Tonight I attended (thanks James Tracy at www.anatheist.net for getting me tickets!) a debate/discussion between Rabbi David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens at the La Jolla Jewish Community Center. Wolpe is generally considered America’s most well known Rabbi, and Christopher Hitchens is, well, known as an inflammatory anti-theist and anti-religionist who usually has either a drink or a smoke in his hand. You can find videos of previous debates here and you can see Rabbi Wolpe debate Sam Harris here.
Even though Hitchens is a sharp and entertaining guy, I still think I prefer Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins to Hitch, in general. That said, and even though I suspect that Hitchens was drunk, he absolutely mopped the floor with Wolpe. It was fun to see them go back and forth, but if you want my opinion, Hitchens was landing haymaker after haymaker, while Wolpe retreated to many tired old atheism myths and claims about the origin of morality. I mean, I think discussions like the one they had are fascinating to me almost not matter what, but Wolpe didn’t put up much of a fight. In fact, he nearly conceded that God and religion are man-made SEVERAL times, and Hitchens had to encourage him to take back his words on more than one occasion.
But what really interested me was that Hitchens posed an interesting challenge to Wolpe and the crowd. He even offered a reward if someone could give an answer. “Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”
So I thought I’d pose that question to CCD. What do you think? Is there an answer to this question?
CCD,
Ben
November 14, 2008 at 8:00 am |
Is the Wolpe and Hitchens debate you linked to representative of the debate you witnessed?
Peace,
Corvus
“Nevermore”
November 14, 2008 at 8:05 am |
there aren’t any ethical statements or actions that are exclusive to believers. The closest believers can come to that are their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-rationality stances. Hitchens has been making that challenge for a long time, and I don’t think anyone has ever met it.
November 14, 2008 at 8:37 am |
I’ve always been curious as to how an atheist can justify the metaphysical assumption of the equality of human beings. I personally believe that God created us as equal. But there is enough contingent variation between the attributes of human individuals that I don’t see what might “naturalistically” ground recognizing them as perfectly equal to each other.
November 14, 2008 at 8:59 am |
Sophia,
Depending on the ‘atheist’ (there are lots of different paths to get there) I don’t think the equality of human beings is necessarily assumed from a metaphysical standpoint.
If there’s no objective standard to measure people against, then quality is subjective, and e-quality is based of subjectively determined quality.
The de facto presumption that all humans are equal is more of a game-theory strategic realization than anything else. None of us is likely to concede inferiority, and all of us are likely to challenge claims of superiority… not necessarily in all cases (who should take the shot at the end of the basketball game) but when it comes to some sort of ‘right’ to satisfy ones own needs, for instance. Strategy dictates that most claims of inequality will generally be received as toxic by the population.
November 14, 2008 at 9:22 am |
One problem with the Hitchens’ challenge is that any ethical action taken by a believer that would not be taken by a non-believer will probably not be recognized AS an ethical action by a non-believer otherwise they would be motivated to act the same. Am I wrong?
Peace,
Corvus
“Nevermore”
November 14, 2008 at 9:24 am |
Thanks, Thor. I appreciate the forthrightness of the game-theorist take on this. (As opposed to, say, Rawls who, in the secular “A Theory of Justice”, to my mind anyway, unjustifiably helps himself to this metaphysical assumption.)
I would say that the statement “all human beings are presumed equal and thus are presumed equally deserving of moral consideration” is a very significant, foundational ethical statement that arguably is exclusive to “believers”. (I’m sure certain atheists could come up with some kind of pragmatic story, but the above statement involves a metaphysical assumption.)
November 14, 2008 at 10:04 am |
Hi Sophia. Would you say that a believer ‘justifiably’ helps themself to the assumption that all human beings are created equal? Or would you say that becaue they don’t know, and it’s a presumption by definition, that this stance could be taken by anyone, including Hitchens?
Ben
November 14, 2008 at 10:19 am |
Thanks for coming out! Wolpe seemed somewhat wishy-washy or kept to making abstract claims most of the night. Hitchens was by all means on top of his game.
November 14, 2008 at 10:39 am |
Well, Sophia, any complaints about Rawls will likely meet my approval. I’m thoroughly unimpressed by Rawls… I think he may have found a way to stumble behind his own “Veil of Ignorance.”
No… but I think Ben touched on the main issue… clearly both believers and non-believers find meaning and value in the concept of equality. It’s absolutely NOT exclusive to believers. That some of us chalk this up to a dictate from God, and others think of it as an evolved preference or strategy (or even say “I have no idea where it came from, but it’s meaningful to me”) is immaterial. Notice the order here… we observe our preference, and then ask where it came from… We don’t need to DEFINE the source to verify the preference… it’s the existence of the preference that started the conversation in the first place! Rawls and others may waste words on silly or unsubstantiated stories about the potential origin of the preference, but finding that source is a separate endeavor from acknowledging and seeking to satisfy the preference.
November 14, 2008 at 10:51 am |
Sophia — I’m afraid that I cannot agree with your statement. Believers, in my experience, tend to believe that people are NOT all equal.
As an extreme example, a lot of racism was justified by believers because of the notion that darker skinned people are descended from Hamm, who was cursed to enslavement by Noah.
Also, there are a large number of believers who think that I am somehow inferior because I don’t believe. They might not say as much, exactly, but they do believe it. And I don’t know that they believe that I am as worthy of moral consideration as a result.
Another extreme example — islamic extremists who are driven to kill apostates. Simply because they don’t believe, they are judged to be worthy of death. Is that indicative of most believers? No. But there is stigma associated with atheism or other-theism among believers. Like when my wife’s grandfather told her that he was so saddened that she was going to hell. In his Church of Christ sect, those not baptized as Church of Christ were going to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. How, exactly, is this equality?
Whereas someone who believes in evolution as their overriding principle would very likely be able to make the statement that “hey, we’re all here in same epoch of evolution — we must all be equally adapted to the world today” — which is a complex way of saying that we’re all at the same point in time, so we MUST be equal.
The trouble with the statement though has to do with what the hell “equal” and “equally worthy of moral consideration” means anyway.
November 14, 2008 at 11:31 am |
Pos, you usually are so reasonable, Sure, many religions teach that all people are not equal or they are equal if they believe. Some teach a more universal equality.
I cannot agree that from an evolutionary standpoint all people are equal.
