by Custador
I, Custador, am a bigoted atheist.
I had an email from my cousin this morning. He’s a born-again UK Baptist. And, as I now know, he’s an IDiot — hisis new email sign-off is a Ben Stein quote from “Intelligence Not Allowed” about how flawed Darwinism is.
What scares me silly is that he’s a teacher of IT at one of the UK’s leading “academy” schools (i.e. a school privately run by a private group – in reality, exclusively religious). It’s made me realise something, important though: I’m intolerant of Creationists.
I don’t think that there’s any difference between creationist and intelligent design believers — the Dover Trials proved conclusively that IDiots were originally composed of a group of people Lyin’ Fo’ Jeeebus to try and get Creationism by another name into schools, as the transcripts and reconstructions show.
Back to the point: The knowledge that my cousin is a creationist has actually made me dislike him. I wonder now if I’m any better than any other prejudiced person — a racist or a sexist or a homophobe — because I pre-judge a group of people based on a single attribute. That’s challenging for me. I’m an open minded man, and I dislike prejudice.
I think the only way I can justify it to myself is this: We don’t choose our sexuality, race or gender, but I honestly do think that the wilful ignorance that allows a person to be Creationist must be a choice — the choice to abandon critical thinking and to ignore the mountains of evidence against your belief. At least, that’s how I justify my prejudice to myself — but it still makes me uncomfortable. What do you think?
As for Ben Stein: I wonder if he’s ever seen the irony in the title of his movie, “Intelligence Not Allowed”?
I tend to think that it is adaptive to be opposed to stupidity. We prefer to distance ourselves from those who make decisions we do not like all the time. I’m not sure there is anything wrong with that.
Hmm, it’s a tough one. A very good friend of mine is a Creationist, which I discovered this year, and it has made me think differently about him.
However, it is similar to the way I would feel differently about someone with a different political viewpoint. I see it as a part of his character that I disagree with and dislike, but it hasn’t changed the reasons I’m friends with him, namely that he’s a nice, fun guy.
I suppose you have to separate the persons traits from their beliefs. It would be unacceptable to judge a person on their traits, age, gender, race, but a persons beliefs are things which you can form opinions on.
I’m going to automatically disagree with someone who thinks Windows is a superior OS to Linux, but I’m not going to automatically dislike the person
However, political viewpoints, OS preferences, etc. are all debatable issues to some extent.
Obviously Creationism is also a belief, but it is one that requires you to either lack the intelligence to understand science or willfully ignore scientific evidence. I really think that is an appreciable difference from a political belief.
I’m not going to hate someone who is a Creationist, but it is going to be a big blow to how I perceive them and a strong indicator that it’s a poor use of my time to hang out with them. That isn’t necessarily true, but that’s how I react and I don’t feel particularly bigoted about it.
I agree on this, these people are willing to believe stuff that is shown over and over again that they are wrong and that evolution is true.
They basically give up all their skeptical and sanity and are willing following blindly the biggest moron you can find that promotes intelligent design withput questioning if this is all true.
Those same people will complain in 20 years time that their country has reverted to a extremist 100 year clock turn back time and that they have no freedom anymore. But they will not realize that it is their own doing that the US became an underdeveloped country about to be invaded by a scientifically more advanced country.
The same is happening with muslim countries where suddenly the Shiare is introduced and people gets stoned by looking at a girl. Those creationists wants the inquisition back and in 20 years time start a holy war agains the infidels. Back to the dark ages…
Like Will said, there’s a difference between an opinion and willful ignorance. To use his example, Linux is a better system for him. But Windows is better for me. The software I need to use doesn’t come in Linux, and I don’t know that anyone has gotten it successfully running it in an emulator. So I need to use the simple solution. But that doesn’t at all affect my opinion of him. It makes me think that if he was someone I knew, I’d ask him for Linux help if I ever needed it.
OTOH, if he told me that Linux wasn’t written; it was invented fully formed by invisible fairies, I’d be going “whoa, what?”
I know just how you feel. My cousin went to live in the Texas desert as a brother in some Catholic order. I recently had a conversation with him and he’s become a fundamentalist, bible-literal, Catholic. When I tried to explain that Noah’s Ark, the flood and most of those stories never happened, he said something like, “I don’t care about facts, I have my faith.”
It would seem that the adage that, in order to be a good Christian, you have to cut your head off, is true.
That’s pretty strange, as catholics usually don’t take the bible for literal truth. In fact, their popes and theologists defend an allegoric interpretation most of the time
As a former Cathaholic, I can definitely say that is not the mainstream Catholic doctrine, but there are many small fringe groups and cultist that still call themselves Catholic. I went to Catholic schools from kindergarten through high school, and I was never taught any type of literalism. We were taught evolution and science. Probably why their numbers are shrinking, they give their students too good of an education.
Same here. When I was Catholic, scientific evidence was readily accepted as part of God’s Plan(TM). Outside of ethics-centered issues (abortion, euthanasia, etc), my parish was actually pretty progressive. The Bible was never literally interpreted (except for the “this is my body, this is my blood’ part…dum dum dum dum dum!)None of this was enough to keep me believing, though. In fact, four of my closest atheist/agnostic friends are former Catholics.(smart smart smart smart smart!)
That being said, there are indeed a TON of Catholic and “Catholic” fringe groups. Mel Gibson belongs to one.
Yeah, I find it odd that any catholic sect would go the literalist route. The catholic church has, for many decades, educated and employed priests as scientists in order to better understand evolution and cosmology. It seems really odd to claim to be a catholic and then be a literalist who thinks the world was created six thousand years ago. I hope this situation doesn’t drive a wedge between you and your cousin, Mike.
I’d say it is different, mostly because I’d expect that you would react the same to a racist or a homophobe. Especially if that person is a relative…. you can’t choose them either.
When I friend that I work with said, “Of course I’m a creationist!” out of the blue, I quickly found a reason to leave the room. I found reasons to avoid her for over a week. In the year & 1/2 since, I’ve had a hard time taking her seriously when she talks about critical thinking…she’s a librarian who gives lessons to students on research when they come in. I honestly like the woman & know, logically, that she’s an intelligent person, but I have a hard time getting past the creationist part of her.
I’ve got several relatives that are Church of Christ (think strict Baptist), & they take the bible literally. Thankfully, my mother is more like her more heathen relatives outside of her immediate family & let us experiment with religion as a kid, then breathed a sigh of releaf when we my sister & I pronounced creationism mythology. I love my creationist relatives, but I try to avoid them. When I make jokes about being an inbred hick, I’m thinking of them. Does that make me a bad person? I really don’t think so. Like vjack said, “I tend to think that it is adaptive to be opposed to stupidity.” This is probably true.
“I’ve got several relatives that are Church of Christ (think strict Baptist), & they take the bible literally.”
My entire family is church of christ. My brother in law is a church of christ preacher and my dad is a deacon in the church of christ. And yea, they take the bible literally. It’s irritating. This weekend my mom and I got to talking and she asked me if I knew any presbyterians (which I don’t) because she wanted to know what they believe and if “they are right” (like the CofC). I told her from what I understand, they take a literal interpretation of the bible and baptize babies. She asked me to elaborate on “literal interpretation” and I told her old testament stories and revelations. She became very defensive asking why someone would NOT believe in old testament stories (to be a member of the church of christ, you must cherry pick the hell out of scripture- old testament stories are real, revelations is an analogy). So I told her I didn’t believe them for fact. It didn’t go well (to say the least).
As far as judging my parents based on their belief in creationism, it’s hard not to. I want to believe that my parents (and the rest of my family) are rational, educated people but my father believes in pre-destination and my mother’s favorite saying is “that’s the devil trying to get you.” Most of the time, I just roll my eyes at them or humor them with a hearty “mmhmm” but only because they are still my parents. They raised me. I show them respect without respecting what they believe.
*raises hand*
I’m here on this site because of three years in Church of Christ!
But even worse than C of C is believing in predestination. “rational, educated people” and believing in predestination are mutually exclusive. (Yes, even way more than the rest of christianity.)
One fellow teen, Jeff, in my C of C believed in it. To this day (decades later), I regret not replying to his statement of it, “Well, how do you know you’re going to heaven, then? Why go to church? If you’re predestined, you could go to church all your life and it would be for nothing, because you may be predestined for hell”.
You misunderstand Calvin’s doctrine of predestination.
Calvin argued that people are predestined for salvation and damnation, and that they can’t do anything about that. So you’re right there. However, salvation and damnation are not exclusive to the afterlife. The elect are saved in the current life and thus are predestined to live the life of faith in the covenant community; the reprobate are damned in the current life and are predestined to live outside the community of faith.
So, someone who’s active in the church and perseveres is very likely to be elect; his desire for the life of the church is actually the fruit of his election.
At least according to Calvin.
I appreciate your correct use of the word IDiot. The IDiots will continue to worship false idols and the thinkers to think and progress. It’s the way of evolution. There’s a natural distancing due to the need of the race to move forward. Let the IDiots lag behind. It’s their choice.
You can and should strongly disagree with ID creationism. You can also easily and freely think someone is an idiot or fool for believing in something that is patently and clearly false. The existence of God may be up in the air because there’s no clear evidence one way or another, but ID is flat out wrong.
And if someone is an idiot or a fool, you don’t have to like them. In fact, that’s a perfectly valid reason for not liking them. Of course, you can still like him if he has other admirable qualities, but you don’t have to give in on this point. It’s incorrect to compare your dislike to racism. They are not equivalent, not because foolishness is a choice, but because you are judging this person as an individual rather than because he is a member of a group.
