Thursday, June 11, 2009

This Atheist Thinks That Accommodationism Hurts Magical Thinkers Like The One I Was, Part 1

Science bloggers DuWayne Brayton and Chris Mooney have recently written on the utility of the “New Atheism” for encouraging magical thinkers to abandon magical thinking. Specifically, they each address to some extent the issue of whether or not atheists should go on the offensive with everything we’ve got. Should we publicly deride the idea of supernatural authorities whose whims we must obey, or should we respect the idea that we can reconcile theism and science with one another? Should we exclusively use civil language to discuss religious ideas? Should we treat Christian (and Jewish, Muslim Buddhist and other mainline) ideologies with the same scorn with which most atheists and theists alike unhesitatingly treat minority superstitions (e.g., adult belief in garden fairies)?

DuWayne suggested to me that I post my response to his argument on my own blog. Here it is. This will constitute the beginning of my discussion of my opposition to "accommodationism".
Read more. . .

DuWayne closes his argument with his assertion that his personal concern is for people with whom he can identify:

The only reason that I spent twenty years in an abusive, painful and sometimes debilitating relationship with Faith, is because I was constantly running into people who told me that it is possible to make the very reconciliations that you are so adamantly defending. Were it not for Christians who accept homosexuality, were it not for Christians who accept evolution, were it not for Christians who are sex-positive, were it not for Christians who perform incredible feats of mental gymnastics and convinced me I could do the same, I would have become an atheist a very long time ago. I would have been saved the pain, the doubts - the trauma, of fighting so desperately to make the absolutely incoherent, fit together coherently.

And were it not for the uncivil, ill-mannered "new atheists" you disagree with, I would probably still be suffering that relationship today...


This was my response:

I think this is key. My experience has been very different than yours (no shit!), but I feel similarly about my phasic abandonment of theism and magical thinking for skeptical thinking and atheism. It's harmful to pretend that something so important is real when it's not, and "accommodation" often entails exactly this. Additionally, it's especially harmful to certain groups of people.

My parents were lapsed Protestants when I was growing up. (They returned to churchgoing and active worship after my mother got and recovered from breast cancer. They presently attend a military chapel, where their pastor "proves" the righteousness of the US war in Iraq with items such as this.) They refrained from baptizing or regularly catechizing me or my sister out of some vague desire to "let us choose for ourselves".

However, they wished us to adopt "Christian ideology", and I did. I believed in my conception of a Christian God-- buffered as it was by classic English literature, random KJV (and, later, New American Bible) verses and my own shamed but vigorous imagination-- strongly enough to make every one of my decisions based on what I "felt" that God wanted me to do. And I did this to varying degrees until I was twenty-seven years old.

I refrain from "unleashing the asshole" with respect to religion in the sciblogosphere solely because I know what it's like to always be the minority; one of my favorite scibloggers, who has been kind to me both in and out of the blogosphere, is a theist among a sea of non-believers. I said this once and got praised for my "open mindedness". It's not "open mindedness", though. It's a personal decision to modify my behavior that does not constitute any sort of argument against "New Atheism". Bullshit is bullshit. Why pussyfoot around it?

I can attribute all of my career and academic decisions from my eighteenth to my twenty-seventh year to magical thinking. I have to live the rest of my life knowing that I never took charge of my life until I was thirty as a result. This kind of experience isn't a big deal to a lot of people. However, I don't have the personality type to deal with this knowledge without constantly and ferociously struggling with self-loathing-- namely in the form of a conviction that I will never do anything special with my life, and that I'll be relegated to the mediocrity that I can't, can't, cannot stand. My propensity for magical thinking has only made my life less enjoyable.

In practice, there is no reconciliation of theism with science. Science is not merely a methodology but an ontology as well, and there is far more evidence that all phenomena can be explained in terms of matter and energy than there is in favor of dualism. Just because scientists can explain no more than the tip of the iceberg at present doesn't automatically mean that there are mysteries that are inexplicable. I have no idea why it makes sense to acknowledge this in the laboratory only to completely abandon your awareness of it in every other type of problem solving you must undertake in the world.

I know there are lots of privileged kids who grew up discussing existentialism around the dinner table with moms who have PhDs in psych from Harvard and dads with JDs from Yale Law School, and who thus wound up more intellectually assertive and productive despite all the woo they may have been subjected to. But I am interested helping kids like the one I was and adults like the one I am. New Atheism has done me a world of good; neither theism or accomodationism has.


More later.

24 comments:

Toaster Sunshine said...

There're no garden faeries!?

But then where does toilet paper come from?

Juniper Shoemaker said...

But then where does toilet paper come from?

Deadwood Tenured Professors. Trolls. And, people who whimsically voted for which cheese they'd like to be on your blog, because they honestly didn't see the harm in it until it was too late.

biopunk said...