Mutations have long been occurring which allow certain organisms within a species to excel and out-perform others. Given the variety within the human species, reason suggests that there are or will at some point be individuals or groups who have these superior genes destined to develop into the next epoch of evolution. Anyone without these will be inferior and left behind.
We may need to treat anyone claiming to have the superior genetics with a large amount of skepticism, but isn’t it reasonable to say that there must be evolutionarily superior humans sometime in the future if not already walking among us?
Peace and ccd,
Corvus Corax
“Nevermore”
November 14, 2008 at 11:59 am |
Corvus,
If I may take a stab, I think Pos’ statement that “The trouble with the statement though has to do with what the hell “equal” and “equally worthy of moral consideration” means anyway.” really sums up where the confusion is.
Of course there is superiority of power or height or ability to survive. I sincerely doubt Pos would argue with that. But that’s not what ANY of us are talking about when we talk about equality, right? Believers, atheists, everyone recognizes all kinds of inequality. (Well… my two year old says “I’m tall like you, dad.” but I chalk that up to his age.)
So what ARE we talking about? Equally able? Equally endowed or bestowed? We’re really talking about how we treat each other, right? It’s fine to assert that you’re taller than somebody else, but if you say “I’m taller, and therefore it is my right to …..” we start to run into a problem. We all have to decide whether to respect such claims or not. And I don’t think we’re nearly as pure on this subject as many would like to believe. So often, we DO accept claims of “There are more of us, and therefore is is our right to….” as some kind of moral right, rather than just a shorthand for “Together, we are stronger than you folks, and therefore if we wanted to, we could …. so you’re probably better off just letting us.”
November 14, 2008 at 12:27 pm |
Corvus –
I appreciate that you think that I am usually reasonable. I try. Sometimes I fail.
You say “Given the variety within the human species, reason suggests that there are or will at some point be individuals or groups who have these superior genes destined to develop into the next epoch of evolution. Anyone without these will be inferior and left behind.”
But right now, not years from now, right NOW, we are all here. We may not have started at the same point, but we are all concident in the present. Those that aren’t were evoluted away. They were tried by whatever and were found wanting, and are now extinct.
It is merely ONE reading of what equality might mean.
That said, I know that to claim that my dog and me are “equal” by this standard is abject stupidity. If my wife were asked to choose between me and the dog, I know full well that it would be no contest. So, in that regard Humans and Dogs aren’t equal, by some other measure.
But there are some who think that we should be granted the same moral treatment. Just ask Michael Vick about that.
My point was to sort of highlight that the determination of equality is inherently a relativistic one, even within the confines of belief or dis-belief. And making a statement like “all human beings are presumed equal and thus are presumed equally deserving of moral consideration”, devoid of specific context aside from belief versus non-belief, is problematic. And I believe that I as a nonbeliever could make that statement and have it be true for me, devoid of religion and/or god.
November 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm |
I really don’t understand Hitchens’s point; could someone elucidate? Is it that we don’t need religion to make ethical judgments? That’s fairly obvious – people can justify ethical judgments from all sorts of things, and one atheist can have a set of values completely opposite from another atheist’s set of values. Is his point that atheists are just as capable as believers in making CORRECT moral judgments? That relies on the idea that there is an absolute morality, which I doubt he would agree with. In one case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html) he uses this as half of an argument; the follow-up question being, “Can you think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely BECAUSE of religious faith?” But that’s not a fair comparative question. A consistent one would be, “Can you think of a wicked statement made or an evil action performed by a religious person that could not also be made or performed by an atheist?” And the answer, again, is that of course an atheist can make the same evil statements and do the same evil deeds as a religious person. Now, you may say they’re less LIKELY to; but you could say the same thing of ethical statements and actions that could be made by religious people or atheists (for example, a religious person is much more likely to say that a couple should not be divorced simply because they are not in love anymore, even though an atheist could easily make the same ethical statement based on the assumption that marriages strengthen society). Hitchens is very clever and very witty and very entertaining, but his arguments don’t always make a lot of sense.
November 14, 2008 at 1:03 pm |
Thank you Thor and Pos.
I think your responses clarify your positions and the basic problem associated with defining equality. I don’t know that equality is a very useful thing to try to debate since I don’t believe in equality in most cases. I think everyone should be treated differently based on what is good for them.
What I believe from religion is that god asks me to not just treat others with toleration and respect but to try and put the welfare of all others above my own. I don’t claim to be perfect but it is my aspiration to try and put other people’s needs above mine.
I can see a non-believer being motivated to treat others “equal” to self but I don’t see a non-believer having much motivation to treat other better than self.
To argue against my own position a little: Dawkins book on the “selfish gene” gives examples of why it is an important marginal tendency to sacrifice self for the good of society but it does not suggest that self sacrifice is the best policy for everyone.
Christianity at least suggests it is always best to put others first even if never benefits you personally. Isn’t it nice and wouldn’t it be a nicer planet if this was a more common virtue? I can’t claim to being even close to a perfect example of this behavior but someone like mother Theresa seems to be a testament to the benefit to society of living from religious belief.
Peace,
Corvus
“Nevermore”
November 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm |
I think ethical ideas and actions all stem from God and revelation (personal and objective). Even secular humanist performing these ethical actions are really only borrowing things from a culture inculcated with religious teachings.
However, there’s no way in hell that I could prove this to Hitchens or anyone else.
So, since he will not accept that claim then my answer is that ethical actions and ideas are merely ethical actions and ideas.
We can teach a gorilla to smile and pull out a chair for a lady but he probably won’t know that he is offering her a compliment nor will he care.
Anyone who wants to can perform motions. Whatever is seen to have some ethical value will also have some personal value in the benefit it will bestow upon the actor’s reputation and ability to get hired, make friends etc. Any “ethical” action is just a hollow action and it can be used by anyone for any purpose.
The difference between Hitchens and a believer is that he can only perform the actions. Since he denies any actual Good, he can not be good. He can only act in ways that society considers to be ethical.
Fundamentally, his assumption is that he does all his actions from a self-serving desire (however complex and other serving it may look).
A religious person works to partake in Goodness and Love. She hopes to actually care about other people. She sees a need to be changed by a higher power if this is going to happen, because she knows that she starts as the same self-centered nature as Hitchens.
The ethical actions don’t matter as much to the religious person as learning to actually love other people in the actions she does.
