The F word
The Hitchens-Blair debate was on one of the local public radio stations the other day, and I listened to a few minutes of it; something caught my attention that I hadn’t noticed at the time (because I mostly read it, and watched only a bit). What caught my attention (because it irritated the bejeezis out of me) was Blair’s insistent unctuous repetition of the word “faith.” It occurred to me that Hitchens used that word little if at all, and that I should check the transcript to see what the proportions were. They were as I suspected. It’s quite amusing to use the search function (CTRL + F) and see Blair’s sections speckled like measles with the highlighted word.
This is bad. This is annoying and bad; it’s annoying because it’s bad. “Faith” is a decidedly hooray-word, but it has become a pervasive synonym for religion, which gives pro-religion people an opportunity to load the dice, and to pat themselves on the back multiple times in every conversation. The word should be “religion,” which is a neutral, factual, descriptive word as opposed to an emotive one. “Atheism” and “theism” are the same kind of word – dispassionate and factual. There is no equivalent of “faith” for atheism, which puts us at a disadvantage. This use of “faith” should be challenged regularly. It’s a question-begging device, and I say the hell with it.
Check out just one sample from Blair:
I do say at least accept that there are people doing great work, day in, day out, who genuinely are not prejudiced or bigoted, but are working with people who are afflicted by famine and disease and poverty and they are doing it inspired by their faith. And of course it’s the case that not everybody — of course it’s the case that you do not have to be a person of faith in order to do good work, I’ve never claimed that, I would never claim that. I know lots of people, many, many people, who are people not of faith at all, but who do fantastic and decent work for their communities and for the world. My claim is just very simple, there are nonetheless people who are inspired by their faith to do good.
This is a big reason I find the “interfaith” outreach stuff from Christopher Stedman so irritating: he’s an atheist, yet he does that thing with the F word – he leans on it as heavily as Blair does. Doing that implies that religion is a good thing, and doing that implies that atheism is a bad thing. Clearly Stedman doesn’t intend that, but he should be more aware of rhetorical effects.
There is no equivalent of “faith” for atheism
Yes there is: Skepticism:
If prejudice is passing judgment on something prior to examining its merits (to pre-judge), and faith is judging something to be true despite a lack of evidence (or even evidence to the contrary), then faith and prejudice can be synonyms. So I can’t accept that there are people of faith with no prejudice.
Try reading some of Blair’s side of the conversation, substituting prejudice every time he uses the word faith.
Atheism = scepticism? Meh.
As for Blair, well – I know why he‘s into faith. It’s the only thing that kept the rotten bugger in power.
<i>Faith</i> is the word that people who identify with a religious tradition use when they don’t wish to be held responsible for belief in anything supernatural. Then, of course, they’ll claim that supernatural doesn’t really mean what you think it does, and on and on down the rabbit hole.
I heard this recently on a podcast, but can’t remember which or when, but someone stated that the atheist “equivalent” of faith was trust. Faith is the mindless adherence to beliefs in the face of contrary (or otherwise total absense of) evidence, while trust is basing expectations on prior experience.
If you use it right, it can even make those who rely on faith seem less reliable. I mean, if you were depending on someone to give you a lift somewhere, would you rather get a ride from someone who has faith that their car will start, or someone who trusts their car to start?
In that sort of context I always use confidence in place of faith, but trust works as well.
Reason.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: The F word http://dlvr.it/BcM8n […]
Neither skepticism nor reason is an equivalent, because neither one is used as simply a straightforward synonym for atheism, while “faith” is used that way for religion.
On the other hand it is true that atheists sometimes switch back and forth between all three, in a way that could look like helping themselves to an equivalence that isn’t necessarily earned.
On the other other hand I don’t think skepticism and reason are emotive in the same kind of way that “faith” is – “faith” is a real mommy and apple pie word. Like community.
All about the group, in fact, and ties and belonging and loyalty and there’s no place like home. Skepticism and reason pull in the other direction. So the emotions evoked are of a different type, and power.
Of course, Blair has the “Tony Blair Faith Foundation” to promote. A Google search for ‘faith’ and ‘foundation’ (not as a phrase, but as separate words) turns up his self-promoting foundation for 5 of the first 10 hits, including all the first three. And if you really want to see the word ‘faith’ plastered everywhere, check its home page.