Nice "make-over"!

These discussions are always fascinating to me as I was never exposed to this kind of crap growing up. I knew a few people who were, and they always tried to qualify me as "spiritual" or "deep", or some other b.s. construct to make it easier for them to relate to me. I never understood why such a large number of overwhelmingly baptist kids were especially fucked-up after high school until I learned just how repressed and dysfunctional they were without someone else telling them how to live and make simple decisions regarding behaviour and it's consequences. (Made 'em perfect for Oprah...) I came to the realisation most of these people were hypocrites and avoided them afterward.

So peoples "de-conversion" stories are always interesting to me. How did you get from being fearful and flaky, to being more thoughtful and reasoned? What failure did your chosen deity disillusion you with? Why did you think your version of god was better than others?

It seems to be never simply one thing that flips people, rather a series of diminishing expectations and increasing disappointments, then the final straw.

Can't wait for later!

Wait! Toaster had a "cheese" poll? I am missing out...

Juniper Shoemaker said...

Thanks, biopunk!!

It seems to be never simply one thing that flips people, rather a series of diminishing expectations and increasing disappointments, then the final straw.

Generally, I think this is a reasonable summation. I will add that it makes "deconversion" sound more somber than mine was-- whilst a lot of mine was painful, it was also profoundly and joyously exciting, because I can't tell you how neat it was to figure out that I was much, much freer than I'd thought I was and that the world was more dizzyingly interesting than I'd ever begun to imagine as a theist. But it's accurate insofar as in the role of disillusionment and multiple events.

Yes. Your comment definitely underscores the need to tell my personal story in some detail. This is good.

BTW, Toaster's cheese poll is still open! LOL.

lalaleigha said...

i find myself a little surprised that so many people have these stories of changing their way of thinking due to the process of realizing that this god thing isn't real.

i mean no offense to you whatsoever in saying this, just that for me, i pretty much never believed the stuff they were telling me. i was subjected to the traditional weekly catholic brainwashing classes, which i used as an opportunity to get out of the house [most important], meet boys, get into various kinds of trouble, and smoke various plant-based substances.

confirmation was empty; by this point i was thoroughly convinced that the mumbo-jumbo they told me and my mother re: the evil fuckface in our home would have gotten us both killed unless one of us decided it was bullshit and acted accordingly. i hated them for giving me advice that would have led me to slaughter. i did confirmation to shut the catholic family members up.

i don't think there was a single day that i really believed a word they told me. maybe that's an uncommon experience. how would i know- i only know my own life experiences :)

DuWayne Brayton said...

I don't believe in gods or garden fey, but I sure as fuck believe in cheese!!!1!11!! And cookies!!

And actually, toilet paper comes from the same place that cheese does...The Moon.

(Now see sweetheart, you posted the comment and it fostered a particularly exhilarating discussion)

Juniper Shoemaker said...

i don't think there was a single day that i really believed a word they told me. maybe that's an uncommon experience.

Rambling response commences:

Sentence from a preamble I redacted from this post this morning: "The sciblogosphere is full of (mostly white and middle- to upper-class) men and women bragging about how they never believed in woo and how they’d always had an interest in science and how their academic or otherwise highly-educated parents bought them chemistry sets or lent them their Soren Kierkegaard or Paul Tillich during their seventh-grade year."

It wounds my pride to talk about this, because I don't enjoy feeling as if I'm being told that I have a substandard intellect, or that people are smugly comparing themselves with me (even if that's not what's happening). But I can't change who I am. I'm susceptible to magical thinking. I used to magically think about things. My native curiosity and intelligence led me not to leave it at that. It's important for me to share my stories to prove that someone like me-- skin color, girly-girliness, intellectually provincial and superstitious background and all-- can become a world-class scientist-- not just some community college lecturer or science writer or high school teacher-- who's no longer living a life ruled by utter woo. Therefore, I hope these stories are interesting to people, for whatever reasons.

I'm especially glad that you never bought into magical thinking. Unlike the people I was thinking of, you don't hail from any sort of privileged background, and you might have died if you hadn't the savvy to reject magical thinking right off the bat. That's why that shit is dangerous in the first place. That's why I think New Atheism is good.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

DuWayne! Good morning, love. I didn't see your comment.

Now see sweetheart, you posted the comment and it fostered a particularly exhilarating discussion

Know what? You're just as good at Unleashing the Gloat as you are at Unleashing the Asshole . . . 'course, that's what makes you so much fun . . . :)

DuWayne Brayton said...

Leigh -

I think it's very dependent on how one is raised, how their parents treat their own faith. If you have parents, or a parent who is constantly bombarding you with Jesus (or whomever else) and restricting you from certain contrary materials, it is really hard not to get completely sucked into it.

