'You just don't understand my religion' is not good enough

[cleanhippie]

Too often, faith is mysterious only selectively. When questions get tough, a god can disappear in a puff of ineffability


Terry Eagleton's quip that reading Richard Dawkins on theology is like listening to someone "holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The British Book of Birds" is a funny and memorable contribution to a debate that is rarely amusing and frequently forgettable. Whether you agree with the charge or not, the complaint is of a kind we have become very familiar with: disputants in the religion debate are talking past each other because they do not have a sufficiently rich understanding of the positions they stand against.

I'm very much in sympathy with this view, and this series is largely an attempt to try to find more constructive points of engagement that can only emerge if we ditch lazy and tired preconceptions about those with whom we disagree. At the same time, however, I'm all too aware that "you just don't understand" is a card that is often played far too swiftly and without justification.

Most obviously, it cannot be the case that the views of someone who is most immersed in or knows most about a religion always trump those of a relatively uninformed outsider. People who live and breathe a faith know more about it than those who do not – but this quantitative advantage does not guarantee better qualitative judgements. If it did, by the same logic, we should take the word of the earnest astrologer of 40 years' standing over the clear evidence that it's all baloney. Indeed, being deeply immersed may be a positive disadvantage, in that it might make it impossible to take a clear-sighted, impartial view. So Dawkins and his ilk are correct when they say that they are not obliged to become experts in theology in order to make criticisms of religion.

Of course, there is a level of ignorance that makes reasonable criticism impossible. But where that is the case, it should always be possible to point out what elementary mistake the critic has made. It is never reasonable to fob someone off on the basis that they do not understand: it is always necessary to explain what they do not understand. But also – and here's the rub – it's also essential to make it understandable. Rule one of intellectual engagement is that all parties must sincerely attempt both to understand others and to make themselves understood. It has become evident to me, however, that many people, especially the religious, suffer from a kind of conceptual claustrophobia. Their beliefs are of their essence somewhat vague and they are terrified of being pinned down. Although critics often leap on this and claim that this betrays woolly thinking, evasion or obscurantism, I think that there are times when such a refusal to commit is justified.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/07/understand-my-religion-faith?fb=optOut

[MarkCharles]

1. Thanks for a very good read ! k+r

"It has become evident to me, however, that many people, especially the religious, suffer from a kind of conceptual claustrophobia. Their beliefs are of their essence somewhat vague and they are terrified of being pinned down."

Have we all witnessed this recently even here? Hmmm!

I DID kick the Recommend button, but it didn't show up yet, maybe I'm too new to do Recs?

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. no, it just means the unrecs must first be overcome before the recs

begin to register.

[TlalocW]

2. The British Book of Birds... except

For the Nuthatch. I don't like them. They wet their nests.

TlalocW

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. No, it's gannets that wet their nests

Nuthatches are just not right.

http://mzonline.com/bin/view/Python/BookshopSketch/

And they are a later addition to the 'not allowed' list - here's the original:

http://www.inprint.co.uk/thebookguide/bookshop-skit.htm (note book title ...)

I love that this may creep into real life:

Gannets: Information & Photos

...
References & External Links:

Miller, Loye H. (1961): Birds from the Miocene of Sharktooth Hill, California. Condor 63(5): 399-402. PDF fulltext

Olsen, M. P. (1982): Standard Book of British Birds (unexpurgated version)

Gannet videos on the Internet Bird Collection


http://www.avianweb.com/gannets.html

[Kurmudgeon]

5. As long as you understand that accusing people of "ignorance" isn't exactly tolerant either.

And what gives anyone the right to criticize? If you don't like it, avoid it.
However, if you're so intolerant that any mention of faith or religion in public, anywhere, anytime is intolerable, perhaps you should take a good look at yourself and your need to "pin down" people.
People rarely agree on anything, learn to deal with it.

[dmallind]

6. Avoid it? How?

With a political process steeped in religious zealotry, religious anti-Red paranoia interpolated into our motto, our pledge, and our currency, and a full two thirds of our compatriots convinced that we will burn forever for disagreeing with them, how do you suggest we avoid religion? I am pretty sure you would like nonbelievers to stop poking fun and holes, but how the heck can we avoid altogether?

By the way the ignorance referred to here is quite obviously an accusation leveled at the nonreligious, not vice versa.

[NMMNG]

10. Do tell, how do I avoid religion?

It's on US currency.
It's throughout our government ("Faith Based Initiative", National Day of Prayer, religious displays on public property,etc)
Religious zealots have enacted anti-gay laws in nearly every state.
They're working to ban abortion, birth control and every other means by which women control their reproductive organs.
Proselytizing "missionaries" who think there's a person in the US who hasn't heard about Jesus, and who think it's OK to tell total strangers "You're going to burn in hell if you don't join us".
Etc, etc, etc.





And what gives anyone the right to criticize?

The same thing that gives you the right to claim others aren't the "Right Christians", and to berate atheists with nearly every post you make.

[MarkCharles]

11. Wish I could recommend a post like yours above! I'm also wondering..

why this very good column the OP brought to us isn't getting more attention here.

I think it summarizes a major problem I see here between believers and non-believers. Over and over again, the non-believers are told that they "do not understand" or are "limiting discussion" of philosophical points such as "knowledge" of a god, or that non-believers are "sidetracking" the discussion of religious points of view.

If folks with strong religious faith and strong beliefs have a problem explaining them to other people, I wonder just how deep and well-thought-out those beliefs are. People with strong beliefs ought to be able to state their defense of such beliefs in an understandable clear, non-plagiarized,(from abstruse 17th or 18th century complex German texts, e.g. Kant) way to non-believers.

[rrneck]

12. All too often

people slide into belief systems without thinking about them because they are presented as consumer products and they're consumers. Most are born with them having had their beliefs handed to them by their families and communities. And lets face it, the Abrahamic religions have been in development for about two thousand years. They are designed to be easy to accept. Mostly it doesn't hurt to have shoveled to them by billion dollar media conglomerates, otherwise known as churches, and the government by the box car load.

Believers who think everyone should believe as they do can't explain it because there is no excuse for that attitude. Believers who can't explain what it means to them just aren't poets.

[trotsky]

7. This part is extremely well stated:

Too often I find that faith is mysterious only selectively. Believers constantly attribute all sorts of qualities to their gods and have a list of doctrines as long as your arm. It is only when the questions get tough that, suddenly, their God disappears in a puff of mystery. Ineffability becomes a kind of invisibility cloak, only worn when there is a need to get out of a bit of philosophical bother.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Eagleton's quip is especially ironic

given that he is a hell of a literature analyst but not a theologian. But who am I to pick nits?

[MarkCharles]

9. Just as was pointed out in the essay, does one need to be an astrologer in order to..

criticize the concepts of astrology?

Can only astrologers and theologians ask critical questions in their special field of expertise?