It’d be great if more of the people who frequent this blog would come live near me. I’m surrounded by people who are in virtual disbelief over anyone not agreeing with their IDioticology (ideology, Intelligent Design and idiocy, combined). You can’t even bring it up, or they act like a hundred spider eggs just hatched in your mouth and the spawn are advancing toward them while they recoil in terror. I’ve been wanting to have a friend record me just politely introducing myself to people and letting them know I’m an atheist who’d like to speak to them about evolution. It wouldn’t go well, which means it’d probably be fantastic to watch. If I do it, I’ll post a link here.
Well, like many of the visitors to this website, I used to be a Creationist. So do you dislike us and think we’re idiots? My wife is still a Christian, and she’s brilliant–currently completing her thesis on global education and has been asked to lecture at three different conferences around the country.
Having once believed that junk helps me understand the religious mindset. Religious belief, no matter how irrational, does not require a person to be an idiot. Religious people are usually converted or raised into that belief in their youth. I “got saved” in my early teens, when everyone is gullible, and it took me more than 15 years to take a step back and seriously question it. Of course once I did the house of cards came down, but many people never reach that step. They’re not stupid, they’ve simply been told by those they consider an authority that doubt and skepticism are the enemy.
There’s a disconnect between how religious people read the bible and view the real world. (And that’s a good thing: you generally don’t want religious people to act out what they read in the bible.) They’re generally normal, well-balanced people with the same morals and hopes and dreams as you or I. But when it comes to things that happened thousands of years ago, which they can’t see or read about in newspapers, they believe the bible because that’s what they’ve spent years of their youth convincing themselves is truth. It’s a mental barrier but it’s not indicative of stupidity.
I think you misunderstood, Jeremy, IDiot is not the same as idiot. The former believes in (I)ntelligent (D)esign.
I understand that your wife may be a very intelligent person. She’s just holding on to the suspension of disbelief just like I do when I watch or read any work of fiction.
I think I understood. Custador is talking about intentionally holding a prejudice against people because of what they believe.
On the weekend I was at a party where the hostess had hung a crucifix outside to ward off the rain. It, in fact, didn’t rain, and she proclaimed it a success. I chuckled to myself at the absurdity of it, and during my years as a non-catholic Christian I would have similarly scoffed at the idea. But then I had to remind myself that for most of my adult life I have believed that a 600 year-old man fit two of every animal onto a wooden boat.
My point is I try to refrain from calling those people stupid, or holding a prejudice against them, on the grounds that I used to believe it myself. And I don’t consider myself to have been stupid.
And I don’t consider myself to have been stupid.
If you don’t mind my asking, what do you consider yourself to have been, if not stupid? You said it yourself – for most of your adult life you believed that a 600 year old man fit two of every animal onto a wooden boat. That belief is, on its face, preposterous, and yet you admit to having believed it.
This sounds like stupidity to me. But I realize that you probably have a different take on the matter, and as someone who never believed the Noah’s Ark story or pretty much anything else in the Bible, I’d love to hear how you see it.
I guess it depends what you consider stupid. I earned a pretty difficult degree during that time, which I think I can legitimately hold up as evidence that I had a few brain cells.
Like I said, there’s a dissonance between how religious people view the world and what they believe in the bible. It’s a mental barrier. I was actually pretty skeptical of just about any claim not written in the bible, including claims from most Christians. I didn’t believe in any modern miracle stories or faith healers or whatever. But if it was in the bible it was gospel truth. Because it had been drilled into me since I was a kid, and it takes effort for people to question the mindset in which they were raised.
So, rather than iodocy or stupidity, do you think that naivety or perhaps gullibility would be more accurate descriptions?
In the case of my cousin, he’s a convert to baptism / ID / Creationism. His parents, my aunt and uncle, are not at all religious. I think I’d describe them as totally unconcerned with religion either way, which I think is what makes it harder to respect him for his beliefs.
I felt somewhat the same when my brother, at age 25, started smoking cigarettes. Having been raised in the same, non-smoking house as me, with all the same information available, he decided to start smoking. The inexplicability of it makes it all the more frustrating.
Having a PhD doesn’t immunize you from stupidity or idiocy in toto, just from the general stupidity and idiocy that arises from biological lack of ability. PhDs can compartmentalize their lives, just like everyone else, and thereby live in functional opposition to themselves. Humanity does this all the time.
It’s what allows MDs to participate in swinger’s clubs, without protection, despite knowing both the risks and results of STDs. It’s what allows a person to completely refrain from eating meat “for health reasons”, only to chow down on fries and Diet Coke until they are effectively malnourished.
It is situational idiocy in that you, the actor, can end it at any time by choosing to bring that portion of your life into line with the rest of your day. As long as you continue to maintain that break, though, you are indeed stupid and indeed an idiot.
Ignorance and Stupidity explained:
Stupidity = Willful Ignorance
I think there is a lot of complexity encompassed in your term ‘wilfull’.
I think Custador is intentionally holding a prejudice against people for holding to a particular belief that defies common sense and logic. I don’t have a problem with this at all. I agree that not all believers are stupid. Rather, they are people whose minds have been poisoned by superstitious nonsense. When authority figures tell impressionable people a pack of lies and then convince them that doubt and criticism are the enemies of an almighty creator, it’s hard for them to break those chains. However, nobody should be asked to ignore the fact that such beliefs are patently ridiculous, either. We should just avoid throwing the cow out with the spoiled milk.
In my view, you are thinking along the right lines when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not.
Ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation are physical, constant properties of an individual. If you do not accept of these properties, there is nothing that an individual can do to “earn” your approval. Therefore, if you do not accept of them you are a racist, sexist or homophobe. It is condemnable to not accept individuals based on their ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
However, religion is a mindset, a way of thinking, a collection of facts, a set of beliefs. It is possible for people, through acquiring new facts and re-evaluating their worldview, to change their religious stance. Being disapproved because of your religion is tough, but in my view not condemnable since a person can change his or her thoughts and what they consider to be true. It is not wrong to say “I don’t approve of the way you are thinking and what you consider to be true. Therefore, I am going to avoid your company, and perhaps even ridicule you in public because of the ridiculous beliefs you hold.”
A computer analogy: ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation are hardware, religion is software. A person cannot upgrade or change his hardware, but he can update his software. A person who willfully refuses to update his software when a more extensive and bug-free version is available is simply stupid.
Except we can and do update and upgrade the hardware… as my beauteous iMac would agree.
Nice analogy!
It’s possible, but it’s difficult for many who have been raised since childhood in one mindset and been convinced that all other mindsets are evil. Public ridicule is generally not going to work, and is certainly not going to cure the worldwide religious epidemic. If anything it’ll just make them act more extreme.
What an entirely inadequate analogy. One might comment on the stupidity of a person who thinks the human brain works as a computer hard drive, capable of reformatting and rebooting with the press of a button. One might comment on the stupidity of a person who refuses to acknowledge the powerful psychological influence of religious teachings that have been ingrained into a person’s upbringing.
If ID and stupidity are directly correlated, how does one resolve the fact that some who believe are innately intelligent? My opinion is that there is some mental process(es) that allow humans to hold contradictory ideas and that there is some strong resistance to positional change.. Some of us are former believers in ID. If we were stupid then, how do you explain us now? Everyone in the ID movement has the same information available that I have and some of them are very smart. This issue of how people actually shift major perspectives is an important issue. When I look back on my former Christian self, it’s like I’m looking at some other person.
Also, if we believe these friends and family members are stupid then we take ourselves out of the loop for helping them change.
You were deluding yourself and, thus, were acting stupidly.
There is a difference between engaging in stupid behaviours and being stupid.
I fully agree that Iders are deluded. The important question is the nature and process of delusion. Too much of this thread seems to suggest human beings are logic machines.
I like to think of people who believe in intelligent-design the same way I would think of someone who was taught the alphabet out of order.
They aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are ignorant. It’s difficult to convince them that they’re wrong because everyone else they know were taught the wrong way too. Most don’t have to deal with the direct evidence contradicting their “knowledge” like… going to a library and having to find books when they’re organized in alphabetical order.
However, the people who do regularly deal with the contradicting evidence are deluding themselves to be stupid.
“Some” of them are ignorant, but most of the are plain moronic stupid.
You simply cannot hold a discussion with these guys, when you show evidence that they might be wrong they get upset and starts with these mantra’s so your sinfull thoughts woulkd not get through? Just like sticking you fingers in your ears to make sure not to hear what you say.
I also had this theory that they were just ignorant, because I cannot believe that people can stay that ignorant. But most of the do stay ignorant willingly.
Analogies are only meant to infer similarity between two things in a certain respect. In this case, the similarity is the fact that bad ideology can be reprogrammed just like bad software. The two processes do not need to be the same for the analogy to work, nor does a human brain have to work just like a computer for the analogy to work. Sebastian probably does not think a human brain works like a hard-drive, so there’s really no need to start implying he’s stupid.
Whilst I agree with most of what you said…
Academy schools in the UK aren’t religious. They’re centrally funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, rather than by the local education authority as with most schools. They are sponsored by various companies and groups, but its a bit of a stretch to proclaim them “exclusively religious”.
They tend to be in inner city areas, catering for areas with consistently terrible academic performance, and usually children exluded from the mainstream school system due to bad behaviour, etc.
I think the schools you are thinking of are “faith” schools, i.e. funded by the Roman Catholic church or other religious body
James :)
This is actually something I have been giving a lot of thought lately, and it comes down to intelligence, and the fact that some people have more of it than others. Who among us will make fun of a person who is literally retarded? (Insert “developmentally delayed” or whatever the politically correct term is in your area, if you prefer) Yet we make fun of people for “being stupid” all the time.
It is hard to remember that the difference between the guy with the 145 IQ and the guy with the 105 IQ is no less real a hindrance than that between the second guy and someone with a 75 IQ.