I prefer Private Eye’s name for the quango: “Drawing All Faiths Together (D.A.F.T.)”. But then, Private Eye correctly skewered him as a sanctimonious git back in the 1990s with their ‘Revd. A.R.P. Blair, Vicar of St. Albion’s” skit.
For the simplest equivalent of ‘faith’ for atheism, you could try ‘thinking’ or ‘thought’. As the slightly longer ‘free-thinking’, it has a fair history (over 300 years):
Jonathan Swift, 1708: “The Atheists, Libertines, Despisers of Religion‥that is to say, all those who usually pass under the Name of Free-Thinkers.”
I am somewhat in agreement with Richard, above — “belief” is “to hold something to be true”; “faith” is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, whereas “trust” is to have belief with some basis in prior experience or reliable evidence.So if I found myself in a debate with someone who used the word “faith” so freely, I would stop him/her early on and hammer home the point: “You are saying that you believe in the providence of the Almighty or whatever without any evidence to support that belief — is that really what you mean to say?” (while raising my eyebrows and shaking my head ever so slightly).It’s like when the Mormon missionaries come calling, and I engage them in conversation using vocabulary like “the supernatural” and “the spirit world”. It tends to shorten their visits.
So in other words, Tony is a faithy-waithy faith-head? No, wait a minute, that’s what atheists are. I’m getting so confused.
You really notice it in a sentence like “Oklahoma is full of people of faith.” That has quite a different ring to it than “Oklahoma is full of people of religion.” Or take something like “My faith guides my understanding of social issues” versus “My religion guides my understanding of social issues.” “Faith” connotes a fuzzy profundity and transcendence, whereas “religion” is clinical, anthropological.
I can’t think of any equivalent for “atheist.” Maybe “freethinker”comes close (e.g., Susan Jacoby’s book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism), but that word certainly isn’t used as widely as “faith” is substituted for “religion.”
I like ‘trust’. Trust is positive.
Trust doesn’t necessarily have to be earned – but it can be lost. Faith will always find excuses for why god would let horrible things happen (he’s testing us, he works in mysterious ways) but trust is open to revocation – and it is not an absolute state: there are degrees of trust depending on experience.
Faith is another term for “I’m right” and is the real position that Tony Blair hides behind. He doesn’t need to justify why he is right, he simply has faith he is right. His narcissism was why he was such a successful political leader.
Faith is the virtue associated with religion. It isn’t so much whether you believe as it is whether you respect belief. If you honor faith, you can be recognized as a good person; if you dismiss faith, you are unworthy of respect. Faith allows Karen Armstrong, an atheist, to be recognized as a humane intellectual. Ditto Robert Wright. Faith allows Michael Ruse and Chris Mooney to escape approbation. And faith condemns Ophelia Benson for failing to honor it.
Tony Blair knew well what he was working with.
There is no equivalent of ‘faith’ for atheism, which puts us at a disadvantage.’
I don’t think any of the suggested words in the comments above really work as a rationalist counterpart to ‘faith’. The religious person endeavours to retain his/her faith, despite all; and there is often enough a lot of all to despite of. They will often enough ask “why would God let something like this happen?”, where the ‘something’ could be as major as the Holocaust or as trivial as a lost dollar. The answer supplied often enough is along the lines of ‘don’t try to understand the ways of the Lord (scripture reference supplied); just have faith (that all is for the best).’ Fundamentalists often add the observation that it’s all down to the sin of the victim/s.
The rationalist counterpart to faith is understanding.
One’s understanding can be sufficient for life’s routine purposes, but it is never complete on any topic. But where the ways of God are welcomed as an eternal mystery by clerics, the rationalist position is that the ways of nature are fathomable.
I have lost two fairly detailed posts in two days, so this time I’ll select and copy as I go along as my backup.
There is something in this discussion that is so far missing — not altogether, perhaps, but at least in part. The word ‘faith’, besides being a hooray word — and it is that, to be sure — is also a wiggle word. It is used most often in contexts where the diversity of “faiths” would be embarrassing, or where one does not want to bring attention to the fact that there is so much disagreement amongst religious believers, even within the same tradition. After all, as I shall mention again, Blair himself switched allegiances, presumably because he held one set of beliefs more true, or based on more reliable authority, than the ones with which he had grown up.