Disclaimer 1: I don’t actually know Hitchens’ assumptions. Maybe he posits a “sefless gene”.
Disclaimer 2: many religious people (and teachings) seem to be looking for different things than I described.
Brian
November 14, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
Brian,
[The difference between Hitchens and a believer is that he can only perform the actions. Since he denies any actual Good, he can not be good. He can only act in ways that society considers to be ethical.]
Do you really believe that? I’m trying my best to come up with a way of reading this that doesn’t sound really intolerant and judgmental, but I’m having trouble. Hopefully you can explain it.
The reason this concerns me is that I don’t believe in an Objective Good either, and yet I’m sitting here doing my very best, caring about people, hoping for their happiness, etc. And it kind of creeps me out if you’re sitting there thinking “The good I do is real, but the good Thor does, despite his sincere desire to treat people well, is hollow and not real.”
The presence of an Objective standard of what is Good does not appear to be likely to me. That’s just honestly what occurs to me thus far after honestly looking at the information and input available to me. Do you truly believe that not recognizing the existence of a Good state of being precludes me from being in that state of being? Mind you… this is more a concern about your perception of others than it is a concern for my own spiritual well-being… because I certainly would like to think that if I did have a concept of a Universal definition of Good, a sincere well-meaning person who was for some reason not seeing the same concept would not be precluded from being held in the same esteem.
You made a pretty blanket statement, so I’m gonna reword it and see if you still agree with it. “Everyone who, for whatever reason, does not expect that Objective Good exists, is not Good.”
Again, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that I’m misunderstanding you. But I would like an explanation of how.
November 14, 2008 at 1:48 pm |
[...] the Conversational Atheist and Ben from Create Cognitive Dissonance. Ben wrote up his impressions here. Image via [...]
November 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
Thor,
I think Brian’s point is that “If Atheism were true, there is no ‘Good’, and hence, there is no one who is (or can do) ‘good’, they can only perform various actions which they describe as having some moral value… If Atheism were true.”
Now, if Atheism were not true, the question of whether someone doesn’t believe in something like a Universal concept of Good, becomes more interesting, because then ‘the theoreticians’ can start to weigh in on whether beliefs, motivations and actions can in some way be objectively adjudicated.
So, again, I think Brian (and I) would say that your ‘good’ and his ‘good’ and my ‘good’ is nothing of the sort, _If Atheism were true_, since atoms in motion, and what _is_, has nothing to do with _ought_.
November 14, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
Thor,
You sound mildly insulted and somewhat concerned about my world view. Sorry.
Perhaps I was trying to be a little provocative.
I would not say that “everyone who, for whatever reason, does not expect that Objective Good exists, is not Good.” However, a temporary suspician is one thing, a commited life is another.
You use the word “esteem”. I think everyone has an equal “cosmic” worth. I treat people differently based on who they are and what they do. I also esteem them differently for their different good qualities which I think I see.
In other words, my esteem and treatment is based on what I see the person doing. If they behave well, I esteem them. Hitchens, You, Me, and the gorrila all might act well and I might have esteem for each of us. However, these actions do not address the essence of goodness. (In my understanding).
To me, a person’s ability to be Good is limited by their conception of Good. So if a gorilla mimicks an ethical behavior he is not a “good” gorilla. Or rather, his entire concept of good is that he has done what the trainer wants and he will get a treat.
If you genuinely care about the well being of other people (concept of good) and you are willing to be guided and influenced by other people. (not arrogantly unwilling to learn). Then, in my view, you have both a concept of Good and a “higher power” which you are willing to submit to (at least occasionally).
Since I hold a concept of Absolute Good, I think your ability to grow in that Good will be limited, if you are not willing to pursue it. I don’t make any assumptions that you are not willing to pursue it, simply based on your currenty best thinking.
(I do admit that I have made some assumptions about Hitchen’s willingness to pursue Goodness. He doesn’t strike me as very open. Like fundamentalist religious people)
My mistake in the statement you quoted at the begining of your post was as follows. I argued that a Hitchens can only perform ethical looking actions in accord with society’s ideas. I think this is true, but I should add that if he cares about society and other people, then I think he is able to grow in Goodness.
Brian
November 14, 2008 at 11:50 pm |
Thor, interesting points. And I am reassured to know that I’m not the only one who isn’t dazzled by Rawls. I’ve spent a lot of time in the company of die-hard Rawlsians, and it’s nice to know I’m not alone
On another note, I must disagree with you that we all begin with a preference and then ask where it came from. In my case anyway, I think the process was quite the reverse. I can’t remember, but my guess is that I started out as an infant/young child assuming that I was the center of the universe and that I then had to be taught gradually that others were equally significant as me, admitted of equal worth or dignity, and were deserving of equal respect and moral consideration. Living in accordance with this belief did not and still does not come naturally to me. I still have to remind myself that even if I don’t like certain people it does not follow that I am superior to them qua human being. I begin with the teaching that all people are equal which I received first from my parents, educators, etc.; then from spiritual texts; then from rational reflection on the matter, and later from meditation (not necessarily exactly in that order); *then*, once the belief is presented to me as justifiable apart from my natural inclinations/preferences, I strive to cultivate a preference for this belief and to back that up with corresponding actions. I recognize that much can be picked apart in what I’ve just said, but it is the truth of my experience as best as I can summarize it.
Ben, I agree with you that it is debatable whether or not I or any other believer is justified in assuming or in claiming to know of the equality of persons as such. I find it to be a plausible story however, and the justifications I have satisfy me well enough to strive to live according to the belief as though it were true. And I simply haven’t heard much of a story from an atheist about this assumption (which is not to suggest I’ve polled a vast number of atheists about this – I haven’t – I just so far haven’t come across and haven’t thought up myself a plausible atheistic account which points to the metaphysical equality of human beings.)
Pos, I wholeheartedly agree that hypocrisy quite apparently runs rampant amongst religious people or “believers” (It seems apparent to me that it runs rampant in nonbelievers as well incidentally). I don’t think that failure to live according to a belief changes whether or not believers as such have available to them the resources, given certain metaphysical commitments such as a belief in God, to justify further metaphysical assumptions, such as, belief that all humans are created equal. As for what “equality” and “equally worthy of moral consideration” mean, well I can’t speak for everyone here. And I suppose I am biased here by my own worldview. As a claim that our entire American government is premised on, however, I think it’s safe to say that many people find it to be intuitively plausible and maybe even true and thus must have some sense of what it means. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it is difficult to spell out further what is meant by these claims. I know for me anyway to say anything further about the meaning of these claims involves a commitment to further metaphysical/spiritual assumptions – specifically the presence of a necessary eternal soul in each human being which effectively serves as a vessel for the presence of God or Goodness within us. Insofar as the capacity for God’s presence in each of us is equally present and of equal value (and as I can never know to what extent Goodness is present in any given human being, I am obliged to refrain from any judgment in this regard, and further obliged always to presume equality between us).