OTOH, if your folks just aren't that enthused and don't push it on you - reinforce it - constantly, then it is really hard to get sucked into it.

There are exceptions in both directions, but for the most part it really is that simple.

I also tend to think that being raised in even a mildly religious environment can become the foundation for myriad forms of magical thinking. Just the understanding that seemingly rational adults believe in something like revealed religion, can leave an imprint that can be easily translated to other forms of bullshit later...

DuWayne Brayton said...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

(I love you too)

btw - my last comment was written and attempted to be posted a while ago, but apparently I got the word verification wrong - I'm less so than last night - but the floaties have me a bit)

ScientistMother said...

I haven't really followed this thread (ie gone and read DuWaynes blog) BUT my one comment is that many of the atheists I know, are always discussing the harm that Christianity has done. Like you they include other religions, but I am not sure that other religions (outside of of Islam) has had the type of effect (negative and positive) on society that Christianity has. How much do you know about Sikhism? Do you know it relates to science? Faith whether it is the belief in nothing vs the belief in something is very personal. Each person must make their own choices.

DuWayne Brayton said...

ScientistMother -

I am getting set to write a post that responds to some comments on my blog and Chris' posted response to me. I am actually going to be addressing the very question you bring up - though I was going to use spiritual Buddhism, I think Sikhism is actually a much better choice - thanks for mentioning it (and I for one am somewhat familiar).

Ambivalent Academic said...

Hmmm...I was Catholic until fairly recently. Why? Because my family was and is Catholic (of the liberal hippie variety rather than anti-choice variety). I was baptized and confirmed and thus claimed by the church. I always sort of felt that Catholic was a little bit like Jewish in that is wasn't something you could wander in and out of like a lot of other Protestant denominations. Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity, so one can be both Jewish and atheist without too much trouble. Catholic is not an ethnicity, but it is ingrained in the culture of my ancestors that it almost feels that way to me. So although I'm not sure I ever really truly believed all the crazy stuff that Catholics are supposed to, I was OK with it. It was just a part of my culture. But I've always been an agnostic - I just didn't know the word for it growing up.

More recently, having become more aware of the icky stuff going on under the purview of the Church I am much more reluctant to claim "Catholic" as an identifier. I am still conflicted about this though, since it is the only culture* that I can really claim and celebrate since my ethnicity and the distance in both time and space from my ancestral cultures affords me none. While I am no longer comfortable aligning myself with the Church, even by superficial name, it still seems weird not to say that I'm Catholic because to me it is also a name for the culture of my family.

I don't know that "New Atheism" has either helped or hurt my own "deconversion", nor am I sure that I have really deconverted from religious belief since I never truly believed it in the first place.

*By culture, I do not mean brain-washing, hatred, nor misogyny or any of the rest of the nastiness that goes hand in hand with the Church. I refer instead to the celebrations and rituals that are common in my own family, ancestral cultures, and those of other Catholics around the world. These are often celebrations that have been present in these cultures pre-Christianity that have since been appropriated by the Church.

Ambivalent Academic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ambivalent Academic said...

PS - Juniper, I love that you mentioned both Kierkegaard and Tillich. They are my favs. But of course they weren't in my house growing up - I didn't discover them until college.

Dan J said...

I never really had "Teh Fayth". I didn't have academic parents either. Church was just something that didn't seem to matter much. I think we went on occasion just to satisfy my mother's family.

My mother's family and she were Catholic, so at about the age of nine I started CCD classes. I never made it to my first communion. I frequently asked a very naughty question in class: "Why?"

After only a single year, I became very frustrated with the lack of a coherent response, and it showed. I was angry. I told my mother I did not ever want to go back to those classes. So I didn't. I never really discussed it with her, but I get the impression she wasn't much of a believer either.

lalaleigha said...

My native curiosity and intelligence led me not to leave it at that.

and that's exactly the point!

It's important for me to share my stories to prove that someone like me-- skin color, girly-girliness, intellectually provincial and superstitious background and all-- can become a world-class scientist-- not just some community college lecturer or science writer or high school teacher-- who's no longer living a life ruled by utter woo.

i agree, this is important. you should be sharing this stuff. the important stuff seems to be the hardest to share, if i may re-hash a recent post i put on my own blog.

Therefore, I hope these stories are interesting to people, for whatever reasons.

they are. the stories from other perspectives are the best ways for us to all learn from each other.

we non-provincial, non-privileged, non-typical-scientist-background types just need to refuse to give up. having an other-than-perfect start means we have a bigger hill to climb, but not that we cannot reach the top.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

@ScientistMother:

How much do you know about Sikhism?