Looking back over my years as a priest, it seems to me that I used the word ‘faith’ most often when I did not want to come right out and say, “The church is wrong,” or, “This traditional belief of the church simply won’t stand up to serious scrutiny.” And, if you pay attention to the way Blair used the word throughout his debate with Hitchens you’ll see that he uses it both as a wiggle word and as a way of affirming what people who otherwise disagree with each other possess in common, but without any obligattion to tell us what that is. It’s enough that he speaks of faith as something common to all religious believers which distinguishes them from non-believers and makes their lives acts of service to humanity.
‘Faith’ is, in other words, mysterian. It’s like the pomo word ‘hegemony’, that can be introduced into a discursive context without actually saying anything or making any discernible commitments. And it can be used in the same way to speak about all sorts of different contexts, from local groups of people, to international relations. I could use the word ‘faith’ to refer to what I had in common with people who scarcely shared one belief with me, just as Blair used it to refer to what Muslims, Christian, Hindus, Jews and innumerable other ‘people of faith’ shared, that indefinable something that implies, but does not justify, the assumption that they are all working towards a common goal.
But they’re not. This is the important thing that Blair managed to mask throughout the debate, and he wasn’t drawn out by Hitchens’ repeated reminders that religious people share something else in common; namely, very specific beliefs which lack a sound critical basis, and the fact that those beliefs divide religious people from each other more certainly than anything like skin colour, ethnic background, language, and so on. Blair kept emphasising what “people of faith” were accomplishing together (in the few cases in which they were actually successful in working together peacefully) without acknowledging that “faith” divides as much as or much more than it unifies. Had he stepped out of his role as the great unifier, and spoken of the very particular beliefs which had led him to make the jump from one church to another — beliefs, in other words, which functioned as dividers rather than unifiers — the reality obscured by the mysterian word ‘faith’ would have been instantly evident. It’s a wiggle word, a cheat word, that allows people to intimate that religion is about some single, real, identifiable reality, and that religious divisions are merely superficial. But if that were so, Blair need not have jumped church. He could have been as successfully religious as an Anglican as he can be as a Roman Catholic. The word ‘faith’ makes it clear that religion is a game played with smoke and mirrors.
Considering that I figure having faith to be about the same thing as being gullible, sold as being good by people whose entire profession revolves around you believing things for no good reason, I don’t see what the problem is.
f is from fantasy
Spot on Ophelia. I first noticed this in the Bush years in the US. Suddenly, everyone was a “person of faith,” never a “religious person.” It seemed to coincide with the deliberate rhetorical replacement of “religious programs” with “faith-based initiatives.” The deliberate, slippery, insidious nature of the switch was strikingly obvious (and ominous) to me. Yet everyone- everyone – adopted it without batting an eyelash or even commenting on it. Almost instantly, it was Standard Usage on National Public Radio, the New York Times, and from the lips of every “liberal” politician and commentator. You know, the people one desperately hopes would question it (or at least whimper a little).
Oh, and also – brilliant Eric. You’re just exactly right.
I like the word freedom as a rallying cry. It’s not as warm and fuzzy as faith, but it’s exhilarating and inspiring.
Faith in the supernatural, for any comfort it may offer, is a schackle.
I would like to see some evidence that people do good inspired by their faith. If someone was working for the poor and lost their faith would they suddenly stop and go partying for the rest of their lives? Surely it must happen that people doing good works lose their faith, just as ministers lose their faith and keep ministering in diferent ways. Look at Darrell Ray, he was a minister and when he lost his faith he set up an organisation to help others who had escaped religion. Good people do good things whether they are terrified of going to hell or not. And when bad people are afraid of hell they try to look good but don’t really achieve anything of benefit, eg Mother Teresa.
I wonder what all the fuss is about. Not that I’d dream of defending Tony Bliar the Liar and still believe he should be tried and locked up, but he probably didn’t have in mind American fundamentalists who I suppose you could say have hijacked the worth ‘faith’ and use it synonymously with their fundamentalist religious persuasion believing the bible to be literally true… Faith and trust both mean pistis in Greek as does belief – so to have faith in God is to believe in God and have trust and God as well. But faith is used in bible translations more often than trust, although more modern interpreters use trust instead of the old fashioned faith. But for me to claim that I trust I will never believe in God and I trust my non belief is right is actually (outside America at least) exactly the same as saying I have faith – I have faith my non belief is right. It just sounds wishy washy to me because it’s old fashioned, that’s all. As for Chris Stedman’s Interfaith Organisation which I support, inter’faith’ is appropriate because it includes both those who trust religious beliefs and those who trust their areligious belief or have no religion at all.