I think your question of what I meant by equality and equally worthy of moral consideration, is similar to the question I originally put forward. It seems that most of us operate according to this assumption. I have a sense of what I mean by it and take myself to be sufficiently justified in living in accordance with this belief; but I *don’t* know what you, Pos, for instance, might mean by it. You say “And I believe that I as a nonbeliever could make that statement and have it be true for me, devoid of religion and/or god.” My initial inquiry was to ask how you would justify a claim regarding the equality of all human beings. But, now that you mention it, I’m also curious as to what *you* mean by it. Thanks!
November 15, 2008 at 4:19 am |
“Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”
I like this ‘challenge’. It really gets to the heart of the matter. I’m going to be honest and say I don’t fully understand a lot of what has been discussed so far in the comments to this post.
I’m going to go ahead and say I do not believe someone who does not recognize God in his or her heart can truly love someone else. I cannot know certainly whether someone recognizes God in their heart, though. Some people might not call it God. And what I would define God as here is a higher power than oneself who is somewhat separate from this natural world who means good to all.
The reason I do not believe someone who does not recognize God can truly love someone else is because they do not see things the way they actually are.
I guess what I am saying here is that if you see someone as an eternal being it is so greatly different than seeing them as a temporary being. How can you truly love someone if you have an incorrect idea of who they are at their core?
I am not saying it would not be possible for a true atheist to do the actions that would provide someone with the means to be eternally happy. It is just not a thing that atheists do or would ever do because they have no belief to support those actions.
I feel like there is a hidden question behind this ‘challenge’. Something to the effect of, “what possibly makes a believer ‘better’ than a non-believer’ or perhaps even “what makes a believer ‘better’ that he or she is more deserving of this so called ‘heaven’”
The real difference between the actions is that a believer can do the actions from a sincere belief and this makes all the difference is terms of more deserving of ‘heaven’.
But perhaps the real question behind the challenge is what makes a believer ‘better’ than a non-believer here on earth and strictly from a ‘this world’ standpoint.
I don’t think anything does. The ‘better’ comes from the idea of the afterlife and the intentions that God only can see.
If the assumption is that a person is not truly ‘better’ if the actions they take in this world are not ‘better’ in terms of ‘this world’ results, then I would have to say the assumption is wrong.
Now I did speak a lot in this comment as if I am saying the Truth. Feel free to add “but this is just what I believe” anywhere you think needs it, as it is just that.
November 15, 2008 at 12:51 pm |
Owen, and possibly others — you seem to imply that a non-believer is incapable of a truly altruistic behavior because the motivation behind that behavior is not spiritually driven, whereas a believer IS capable of truly altruistic behavior. And I’m afraid that I have to call foul on that.
After all, what motivates a believer’s altruistic behavior? You can say that you are trying to do the will of your creator until you’re blue in the face, but I have as much reason to believe that you are performing that act in self-service (betterment of your station in the afterlife) as you have of saying that I am doing it for self-service.
In fact, altruism in all cases makes societies run better. So, by performing altruistic behaviors, no matter what we attribute the motivation to, we are all contributing to the betterment of our society, thereby improving the welfare of all those around us. You can attribute it to absolute good or you can attribute it to elative good, but in the end, it is all for the same purpose.
Further, to say that a non-believer is incapable of love feels to me as though you are speaking of a class of animals rather than human beings. And that is wrong and disrespectful. I may be misattributing your intention, but the result is what it is.
That said, even animals who live in societies such as certain types of primates demonstrate altruism when there would be no reason to believe that they would do anything other than be completely self-serving. You can find my example referenced in an episode of the RadioLab webcast — go to WYNC’s website and look for the RadioLab program, and then look for the episode called Morality. I’d link you right there, but I gather than I can’t put links into comments. Is that correct?
November 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
The morality question is one I’ve been trying to sort out for a while, so bear in mind that the thoughts below are still being processed and such.
On equality: I think Thor hit the nail on the head when he talked about equality referring to equal treatment. Obviously we are not all equal in our capabilities. However, as a human being, I expect to be treated a certain way and it would be hypocritical of me to treat others in a different way.
That being said, equality doesn’t apply everywhere. Someone who is stronger and faster is (and should be) more likely to be an athlete, and someone who has a degree in, let’s say, quantum physics is (and should be) more likely to be a professor of quantum physics.
So we do treat people differently depending on their capabilities, but there are certain freedoms that should be applicable to everyone.
On “goodness” and selfishness: I wouldn’t say I believe in an objective “goodness.” So far I’ve been defining good actions as those which are better for humanity/society as whole, and “evil” actions as being destructive. I think this is fairly consistent with what is generally considered moral by the majority of people.
I think it’s a bit unfair to say atheists do things only for selfish reasons. Yes, I realize that buying a lunch for a friend will make him more likely to act generously towards me in the future, but that doesn’t mean I can’t buy him lunch just because it’s a nice thing to do.
I could make the argument that theists do good deeds out of a selfish desire to get a reward from god (heaven), but I think they really do it out of a desire to be good people.
So yes, moral actions often benefit the one performing them, but what do you want us to do? Kill and steal?
(this thought just came to me, it’s not fully thought out and kind of makes me seem like a super capitalist of some sort. I don’t think I am, but maybe I’ll convince myself.)
On loving others more than yourself: A certain amount of selfishness is necessary for survival. Giving everything you have to others is self-destructive.
Think of it this way: Bill Gates, not too long ago, gave millions of dollars away to charity. He got this money through self-interested actions of building a Juggernaut of a software company. If he had started life with the idea of giving everything to others, he’d probably be dead, or at least homeless and destitute. So here’s one example of self-interested actions having positive effects.
And yeah, maybe it would work if we all had this desire to give everything away, but we don’t. It’s the reason communism has never worked.