No one actually sets out intentionally to believe lies, some simply CAN’T understand anything much more complex than “goddidit”. On top of cognitive deficiencies, everyone has their own emotional reasons for either refusing to learn about certain fields, or refusing to accept what they learn.
Basically it boils down to this, I think. Looking skeptically at your own beliefs, and discarding the ones that are false is a skill, just like doing algebra, or ballet. Like these, it requires having an innate ability, a desire to pursue it, and some training. We can provide the training, but we are of limited help, at best, on the other two points.
In short, treat them like you would an actual retard. It helps.
“In short, treat them like you would an actual retard. It helps.”
Cruel, but probably practical. Alas.
This is actually something I have been giving a lot of thought lately, and it comes down to intelligence, and the fact that some people have more of it than others…No one actually sets out intentionally to believe lies, some simply CAN’T understand anything much more complex than “goddidit”
I simply could not disagree more. Belief is not about intelligence. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I hear you to be saying that believing in Creationism (whatever that term means around here, I’m not sure) is about lacking some type of cognitive capacity.
If that’s the case, then you need to take a big step back and reevaluate — because you’re dead wrong, and it’s an incredibly offensive and arrogant claim to make.
I hope I’m misunderstanding you. I really do.
LOL! Victim, it may help you to understand if you finish reading what he said.
“On top of cognitive deficiencies, everyone has their own emotional reasons for either refusing to learn about certain fields, or refusing to accept what they learn.”
On top of cognitive deficiencies
Seriously? The victim card again?
I did read what phrankygee said, three times actually before I posted just to be sure. ‘On top of’ means in addition to. So, in addition to cognitive deficiencies, believers are/have 1) emotional deficiencies 2) unwilling to learn about certain fields (science?) 3) stubborn (that one’s not a biggie, we’re all stubborn about some things).
And then to top it off, this little gem:
In short, treat them like you would an actual retard. It helps.
If phrankygee, you, or anyone else wants to own that claim for yourself, you’ve proved yourself to be a bigoted atheist, and you’re still playing the same game as the religious fundamentalists, you’ve just switched teams.
Nice to see you Gulker!
I knew when I started that post that it was probably going to come out all wrong. I am not sure I can be much more clear, because my own thoughts and feelings on this are pretty unclear.
Intelligence is certainly a factor in why some people can see the truth, and others can’t. To deny this would be, well, stupid.
But it is not the only factor, as Jeremy has been very eloquently describing elsewhere in this thread.
There is some misfire, though, some miscommunication or misunderstanding happening in the mind of the creationist. It is not simply a matter of “indoctrination”. Critical Thinking is a skill that is specifically useful in tearing down propaganda and indoctrination. Yet some people lack this ability.
My point was that we should no more make fun of someone, or hate someone, for lacking the ability to think critically, than we would hate someone for lacking the ability to walk, or read, or see, or remember things.
All of those other disabilities are hugely frustrating to the families and friends of those who have them, yet we don’t hate or insult those who have them. We do sometimes have pity on them, but we try to make them feel as loved and respected as we can.
There, I think that came out slightly better the second go-round.
I wish you would post over on the forum more often, BRG. I really enjoy what you bring to the conversation. You keep me honest, and on my toes.
I wonder though: Do they lack the capacity to think critically, or do they simply lack the will to turn their critical thinking faculties towards that one specific area of their lives? If the latter, is that not a form of stupidity in itself? Or if not stupidity then certainly wilful ignorance, perhaps occasioned by fear?
I grew up I think typical Catholic – went to church on Sunday and went to fish fries, but it didn’t really impact our life other than that. No literal belief in the Bible.
My sister went through some hard times as an adult and found a great deal of comfort in joining a fundie church. When she was telling me all about her new faith and how great it was, she said, “I don’t believe in evolution anymore because I believe the Bible is true.” It was bizarre and baffling, That was when I was going through my New Age fuzzy Christian stage on my way to dropping belief altogether, so we had a few careful, strange conversations and then avoided the topic.
I’ve thought about this a lot, though. She is a bright person in a lot of ways. How could she stop “believing” in evolution? How much must she be giving up in terms of using her mind and being curious about the world to do that? I think of your choices, it’s the second – lack of will to turn her critical thinking skills on what the church told her. She found some answers to her pain, and if she thought about it she might lose the comfort and that was too high a price to pay. Whatever cognitive dissonance she has to go through is worth it.
Maybe logical thinking and wondering how things worked were never that important to her? Maybe being told what to think has always been comforting? I finally gave it up in my early thirties because asking questions and getting answers that help me make sense of the world is important to me. The discomfort of trying to reconcile conflicting and illogical beliefs was not worth the smaller and smaller sense of peace and “being taken care of” that belief provided.
willful ignorance by fear and arrogance
I love the phrase “willful ignorance”. Maybe (normal) ignorance of a certain fact can be cured, while stupidity is forever, but even then, what choices and personality and laziness went into even simple ignorance of certain facts?
Continued willful ignorance is stupidity.
I wish you would post over on the forum more often, BRG. I really enjoy what you bring to the conversation. You keep me honest, and on my toes.
My time has been limited lately, and probably will be for the next 1-2 months … but thanks. The reason I read/post here is because doing so keeps me honest.
All of those other disabilities are hugely frustrating to the families and friends of those who have them, yet we don’t hate or insult those who have them. We do sometimes have pity on them, but we try to make them feel as loved and respected as we can.
There, I think that came out slightly better the second go-round.
Sure, it sounds better on the second go-round. It’s more politically correct. And frankly, if thinking about believers as having a disability helps you be nicer to them, then I guess something good can come of doing so.
I tend to think about atheism vs. theism on a larger scale, more in terms of our society in America, and I’m interested in locating common ground (if any actually exists). But, when I read comments such as these from an atheist who I respect and think of as generous and thoughtful, I do a double take. In short, I don’t see how we will be able to locate common ground as a society and move forward if you think of me as having some type of cognitive disability. I don’t see how we’d ever be able to relate to each other as equals, especially in public discourse, if all the while you’re treating me as mildly retarded.
Does that make any sense?
I also don’t have much respect for militant evangelism, and I see more and more of it on both sides of this debate. Atheists want to eradicate religion, and Fundamentalists want to eradicate godless atheism. Us/Them and We/They paradigms dominate the conversation. Both sides have the self-evident truth, and if the other would just look at it honestly, they’d see it. Neither side admits or accepts the complexity. Both sides are playing the exact same game but are simply on different teams.
There is some misfire, though, some miscommunication or misunderstanding happening in the mind of the creationist. It is not simply a matter of “indoctrination”. Critical Thinking is a skill that is specifically useful in tearing down propaganda and indoctrination. Yet some people lack this ability.
Let’s take a person with an IQ of 90, and let’s assume he’s an atheist. That person is lacking some cognitive capacity, but he would share your conclusion about whether or not there is a God. Would you be so quick to point out his cognitive and emotional deficiencies? Or, would you be much more generous to him because he shares your conclusions?
I suspect the latter, no offense intended.
It’s not that the person is lacking in cognitive capacity. He just chooses not to apply it in this one hermetically sealed area of his brain. Or so it seems. That is one of the neat tricks about religious faith. It gets us to suspend our rationality.
It’s a neat trick about human nature, not just religion. The scientific method works because it pushes against our propensity to suspend rationality.
Yes. That’s true. But in some areas of human endeavor this is not always a bad thing. In art, for example. It’s a combination of the rational and the (understating mode) irrational.
On further consideration, since it’s not always bad to suspend rationality, maybe the problem with religion is the degree to which this suspension is taken. Total suspension is required in religion. Only partial suspension in art.
We had this back-and-forth when I first started posting here… Yeah, in fact I do think that believing in god, or especially creationism or ID is a stupidity on the part of that person. That doesn’t mean everything else they think or do is stupid. I’m stupid with money. I don’t like to read a lot of books. My diet is half-assed. There’s stupid, though, and then there’s stupid. You can believe in god and be an intelligent person about a lot of other things. Or, you can believe in god and absorb as much of the evangelical train of thought as possible and be completely stupid about science, politics, economics, child-rearing, and be a load of bigotry. But you can excel at making gourmet meals, running a business, or building a house. So you might still not be completely stupid. I think religion is just one small stupid thing unless it covers a major amount of your time and attention, so that only stupid things come out of your mouth.
Just the same, while I appreciate the article, I do think it might be intolerant. I mean, there’s personal intolerance, like when you go out in the world and encounter stupid people, sometimes rude and stupid. People who wear you out and weep for humanity, they are so stupid. This is not religious stupidity, but I sense all over the internet, wherever people gather who assess themselves to be intelligent, have a lot to say about all the stupid morons they tried to get help from in Home Depot or signs that were spelled horribly wrong, their boss, their neighbor, etc. I do and I don’t have a problem with stupidity in general. Some talk of, if they ruled the land, stupid people could not procreate, well who would take the lower-end jobs we still need people to do? That is my answer to that.
If you are just hating people of a class or category, because they are stupid and get in your way and you don’t like to talk with them, that’s one thing, and I think it’s perfectly alright. I’m not the most patient person with them myself. It’s real bigotry when you want to take away their rights to live and work among you, not to deny them jobs they aren’t capable of doing….
If I were interviewing someone for a job and they outright mentioned the lord, I am required by law not to discriminate against them because of it. If in fact, some of their religious beliefs interfered with the type of job it is, then I would have to make the case they were not capable. The way I understand two basic types of atheists, there are some who wish to eradicate religious belief from the land. Well, as of now, you can’t outlaw it, and as far as religious tolerance in the 1st amendment and subsequent acts, you can’t keep them from voting or having jobs or owning or renting property, you can’t segregate them, just like you can’t segregate black people or not let a woman buy her own house.