You wonder what all the fuss is about? But I said what it’s about, in the post. I explained that. “Faith” is an emotive word; it is manipulative; it is therefore irritating and unfortunate that it has become a friendly synonym for religion. It’s like “death tax” for estate tax. It’s dishonesty via rhetoric. I dislike that sort of thing. I don’t really consider it a fuss; it’s just something I said.
In the culture I grew up in at least, ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ are treated differently- with the latter typically being shunned in favor of the former. There was many a sermon about how religion is just an institution and how (in the words of my former youth pastor) we have to “own our own faith” instead of just settling for having a religion. I think it’s only semantics and they really are used interchangeably often, but there is a big difference in meaning between the two words, at least among my brand of Christians. Some above have commented that we could replace “person of faith” with “person of religion,” and as Ophelia said, ‘faith’ carries much more emotional weight. Christians know this, and it’s why there has been this massive movement among the younger generations toward becoming “people of faith” and NOT “people of religion,” because after all, anyone can call themselves a Christian but not be true to God in their hearts. ‘Religion’ implies that you get up and go to church on Sunday mornings. ‘Faith’ implies that you are a TRUE follower of God and you trust him with everything.
…Or maybe all that only makes sense in my own head because I lived it for so long :-)
yes, but lots of things irritate you. I am suggesting that it is an american phenomenon, an american fundamentalist phenomenon in the way they apply the word, that inspires your irritation. It is no more than the rather old fashioned, quaint synonym of trust. The Bliar’s persistent use of it more reflects his posh Oxford background which is not inspired by fundamentalism, just conservatism. However in America, ‘faith’ can still be used in it’s proper context, as a synonym for ‘trust’ or ‘belief’ and be incorporated by Chris into Interfaith which is a well established word.
Yes, and? Ophelia is the mistress of this blog, and she can express irritation about anything she wants. More, she did explain clearly what she found wrong with the word “faith” as it’s used in context; it wasn’t mere irritation.
Lots of things irritate me, too. The use of “faith” is one of them. Another is commenters who stomp in and declare that blog owners ought not be piqued by the things they express pique at.
You are wrong. It is much more than that, and it is used in exactly the slippery way Ophelia described. She’s not the only person to have noticed this. It’s not merely an American phenomenon, either. Blair is using it in just the way it’s being used in America.
well if you interpret his use of it as in the American way then the American way must be an American phenomenon to interpret it that way because it doesn’t have the same ‘slippery’ associations in other English speaking countries.
Josh: ‘stomp’? I can’t see in my comment me telling Ophelia what she ought not to be doing. Of course she can and will do as she pleases. Maybe you just get irritated with any commenter who dares to disagree. I’ve noticed commenters, mainly regulars, tend to agree here, and maybe that’s because those who don’t agree don’t comment, for fear of being ‘stomped’ on … ;-) So maybe I’d be better advised to pretend to agree. :-) Actually what I was saying is that I think the word is understood differently in different parts of the world.
According to the OED, the earliest sense in English is
Subsequently “the Faith” meant the obviously One True Faith promoted by the RC Church. When I was a child in the 1950s, I think that in England there were church schools (meaning C of E), and Catholic Schools. The cop-out faith schools is, I think, an invention of the Blair government. I could be wrong, but I also think that ‘people of faith’ is a recent coinage. It’s certainly the usage that annoys me most. ‘People of reason’ seems to me a possible atheist counter. Or, of course, a strident screech of ‘Which faith, you slimy equivocator?’
I forgot to mention that Charles Windsor plans to drop the historic title of Defender of the Faith, ie, in England (but not in Scotland) the One True Faith set out in the 39 Articles. He prefers the title Defender of all Woo Faith.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/3454271/Prince-Charles-to-be-known-as-Defender-of-Faith.html
Faith” is an emotive word; it is manipulative;
Yes, but so what? Many words are far more emotive and manipulative than faith.
