Sincerity is Not Enough
Alan Wolfe has a new book out, in which he apparently says something very silly.
As modern Americans with distinctly tolerant sensibilities, you pride yourselves on your willingness to change, yet religious believers, even the most conservative among them, have adopted themselves to modern society far more than you have changed your views about what they are really like. You have made the whole country more sensitive to the inequalities of race and gender. Now it is time to extend the same sympathy to those who are different in the sincerity of their belief.
Well, I for one don’t put ‘tolerance’ at the center of my politics or my belief system or whatever you want to call it, precisely because of statements like that. Depending on how one defines ‘tolerance’, of course. If it means simply non-interference, live and let live, equality before the law, and so on, that’s one thing. But if it means, as it is so very very often taken to mean, never ever breathing a word of criticism even in general terms, even in public media like books and newspapers and websites – then that’s quite another. And that seems to be what Wolfe means by it.
And his analogy is a very bad one. ‘Inequalities of race and gender’ are not the same thing as ‘difference in the sincerity of belief’. Obviously. Blindingly obviously. One is born a given race or gender. Yes, ‘race’ is a social construct that doesn’t really mean very much, but being stuck with it is certainly part of that social construct. There’s a lot of cultural pressure around these days to try to construct religion the same way – to convince us all that we’re born Muslim or Hindu and can’t possibly change it. But that notion overlooks the fact that religions have ideational content, religions make truth claims which can be accepted or rejected, religion is a cognitive matter. If we demand immunity from criticism for religion, what other set of ideas will we claim immunity for? And if we start demanding immunity for any set of ideas that people are ‘sincere’ about, what hope is there that we can analyse and judge and criticise all ideas impartially?
The tendency to treat religion almost as an inherited genetic characteristic rather than an acquired memetic one has always struck me as remarkable. Richard Dawkins makes some interesting observations on it here:
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-12-30morris_letter.htm
“infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We don’t even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains, consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative. This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an ornithologist. Not, ‘This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if his father has anything to do with it.’ That would be fine. But, ‘this baby is an ornithologist’? Unthinkable, isn’t it? Yet, where religion is concerned, you don’t give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way, nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an ‘atheist child’. Rightly so. But why the double standard? “
Yup, I’ve seen that article. My colleague sent me A Devil’s Chaplain before it was published over here.
And the identity thing is of course an extension of the same kind of thinking. And both of these bad ideas feed into the tendency to declare religion immune from criticism – which is such a bad idea…
Ophelia,
I think it s relevant that the trinity “race, religion, sexual preference” always go together in anti-discrimination formulae.
Chris Hitchens recently published an article on “new morality”, wherein he pointed out that the Lord forget to include such a formula in the Ten Commandments (which point re-inforces Hitches theory of atheistical moral superiority).
Unlike the Lord, modern law-makers are creating commandments which outlaw discimination based on the trinity.
In the popular mind, and increasingly in the law, the three are equivalent – one is assumed to be powerless to question ones religion (or sexual preference).
And certainly I am powerless to question your religion or sexual preference.
I find it passing strange that the old shibboleths I was reared on: Truth, Justice, and The American Way (also a fear of green rocks) have been supplanted so easily by such a disreputable bunch as Race, Religion & Sex – when did anyone ever get anything but sorrow from that lot ?
Interesting, Robert. Actually your three don’t *always* go together. There’s another trinity that I think is even more common, so common that it’s almost one word: raceclassandgender. But I definitely agree with your basic point.
I think it has something to do with the obsessive focus on what people choose to call ‘identity’. The great importance placed on identity, and the resultant expansion of items that can be included in ‘identity’. But only some kinds of items – definitely not others. Atheism, for instance, is not ‘identity’. Because – ? I don’t know. Because it’s too rational, too ‘in the head’, and ‘identity’ is supposed to be quasi-biological? Maybe, but I don’t know.