November 15, 2008 at 1:15 pm |
Looks like Posolxtvo beat me to my point while I was writing my post.
November 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
Owen, thanks for being willing to put those thoughts out there. I get that this is just your opinion, but I see this attitude as an example of the ROOT problem with religious teachings. If religious teachings (not ALL religious teachings, but teachings within each religion) promote viewing others through a lens of superiority, then we have a problem.
Even if you don’t mean to come off this way, you can’t really escape it. By telling someone that you don’t think they can experience real love, based on your subjective opinion, you seem VERY superior. Love is the most important thing, to most people, in their lives. Our loves are the things that we identify with the most. They are US. So, again, I don’t really think that your intent is to put others down, but the stance you are taking implies, as Pos said, almost that non-believers are a different ‘breed’, incapable of achieving true ‘humanity’, because their loves are 2nd class.
In my opinion, looking at other humans as if they aren’t really human, even if you piously tolerate them, is incredibly destructive and it’s the primary source of religious violence, not to mention war, hatred, and division in general.
Out of curiousity, would you teach children that someone who does not recognize God cannot experience love? You used the words ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’, so it seems like a truth thing to you.
Ben
November 15, 2008 at 8:50 pm |
Atheist Leaners…
I’d like to chime in for the fun of it.
Owen said he doesn’t think there is anything about a believer that makes him better than a non believer in this world. Only in the spiritual world.
So, what’s to fault in Owen’s statement from the perspective that the “spiritual world” doesn’t exist? If Owen has given equal value in the natural world (the only world that matters) who cares what he thinks about an “imaginary world”?
He also said that he doesn’t know who recognizes God in their own hearts. So he does presume to distinguish. He suggested a standard on which to judge people as “spiritually” better but he does not think he can judge.
To atheists:
A) the only realm on which he theoretically judges your position as inferior is a realm you don’t believe exists.
B) he has acknowleged that he cannot judge you on that realm, and so I would assume that he doesn’t think he is superior to you (unless he’s having a bad day). He has only suggested that in HIS opinion, his position is superior.
What’s so terrible about this position?
I agree with Owen, but I would add this. Humans aren’t really “good” themselves. And so it is silly to talk about which human is better than which other. God is good, we partake in Good from him. So, in my world view, I have no gradient from which to look down on other people. (or up to, for that matter). I may make the case that one way of thinking, acting, believing, loving is superior to another but I do not make the case that I am better than you. (unless I’m having a bad day).
Do you find it insulting if someone who is roaring drunk tells you in a slurry way that you are totally missing out on the fun, when you have no interest in getting drunk? (Let’s say he says he’s having a better time than you). Hopefully, you have the conviction to let him have his opinion and decide that you are happy without getting plastered.
I don’t believe the life of religion is anything like being plastered at a party, I’m just wondering why people who hold the Atheist position don’t like religious people telling them that a religious faith is superior to an irreligious life. I do see that it would be challenging, but life is challenging. We are always coming up against different opinions and ideas. It would be silly for religious people to do their thing and then tell you that it added no value to their life. Of course I currently think my religion is superior to your Atheism. But why do you care?
Ben suggests that it leads to violence and persecution. I can understand that feeling but I think it is incorrect. I think badness leads to violence and persecution.
Brian
November 15, 2008 at 10:14 pm |
Just watched Sam Harris vs David Wolpe debate. I found it very interesting and entertaining. I’ve seen many of the arguments before (many of them here) but they were well made.
And watching the debate play out gave me more perspective on the discussion. I get a clearer sense of the major points where the discussion breaks down.
Have a good night, morning.
November 15, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
As Brian made the point, I in no way believe that I can know who in their heart recognizes God, even if they constantly say that they don’t over and over, there is still no way for me to know that they do not recognize a God. It’s possible they are just trying on a certain way of thinking and so express themselves in that way.
Seeing as I cannot know who recognizes God, I cannot, according to what I believe, feel superior to anyone because I do not know their heart. I don’t really see how this can be dangerous.
If some way I KNEW someone did not recognize God in their heart, hypothetically(and I must say again, there is NO way for me to know, this is a hypothetical), it is my belief that they are similar to an animal.
Our connection with God is one of the only things that separates us from animals. I do not believe, however, that any human should ever be treated like an animal, as every human, even those who deny Him completely, has an eternal bond with God and this is why all humans live forever, some in heaven and some in hell.
Aren’t we just highly intelligent animals from an atheistic standpoint? What else could we be?
I am a little unclear as to what I truly believe about all this. I am somewhat just saying what I think I’ve read in my religious books, but I’m still trying to figure out how it works with my viewpoint.
I believe believers can do things unselfishly and non-believers(and the way I am using this phrase, I cannot truly know who non-believers actually are) cannot do things unselfishly. Again, the reason I believe this I am somewhat unsure of.
I also believe that it wouldn’t be possible for a non-believer to see that a believer can act unselfishly because the non-believer does not believe in the only source of unselfish behavior, or perhaps I should say I do not believe that they can see a difference because they do not believe in the thing that makes the difference.
This comment can be somewhat disregarded as I am still pretty unsure exactly how I see these things. I don’t really think I see it that clearly. So if you’re offended by anything I say, do not take it to heart. I have to think about it some more.
November 16, 2008 at 4:00 am |
I think Owen and Brian are on to something.
I have interject that it seems illogical to complain about religious people believing in superiority of the religious life. Obviously religious people think belief is superior and atheists think dis-belief is superior or they would think differently. Also isn’t the Hitchens challenge to show the superiority of belief over non-belief?
If you dis-believe or doubt the existence of cosmic/universal/Divine Good how can you be offended if someone says that you will have a harder time doing Good (uppercase) than a person who believes in it.
Personally I would say that belief is superior and a believer is more able to do Good (universal/cosmic/Divine) but I won’t say that a believer is ever better than a non-believer. It seems that someone who believes in a higher good is not an atheist but a believing agnostic or non-religiously spiritual.
An underlying problem with the challenge is that anything put forward as an answer will be denied as either 1. Not ethical, 2. Imaginary, 3. Something that a non-believer would also do. Any answer even if there were an objective right answer. We have two different standards so I don’t think there is likely to be any agreement.
Peace,
Corvus
“Nevermore”
November 16, 2008 at 8:05 am |
Brian – I slept on your comments. Owen and Corvus, I didn’t read your till this morning, but I think that my response to Brian pertains to you as well.