Words like ‘racist’ ‘bigot’, ‘fascist’, etc are very emotive and manipulative, as well as far more dangerous, because they’re bandied about to silence unorthodox or dissenting views and opinions that comfortable and mainstream pundits see as threatening.
Seen in that context “faith” is quite an innocous term.
I’d also add that the term ‘faith’ is more and more used because terms like ‘christian’ or ‘judeo-christian’ were no longer seen as being “inclusive” ( now there’s a word I hate!) enough for the changing demographic.
It is non-specific, catch-all term that we can substitute for ‘religion’ whenever convenient.
Sauder – I said “so what”; it’s in the post. I know other words are more emotive and manipulative, but then I didn’t say “‘faith’ is the most emotive manipulative word there is” so your observation is otiose.
I think perhaps words irritate people depending who they are. Perhaps most of the people here get irritated by any religiously emotive words because they object to religion so strongly, particularly people who have religious beliefs. So religious people speaking religious speak is extremely irritating… I suppose I just get tired of people inserting ‘like’ where it doesn’t belong and ‘so’, just little americanisms that eventually end up everywhere else too, possibly also precisely because they’re americanisms … but I don’t really care. I probably ignore it most of the time.
steph, of course words irritate people depending on who they are. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t also reasons for particular irritations, which can be argued and defended. I gave reasons for my particular irritation with this particular word.
And you’re wrong about the agreement issue. People who disagree don’t get stomped on as such; people who disagree with bad or missing arguments get stomped on. You may not have intended “yes, but lots of things irritate you” as a provocation, but it comes off that way.
geez it’s like walking on egg shells :p
No it’s not. Written language just is what it is – it’s something that takes a little care to get right. If you put words on the screen, people are going to read them. You can’t just assume that your meaning and tone and intentions are self-evident. To me your comments look as if they express mild irritation. That’s because of the way they are written. They also lack any clear argument, so I can’t tell what your reasons for irritation are.
well that’s funny because you’re wrongity wrong. I thought it was funny. My comments were an expression of amusement. Especially at the accusation that I ‘stomped’ (I’m a pretty lightweight sort of a stomper) Your interpretation of my intentions are incorrect. And if I joke ‘it’s like walking on eggshells’ that is because I feel that it is so you can’t really say it isn’t if I feel that it is.
:-D
But that’s the point. You know what you mean, but you seem to assume that therefore everyone does, or should. But your comments are decidedly opaque. That’s not a flaw in people who find them opaque, it’s a flaw in the way you write them.
but maybe that’s because of your assumption that I must be irritated. I acknowledged that you get irritated about lots of things which kind of set you apart from me don’t you think? My intention was to suggest why it irritated you and that suggestion was that it is used by fundamentalists as a synonym for fundamentalist beliefs in America, and that would irritate you. I suggested that Tony Blair was probably unaware of that association because it doesn’t have the same association in other english speaking countries where fundamentalism isn’t so prominent and doesn’t dominate politics. My intention therefore was to make a suggestion and I thought your little niggly irritation at the ‘F word’ was characteristic of you and therefore amusing. We don’t as a culture down under, tend to get irritated quite so easily. Perhaps I should have inserted ‘I’m giggling now’ to make it simpler for you.
No, it’s not because of my non-existent assumption that you must be irritated. It’s because you write in such a chaotic disorganized unpunctuated random way that I can’t tell what you’re trying to say (and I’m certainly not willing to spend a lot of effort on figuring it out). It’s as if you’re writing poetry, or a mood piece, or a girlish diary entry, as opposed to trying to communicate with someone else. The cloudy impression I got from your “playful” ramblings was that you were expressing irritation while pretending to be whimsical and lighthearted as any little pixie, but if that reading is wrong, it is your style that led me astray.
Let’s see if I have it right now. You want to explain to me that I’m American and not everyone is American and I’m wrong about the word “faith” because non-Americans have a different understanding of the word. I disagree that that is the issue; as I said, Hitchens (not a born American) used the word very rarely.
You also want to convey scorn and hostility by pretending to find my irritation funny, and to convey that you think I’m stupid and need pictures before I can understand things.
