Some affirmations
As we saw, Nisbet quotes Paul Kurtz on the need to be for things as well as against things. ‘It is what you are for that counts, not what you are against!’ I agree with that – and I’ll tell you some of the things I’m for.
I’m for free inquiry – open, fearless, unashamed, uninhibited inquiry. That means inquiry that is not expected to be deferential to majority opinion or belief; inquiry that follows the evidence wherever it goes without worrying about what the neighbours or bosses or ‘moderate believers’ will think.
I’m for telling the truth, on the whole, especially in public discourse. (That means no, I’m not for telling people they’re ugly or boring or fat or old, even if they are. I’m not for telling cruel personal truth, but that’s a different subject, and not relevant here.) I’m for telling the truth more than I’m for manipulating or wheedling. I realize – and realize more since reading The Political Brain – that that doesn’t always work in politics, but that’s one reason I wouldn’t want to go into politics: because I am for telling the truth more than I am for manipulating or wheedling.
I’m for progress, and change, and reform, including in thinking. I think all of those are impeded by the idea that the majority must not be ‘offended’ and that therefore certain ideas are taboo or sacrosanct.
I’m for thinking, and for universal freedom to think – freely, fearlessly, without inhibition.
I’m for knowledge, and learning, and evidence, all of which require free inquiry in order to flourish.
I’m for treating people as sensible grownups who can bear to have their ideas challenged without going into meltdown. That means I’m against treating people as fragile idiots who have to be protected from disagreement.
I’m for honesty in public discourse, which entails making reasonable efforts to address questions and objections rather than ignoring them in favour of repeating the original (questioned) claims.
See how affirmative I can be?
“I’m for telling the truth, on the whole, especially in public discourse”.
So too is Christopher Pauls…The German Ambassador was by all and sundry castigated for telling the truth about Ireland. Irish politicians do not know what to do with this strange beast called ‘THE TRUTH’. Ah when the lamp is turned — inwards. He acknowledged describing Irish history as “sadder than Poland’s” and also admitted telling his audience Irish doctors offered salaries of €200,000 a year had reportedly described the offer as “Mickey Mouse money”. I totally agree with him. He never said truer words. He also reportedly accused the Irish of being coarse, and attacked the Catholic Church because of all the recent scandals. [The same crowd that Matthew Nesbitt I think, wants to kind of join with at the hip]. “I’m for telling the truth more than I’m for manipulating or wheedling“. Arrh, aber weiss du, du bist sicher eine Frau after ‘the same heart’ as the German Ambassador. “I realize – and realize more since reading The Political Brain – that that doesn’t always work in politics,” Nein, ganz sicher, everything else works but in Politics the truth matters not one iota. No, the truth matters not a damn bit. Only the wheedling and the dealing, unfortunately.
Those are all good things to be for, but you’re also for–no rapes, no honor killings, no genocides, etc.
So what if somebody wants to work with you on a campaign against honor killings. They happen to be devoutly religious, They believe in a really nice god who’s against honor killings. They think atheists practice witchcraft.
Are you going to “come out”? Are you going to start questioning their religion? Or are you going to focus on what you have in common, ignore the religious differences, and march ahead to protect people from honor killings?
Personally, I’d march arm in arm with the faithful. It seems to me Kurtz is recommending a tone and approach that would make that possible. I don’t think it needs to be “ethical humanism,” which is a particular moral theory I don’t subscribe to. It needs to affirm something rather than just attack and antagonize.
<>
And could you shake hands with someone who believes in homeopathy, Freud or chiropractic to achieve such good things?
“Are you going to start questioning their religion? Or are you going to focus on what you have in common?”
No to the first, sure to the second – but that’s not what Nisbet is talking about. He’s talking about ‘vocal atheists’ and ‘the atheist noise machine’ and the way scientists talk and write in public discourse. He’s making huge, sweeping claims that frankly don’t make much sense – and that’s why a lot of people keep arguing with him.
It’s not Kurtz I’m disagreeing with, by the way, it’s Nesbit (I didn’t make that clear). What Kurtz says is much much less sweeping than what Nesbit says.
Excellent list, OB. Where do I sign?
I would add one more item, though: I’m for vigorous criticism of irrationality, illogic, faulty arguments, and ideas antithetical to the health and welfare of sentient beings, particularly humans.