Only what pitifully little I learned in the "Comparative Religions" bit I did in Catholic school. But, see, my (inexcusably) pitiful knowledge of Sikhism represents a cultural myopia on my part that's completely irrelevant to the validity of religion as a system of knowledge. You are conflating a cultural problem with an ontological one.

It matters not the religion. ANY religion is INHERENTLY a system of knowledge that presupposes the existence of supernatural phenomena. Moreover, in religion, that axiom is non-negotiable: no matter what empirical evidence scientists yield in the fields of cosmology or abiogenesis or geology or neurobiology or whatever, every religion still insists that our common-sensical, observationally-biased, unproven belief that I FEEL That God Exists And Therefore She/He/They/It Does is valid.

Science, on the other hand, is a system of knowledge that does not allow us to accept any explanation about the world that must be taken on faith. Science and religion both compete to explain the world, and they are ontologically and epistemologically incompatible.

Do you know it relates to science?

I don't even know what this question explicitly means. That's not me being sarcastic. (If anything, that's Dr. Method and Theory's training of me kicking in!)

Faith whether it is the belief in nothing vs the belief in something is very personal. Each person must make their own choices.

Two points:

1) Again, this assertion is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not New Atheism has utility in the fight against magical thinking. New Atheism opposes the privileging of religious beliefs over every other kind of belief that comes under fire. I'm no longer willing in my own discourse to shelter religious ideas from the same harsh criticism that less-popular superstitions as well as scientific ideas get. That's all.

2) Atheism isn't "a belief in nothing". By definition, atheism is the absence of a belief in a supernatural (magical) force. That's it. It's not a religion. It's not necessarily nihilism. This is the most common misunderstanding of atheism. How much do you know about philosophy?

Juniper Shoemaker said...

@Ambivalent Academic:

I always sort of felt that Catholic was a little bit like Jewish in that is wasn't something you could wander in and out of like a lot of other Protestant denominations.

This is an excellent point, and, like ScientistMother's comment, I hope to address it more eloquently in the next post. All religions are identical as one kind of system of knowledge (just as all scientific subfields are identical as one kind of system of knowledge). However, there are cultural components to all religions. This means that it's possible for many people to identify with religions and religious labels for ritualistic and genealogical reasons alone. That identification doesn't necessarily define the ontology with which they move through the world as a result.

I tried to convert to Roman Catholicism as a teen and then after undergrad. There are a lot of Catholic rituals and Catholic images that still resonate with me as a result. They represent a culture that's familiar to me and that I was strongly influenced by in my formative years.

More later. (Both of you.) :)

Yay, Kierkegaard and Tillich! Snobby Drama King at Cal introduced me to those two; later, I took an existentialism course with this one Rock Star Philosopher dude as a result. Maybe I'll write some posts on this stuff, eventually. It's fun to talk about things that excite you. :)

Juniper Shoemaker said...

@DanJ:

Hey! Welcome to the blog!

I frequently asked a very naughty question in class: "Why?"

Good on you. Because I was raised to be a Nice Girl, and, for awhile, whenever I blurted out questions that made authorities uncomfortable or irritated (which was often), it was easy to shut me up merely by telling me to. Or, worse, by declaring or strongly implying that I was an immoral person for wanting to know.

@leigh:

Thank you. No, really. Your encouragement means a lot to me.

Dan J said...

Thanks for the welcome, Juniper. Enjoying several of your posts already. Can't imagine what my music player would spit out on shuffle. :) I've continued my own thoughts about accommodation with a new post at my own blog: Two, Four, Six, Eight, Why Won’t We Accommodate?

Alethea said...

Interesting thread and thoughts!

If it is any comfort to some, it is possible to move away from magical thinking, and still have a soft spot for it. I used to believe in Santa Claus and palmistry, and that if I just learned enough arcane stuff, I could figure things out with astrology. I hoped alien visitations were true. I let my daughter believe in fairies until she decided that they didn't explain the phenomena for which she could find other information instead.

Point being, it's not the content that counts; it's the rational thought processes. The magical stuff will go the way that other things of childhood go, when there is something intellectually satisfying to take their place.

Meanwhile, respect for alternative worldviews as long as those who hold them demonstrate respect for yours.

Joe Hewitt said...

I don't enjoy feeling as if I'm being told that I have a substandard intellect... I'm susceptible to magical thinking.
Everyone is susceptible to irrational thinking. I know I am. That's why people developed the scientific method- it's the best way to keep us from mixing the bullshit in with the delicious soup* that we're trying to make. Consequently, recognizing that you can be irrational at times is a good thing.

*Or cheese, if that's your thing.

biopunk said...

Hey Juniper, miss you.

Seeing how everyone is getting "Unscientific", could this thread get going again?

I've been playing catch-up.

Hope yr next post comes sooner than later.