Have I got it right now?
oh my amusement is no pretence Ophelia. We’re pretty honest and blunt down under. If I say I found it funny, I actually mean that I found it funny. I should have said right at the beginning: I don’t understand what all the fuss is about, I think you’re funny. :-)
(girlish diary – how sweet – deliciously patronising though!!)
Oh you did say right at the beginning that you found it funny and that you don’t understand etc etc – but I’m saying that’s a veil for hostility. You don’t find it all that funny – you’re just saying that by way of passive aggression.
I get that you don’t understand what “all the fuss” (all what fuss?) is about. That much I do get, despite your undisciplined writing. You don’t understand. Noted. The explanation is in the post itself, as I said.
You write very simply and sweetly Ophelia. I will right in simple punctuated sentences too, in an effort to be more easily understood. I think you over interpret what I write and try to see things that just are not there. I am not ‘passively aggressive’. I don’t care enough, but I read some of your posts, because I think you’re funny. I was suggesting that fundamentalism as it is in America, is an American phenomenon and atheist irritated reaction to it, is also American. It doesn’t affect us in New Zealand where nobody has heard of Dawkins anyway. I know he is English as Hitchens is also born in Portsmouth, but both have become prominent figures in America. Then there is Harris … who??? And there are other prominent American atheists too who we haven’t heard of and wouldn’t care much about if we did. Atheism and agosticism are fairly widespread with us – we’re a secular country with a succession of atheist Prime Ministers. These PMs are interested however, in interfaith (sorry) relationships between our various religious groups. Their efforts to encourage this work, down under. It isn’t a problem. Nothing is much of a problem. We have more personal space, we’re pretty laid back, and things don’t bother us quite so much. So I can giggle (girlishly) at things I find funny, like other people getting irritated over things which wouldn’t bother me, without feeling hostile about it. I’m a bit mean really, I suppose… I should be more sympathetic. :-)
So what you’re trying to explain to me is that I’m talking about something that is interesting to an American but not to someone from New Zealand. I see. But…I am an American, and I write about things that interest me. What am I supposed to do, write about things that might interest you? But I don’t know you, and I don’t have a clue what might interest you, and I also don’t care. I write about what interests me, because this is my place. People can take it or leave it.
No, I don’t suppose you’re particularly mean. You are obnoxious though. It is obnoxious to tell people what they should be writing about. It’s obnoxious to keep saying “I think you’re funny.” It’s obnoxious to mix all this with smilies as if you were being friendly. That’s why I say you’re passive-aggressive. I think you’re putting on a fluffy bunny act (complete with “aren’t I adorable?” photo) while exercising garden variety malice.
@Steph, if you are Steph: Probably it’s unwise to take any notice of you, whoever you are, and whether or not you have pretty hair. But it’s hard to believe you really are in New Zealand. Lots of people have heard of Richard Dawkins there (not that he is anything much to do with this topic). See, for example
http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2010/05/10/the-dawkins-delusions/
The topic here on B&W is irritation at TB’s slimy and calculated use of ‘faith’ as a cuddly-sounding alternative to the honest ‘an unspecified one of the many totally incompatible brands of the totally incompatible big religions’, thus meretriciously trading on the association of ‘faith’ with ‘good faith’ and ‘trustworthiness’.
All ‘interfaith dialogue’ is humbug. At most one brand of at most one of the big religions is anything like true. Any honest ‘interfaith dialogue’ would be directed at deciding which one is the least implausible.
Yes I know Ken Perrott, a good man too, well educated and a scientist. I have been working in the discipline of world religions for sixteen years now. So yes we know about the rest of the world. I was making a general statement about the average Kiwi. We are geographically isolated and it is reflected in our interests as well. Generally speaking. Quite simply Dawkins doesn’t get the press down under like religion and atheism does in America (and in the UK although not so much where I have been on and off for three years). New Zealand atheists you meet in the street aren’t anti religious in the way americans are because fundamentalism isn’t in our faces so much or political or widespread. As for ‘fluffy bunny act’ – I prefer to call them rabbits. But no, I’m much more up front than that, and as just another Kiwi after all, we have a reputation here in the UK for being blunt and straight forward. It’s the English generally speaking who never say what they mean. It’s hard to know what they really think.
Not sure what you mean Nicholas by ‘if you are Steph’. Yes, I have two passports, EU and NZ, and both say Stephanie Louise Fisher, New Zealand citizen. I don’t mind if you take me seriously or not. That’s really your choice.
