practice. I tend to think the reason I'm still a Catholic precisely because of my thin Bible de-education as the Bible is full of twists turns and contradictions.

Well time to go back to my Patchouli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchouli). (I was wondering exactly what Patchouli was.)

[atropis.livejournal.com]

*raises hand*

twice, i think. this on account of having the bible as Phase 1 of ye olde bedtime story as a kid. a chapter or so of the bible, a chapter or so of some other book of tales.

never even mind about the time in sunday school, awana, and so on.

there's some good stuff in that book, but i definitely had to wait through a few years of deprioritization and non-study for any of it to start resonating on a functional level.

[rbradakis.livejournal.com]

I'd raise my hand, but I'm not currently smelling of patchouli.

I was bored in church MANY times, and read it front to back at least half a dozen times before I was 16.

[treebones.livejournal.com]

That scent is a custom blend of lavender, white sage, cedar, and sandalwood, and at least three full times. (:

[bardicwench.livejournal.com]

I'm not Christian or Catholic anymore... I was raised Catholic, went to Baptist & Methodist churches because I was curious, studies for 1 year at the Church of Latter Day Saints (morning seminary classes every week day) plus went to their church for another 2 years, read at least three different versions of the bible and have read them cover to cover (St James, Gideon, and another I forget) plus I've read parts of the new testament in greek.

And there are still people who refuse to acknowledge that I might actually understand some of what I learned/read/studied because it contradicts what they're been raised in. They use the faith card even when they don't know what they're actually talking about.

The one thing that I learned is that every religion has similarities. And differences. And they all might be right AND wrong, and probably are. And I will never stop learning because it's interesting, even if I don't agree with the subject matter.

I'm pagan and proud... but it took me 22 years to make it to this point. And 6 years later I'm still learning and figuring out what I believe in.

my $.02...

[trav13369.livejournal.com]

I've always seen that the world's various religions each have pieces of the whole pie of the "mysteries of the universe" that people seek. Myself, I was raised Catholic, then tried Baptist, Lutheran (first wedding/marriage), Taoism, crystal-type stuff, Co$ (Dianetics/Scientology), Ukrainian Catholic (Second marriage, went to a few masses), went to a few Pentacostal services, and now gleefully consider myself agnostic-I believe that there are forces out there manipulating events, but do I put any faith in them selectively helping me, or give my entire life over to these forces? Hell NO!

I currently am involved with a militant atheist (Linda/WhiteJedi), who has no use for things such as faith. In higher powers, or even in her fellow man. I've had to try and teach her that faith in people is ok. One of her favorite arguments, and that of her dad, who you know on Secularity.com, Matt, is that circular logic won't help you win an argument on whether the Bible is fact (using the Bible to explain the Bible). A discussion has to be between people who all follow the rules of logic and reason. I've tried this with my fundie co-worker, and she hides behind her shield of faith, to coin a D&D term. I try reason, and it gets a response similar to her plugging her ears and loudly singing "LALALALALALA!!"

[uplinktruck.livejournal.com]

You are right. I've never thought about it that way.

[toni-rey.livejournal.com]

Patchouli-scented? Are you sniffing me from over the cube wall???? LOLZ-
I have read that book, so many times, I can no longer remember the exact number. I was raised in a born-again culture and had no choice. I was even a star player on the bible quiz team. I think I've been lucky and have forgetten much of that time period, including most of the new testament, and a great deal of the old testament. Although, if I put my mind to it I can probably still recite all the names of the books of the bible. Oh won't someone help me...please....

More serious note, as you know, you're preaching to the choir. (Could NOT resist-so apropos) Those asses will always be around. Try to speak to them slowly, use small words, maybe they will eventually understand.

[drew4096.livejournal.com]

Thefile is correct to some extent. We don't *know* that the Christian description of reality is wrong. It is *probably* wrong based on what we know about the physical world. But keep in mind that no less a person than Brother Guy Consolmognio (sp?) happens to believe that it is correct.

That said, I do agree that we should not accept arguments that government should enact policies, or impose do's and don'ts, on the grounds that a God has ordered it, without insisting *at the very least* on some hard evidence that this God exists.