Aha, now I see the big long discussion after the Nisbet article–must have a look.
OB said: “I’m for treating people as sensible grownups who can bear to have their ideas challenged without going into meltdown. That means I’m against treating people as fragile idiots who have to be protected from disagreement.”
If we stick just to the “for” side of this for now, this is exactly the area of controversy, innit? The plain fact is that there are a great many people who do not behave like sensible grownups and who respond to any challenge of their cherished notions by red-in-the-face shouting and/or fingers-in-ears lah-lah-lah-ing. (“Meltdown” is, appropriately enough, very commonly used in my circles to describe a toddler’s tantrum.)
So how do we deal with the fact that the way sensible, rational people would prefer to treat others simply does not work much of the time? Sure, we’d *like* people to be grownups able to disagree without excessive conflict, and able to consider arguments and evidence on their merits. But in fact, many adult humans are not even close to being “grownups” by such a definition. There is a large minority of people – or perhaps a straight-up majority, sadly – who judge every claim in advance by very epistemically dubious standards, and whose response to any disagreement whatsoever is to launch a staunch defense of their carefully delimited and protected ignorance and attack on anyone who threatens it.
Hence creationism. And, for that matter, the overwhelming majority of political discourse.
One possible response to the problem of people not being grownups is treat ’em like grownups anyway, dammit! It’s the only way they’re ever going to have a chance to grow up – and we’ll be setting the right example (and creating the right environment) for future generations of adults to have a higher proportion of actual grownups. I think PZ Myers would be happy with that formulation, and I know for damned sure that this is the path I prefer. (Whatcha think, PZ. Is that a fair portrayal of your POV?)
Another possible response to the problem of people not being grownups is to treat them like children. That is, alter your message to fit within the parameters they are ready to deal with as much as possible – and when necessary, just redirect their attention where you need it to go as much as possible. This approach is perhaps manipulative and not ultimately very respectful, but it can be effective. I just think it’s only effective in the short term, and that the effectiveness might bear some costs we need to acknowledge and decide whether or not we’re willing to pay. I think Nisbet’s biggest problem is that he does not acknowledge either the short-term nature or the potential costs of the more manipulative approach. I’ve seen those exact objections raised very directly and clearly in every discussion, and I’ve yet to see any response to them that is even remotely clear or direct. In fact, I’ve yet to see any response that actually addresses these concerns at all.
With the “slight problem”, isn’t that what law & order is about?
I think that’s why we have laws and police, to prevent and to punish criminal acts.
So sure, I’m for treating grown-ups as such, including facing the consequences of their actions.
Correction: The German Ambassadors’ Christian name is, ‘Christian’, not, Christopher. Oh Christ, will I ever get the names right. Oops, Nisbet, not Nesbitt.
Well, all these things you are for, OB, makes you the strong person you are today. You call a spade a spade, not, a shovel. You call white, white, not cream. Mind you, the ones who call the spades, shovels, and white, cream, are the ones earning big wages and keeping in with everyone. They do not want to rock too many boats; too much is for them at stake. They run with the hares and sit with the hounds. But their thin-skins shed too much weakness.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, Marie-Therese, but a shovel is not a spade, and cream is not white. Terminological inexactitude deployed in an effort to manifest an absence of supposed societal intimidation will not aid the cause of those for whom we strive. Or, to put it another way, if you’ve a lot of bullsh*t to shift, you’re better off with a shovel.
But of course we all know we have to do both. But we have Nisbet saying “sssh, be quiet” (if not “shut up”) “you’ll make my job harder”. And I just want to say: “Well, exactly – it’s your job and you’re well paid to do it. Nuclear physics is hard too. And yes of course, there’s a political cost as well, but some of us are actually struggling to maintain an identity in a world (in my case the deep-suburbs) where identity is increasingly seen as faith-based and that’s a political issue too.”
And then there’s the issue of national perspective: some of us don’t want to go down the US path and we’re a little puzzled why our attempts to avoid doing so must give way to the tactical concerns of those fighting what are, at the moment, still peculiarly American political battles. (In Australia we have something called Hillsong which is the US political-religious complex transported wholesale to the antipodes and apparently flourishing – that looks like an urgent political battle when you’re up against it.)