The other kind is like me: I don’t try to change anyone’s mind, I might scoff openly or keep my ideas to myself, which, the latter, is what I usually do. I don’t have time in the actual world to articulate why they’re so stupid and I hate them or are at least a little disappointed in them, because I thought they were cool. I don’t get into debates or ask them to question biblical passages to make them think a bit, I’m not that sort of person. I admit, if I look up to someone, some public figure or celebrated artist of some sort, and then they spout off something about thanking god for their blessings, I lose a little bit of interest in them. It’s off-putting, I admit.
“Would you be so quick to point out his cognitive and emotional deficiencies? Or, would you be much more generous to him because he shares your conclusions?”
The easiest way to answer this is to say I try not to point out *anyone’s* cognitive, emotional, or physical deficiencies in their presence whether they are religious or not, because that is rude. But that does not mean I don’t recognize those deficiencies.
Do you not know a crazy person, or an idiot, or an obese person when you see one? Those people plainly have a physical, emotional, or physical defect. But you don’t hate them for it, and you don’t “point it out” to them, or anyone else, unless it is pertinent.
In the case of a religious person, a lot of discussion is needed to determine whether that person is a perfectly logical person who has simply thought about things in a different way than me, or if they are in some way cognitively or emotionally “off”, as far as I can tell.
Insofar as the person seems competent to engage in the exchange intelligently, I treat them accordingly. But if someone will simply not engage in an intelligent exchange, then I have to adapt my style of interaction to adjust to the fact that THIS particular person (not all religious participants), seems to have a cognitive or emotional “stumbling block” which is frustrating my efforts.
But my point is, I should not be mad at them any more than I should be mad at someone with a far worse deficiency, like schizophrenia, alzheimer’s or dyslexia. We don’t get to pick how, or how well, our brains work. It’s the atheist version of “hate the sin, not the sinner”. A task at which I often fail, BTW.
I may, in fact, be proving to you as I type, how ‘deficient’ I am! I’m having a really hard time putting these complicated thoughts into words.
It’s the atheist version of “hate the sin, not the sinner”. A task at which I often fail, BTW.
That’s pure gold.
It’s the atheist version of “hate the sin, not the sinner”. A task at which I often fail, BTW.
Also, do you think that’s possible to actually do (for anyone, religious or non)?
I do think that it is possible to do, absolutely. For both religious and non-religious people.
I have seen Christians do it my entire life.
An autistic person who attacks his mom with a knife gets a break because “he can’t help it, he has a condition”.
If we extend this to everyone, because we all have some “condition”, then we find ourselves being a lot more compassionate.
You may think the “condition” is original sin, I think the “condition” is we have been given a variety of non-optimal brain and endocrine functions by the inefficient and unguided processes of evolution.*
But it works out either way to: Ain’t Nobody Perfect, and we all need to cut each other some slack.
*I am, of course, right, and you are wrong, but that is beside the point. :D
Duh. Who made the choice, and chose to do the activity, that is unethical, immoral, or being called “sin”?
Absolving a “sinner’s” responsibility for himself seems of a piece with the other christian premises of lack of taking any responsibility for themselves: *poof* being created, not having any intrinsic worth or value, born evil (“in sin”), needing to be saved, a “devil made [them] do it”, they can’t take credit for anything, they can’t really save themselves (see ASSumption of needing to be saved in the first place, above), Jeeezus has to save them (see same ASSumption), and all they have to do is let him under your skin, oops, wrong song, I mean into your heart.
Throughout the bible, the gold standard is….. sheep.
Lack of responsibility for oneself permeates all of christianity.
Claymore,
Where, exactly, do you draw the line between actions YOU are responsible for, and actions you aren’t? If you lose control of your bladder and piss in your friend’s car, are you less responsible than if you lose control of your tongue, and call your friend a horrible name? What about if you sneeze in his food? Did YOU do that, or did your nervous system do it?
How much control do you have over your emotions? Really? Have you ever just made a conscious choice to not be sad, or angry? If so, I bet it didn’t work very well. You have biochemical systems in your body making sure that you act in certain ways when you receive certain external cues.
I try to focus more on preventing bad things from happening, than blaming people when they do.
“Both sides have the self-evident truth”
Would you care to share what those are? One example from each side would be sufficient…
Should have said,
Both sides claim, not have.
“both sides have the self-evident truth”? Umm…that’s where you lost me. Religion doesn’t deal in truth. It deals in faith and it openly and virulently denies the truth at every opportunity. The enemy of faith is knowledge, and that is the source of our disagreement. It’s not a level playing field. Just because religious people choose to “believe” something without evidence doesn’t mean their “belief” is valid. Atheists value what can be known, here and now, in the real world. Religious people value belief for the sake of belief, and dismiss anything wholesale if it gets in the way.
I don’t agree, specially with the meaning you are giving to the word “truth”.
Modern scientists doesn’t claim anymore to know the truth. They have a theory so far that one is not replaced by a new and improved theory who fits better with the observed data. It’s a never-ending process, as no theory can be proved. Moreover, scientific method is not proven. of course, that way has taught us to cars, computers and even to the moon. The other way, revelation, has taught us to crusades, inquisition and witchburn; but it can’t be disproven.
So, I believe in scientific method, tought it is not “faith” as I have evidences to assume that “it works”. But still, logically I could fill the gaps -the answers to questions that doesn’t have any sense in science- with a bronze-age comic’s superhero. Would it be rational? I don’t think so but…
Strictily speaking, nothing can be known. We have a theory -i.e. ST of evolution- which explains the observed data about how the different species of animals appeared, but it could have been the FSM -all hail His Noodlyness- misleading us with false proofs.
test Note: still playing with html
Truth isn’t an all or nothing proposition. When you speak of the scientific application of the word “truth”, you’re speaking about that which represents what we can consistently observe in the real world. Thus, the theory of gravity can be said to be factual (true) unless and until something comes along that disproves it. There’s no way that we can say anything is true in an absolute sense, neither scientifically nor in any other arena. We can’t predict how things will change in the future, but that doesn’t mean we can’t place value in what can be observed and replicated in the real world right now. My point is that science, and the skeptic, are oriented more toward what can be observed and reproduced with some accuracy in the real world, whereas the religious make fantastical claims that cannot be proven in any meaningful way and, further, place a great deal of value on blind faith and belief to the exclusion of knowledge or truth.
I hope I’ve communicated my thoughts clearly here. I don’t feel like I’ve articulated myself well, but I will give it some more thought and try to repost something more cohesive shortly.
“Belief is not about intelligence. ”
Truer words were never spoken.
“…a desire to pursue it….”
Growing up or being inculcated in fundamentalism involves indoctrination against skepticism. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard the phrase, ‘doubt your doubts’. As a result, it is not just a matter of following one’s innate skepticism or building on desire. The process of deep change, I think, is subtle and probably complicated with much going on subconsciously. Leaving Christianity was a struggle but apparently much easier than leaving procrastination as my life will attest.
I never heard “doubt your doubts”, but I did hear “thou shalt not test the Lord thy God” a lot.
That makes doubting harder.
Treat them like actual retards? That’s harsh, but funny.
I agree with what you said, but not on the matter of degrees of importance of intelligence and environment. Environment is a powerful factor in human development. I think you overestimate the role of intelligence here and underestimate the role of environment. Religious people are often born into religion and then socialized and propagandized constantly over a period of years or decades. It’s not hard to imagine how one could spend the first two or three decades of their life as a practicing christian when one considers the role it plays in this society. I can imagine it pretty easily because, that was me, and I don’t think I’m stupid. I had to learn how to think, though, since three of four people I met in my life didn’t know how themselves, and taught me their bad habits.
To look at religious people as if they were all retarded is condescending and ignorant. You won’t ever convince a person to think about your perspective if you begin the conversation by insulting them. It’s also willfully ignorant to choose not to gain a greater understanding of how people fall into religious mindsets to begin with. We, as atheists and self-professed “freethinkers”, must, above all, not allow ourselves to fall into the same kinds of lazy thinking that many religious people do. Otherwise, how are we any different?
When it comes to faith some smart people think stupid things. It seems akin to the phenomenon of the “idiot savant” where a person can be brilliant in one area yet deficient in another. A person with a scientific IQ of 145 might have a belief IQ of 50. It’s that compartmentalized mind thing. Two different minds in the same head.
Very good point, nomad, and one I was about to make myself. Intelligence is not a monolithic thing. College Professors can often not program the clock on their microwave, and I know more than one successful businessperson who can’t spell worth a damn.
Smart people believe stupid things all the time.
Smart people believe stupid things all the time.
I don’t get the analogy between a microwave clock and religious belief. I don’t see any obvious connection between the two.
@ Brgulker
” I don’t get the analogy between a microwave clock and religious belief. I don’t see any obvious connection between the two. ”
mark: Its pretty clear to me, I think hes saying that some people who are really, really intelligent with the brain power to figure out complex ideas can fail to figure other things that may not be as complex.
The connection to religion is this, holy rollers ( believers of all flavors) make claims that they have never verified or even provided a coherent argument for. Yet they still claim a belief and knowledge of god as fact even to the point of denying science that can be replicated over and over again in front of people and cameras to see if the logic behind that science is valid. There is no equivalent test for religion of any flavor.
Basically it is retarded and stupid to believe things you have zero evidence for (including god) when a scienctific method for proving things has clearly trumped scripture as a way of describing the world and our lives.
I get his point, mark, I just think the analogy sucks.
A college professor could be trained to work a microwave clock with close to a 100% success rate. Someone with a high enough IQ could be taught to work a clock.
brgulker, I agree with you that some of the things being written in this thread are indicative of in group/out group prejudice.