I understand your point; that your professed “superiority” exists on a plane that non-believers don’t believe exists. But here’s the thing — some of us just aren’t SURE what exists.
And I think that the problem is that that superiority comes through at times in your communications and interactions as patronizing. On the natural plane.
I think that the particularly hardest part of that to take, for me at least, is that you have not walked that prerequisite mile in my moccasins that I think is necessary for you to adequately determine a stance on my position or my capabilities to love or do good. Therefore the position comes across as elitist and somewhat exclusionary. “It’s a believer thing. You wouldn’t understand.” You might not even see this coming across this way, but it is indeed there.
The odd part about this, again, for me at least, is that I do have experience as both a believer (over 30 years) and a skeptic, yet my experience as a believer is dismissed out of hand as somehow a failure, for, it seems your stance is, if it were a success, I would still believe.
So, in summary, I don’t care if you think of yourselves as superior on a plane I am unsure exists, as long as you treat me as an equal (a true equal) on the plane that we both agree definitely exists.
Statements like (paraphrasing here — too lazy to locate the exact comments and copy and paste) “I don’t think non-believers really can be good” may be phrased as though that means on the spiritual plane, but I am not reading those comments on the spiritual plane. I am reading them here, in this plane that we are all on, where a comment like that is condescending. And inaccurate.
And, for the record, yes I will continue to get my panties in a twist anytime I sense this air of superiority, and I will call foul.
November 16, 2008 at 8:56 am |
I’ve been reading this discussion with interest. I wonder though what Pos has in mind when he requests to be treated as “a true equal”?
November 16, 2008 at 11:07 am |
(This comment is more general than specifically appropriate to this post)
Perhaps part of the difficult in a discussion that includes “religion” is the many diffferent concept includes under term.
So here are a couple different meanings of the word with my own comment included after each about the “goodness” of each one. I find most of them to be subject to corruption.
Religion:
An institution: Equally as corruptible as any other institution, perhaps more so.
A revelation: Could be false, Could be true, could be a mixture, could be an accomadation (and therefore have idiosyncratic limits). A True revelation can be twisted, but in itself is entirely good.
Truth from/of God: Where revelation is a vehicle God uses for communicating truths, we can distinguish it from Truth itself (at least in concept). For example, the Old Testament has lots of content dealing with the Ancient Hebrews, in addition to the Edomites, Moabites, Hittites, Girgashites etc. Non of these people’s impact our current lives. Truth from God in an abstract sense describes directly and personally life in this moment. We could simply call it Truth, as such, it is incorruptable.
A way of life: Its utility to the one living the way of life and those he interacts with. Its value may be measured against how well it accords with reality (physical or spiritual). There are as many ways of life as there are people.
An experience of belief: This is an experience. Objectively we can’t say much about it.
A choice of belief: This is a choice. We may respect the person right to make a choice or we may not. We may consider their choice to be good or bad.
Re-Lig -(ion) – Re-connecting (to God): As an etamological definition, this is fairly neutral.
A relationship with God: Sublime, the meaning, purpose and joy of life. An actual relationship with God is an entirely good thing. A non-relationship, delusional relationship or pretended relationship may all have negative aspects to them.
A community of believers: Community in itself is often assumed to be a good and beneficial thing. Religious communities are subject to perversions like all other communities.
A symbolic identity: Symbols around which people build identity can be very meaningful to them. In fact, the “meaning-making” process is often done through the use of symbols. Symbols often collect and hold a lot of emotional power over people and can therefore be dangerous when used badly because they can emotionally sway people in the fact of contradictory evidence.
Ritual practices: Ritual may simply be a sub-set of symbolism. It is action oriented symbolism. Ritual practices can have all sorts of value and Goodness in them. Or they can be empty shells. Or they can be nasty, hate re-enforcing type activities.
Brian
November 16, 2008 at 10:08 pm |
Hi Brian (and everyone).
Fear not… I do not feel insulted by you. I commented a while back, I remember not where, that conflicting worldviews often, unless we are going to abandon all logic and resort to purely relative truth, contain necessary conclusions about each other that will likely be perceived, though never intended, as insulting. I think that’s partially the case here, and I won’t ask you to change your worldview for fear of insulting me. But I do want to invite you to question the relationship you seem to be drawing between different intellectual beliefs/expectations and the quality of good intentions.
You said: [To me, a person’s ability to be Good is limited by their conception of Good. So if a gorilla mimicks an ethical behavior he is not a “good” gorilla.]
I think this is the wrong distinction. Every human being, regardless of their worldview, faith (or lack thereof) etc. recognizes the difference between actions and intentions. To just perform certain actions because you’re mimicking or deceiving is clearly not about intending the outcome of the action. That’s an obvious distinction, but I don’t think it serves the comparison you’re trying to make.
What I’ll call “humanity,” essentially good will, meaning well, intending to benefit other people, etc. is something that is VERY widespread and VERY meaningful and VERY important to people from every background and faith and upbringing and worldview. Sure… there may be a few tragic instances where we detect no humanity at all, but that’s usually accompanied by severe mental illness and extremely rare (and shocking because of its rarity.) So to draw a line between one who feels/practices humanity and explains the origins of that humanity as being some objective standard of Good, and another who feels/practices humanity and, upon contemplation, expects that that desire is driven by some other mechanism, we need to do better than actions vs. intentions.
The experience of humanity is to do something with another’s best interests in mind because it occurs as important and meaningful to you. It’s the same experience and desire regardless of where you *think* that desire comes from. Humans care about each other. We don’t all agree on why. How does not claiming to know why, or suspecting that it might have an natural explanation diminish that humanity?
The reason this matters so much to me, and I’d imagine to anyone else who identifies with my best guesses about metaphysical questions, is that humanity IS the meaning in my life. It may be THE most important sense we have. It’s what we all feel and what connects us all. It’s how we distinguish ourselves from robots or (most) animals. To take that one beautiful, meaningful, uniting, essence of the human experience that we can all appreciate, and attach a certain intellectual conclusion/conceptualization as a prerequisite to recognizing REAL humanity in people, as opposed to just an empty shell of Goodness, is to be blind to that human beauty and connectedness except where you happen to find similar beliefs. It’s divisive. It creates an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. You’re not alone in this (and granted, you’ve made a lot of disclaimers and allowances for how one might get past this distinction) and many religions include a great many more conditions than you do… but on some level, it’s there. You’re choosing to trust an authority that says some variation of “your Goodness can’t be real unless you believe in X.” OVER recognizing the true humanity of those who don’t believe in X.