We were interested that Ophelia took objection to my profile photo I used here (it’s a reminder of a pub conference I was at this year in Dunedin and the shot was a joke) and also at her accusations of writing in a ‘girlish’ way. ‘Interested’ and amused, not irritated or offended. The reason for interest and amusement is that she has accused others (we think eroneously) of sexism, when this is clearly sexist too. A little ironic it seems.
Also I never told Ophelia what not to write about or write. I am interested in what she does write about because part of my more recent research has been involved with contemporary biblical scholarship in america, the fundamentalist climate and atheist reaction to that, and how these infiltrate into, and often saturate academia. Ophelia is a very clear example of the atheist phenomenon and for that reason I am grateful for her posts. Also if I feel aggressive I’d let you know but I don’t feel passively aggressive here at all. As a pacifist, my passive aggression is directed at things like the American led Iraq invasion (which New Zealand was not involved in) and troops in Afghanistan and things like that – not amusing things like this, which are all part of research.
But why were you making a general statement about the average Kiwi? What’s that got to do with anything? Who asked for a report on what the average Kiwi is interested in? As I mentioned, I’m an American, and I write about what interests me.
And what’s all this “we” nonsense? Who is we? Why do you write as if everyone knew who “we” is?
No; my strictures on your presentation of self are not sexist, because they’re specific to you, not general. I think you are using a fluffy girly manner and appearance to veil your aggression. I hate that kind of thing, and I think it’s decidedly anti-feminist – and passive-aggressive.
Oh wait, maybe you’re an aspie. If you’re an aspie you can’t help it – you really do think that everyone knows what you know. Aspies do that thing of talking about Janny and Bill as if everyone knew Janny and Bill. If you’re an aspie I’ll stop arguing with you.
Ophelia, I was defending my statement about Kiwis to Nicholas. If he’s not interested he doesn’t have to read it. I also expressed why I was interested in what you write about as an American reflecting your American experience. And sorry, ‘we’ is referring to a humanist friend who is involved in interfaith in america, and also to my colleague whose house I live in when I am in the UK.
And what you think about my intentions are wrong as I have explained and your sexist remarks (my appearance veils my aggression???!!!! perhaps I should have used my passport photo instead?) about me personally are directed to me personally in a sexist way in the same way that your remarks to my male friend were directed at him personally too.
Oh for christ’s sake, Stephanie – I have no idea who your male friend is so I don’t know what remarks you’re talking about. And obviously, I don’t believe your claims about your intentions.
You have no idea who I am either and you’ve never met me Ophelia which is probably why you refuse to believe what I say is true. You will think what you like, even if you are wrong, because that is your choice. It really doesn’t matter to me. I am still interested in what you write and how you write, as part of keeping up with my research. I think the reason I was interested in commenting and suggesting something of the use of ‘faith’ is because you took a nibble at Chris again in a post that wasn’t directly about him, which was funny, and as he is a friend of mine, I took more interest.
Well that naturally contributes, Stephanie, but it’s also because of the way you present yourself, as I said.
At least you’ve managed to say something comprehensible at last. You were irritated because I said something critical of Christopher Stedman; got it.
No – what I said was I was amused, as he was too. And on reflection, after the claims you have made about my intentions which are contrary to what they are, maybe you used this post as a veiled attempt to get at Chris. What I and he can’t understand is what it is about him in particular that annoys you so much. There are plenty of other prominent young gay atheists who promote ‘interfaith’ relationships – Greg Epstein (although not gay) for example. But as I said, we were amused and it was funny when his name came up at the end.
And while I’m sorry I have this profile because you object to it and have used it to attack me as if I always go round throwing my arms in the air, before my profile picture was my cat. I didn’t know how to change the picture when I was asked to contribute to State of Formation which required that I have a picture. A friend who likes this photo uploaded it for me but now it comes up on blogs too. Personally I don’t like any photos of me, but I alternate between shots of NZ, art, my cat and another ordinary photo for facebook. This positive thing about this photo is just the event I was at and the people I was with. And maybe if you think I’m being ‘girlish’, it’s childish to judge someone by the way they look, especially a two second moment snapped by a camera. The photo taken a few moments before had me snarling at the camera for being there. When he pretended to put it away I did that. If I had the first photo maybe you might believe that I mean what I say. Who knows. Who cares. So there. :p
I’m not judging you for the way you look; not at all. On the contrary – I wouldn’t have mentioned it if there were anything wrong with your looks. What I’m judging is using your looks, especially using them as a kind of shield for hostility. You have that delicate pre-Raphaelite appearance that works so well for that kind of thing.