” A college professor could be trained to work a microwave clock with close to a 100% success rate. Someone with a high enough IQ could be taught to work a clock. ”
mark: I agree and I thought about making this point as well, its not a great analogy. However I would like to point out that I think it is backwards ( and even stupid to tell the truth) to elevate faith and belief over testable science which is part of what creationism does.
Sorry Brgulker but it is stupid and retarded to believe things when you have no bases for them. I really wish you would stop comparing so called athiest fundementalism to christian fundementalism when you have not provided any rational examples.
Calling athiest fundementalist is a cop out because it isnt non believers who try to force our personal beliefs on others it is your christian brethren as well as other non christian believers who interfer with others based on thier religious views.
I didn’t say all atheists were fundamentalists. I did draw an analogy, though. And yes I did provide rational examples. There are several interesting parallels between religious fundamentalists and (I don’t know what term to use so I’ll say) evangelical atheists. Here a couple that I see.
For both, the truth is obvious and self-evident, and anyone who honestly seeks that truth should be able to find it. For both, opposing wordlviews are fundamentally flawed and should be eradicated.
Wouldn’t you agree, markbey?
truth (lower case t) is neither obvious nor self-evident for me. I had to work for it. It came as a result of examining the evidence. Believers do not take time to examine evidence. Hence, the reason people call them “stupid” or “ignorant”. I don’t think they’re stupid, but I will call them ignorant (as in uninformed, ill-educated) if the term applies.
BRG, of Course I think I have the truth. About many things, not everything.
This is a tough conversation to have with you, specifically, Gulker, because you perceive yourself as belonging on the “believers” side of the argument, when I have yet to pin you down on anything you factually disagree with me on.
“Believers do not take time to examine evidence.”
I don’t know that even that is entirely fair, LRA…
I examine evidence like crazy.
I tend to fall where you fall; I don’t think the truth is obvious or self evident. But at the same time, the line between ‘I have the right answer,’ and ‘I have the only right answer’ is very thin at the best of times, and I think often people miss it. So while not every person with a strong atheist or theist position will match brgulker’s summary, I would argue that many or most probably do.
@ LRA: Perhaps you’re an exception. But, I think it’s fair to say that most atheists think that the lack of evidence for God is incredibly obvious and self-evident, at least when they’ve reached the point of non-belief.
The same is true for someone who becomes a convinced religious fundamentalist.
The truth is out there, you just have to honestly seek it. Ironically, I think the majority of folks on both sides would agree.
@phrankygee
BRG, of Course I think I have the truth. About many things, not everything.
This is a tough conversation to have with you, specifically, Gulker, because you perceive yourself as belonging on the “believers” side of the argument, when I have yet to pin you down on anything you factually disagree with me on.
Would you agree with my statement about honest seeking? Just curious.
I am a believer, and I’m very dedicated. I just try to be honest and critical when it comes to thinking about faith and epistemology.
JonJon– don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to be ugly or unfair, but to state what I have observed and to utilize definitions as I understand them. Believers, *by the very definition*, do not require evidence for their faith. For this reason, many, indeed, do not take time to examine the evidence, opting to believe on *faith* what they believe. This is the root of the problem with anti-science versus science people. Anti-science people are, more often than not, completely ignorant of science, yet take on faith their convictions about it.
In addition, belief is only one component of knowledge. Knowledge has three prongs– is it true? is it justifiable? is it believable? Once all three of these have been met, one *may* be said to have knowledge. Perhaps one *may* even be said to be right, but that involves a degree of certainty that I try to be careful about.
BRG- I can’t speak for atheists– I’m on the deist side of things a bit. I hope there is a God and I even pray every now and again, but I see no “supernatural interference” in my life or anyone else’s that can’t be explained by natural means. I get my morals from my society and my sense of empathy– morals that I believe are relative to my culture and my time. I don’t think the truth is “out there”. I think we make it. I think it is an artifact of language (in the case of a priori “truth”) or is experience-dependent (in the case of “a posteriori “truth”). And please believe me when I tell you that I’ve been seeking it (“truth”– or for me, knowledge) for a long time. I’m pretty convinced that if there is a Truth, we limited beings can’t know it. We can only build paradigms to approximate what we see as truth.
Actually, my statement regarding setting clocks was not an analogy, or a metaphor, or a parable. It was just a simple statement of fact. It had nothing to do with religion.
It had to do with that phrase that Question-I-thority pointed out: “a desire to pursue it”.
It was an example of something someone might just never bother to learn. Not knowing it doesn’t mean they are stupid.
P.S. Markbey’s inability to spell may be another good example. ;)
” P.S. Markbey’s inability to spell may be another good example. ;) ”
mark: I did learn to spell, however I have forgotten a lot of it and have been to lazy to do better. Trifling, it is indeed but I figure if I can make my points in a rational way for the most part I will be forgiven bad spelling. However your statement is correct.
Perhaps my bad spelling is a way of GOD making me look bad and or I could just do what us non believers do and accept full responsibility for my own mess ups.
Glad you can take a little teasing, Mark.
I try to be an equal-opportunity pain in the ass.
Perhaps my bad spelling is a way of GOD making me look bad and or I could just do what us non believers do and accept full responsibility for my own mess ups.
Who needs God when you’ve got Firefox’s built-in spellchecker?
/naturalism’d
phrankygee,
Given that you were responding to nomad who said this:
When it comes to faith some smart people think stupid things. It seems akin to the phenomenon of the “idiot savant” where a person can be brilliant in one area yet deficient in another. A person with a scientific IQ of 145 might have a belief IQ of 50. It’s that compartmentalized mind thing. Two different minds in the same head.
it seemed like were you in fact using the college professor/clock story as an analogy. My bad if I misunderstood.
Not having a “desire to pursue it” or arrogance. I used to assist a Ph.D. in Psychology and he was not the least bit embarrassed about not knowing the easy things he didn’t know. He did, however, to his credit, ask me to show him, so he wasn’t completely willfully ignorant or, you know, I can understand how someone’s time may be very precious at any given day, that today is not the day we learn how to [do something in Word], we just get our assistant to speed over that part and call her into our office if anything else weird arises. He did manage most of his document composition, for example.
I’ve also had experiences where my boss (different boss) called me in whenever his stapler was empty. I don’t know if he didn’t know how to refill it (he was an engineer, for crissakes) or he didn’t have 10 seconds to spare, or just figured it to be beneath him.
Belief in the absurd does not, by itself, indicate a low level of general intelligence. In my thinking on the subject, the closest description I can come up with is believers have an attenuated grasp of reality. Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how smart you are.
We all, in some form or another, have an attenuated grasp of reality in some shape or form, since humans are not really (and certainly not fully) rational creatues — creationism just happens to be a VERY severe attenuation.
Viewing creationists as sufferers from attenuated grasps of reality, however, demonstrates that you are not, in fact, a bigot. The essence of social interaction is trust, and someone so obviously out of touch with reality in one segment of his life may be out of touch with reality in other areas as well. Any given IDiot may be relatively normal in other areas of his wife (I can’t count the number of software engineers I know that are fairly competent yet creationists), but the fact of the matter is that someone so out of touch in something so obvious has a flawed grasp of reality, making that person less predictable, making them less trustworthy, making it a legitimate evaluation of the person to “like” them less because of their flawed grasp on reality.
“Any given IDiot may be relatively normal in other areas of his wife…”
And some of them get downright abnormal in certain, unspeakable, areas of their wives. Those kinky bastards!
rofl
Talk about a Freudian slip! lol
I have realized that i dont generally like religious persons at all. The mind gap is just to large. And I am also worried about their moral values being based on weird or just archeaic beliefs.
I don’t think that there’s any difference between creationist and intelligent design believers
Custador (and others), I’m curious what is meant when the term “creationist” is used around here. Does it mean Young Earth Creationist in a very strict sense? Or, is it simply a generic term for anyone who thinks that the universe was created by some type of deity?
I think it refers to people who refuses to admit the evidence for evolution.
I’ve always read Creationist as someone who thinks the world was deliberately created through some intelligent agency. Young Earth Creationist as the spectacular brand of deliberate stupidity who believes the world is no greater than a few thousand years old.
I use the word “creationism” to describe a range of beliefs, from God creating the Earth and all the animals as they are now 4000 years ago to God creating the Earth at some point with animals on it which micro-evolution has changed a bit without ever being actual evolution.
Note: The use of the term “micro-evolution” as distinct from “evolution” is probably the most laughable backwards step that creationists have ever taken – evolution is almost always on the micro scale, it’s just that it keeps on happening over a really, really long time.
So a Creationists is simply someone who rejects Evolution?
Yes.
That’s generally how I view the term.
Okay, that clarifies things for me. Thanks.
I suppose one can’t really argue that life wasn’t created by $God, for some value of God, as we have not yet proved abiogenesis. There are people who do believe God created everything using evolution as a tool, and that’s different.
But to deny solid, provable, scientific facts…
Theistic Evolution
No, creationists are not simply people who deny evolution. That’s incorrect. Creationists would deny any theory that stood in opposition to what the Bible says about how God created everything. Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. This, for them, rules out ANY and EVERY other explanation. Evolution is just the one that gets the most attention because, it’s the theory that is prevalent at this time.
There are people who are inerrantists (interepret Genesis 1-2 literally) but still accept evolution. How do you classify them?
@ BRgulker
I would classify them as being full of shit because evolution takes thousands sometimes millions of years for animals to evolve. However according to Genesis god creating the world and all of the animals in six days that kind of clashes with evolution.
Well, think of how much discrimination we get from them. I leave it to everyone to make up their own minds about how to handle that, but my tendency is to remain outwardly quiet while inwardly ranting and raving about their stupidity.