Ophelia,
I agree on the ‘identity’ thing – but remember to include the qualifier ‘group’, as the point of focusing on your ‘identity’ is to place yourself in some group.
Your puzzlement over the lack of identifying Atheists is explained by realising that there are an infinitude of possible identifiers, but a very much smaller set of actual, fashionable/desirable, groups to identify yourself into. On the day that Atheism becomes fashionable prepare yourself to meet hordes of ‘identifying atheists’.
This is why the ‘rampant individualism’ of the West is AVBT (A Very Bad Thing).
I offer this analog for some: Imagine yourself floating above the plain of Arbela in 353 BC as Darius II and Alexander of Macedon face off. Darius army is a colourful, and huge, patchwork of the hundreds of tribes, nationalities and kingdoms that owe him fealty.
Alexanders wildly outnumbered force is relatively dowdy, and obviously more disciplined. The units move as one, responding quickly to rudely barked commands.
Darius army is group politics on the march. Alexanders is Western individualism and freedom of action on the march.
One is awesome, but impossible to control as a group, or even a set of co-ordinated groups. The other appears to be a well-oiled, easily maneuvered fighting machine.
One is a hot knife, the other is butter.
Why is the group-think army such an unweildy group, while the individualists army is such a weildy group ?
Ophelia,
Just to note, in my earlier post, the trinity I used (race, religion, sexual preference) is the one used in anti-discrimination law.
The construct you note is that used in Academe (raceclassgender). I probably should have mentioned that I assume irrelevancy for Academe unless otherwise stated.
“Imagine yourself floating above the plain of Arbela in 353 BC as Darius II and Alexander of Macedon face off”
hehe, i can just see it… a three year old on horseback leading the army :P
I assume you’re talking about the battle near Issus, in which case it should be 333 BC. (Unless you meant when Alexander and Darius fought at Gaugamela – two years later).
“I think it has something to do with the obsessive focus on what people choose to call ‘identity’. The great importance placed on identity, and the resultant expansion of items that can be included in ‘identity’. But only some kinds of items – definitely not others. Atheism, for instance”
Hmm, it’s a tricky one. Probably the best place to start is with the “infinitude of possible identifiers” (as Robert does). However, rather than then assuming that we identify with the most “fashionable/desirable” group, i would instead suggest that we perhaps opt for that which seems to be the most *salient* feature.
Bearing in mind, of course, that people have multiple aspects to their identity, and different aspects will be highlighted in different situations.
For example, a white man in a room full of black men would have his “white” identity foremost in his mind, whereas if he was surrounded by white women, his “male” identity would instead be emphasised.
Though i suppose what you guys are really discussing here is someone’s over-arching identity (as opposed to context-specific ones).
I wonder if there actually is any such thing though? Perhaps all we really have is a generalization, an “average” based on the sum of our recent (contextual) experiences?
That would to some extent explain the lack of atheistic identity… because religious people have more experiences which emphasise their group identity (eg going to church, burning witches, etc). Atheists tend not to have specifically ‘atheistic’ experiences.
Robert, ah yes, you did specify anti-discrimination law. That’s interesting, and something I know little or nothing about. We need articles on legal issues.
Richard C, interesting points. What I was talking about is the way we are *told* what makes up our identity and what doesn’t – fashion, memes, influence, all that – rather than what we experience [relatively] unmediated.
What you say about group identity and experience is interesting, and probably highly relevant to the ‘Brights’ issue. One reason for the idea is apparently (I gather from my colleague, who’s been paying more attention to it than I have) to create those group experiences and that group identity.
I wonder how much perspectives on religion differ according to nation? I mean, I find it hard to think of religion as threatening until I look at some fundamentalist country, like the US.
Yes, it’s definitely worse here, so I’m sure perspectives do differ. Mind you, Richard Dawkins is quite critical of religion, and he’s not over here.
Richard,
You are probably right about the dates – I was guessing. Arbela is the modern name for what is thought to have been Gaugamela.