But maybe you’re not – maybe you really don’t know how to change your profile picture. I find that a little hard to believe, but maybe you don’t. It does say something about you though, whether you intend it or not.
No, see, this post wasn’t a veiled attempt to get at Chris – I’ve been very frank about what I don’t like about what Chris says. There’s no veiling. And actually I have said critical things about Greg Epstein here in the past, so I’m not singling Chris out. Maybe there are plenty of other prominent young gay atheists who promote ‘interfaith’ relationships, but I don’t encounter them; I keep running into Chris’s writing – at Huffington Post for instance.
But anyway – no harm done, eh? You keep saying you were amused. Over and over again you’ve said it. So there’s no problem.
Absolutely – of course no problem. After all, I’ll still be keeping up with what you write, we are ‘facebook friends’ after all and share mutual friends. And honestly I can’t do a blinking thing right when it comes to computers. I don’t even have a cell phone (thank god don’t frigging want one) and don’t know how to use them anyway… I was a late learner with computers and hand wrote all my undergraduate essays with literal cutting and pasting. I taught myself eventually to get on internet and didn’t even really know what facebook was until I signed up just over a year ago as part of a support thing for universities affected by government cuts. But it took me ages to work out what it was really, with homepage and profile and things, and only cottoned on slowly when I started receiving ‘friend requests’. Luckily it’s proved quite useful (unlike a cell phone could – they’re just enslavers) but as for WordPress – it’s complicated and when I tried to do it by myself, it kept telling me I was using someone elses email address and when I used a different one, it did the same. I don’t even know what my password is now because someone else has reset it for me. My great nephews and nieces know more than me – it’s embarrassing. Pre raphaelite? That’s funny – probably just the ‘hair’ and I dress out of second hand shops – I’m cheap. But I do love alot of the pre raphaelites – but alot of much later periods too.
Oh, well in that case I take it back – I always assume everyone is more computer-savvy than I am. I was a late adopter too.
I’ve become a bit of a convert to Facebook. I have a lot of FB friends in south Asia, and I’m starting to get quite a few in Africa, which is great – so I see the point of it these days.
Ha – thank you, and no way – I think I’m the dumbest on computers and I’m generally too embarrassed to ask for help because I feel even stupider – I’m ten times the blinking age of little wizz kids who know it all. And I’m pretty slow at picking it up too – I’m just pretty useless all round with technology. Better with bikes, cars and taps.
And me too – and I was so anti that kind of thing before. And making American friends which I wouldn’t have believed before, as well as friends from non english speaking countries, and the sort of friends I’m getting to meet now in the real world so it’s been a huge conversion for me. It’s even, made me understand just a tiny bit more about computers… almost.
I’m returning very late to this party, but I’m very well aware that reason is not a hurray word that substitutes for atheism. But atheism isn’t what you and I and most of this community are out, specifically, to promote, is it? Religion/faith is Blair’s agenda. We don’t, I think, have an atheist agenda so much as an agenda of reason, logic, skepticism, honesty, ethics… and a very important lesson about epistemology. Language changes, and I think “reason” can become more of a hurray word. Certainly not of the same flavor, because, indeed, words like “god” and “faith” and “patriot” are words that bypass critical evaluation by invoking strong emotions, and “reason” represents a campaign against that kind of mechanism.
I have enjoyed many friendly arguments with religious people, and when they feel backed into a corner because none of their rationalization makes any sense, they then play the “faith” card, which I enjoy because I then get to chip away at this edifice by pointing out that I don’t think faith is a virtue, and they shouldn’t expect other people with whom they have similar arguments to think so, either. Change comes gradually.
[…] is very trivial, but quite funny in a way. Remember “steph” who derailed the “F word” thread last week with endless passive-aggressive rambling about gnu atheism and New Zealand? And then […]
Oh dear. I’m ashamed to be called a New Zealander with representation like this.