When we slot everyone into boxes
This is quite funny, in a sad sort of way – a piece by Greta C. in Free Inquiry and republished on her blog.
“Fundamentalist believers want everything to be simple. They want their moral choices to be straightforward: they want a clear rulebook that outlines their choices, written for them by a perfect god. They want the world divided up into clearly labeled categories, with good people in one box and evil people in another. It’s so childish. The world isn’t like that. And the world shouldn’t be like that. It would be horrible. Why would they even want that?”
Lots of atheists I know say stuff like this. I say it myself.
See what I mean? Funny.
Either/or thinking is an easy way out. But it’s a trap.
Of course, the most important problem with the either/or view of life is that it’s, you know, not true. Insert rationalist rant here, about how reality is more important than any comforting lies we could make up about it, and how we need to understand reality as best we can so we know how to act in it. But the other problem with the either/or view of life is that it’s a trap. It closes us off from life. When we follow someone else’s pre-packaged rules about how to act, without ever questioning them, we retreat from engaging with the world at the most intimate and powerful level. When we slot everyone into boxes, we don’t let ourselves be surprised by them. The hard, bright walls clearly dividing the world become a prison. Living a life of absolute certainty, with every decision already made for us — it would be like living in Nineteen Eighty-Four, or in Camazotz.
Or at Purethought Blogs.
Oh, the irony.
But but but it’s different because reasons.
Greta Christina tends to begin from the presumption that she’s wrong, and Richard Carrier (like Sam Harris) is an expert on morality.
Truth.
What a coincidence! I also begin from the presumption that Greta is wrong!
(Okay. Not really. It’s just that it was lying there. I’d quite liked some of Greta’s stuff, on and off, actually. Haven’t really been privy to her bit in the recent awfulness, though.
… and no, actually, don’t anyone feel the need to tell me. Maybe I’ll try to catch up on my own, later. I may feel the need to have a drink (BKSP BKSP… ) several drinks first.)
As far as I know she hasn’t been involved in the recent awfulness. (Hard to tell, though – cryptic comments abound.)
But I’ve seen zero indications in previous interactions that she takes seriously the notion that she could be fundamentally wrong about the subjects under discussion. Quite the contrary.
Granted, I’m not sure I understand this completely, but I agree with everything you say, Ophelia.
Oh wait.
Her involvement has been less public and overt than some. But yes, the idea that she doesn’t go in for either/or thinking is laughable.
This may sound harsh, and I don’t really mean it as critically as it can seem, but I have always gotten the impression that her either/or thinking is “it’s either good for Greta or it’s not good for Greta.”
Her blog always seemed to be apart, and mainly for self-promotion. Which is fine, I guess…
Well yes, reality is more important. But just about everybody’s sense of ‘reality’ is loaded with ‘everyone knows that…’ and ‘it is well known that…’ substitutes for curiosity. Around gender and sex, the newer tropes can be as rigid and mindless as any Victorian misogynist could wish.
I’ll say one thing for Greta: she inadvertently created conditions in which I could raise funds at Pharyngula for a blogger who needed shoes and caution donors that he was free to go spend the money on cancer if he wanted.