I’m lucky to have a fiancee who’s smart enough to understand the truth of evolution, despite being a believer in god. She calls herself Christian, but I’ve told her that her beliefs are more reminiscent of Universal Sufism to me.
See the link in my name for a reply I wrote last week to a religious friend who argued that it’s one thing to oppose all sorts of clearly harmful aspects of religion but that he though it was unfair to treat someone like an idiot simply because they believe some particular thing on faith.
Here are several thoughts:
(1) There’s nothing wrong with disliking character flaws and particular failures to be excellent. There is nothing inherently prejudicial or hateful about this in itself. In fact, if we believe in objective value, it’s only appropriate. I don’t (and shouldn’t) like laziness, weakness, stinginess, irritability, meanness, bad cooking, bad artistry, bad athletic performance, or bad thinking. I can go on and on listing attributes which I neither like nor should like if my mind is properly attuned to value.
(2) Each of us has many traits and performs many actions. Some of these traits and actions are desirable, praiseworthy, and/or admirable and others are undesirable, blameworthy, and/or contemptible. We can desire, praise, and admire each other or our actions for those things about ourselves or others (or our actions or others’ actions) that are desirable, praiseworthy, and/or admirable. We can avoid, blame, or in contempt those things about us that are undesirable, blameworthy, and/or contemptible. This is not prejudicial, it’s just judicious.
(3) Prejudice primarily comes into play when we take traits that are inherently neutral—neither desirable nor undesirable, praiseworthy nor blameworthy, admirable nor contemptible—and we take them as a basis for assuming that they are indications that an individual or a group with those traits are as a class undesirable, contemptible, blameworthy, etc. So, skin color is value neutral and therefore it is prejudice to infer various value judgments about character or other traits or actions based on it.
(4) Prejudice also comes into play when our abilities to form judgments about desirability, admirability, and praiseworthiness are themselves badly formed. This happens when we are trained to evaluate actions, characters, traits, abilities, according to irrational or badly developed criteria. We need good evaluative schema that track genuine value, praising what is genuinely praiseworthy, admiring what is genuinely admirable, and desiring what is genuinely desirable. It is irrational to privilege simple commonality of skin color or national identity in making an abstract consideration of the admirability of someone’s swing in baseball or her courage when in danger, etc. We are prejudiced when our evaluative judgments incorporate irrelevant factors when assessing traits, characters, abilities, and actions.
So, I think that disliking someone’s weaknesses is rationally defensible and, even, rationally and ethically necessary. I should not like either my own laziness or yours. I should not like my own bad habits of thought and I should not like yours. And I should, rationally, if my emotions are properly aligned with my abstract abilities to form intellectually defensible value judgments, feel aversion and contempt for vice, lack of ability, poor performances, etc.
So, based on all of this, it is perfectly fine (and even preferrably rational) to hold anyone’s intellectual errors, intellectual vices, intellectual inabilities in contempt, as undesirable or, in some cases, as positively blameworhthy.
But, there are some other things to keep in mind:
(1) In the kind of prejudice I warned against in point 4, we make mistakes sometimes when we use improper evaluative criteria. One of the ways we can make this mistake is to judge an entire character by only one aspect of it. It is one thing to rationally dislike one character flaw, one deed, one weakness of ability, etc. but it is another thing to overestimate the importance of one flaw, deed, or weakness in the overall value judgment you make of someone’s net desirability, admirability, and/or praiseworthiness as a human being. As I have argued before (here, http://camelswithhammers.com/2009/07/01/jon-stewart-against-dogma-and-extremism-but-not-religion/), it is quite possible that someone with contemptible habits of belief can be an overall more admirable and praiseworthy person all things considered than a person with superior habits of belief. And if you are using this one character flaw as a basis to judge someone overall, and against a total picture of their overall set of traits, properly assessed, then you are evaluating them badly.
It is quite possible to hate or dislike or blame or hold in contempt a particular trait and to vehemently oppose this in a stranger, friend, relative, or colleague, while nonetheless balancing this opposition with a fuller blooded picture of their overall character, abilities, and desirability.
(2) There is a place for us to love each other in a way that shows sympathy for each other’s weaknesses without making the mistake of calling what is bad about them a good thing. And, I think that we get along better and more happily if we show some love for people as much as is psychologically possible in spite of many of their flaws, as long as their flaws are not such as to be of great harm to others. I call this volitional love (whereas most call it unconditional love, see Camels With Hammers for posts on this distinction).
So, in sum, I would say there’s nothing wrong with disliking what is bad about people but we should be vigilant in overestimating the contribution of others’ particular flaws to their overall characters. The greatest temptation in this regard is to take our own virtues (or what we merely perceive to be our own virtues) and abilities and other likable qualities and over-inflate our estimate of their intrinsic value and then to irrationally harshly judge others by making reference solely or primarily by these strengths of ours (whether real or perceived) and underestimating the value of their alternate virtues and other desirable traits. To make this mistake is to unjustly privilege what is like ourselves over what is different from us but of equal or greater value.
Pingback: What’s Wrong With Prejudice And Is It Prejudicial To Dislike Someone Over His Bad Thinking? « Camels With Hammers
It’s not prejudice to dislike someone for their religion, any more than it’s prejudice to avoid a person who insists on quoting Monty Python ad nauseum or who constantly wants to argue about sports franchises. You do actually know something about that person, so you haven’t “pre”-judged them.
People choose all the time to take on traits or beliefs that make them unattractive to some others. It’s their right to do so, but not their right to insist that everyone else ignore the offending characteristic.
The greatest scam religious organizations have perpetrated in modern times is squeezing themselves into the class of those who “deserve” PC treatment. Sectarianism (certainly for an adult) is not an accident of birth. Grown-ups answer for their choices.
While I agree with your overall message, and almost every point within it, I believe that your tone and use of words like “IDiot” cheapen your message. I’m not trying to claim that this blog is a specific mouthpiece for your message, but rather suggest the possibility that this tone translates to other areas of your life.
Myself, I find that I’m intolerant of intolerance and it drives me crazy.
There was a point at which I would have agreed that calling someone an IDiot was a bad thing, and just being intolerant. However, the more I follow the argument between ID proponents/Creationists, the more I agree with bloggers who feel that the time for niceties is over. It isn’t about ID/Creationism. It is about the attitude that ID/Creationists should be taken seriously, even after they are proven wrong, under the guise of “fair and balanced” or tolerance. Being “fair and balanced” does not mean giving equal weight to fiction as we do to fact, bad science to science. That just creates an environment in which people can deny established scientific fact based on unprovable belief, and that is nothing short of dangerous. It creates a culture that just as easily dismisses the effectiveness of vaccines, or the danger of climate change, as it does evolution. And those are certainly not harmless personal issues, they are issues of public health and well being.
There is no argument with fundies on a logical basis, and violence is certainly not the answer. Sometimes is the best way to expose the ridiculousness of a viewpoint. I say fight nonsense with nonsense. Go ahead. Mock with impunity.
http://globalgrind.com/content/722347/Clowns-made-fools-of-the-KKK/
Custador, I realized I never actually responded to your question.
You closed your article by saying:
At least, that’s how I justify my prejudice to myself — but it still makes me uncomfortable. What do you think?
I think that discomfort is a very good thing. We ought to think twice before we write them off completely based on only one thing we know about them.
Indeed, and that’s what I was trying to say: Even knowing that he was an extremely zealous Christian didn’t actually make me dislike him (although it did make me avoid talking about religion to him at familly gatherings when I’d had a few drinks), but the knowledge that he’s not only a creationist, but that he gives credence to a concept as patently absurd and dishonest as ID really does just make me not even want to be in the same room as him – partly for fear that I might grab him by the shoulders and start shaking him violently while screaming “Wake up and stop being so fucking gullible, you damned fool!”, it has to be said.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with feeling discomfort. That is how we change and grow, and it is what is at the core of being an Athiest, that constant need to question ourselves and those around us. I am not sure what you are feeling towards your cousin (or IDiots) is predjudice, but rather frustration. Because there is no questioning on the other side. As someone said above, it is the willful blindness, as a result of fear. Like being frustrated with a friend who is in an abusive realationship who refuses to leave out of fear of being alone. The evidence that it is against their self interest is right there, yet they look past it. Everyone tires of helping someone who won’t help themselves, even if it a family member.
And it has nothing to do with intelligence either. Michael Shermer has a wonderful book (which I have just begun reading) about why people are so eager to swallow fiction and pseudoscience, even those who are intelligent. I wish I could go into more detail, but I have just started. So for now, if you haven’t read it, I would just suggest to go check out “Why People Believe Weird Things…” Maybe it would help you talk to your cousin or other IDers in your life.
I’ve finally just simply acknowledged the fact that I’m an atheist ideologue. I think that atheism (well, skepticism, really) is a better philosophy than any religious philosophies. I think organized religion is evil, and I think individual religion invites evil by making people credulous.
Most people don’t seem to think about it too much. These “defaultheists” don’t really bother me, but I’m a big question guy in the first place, so I don’t spend much leisure time with people who are unwilling to even consider the question of the existence of God.
Anyone who has decidedly that there is definitely a God and they definitely know what He wants, etc. is on my shit list, though. Except my Grandma. Yeah, I’m an ideologue and a hypocrite. I guess now I can start playing at the fundies’ level.
I was neither more nor less intelligent when I was a creationist than I am now.
But I was certainly ignorant of some important facts, and in some cases deliberately ignorant.
Deliberate ignorance can be a very annoying trait in people.
and immoral
As I see it, your creationist cousin is at a lower level of spiritual development than you. He only believes the literal content of the religious texts. You however, have questioned them, an important step in spiritual maturity.