“I’m for honesty in public discourse, which entails making reasonable efforts to address questions and objections rather than ignoring them”
Yes, it ties in with the thinking of another honest person.
I believe that the recent uncomplimentary remarks made about Ireland by Christian Pauls, the German Ambassador to Ireland was correct and proper. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of a free society.
“He said that he was at the National Concert Hall when an announcer appealed for the owner of a 1993-registered car to move the vehicle because it was blocking an entrance.
“Of course no one moved,” said Mr Pauls. “All the Irish are driving 2006 and 2007 cars. For all I know the car is still there.” He also said that tourists from the United States had stopped visiting Ireland because they were sick of the incessant traffic jams.”
I read this sentence in the paper today. “As far as I am concerned {and I am} many Irish people have lost their way in the maelstrom of money and hyper-consumerism brought on by the Celtic Tiger years.” Everyone is outraged about what Mr. Pauls said. Nobody wants to accept criticism. Nobody wants to accept the truth. People in Ireland in general never want to complain about bad service in shops, in restaurants, and practically everywhere. Criticism and the truth are dirty words. The ‘honest truth’ {sometimes} most times hurts
Here, its quite nasty
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2469335.ece
Dave, by the way, is your shovel turned backwards. Is it causing you too much aggravation, in your not being able to scoop up all the erm… bullshit? Would you like me to give you a hand? I have exactly the right implement that will do a very thorough job. Why – yes, it is a spade! One is of course much more able to get to grips with it and be very up front with said tool :-)! I can quite easily, and slowly but surely scrape away at the edges. Much more effectual in the long term than a heavyweight shovel! Big goods come in small parcels; you know what I mean like?
A fine manifesto, OB.
One question, though.
“I’m for telling the truth, on the whole”
Other than the cruel, personal truths you mention, in what other circumstances would you say you are *not* for telling the truth? Is it that you think there are times when, it is better to stay quiet (such as, for example, not getting into questions about religion when working with people from faith organisations to tackle something manifestly bad), or do you think there really are truths about the wider world which society as a whole would be better off not knowing, and which those who do know should keep quiet on?
patrick,
I think there are a lot of trivial personal and interpersonal truths that are not necessarily best told. I also think there are myriad trivial truths that don’t particularly need telling. There are some terrible private truths that don’t necessarily need telling. And so on. I’m not ‘for telling the truth’ in all possible situations and conditions. But truths about the wider world? Those I mostly think should be told – but I can’t swear that I’m absolutely certain they all should. (But that reservation probably applies to silence rather than lying. And it probably doesn’t apply to scientists and other empirical inquirers.) So if you mean ‘would I agree that there really are truths about the wider world which society as a whole would be better off not knowing, and which those who do know should keep quiet on?’ then no. The most I would agree to is that I can imagine that there could be truths of that kind and that I would be unsure about the appropriate action.
Right on, Ophelia! I agree with you totally here and over on Matt’s blog.
“Especially after going on an official visit to Inch core railway works, back in 1966, to be faced with a statue of the unmarried mother, with baby, placed right out the front (!)”
Ah Tingey, if the truth was, by the Irish told to you way back then, you would have discovered that you were only a stones throw from Goldenbridge, Industrial School, Inchicore, where hundreds of babies and children were incarcerated. A lot of them would have been there because of the crimes of their mothers. They alas found themselves in the same situation as that of the statute you encountered. Nevertheless, it was okay for the Virgin Mother and Child to be on public display, but not that of Irish Mothers and Children. She was holy, and the latter were dirty. The truth was brushed under the carpet, but not any longer.
If I had known you were about Greg, I would have waved at you from the Sacred Heart top dormitory window!
Ah, so *Greg* it is! Who knew? And all this time I was thinking Ginger.
“She was holy, and the latter were dirty.”
Well if they’d been impregnated by God it would have been a whole different story!
Well, OB, between your good honest self and meself and the holy father, only “God knows” who half of the fathers were? Retrospectively, though, there were also more than a few Ginger-heads to be had — in Goldenbridge… Come to think of it now, Doug, they were very good at singing Gregorian chant. Hmm, the talent must have been in the genes. God, anyway, knows the whole truth of the matter.