So I ask you… is good intention and good will towards others not enough to make humanity REAL Good? Are you sure you believe it’s limited by one’s ability to conclude that Good exists? I think that on some level, you may be conflating “doing something with selfish intentions” and “doing something with selfless intentions, but expecting that your other-serving preferences may have their origins in naturally acquired self-benefiting traits.”
To conclude, I don’t feel sad or overly concerned when I see that someone else has looked at all of the information and ideas and experiences available to them and drawn different intellectual conclusions than I have. I don’t need everyone to agree with me. But I do feel sad and somewhat concerned when I hear statements that sound like someone’s worldview is preventing them from recognizing the sincerity or depth of humanity in myself and others based on where we think that humanity came from, and what we don’t (and INSIST that we don’t) believe. The “you may still believe in X in some way, even though you say you don’t” explanation is a kind-hearted attempt at pulling a lovable “them” back into an “us” to reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by encountering such a “them,” but I’d prefer that we “them”s be taken at our word as to what we believe, and that the cognitive dissonance remain until it is truly resolved.
Peace,
Thor
November 16, 2008 at 11:10 pm |
Pos and Thor,
I still stand entirely by my most recent post. I would especially draw your attention to my point that I don’t think I mysefl am any more good than either of you. On a spiritual level or a natural level. So their is no condescention there.
Thor, though I don’t think you break down any of my recent post, I do think you raise some important issues. Thank you. I appreciate being scoured for any signs of condescending thinking.
(I wish IE would allow me to copy paste, but I will just try to refer to your statements.)
I stick to my religion because I think it adds value. As Rabbi David Wolpe says about himself as a Jew, “My job is to argue Judaism’s excellence, not its superiority”. I really like this line. I am just (on my good days) trying to offer the excellence of my position, but that does not have to result in ideas about superiority. I have used phrases that invoke superiority, not between people but between ideas. Perhaps I should steer clear of even that, but we know that some ideas are superior to others.
The gorrilla analogy was not designed to show the difference between intention and action but the difference between higher and lower perspective. Perhaps we should add this example: a working class, single mother with poor education is giving her kids whitebread sandwhiches instead of brown because it tastes better. The white bread is bad for her kids but she’s doing it out of love.
We could keep creating examples to show a spectrum of increasing perspective, or truth allowing for greater actual good to be accomplished. Now in the example of this mother, I would consider her good intentions to be far more meaningful and valuable than her the “bad” done by her actions. And yet bad, on some level, was done.
I am suggesting the notion that Divine truth can elevate our perspectives and the quality of the good we do, beyond what our naturally based thinking can accomplish. So more good is being accomplished. I’m not suggesting we will be able to measure the greater good in this world. Nor am I suggesting that the person doing the good is himself a better person because of it. The intentions are far more valuable.
So for you, as a skeptic, I offer the following. When religious people use the line about, “we don’t actually know what is in your heart”. Try to take *them* at their word(s). Another way of saying it is, “if your intentions are really excellent then you are partaking in goodness”. My belief is that if your intentions are of a higher quality than mine, then you will go to a higher heaven in the afterlife, despite the fact that you died a skeptic with regard to specific claims about God. This will not make you an intrinsically superior person to myself. It will simply mean that you have better intentions.
Now we could leave it at good will, good intentions, and love. However, love is meaningless when it doesn’t opperate in the context of Truth or reality. Thus, good intentions is a saving virtue in the individual, but it is only Good done with regard to Truth that accomplishes good purposes.
As a skeptic, you have access to plenty of truth to do actions that have genuinely good effect. But, my claim is that revelation from God (personal and objective) improves the quality of truth available. As I have said, I think no sense of morality and ethics would exist in the absense of God. (obviously this is not a statement that can be proved).
I will read your post again later, because I think it is good for me. I think you offer truth that can help me improve as a person.
Do you believe in love and wisdom? As the highest principles to be pursued? If so, then we really believe in the same God. You don’t have to call him that. And I have concepts of his incarnation and presence that you are uncomfortable with, but we are on the same page with regard to essence.
Brian
November 16, 2008 at 11:17 pm |
There is a story about a man who owned a vinyard.
He went out early in the day to get workers. He made an agreement with them about what to pay them, and set them to work.
Throughout the day at different times he went out and got groups of new workers. The last group was brought in just an hour before stopping time.
At the end of the day he paid them. He paid them all the same amount – the amount he had originally agreed to pay the first workers.
The first workers to be hired complained.
He said, didn’t I pay you what we had agreed?
To me this story has a lot to say about “Equality” and “personal value” and “fair treatment”.
Everyone received equal pay, but unequal hourly wages. They were paid fairly according to the agreement but at different levels.
I think that everyone is doing their own work at their own time of the day. Since I am another worker, its not for me to decide what the owner does with his money – so long as he pays me what I agreed to.
I don’t need to judge what any of you other workers should get.
(disclaimer: This story may have been made up by a ficticious person)
November 17, 2008 at 8:21 am |
Thor and Brian,
Thank you for your recent posts. I feel moved and humbled by them.
Sophia
November 17, 2008 at 8:33 am |
Thanks Brian,
That helps a lot. I share your belief that the effectiveness and success of a well-meaning action can hinge largely on how well informed the actor is – particularly in the specific area of knowledge that pertains to the need they are trying to satisfy for another. Your knowledge of health will certainly help you heal more effectively. Your knowledge of nutrition will help you nurture. Your knowledge of psychology will help you counsel, etc. If we can agree, and it sounds like we can, that the good intentions can still be just as good regardless of the understanding of truth that accompanies them, even if the effectiveness of the well intended actions may suffer, then I am fully satisfied. We can also agree that, knowing that truth is necessary to help guide good intentions toward their intended purpose, it is vital for people to seek the truth earnestly … and once you realize this connection between truth and good outcomes, it probably becomes part of the definition of being a “good” person to seek that truth. And I think we’re both sincerely intending to seek the truth.