However, you are also right to question why you know dislike your cousin, since he believes differently from you. This means you are ethnocentric – which is more typical of those in the literal (Faithful) believer group. Most people (Rationals) who have grown past the need for pat religious answers and literal interpretations have also grown past the ethnocentric stage.
You want to work to accept your cousin as part of the same world (become worldcentric, like the other Rationals) as yours. He does not need to justify your beliefs by agreeeing with them. And you do not need to justify his by agreeing with him.
I don’t understand you. And I don’t agree with
Still learning to use the HTML tags
I don’t understand you. And I don’t agree with
I am sorry. I was really tired when I wrote that last night and I can see now it was not as clear as it should have been. What I should have said was this whole discussion would be so much clearer and more simple in the light of spiritual development theory.
The creationist cousin is a pre-critical believer, has never submitted his religious beliefs to unbiased rational inspection. This is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of level of spiritual development, which many people do not understand. Having the strength to face the possibility that what you believe may turn out to be not true if you look at it honestly and critically is not an easy thing to do. A person can be perfectly strong and quite intelligent in other aspects of life, but still not strong enough to face a life without the certainty of knowing how he got here and where he is going next.
As a person gains strength in the spiritual arena he often gets to where he feels confident posing the type of questions that could lead him to abandon his faith. (sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t) Our Custador seems to be at this level. The problem at this level is that while these people are strong enough to go through life without really knowing how they got here and where they are going next, they do need the certainty that they were “right” about discarding some or all religious beliefs. Thus they have scorn, or dislike people at the literal belief level who “think wrong” or believe wrong, or whatever.
But there are a few people who have moved past this stage as well, and who can accept a person no matter what level of belief they are at. They are happy to associate with people of any belief system. Why? because they no longer need the certainty of being right about religion, OR knowing how they got here or where they are going next.
This is probably way too complicated for a blog comment. I just feel bad seeing everyone argue about all this, when there is a quite simple explanation.
I’m gonna assume that everytime you have said “spiritual” you meant “philosophycal”, bacause, ya know, there is not any proof about something wich we could call “spirit”.
I fully agree about the explanation of his cousin’s cretinists beliefs. It’s not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of critical thinking.
I’m not so sure about your opinion about Custador’s “spiritual” developement, that’s a big assumption you are doing here and only he can answer that.
I was raised as a catholic -well, by pretty liberal parents, more like a cultural treat than a really religious one. I still have some bad practices related to it. I can’t deny god’s existence -though I think that his improbable existence doesn’t matter in any way. I would need than, by your reasoning, to defend my beliefs opposing them to religious people, only to reinforce them. It’s not the case, I usually don’t have any problem with my religious friends. On another hand, my scientific “beliefs” aren’t anymore in doubt; I’m pretty sure about them. And that’s precisely what I can’t forgive in an IDiot.
A typical IDiot doesn’t understand the scientific method. He doesn’t understand the ST of evolution. He doesn’t understand probability laws. He is ready to discuss those matters with people far well-prepared in them. And when he is proven wrong, he gets back to “but I know I’m right, because God exists”. They don’t want to be rational about it and that’s what disturbs me.
In a similar way, I have had arguments with believers of other types -last one, an astrologists believer. I wouldn’t avoid her from now on, but I won’t never consider her an intelligent person -and I know that’s not about intelligence, but the suspension of rational thinking in a definite area. That’s the closest I have never come to prejudicing someone who I know “physically” – in opposition to “virtually”, you naughty minds.
So, I don’t think it’s about our need to reinforce our beliefs, it is about people who willfully expelled themselves from rational circles. It’s about expectation too, as they are not following our thinking methods -if any- debating with them has no point and no value for us.
I’m gonna try to stay out of this discussion, but i’d like to point out that calling your opponents stupid, and even worse, actually thinking that they are, can get you into trouble in any sort of discussion/conflict.
Fair warning!
@ brgulker
Your use of the term “evangelical atheists” is objectionable. First of all, the term “evangelical” is used almost strictly to refer to interpretations of biblical scripture. The last, and least common usage, is “ardent or fervent” adherence to something. When you use a term like “evangelical atheists”, what you are trying to do is draw some parallel between atheists and christians in a weak and deliberately dishonest attempt to equate the two.
What you mean is “ardent atheists”. However, this term is also objectionable, because ardency refers to a zealous approach to something, and most atheists are simply people who do not accept the idea of a god *without any evidence*. There’s nothing zealous about that at all. There’s no militancy whatsoever. Most of us don’t even wish to take away your right to believe in a god. We’re just not prepared to believe without seeing, and we express the reasons why we believe this is valid using logical, reasonable discourse. Stop intentionally misrepresenting the facts in such a cheap and transparent way.
Evangelic can simply mean being passionate about something and wanting to spread your ideas. I would class Daniel F as an evangelical atheist. Maybe the use of the word is different in the UK?
The word evangelical makes it sound like a kind of religion. Religion is believing without evidence. Atheism is just the opposite. So the notion of evangelical atheist is kind of an oxymoron. Would a person interested in spreading knowledge about empirical evidence be called evangelical? Evangelical scientists, for example? Evangelical evolutionists? It would be very confusing and hence not a useful descriptor.
“It would be very confusing and hence not a useful descriptor.”
Well that depends on what someone thinks it means! So for example of have evangelist in my work title but all it means is that I’m supposed to promote a certain set of ideas and they certainly don’t have anything to do with religion.
Wikipedia did not list the term “evangelical”. But I think it derives from this:
“Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being “born again”);…”
“evangelical” comes from koine Greek, and the word from which it comes translates roughly as “good news bearer”. Before it was used in the strictly religious context it was used in the manner that Jabster does, and in modern society it is still used in that manner in many areas with little confusion. Because it is also a religious term, unfortunately, people can sometimes (especially in the United States, due to the large number of Evangelical Christians) get hung up on the religious usage.
euangelion = koine Greek for good news. An evangelists is someone who bears/brings good news.
Evangelical = the term the Protestant Reformers used to describe themselves and their movement. They uncovered the “good news” in the bible that had been buried by the Catholic Church.
Evangelical = appears again in the link you posted (affiliated with religious revivals, such as Wesley, etc. in Britain and USA).
Evangelical = conservative religious movement in the United States that also emphasizes the authority and infallibility of the bible. This is the group that tends to identify with the religious right in politics as well.
Evangelical = enthusiastically advocating a particular cause, etc.
Chambers UK
The word evangelical, from the greek root, simply refers to being a messenger, or bringing a “good message”.
If you are trying to “get out a message” to the public, then you are being evangelical. The whole “new atheism” movement is very much evangelical.
To quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I think maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it means.”
Yes but I know, that you know, that I know, that you know that …
I never knew that. But it still seems weird to think of Richard Dawkins as evangelical ( as opposed to *an* evangelical).
There you go, that’s the correct distinction: ‘evangelical’ as opposed to ‘an evangelical.’
I have been trying to think of a good way to say this, and you have provided one!
Actually, that is incorrect. The usage of the word is almost strictly religious. Thus, it is misused when applied to atheism, and, like I said, is merely an underhanded attempt to equate religiosity with atheism. They aren’t remotely similar. You can’t be an evangelical atheist without changing the meaning of the word “evangelical”. It’s oxymoronic.
what you are trying to do is draw some parallel between atheists and christians in a weak and deliberately dishonest attempt to equate the two…Stop intentionally misrepresenting the facts in such a cheap and transparent way.
Awesome, another ad hominem! Gimme a friggin’ break. You put words in my mouth that I did not say, misunderstand the words that I did say, and then attack my integrity — and I’m the one being dishonest.
I even qualified my comment with, I’m not sure what term to use. Fortunately, Jabster gave me the benefit of the doubt and didn’t attack my personal integrity. He said,
Evangelic can simply mean being passionate about something and wanting to spread your ideas. I would class Daniel F as an evangelical atheist.
Others have taken stabs at the Greek, and they’re mostly accurate. euangelion is the word in koine Greek (the language of most of the New Testament) that simply means good news/tidings. An evangelist is the bearer of the good news/tidings.
In this sense, an evangelical atheist is someone who bears the good news of atheism. Dawkins, Harris, et al fit the bill perfectly, as does Daniel. The word fits frickin’ perfectly.
During the Protestant Reformation, the term “Evangelical” was adopted by the contra-Catholic church, because they understood themselves as having rediscovered the “good news” of the Gospel of Jesus — the good news the Catholic church had distorted and buried. This was related to a rediscovery of the biblical texts themselves.
Contemporary “Evangelicals” (notice the capital E?) are descendants of the Reformation, in that they also emphasize a Protestant understanding of the importance and authority of Scripture. But, they’ve also become a whole lot of other things as well.
I was NOT misrepresenting the facts by trying to draw an analogy with Protestant Reformers or contemporary Evangelicals. If you knew koine Greek, and if you knew the history of the Protestant Reformation, and if you understood how contemporary Evangelicals differed from them, and if you hadn’t muddled all three of those things up into a misguided personal attack, you’d understand that. But you did, and ignorance isn’t an excuse for a personal attack.
It was an excellent observation. I will never look at that word the same way again. “Evangelical atheists!” Lol!
“…and I’m the one being dishonest….”
See! You admitted it! I don’t understand sarcasm, so you’re an idiot!
Pwned you n00b! Atheists FTW!
So, let me get this straight. Thousands of years ago, Greek people used the root of this word to mean something that it doesn’t currently mean, so that makes your misuse of it correct and the fact that the meaning has changed over the last, oh, 20 or 30 centuries is irrelevant? It makes no difference how the Greeks used the word “euangelion” thousands of years ago. That isn’t how the word is used today, and it doesn’t change the fact that “evangelical” is almost exclusively used (I’m repeating this for you) in a religious context. If you used the word incorrectly by accident, as you stated might have been the case, then why are you attempting to drum up support for its misuse? The word may have fit “frickin’ perfectly” a number of centuries ago, but that’s not really relevant now.
