Just For You, Greta!
Posted in Blogosphere, Quickies, Religion on | 1 minute | 15 Comments →So Greta Christina wrote this reaaaaallllly loooonnnng slog which can basically be expressed in the following sentence: in the marketplace of ideas, why should religion be immune from criticism?
My answer? It shouldn’t. Religion can and should be criticized like any other idea, and in my opinion, the religious should welcome this criticism. After all, I welcome criticism, because through criticism my beliefs are tested. If—like JT Eberhard—I were to shy away from criticism, then I would lose out on the opportunity to test my beliefs. If I lose out on that opportunity, I increase my chance of holding false beliefs. Therefore, criticism of religion is as essential as criticism of any other idea with far-ranging social implications.
So there you go, Greta. Your second straight answer.
Karl Grant
says...Agreed, but I have noticed something funny over the years. The atheists who usually complain the loudest that religion and religious leaders shouldn’t be exempted from criticism are usually the quickest lash out at any percieved criticism of atheism or atheist leaders like Dawkins.
cl
says...Of course. That should be expected under the hypothesis that most atheism, and New Atheism in particular, is just fundamentalism wearing a different costume. That’s the thing. These people like to present themselves as so rational and so superior to their theist counterparts, but, as you mention, when the caca hits the fan, we get the same old same old.
Here’s an excerpt from a comment I left at CSA about 15 months back:
dale
says...Religion is/has been immune from criticism? Did this person even go to college?
At the school I went to, it was the flavor of the day, every day, to not only criticize religion, especially Christianity, but to out right bash it and decry it as the single one thing that was wrong with everything and entire state of the world.
You are right cl, when you face criticism for your opinions and thoughts, you are required to test you stance. Every house that gets built must pass an inspection to determine whether it is safe and fit for living in. Who wants to live in a structurally unstable house?
cl
says...Dale,
Certainly, but in fairness to Greta, I think she’s complaining about a general attitude held by religious believers, not so much a state of affairs in the world at large. In that regard, I agree with her. We both know that many religious believers *ARE* timid, fearful types who act as if their beliefs should be immune from criticism. Of course, that doesn’t go for all of us, but I think she’s right to complain that this is a general attitude of the flock.
Make sense?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...>We both know that many religious believers *ARE* timid, fearful types who act as if their beliefs should be immune from criticism.
Where are these timid believers found in the belief spectrum? Are they fundamentalists, liberal Christians, both?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Let me clarify the subject of my confusion–how do timid people object to certain topics of discussion so forcefully that they impress the discourse?
My hunch is that it’s liberal Christians–not at all necessarily timid–who object to discussion of their religion, because they see it as a purely private matter. And Christina–not to be confused with a Christian–wants to be free to ridicule them (she says so at one point): because that’s the only way to “discuss” a belief with someone who considers it a purely private taste.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Her piece does nothing to change my opinion that terrible writing doesn’t deserve to be read. (See “Can bad writers be good thinkers” — http://tinyurl.com/4c2hzxn)
cl
says...Stephen,
There are timid believers all over the spectrum, and there are non-timid believers all over the spectrum. It’s like anything else: rarely black and white.
In response to confrontational atheists. Example: Joe is a timid or semi-timid Christian who normally keeps to himself. In college, Ben, an atheist, learns of Joe’s religious beliefs and starts pestering Joe. This escalates, and Joe, having no real interest in arguing or trying to change Ben’s mind, caves in frustration with some variant of, “Look, this is what I believe and you should just let me believe what I believe without criticizing me.”
Yeah, that’s another angle as well. I’d agree. Not all who voice the “don’t criticize” sentiment do so out of timidity. As you mention, some simply think it should be a private matter. The problem comes when these “private matters” spill into public policy and discourse.
Of course, she pulls the same schtick when non-timid Christians like me criticize her (I’m banned from her blog as well). Like her pal JT, she wants to be free to ridicule and criticize, but when the tables get turned she, like JT, will censor and ban those ridicule or criticize her in a way she doesn’t like.
Just another in that huge pile of (a)theist double-standards, I’m afraid.
cl
says...Stephen,
LOL! I predict you’d last about 4 comments before she banned you.
So I take it you agreed the post was verbose, eh? Didn’t like all that repeating of the mantra, “Why should religion be immune from criticism?”
:)
C.L. Dyck
says...Over the years, my husband and I have ended up involved in personal support and public writing on religious abuse. What I’ve found is that those who refuse to engage criticism of religion come in roughly two general types.
There are those who back right off because they don’t trust their own thinking and don’t want to be the source of dumb ideas or cliches–they’re sensitive to their faith culture’s flaws but will only open up in a trusted space. If they get into a bad church community, they tend to be those who suffer abuse. It’s not that they can’t defend themselves, it’s that they believe they can’t or shouldn’t. (“Turn the other cheek [even though the pastor/deacon/insufferable bossy person is going to slap you again]”)
And there are those who actively censor from a posture of pretended timidity/humility/self-martyrdom, and they can be damn fine actors about it, because they’ve got an agenda and have invested their whole sense of self-worth in it. And heaven help the rest of the community, because they will try to exploit it in the name of what they’ve decided is good and deserves the absolutist stamp of God’s Own Truth.
I enjoy getting to know the first type; they have a lot more to say than they themselves realize.
I enjoy helping the second type get the kind of recognition they justly deserve.
So I don’t think it’s wrong when atheists feel the same way, as long as there’s recognition of and understanding for the first type of person.
I don’t look at it so much as a belief spectrum (though I think that’s valid as well, to the extent that postmodernism influences receptivity to critique). I see it as a social or interpersonal phenomenon that can cross the lines of conservative/liberal as well. That’s just how I’ve encountered it.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...C.L. Dyck,
Is cl your namesake?
C.L. Dyck
says...Stephen,
No, I’m a quiet and unassuming wallflower. That should clarify the difference right there. :) I’m a friend of MS Quixote.
I thought your post on writing and thinking was very interesting, btw.
~Cathi-Lyn
cl
says...C.L. DYCK,
Thanks for an invaluable comment. Good to know you’re still lurking and by golly… don’t ever hesitate to add to our crazy discussions!
C.L. Dyck
says...Thanks, cl. Always interesting to see what’s up here.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Cathi-Lyn,
Thanks.