As I’ve already said, I’m comfortable with the fact that the truth we each feel we’ve found is not identical… or at least certainly doesn’t appear to be from our individual perspectives. So I’m going to offer one more assessment/observation, and it’s OK if you simply disagree:
It seems to me like applicability of truth is a big factor in how well that truth guides good intentions. Aside from clever little indirect parallels, having a perfect understanding of how a ‘97 Chevy Malibu operates probably wouldn’t have much effect on how successfully you could comfort a friend grieving the loss of a loved one. And empathy and emotional intelligence probably won’t ensure that your efforts to fix your mother’s car work out how you had hoped. Knowing whether or not good intentions come from a divine source doesn’t strike me as especially applicable in determining how effective my good will towards others can be for the vast majority of actions I make in attempt to help others. There’s usually a pretty tangible, universally recognized source of applicable knowledge that will make the difference. I recognize that it’s entirely possible to disagree with this assessment, but this is just how it occurs to me. How can having the “correct” answer to metaphysical questions have such a large bearing on how successfully I can go scoop up my son when he trips and falls, kiss him on the forehead, successfully cheer him up and make him feel loved, smear some neosporin in any scrapes, etc. It seems to me that I have both the right intentions AND the right information I need to do real good in that situation, by anyone’s standards, and I don’t see how my suspicions about metaphysical realities would really alter that. So are there only some areas of charity that are impacted by having the answers to these questions? Which ones?
Not prodding… just really enjoying our back and forth, and feeling like I’m getting a lot out of clarifying where the true disagreements, if any, are.
November 17, 2008 at 10:10 pm |
I’m gonna drop the whole religious bit for now. I realized that is what is bothering me. I am trying to understand what is inside me and I am trying to force it to fit into what I have read from the writings of my religion. I don’t think it really fits there.
I guess this might be kind of odd. I don’t feel like it necessarily normally fits in religious oriented debates/discussions. Perhaps it is more of a psychology thing.
I just don’t really get along with people. I don’t get along with people in my church or people outside my church
I often don’t enjoy the company of people. I don’t really get this either because it doesn’t seem like a thing a good person should do. I feel like good people, according to my religion and according to a lot of people, like being around other people, at least to a certain extent.
The reason I am bringing this up is because it totally colors the way I see my religion and how I try to make my religion fit. Sometimes I don’t feel like my religion fits at all. I also don’t feel like an absence of it would fit either.
Neither one fits because there is one constant that doesn’t make sense to me. People scare me. I don’t like what people do. I don’t like how people talk.
I’m actually completely at a loss as to why this is. I have guessed at it that perhaps I have gone delusional with some sort of religious oriented judgment that has just taken a grip in me. I really just don’t have any idea. I’m afraid of being nice to most people. I don’t feel like they deserve it.
I know it may seem like I’m revealing too much about a deep psychological issue, but I’ve really struggled with this a lot and have come no where with conclusions about it. I don’t care now if anyone thinks its odd or anything.
I noticed a long time ago that I am the greatest barrier to seeing the truth and so I started a struggle in myself to take away the blind movements I make and to do instead things that are not blind, but that I can understand and appreciate.
I am the one who is at fault constantly. I have huge flaws and do not know if I will ever see outside of them. I can see them though and I can see they flaw my perspective enormously.
My point with the last two paragraphs is that I decided to first fix these flaws in myself before I could be sure at all to help other people to see. The problem is the more I look the less I am sure of. The more I see I am influenced every which way to not see the actual but instead the wanted.
What it comes down to is that I do not see how I can offer a perspective when I know for sure that it is not coming from a place that wants to see the actual. I do not know if I will ever be coming from a place that wants to see what is true, and by true I mean true.
I know nothing, this I believe.
November 18, 2008 at 10:23 am |
Thanks for that last post Owen. It was very honest and brave. I like how you said that the more you look, the less you are sure of. I feel the same way myself for the most part. Also, I know we have very different perspectives on the world, but if it means anything to you – I certainly don’t feel like I have things “figured out” AT ALL. There might be some specific things that I feel confident enough about that I’m willing to strongly debate them (reason over dogma) but I still feel like I have no idea what is going in the universe for the most part. I also liked what you said about having trouble dealing with people. I think I have a number of psychological issues that make it hard for me to interact with the world the way that I want to. Judging by how you described it, I think mine are very different than yours, but they certainly eat away at me and are a source of much anxiety. Anyway, I don’t know if any of this makes a difference to you or not. I just thought I would throw it out there. I really did appreciate your post. I have a great deal of respect for brutal honesty like that. It’s something I strive for.
November 18, 2008 at 10:49 am |
Yeah, Owen, I’d like to 2nd that comment by Derek. Trying to understand yourself by trying to make it fit the ‘way’ things are ’supposed’ to be… might not be the best way to understand yourself. Regardless though, I applaud the effort to ‘know’ yourself, and for being willing to share revealing things about your internal conflicts.
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say I know nothing, but I definitely don’t have thing totally figured out either and I hope that we can talk more on this topic. Struggling between seeing the physical actual, and a perceived spiritual actual, as a process to determine The truth… it’s definitely an interesting topic, and one that I dealt with for a long, long time, too. Still do. In fact, I think a lot of people could probably relate to parts of what you are experiencing.
Take care, Owen.
Ben
November 19, 2008 at 7:08 pm |
Owen,
I am also struck by your honesty. In fact, I am often bowled over by it. Perhaps one way of dividing the world is between nihilstic despair (nothing can be known) and hope. Hope that something can be learned. I have felt times of each. I choose to believe in hope, when I can.
I don’t envy you your dark times, I’ve don’t enjoy mine.
Your brother Brian.
November 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm |
I don’t actually think of these as dark times. What do I really have them to compare to? I do not know the actual and so cannot see whether it is dark or light or whether it was dark or light. I don’t believe that nothing can be known, only that I don’t know.
Often times it seems to me that people who believe in God see not knowing as a scary thing. I’m not scared. I feel like I am just learning what it might mean to actually know.
There is a small element of fear I guess. A lot of people I am around don’t seem to think it is necessary to go through such an extreme degree of questioning. I don’t know if they are right. I actually don’t know. It’s possible.
I’m am dead-set opposed to assuming though, as I don’t see it as fair to those who believe differently than I do.
I want to know if someone is wrong. I want to know if I have any right to tell them that.
it really isn’t that I don’t think I can know, I just know that I don’t and the assuming and facade tear at me
i have nothing if not honesty. who really knows enough to be righteous in hiding? i can’t do it anymore. i don’t want to.