Words have more than one meaning. “Evangelical” is usually used in the religious sense, but not always. All the dictionaries I looked at have several entries about religious meanings, followed by one along the lines of “zealously devoted to a cause”.
Some* words have more than one meaning. That’s not a revelation to anyone. However, there’s a big difference between common usage and conjuring up some centuries old use of the word that has little relevance today. I said, twice I believe, that the term is used “almost strictly” in reference to biblical scripture. Since the common and almost exclusive use of the word is in reference to religion, using the word to describe atheists is incoherent.
When you say “evangelist” to just about anyone, they are going to associate it with preachers sermonizing about biblical scripture. I also looked up some definitions for “evangelist” and “evangelism” and found only one that referred to anything “along the lines of “zealously devoted to a cause”, and it said “missionary zeal…”. This, again, illustrates my point. Evangelism is not a word that just means zealot. It has deep, distinct religious meaning in current useage and in connotation and should not be used to refer to atheism or atheists unless and until some atheist organization decides to write their own holy book and start proselytizing to people.
brgulker may or may not have meant it like that but to claim “Since the common and almost exclusive use of the word is in reference to religion, …” is just not true, at least here in the UK.
If you’re going to say it “just isn’t true”, would you mind elaborating a bit? Do your dictionaries list other meanings? Is there another common useage of the word that is prevalent in the U.K.? Can you provide examples?
Have a look in the thread above for my answers.
I checked Chambers Dictionary UK online. Here’s what I found:
*evangelist* noun 1 a person who preaches Christianity, especially at large public meetings. 2 (usually Evangelist) any of the writers of the four Biblical Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. evangelistic adj.
*evangelical* adj 1 based on the Gospels. 2 referring or relating to, or denoting any of various groups within the Protestant church stressing the authority of the Bible and claiming that personal acceptance of Christ as saviour is the only way to salvation. 3 enthusiastically advocating a particular cause, etc. noun a member of an evangelical movement, or a supporter of evangelical beliefs. evangelicalism noun. evangelically adverb.
You chose the last of three definitions (last because it’s the least common), to make your point that what I said was “just not true”. Seriously? I’ve also consulted with my Step Mother, who was born, raised and educated in England. She tells me that even in the UK, the term ‘evangelical” refers to religious claims about the authority of biblical scripture. She added that she had “never, ever” heard it used in any other way. When I mentioned that I was in a discussion over the use of the term “evangelical atheist”, she stated that such a term is “rubbish”. I couldn’t agree more.
No it can refer to relgious claims but it doesn’t have to but as you Grandmother who was ‘born raised and educated in England’ says it rubbish it most be. What would I or the utter rubbish that is the Chambers dictionary know about it?
Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris HAVE all written books, and many atheists are quite “evangelical” about spreading the “good word” contained within them.
Honestly, I don’t think Gulker’s use of the word is all that worth getting worked up about. If atheists are being “evangelical”, and spreading education and wisdom throughout the world, that’s a GOOD thing, in my book.
And those books are neither holy, biblical, nor scriptural, so I’m not sure I see the correlation. And I’m not “worked up”. I just don’t think it’s okay for people to assign random meanings to words just because they like the way it sounds. His use of the word is incorrect and either accidentally or intentionally misleading. Just because you think it’s a “GOOD thing”, doesn’t make it correct. Wishful thinking doesn’t make it so. I’m pretty sure we can agree on this. Spreading education and wisdom is not evangelical unless the education and wisdom you seek to spread is based on biblical scripture.
Has Vinton G. Cerf of google got something to tell us?
Why are you ignoring the fact that every English dictionary has something like “marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause” as a definition of evangelical? Just because it’s last it doesn’t count?
“euangelion is the word in koine Greek (the language of most of the New Testament) that simply means good news/tidings. An evangelist is the bearer of the good news/tidings.”
-That was two thousand years ago. Word meanings change over time, especially when they migrate from one language to another. The common useage today is not the same. It is irrelevant how the Greek used the word in the NT. You’re not using it in Greek, or in translation of the NT, or during the time of the NT, so this point, while informative, is insignificant.
“During the Protestant Reformation, the term “Evangelical” was adopted by the contra-Catholic church, because they understood themselves as having rediscovered the “good news” of the Gospel of Jesus — the good news the Catholic church had distorted and buried. This was related to a rediscovery of the biblical texts themselves.”
-Used in a religious context in reference to biblical scripture. This merely helps to illustrate my point.
“Contemporary “Evangelicals” (notice the capital E?) are descendants of the Reformation, in that they also emphasize a Protestant understanding of the importance and authority of Scripture.”
-Used in a religious context in reference to biblical scripture. This merely helps to illustrate my point.
“I was NOT misrepresenting the facts by trying to draw an analogy with Protestant Reformers or contemporary Evangelicals. If you knew koine Greek, and if you knew the history of the Protestant Reformation, and if you understood how contemporary Evangelicals differed from them, and if you hadn’t muddled all three of those things up into a misguided personal attack, you’d understand that. But you did, and ignorance isn’t an excuse for a personal attack.”
Perhaps, as you stated previously, you misspoke when you used the term “evangelical atheist”. I might have jumped to a conclusion when I assumed you had done so intentionally, but the fact remains that your use of the term is incorrect and possibly oxymoronic. I did not “muddle” anything up regarding the history of the word “evangelist” or “evangelism”, because I wasn’t commenting on the history of past evangelicals or their connection to current evangelicals. I’m talking about your misuse of the word in the here and now. History and common useage are not the same.
Custador,
You bring a good point. I have found that I don’t have much to talk about with my christian family, they seem to be far from reality, that is sad. Our views in politics, environment, poverty, religion, etc are different in the sense that they have no opinion at all or they put their “biblical view”.
@ Jabster
RE: Vinton Cerf.
I read the article about Technology Evanglists. I found this particularly interesting: “The word evangelism is taken from the context of religious evangelism because of the similar recruitment of converts and the spreading of the product information through the ideological or committed.” I’ll give you points for finding something that actually makes an argument for your case, but it falls a bit short. This is a clever job title somebody came up with. It has nothing to do with the common useage of the word “evangelist”, but it has a nice ring to it. My point, which should be painfully obvious to anyone reading my posts, is that there is an automatic religious connotation when you use the word “evangelist” today. Virtually everyone will immediately equate that to religious evangelists. Why? Because that’s the common useage of the word. They’ve only ever heard it in that context, it conjures up a specific idea (after all, words are only symbols for ideas), and even if most people knew there was a less common, but still technically correct definition for evangelist, they wouldn’t likely assume that was the one you meant, since the term is being used here to define atheist ideology in comparison to religious ideology. We can go ’round and ’round for eternity here arguing about this, but you know full well that what I’m saying is true, and that it is dishonest to intentionally mislead people about atheism by trying to draw some parallel to religion in the manner in which atheists communicate their beliefs to others. I stand by my assertion that “evangelical atheism” is an objectionable and disjointed term.
My point, which should be painfully obvious to anyone reading my posts, is that there is an automatic religious connotation when you use the word “evangelist” today. Virtually everyone will immediately equate that to religious evangelists. Why? Because that’s the common useage of the word.
… and I’ve told you that is untrue in the UK but apparently your Grandmother is the authority on this. My Grandmother didn’t have an opinion either way but does think that drinking large amount of gin and smoking 40 fags a day didn’t do her any harm so it must be true.
@ Jabster
It’s clear that you have failed to either read or understand my responses to your previous comments. As such, it only makes sense to discontinue this discussion with you.
@ rodney
“Why are you ignoring the fact that every English dictionary has something like “marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause” as a definition of evangelical? Just because it’s last it doesn’t count?”
I already covered this; more than once.
@Michael r
I’m sorry but you are acting like a bit of an wanker … I happen to be English and couldn’t give a feck what your Grandmother says is a fact.
Yes, I was unsatisfied with your answer, the civil thing to do would be to answer the question again, instead of assuming I’m an idiot for asking. Is there something besides “my grandmother said so” and “it’s the least common definition”? Because neither of those are good reasons.
You are mistaken. The word does in fact have religious connotations… I wouldn’t use the phrase either, but it’s a perfectly legitimate use. One could be an evangelical vegetarian. “Crusade” also has religious connotations but doesn’t necessarily mean a literal holy war. Etc.
Perosonally I don’t understand why Michael R is so dogmatic, for want of a better description, about the word used. He may find it “objectionable and disjointed” out of what he understands it means but when it was pointed out, repeatedly I might add, that this is not the only interpretation and then to claim what he believes is the *only* interpretation — well I find that very objectionable and the only conclusion I can reach is that he thinks I’m lying about what meaning, in context, I placed on the word.
I have been thinking the same thing.
He’s been downright militant about it, and I don’t see why.
BTW, I resisted making a joke about your use of the word “fags” in reference to your grandmother. That’s not the #1 definition of the term over here in America, therefore you are wrong to use it like that.
It tis a bit strange … as an aside what does the term evangelical typical mean in the US as I’m relatively sure that here in the UK it means something different, possibly because we are a less religious nation?
Use of the word “fag” — well I’ve learnt not to say “can I bum a fag off you” when in the US! Then again when an American colleague said that someone else had “knocked her up this morning” (she meant that someone else had knocked on the door of her hotel room to wake her up) she couldn’t understand why the English people in the meeting nearly spat their tea out.
Considering “Knocked Up” is the name of a recent Hollywood film, that phrase is not exclusively British, to say the least.
I’ve never actually heard anyone use that phrase in that way, but I would probably understand what she meant. I would still make fun of her, of course.