Two-headed cerberus, part 3: Movement vs. ideal
"Skeptics" and fundagelicals both have an inability to separate their movement from their ideal. Thus, any criticism of fundagelicalism is taken to be a criticism of Jesus himself, rather than a criticism of the movements which claim to follow him. Similarly, "Skeptics" will, without fail, interpret criticisms of the Skeptical subculture as being a criticism of the very idea of rational thought. Take what one self-proclaimed "Skeptic" told me:
"...yes, I know you think that means I'm turning a blind eye to "alternative thinking" or whatever. So be it. I read comic books and an occaisional science fiction novel; that's all the escapism I'm interested in with my literature."
What prompted this attack? Nothing more than the fact that he made a claim, and I asked him for a cite to back it up. Skeptics are, if anything, more thin-skinned than the fundagelicals, in my experience, and this example is hardly unique. Once I asked a Skeptic for a cite, and she told me that the very idea that anyone would ask her for a cite made her too angry to type in a reply.
Naturally, this kind of mindset leads to us vs. them thinking. If someone criticises the movement, they're criticising the ideal, and therefore they must be Stupid and/or Evil. If you dare to ask a Skeptic for a cite, you must embrace some form of "alternative thinking" worthy of nothing but mockery. I've had fundagelicals tell me outright that one day, my lifestyle of sex and drugs will pall, and I will realize that true happiness can only be found in Jesus. Bear in mind that I'm neither a drug user nor a libertine, nor did the conversation up to that point have anything do to with sex or drugs. But if you criticise fundagelicalism, they assume you must fit their stereotype of a wild heathen. So, too, with the Skeptics. I once pointed out that people frequently seem to have an irrational tendency to dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, without even looking at the evidence. I was told:
"If you want to suggest that there's something wrong with me because I don't believe the twin towers were really destroyed by Donald Duck or a cabal of basket-weavers, then I'm happy to disappoint you."
Of course, I had mentioned nothing about 9/11. But "Skeptics" imagine that everyone who disagrees with "Skepticism" is part of a morass of "True Believers" who believe in weird conspiracy theories, particularly involving 9/11.
The confusion of movement and ideal is exacerbated by the willingness of both Skeptics and fundagelicals to appropriate generic terms for their movements. Christians in general appropriate the term "God" to refer to their tribal deity, Jehovah. One frequently sees them claiming that the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God proves the existence of Jehovah, even though it clearly does no such thing: the Ontological Argument says nothing whatsoever about the crucifixion, for example. Sometimes you even see the more ignorant fundagelicals saying that Christianity is superior to Islam because Christians believe in God, while Muslims only believe in Allah. More frequently, you see them making claims like, "I'm not religious, I'm just Christian," or "Religions are man-made lies, like Islam or Buddhism. Christianity isn't a religion, it's just reality."
Similarly, "Skeptics" have appropriated the term "skepticism" for their little subculture of people who are interested in Bigfoot but don't believe in him, and then they pretend that all people with an interest in critical thinking are as interested in Bigfoot as they are. Extra!, for example, is clearly a publication that is devoted to critical thinking, but I've never seen it hailed in the pages of Skeptical Inquirer. It's difficult for me even to discuss the Skeptical subculture as something separate from genuine skepticism, because there isn't even a separate word for it. That's why I capitalize "Skeptic" and put it in quotes. Naturally, that always arouses the intense ire of "Skeptics" because they don't like to be reminded of the fact that joining a Skeptical Society doesn't necessarily make you a real skeptic. In other words, they object to my phrasing, but their real objection is to what I'm trying to say.
"...yes, I know you think that means I'm turning a blind eye to "alternative thinking" or whatever. So be it. I read comic books and an occaisional science fiction novel; that's all the escapism I'm interested in with my literature."
What prompted this attack? Nothing more than the fact that he made a claim, and I asked him for a cite to back it up. Skeptics are, if anything, more thin-skinned than the fundagelicals, in my experience, and this example is hardly unique. Once I asked a Skeptic for a cite, and she told me that the very idea that anyone would ask her for a cite made her too angry to type in a reply.
Naturally, this kind of mindset leads to us vs. them thinking. If someone criticises the movement, they're criticising the ideal, and therefore they must be Stupid and/or Evil. If you dare to ask a Skeptic for a cite, you must embrace some form of "alternative thinking" worthy of nothing but mockery. I've had fundagelicals tell me outright that one day, my lifestyle of sex and drugs will pall, and I will realize that true happiness can only be found in Jesus. Bear in mind that I'm neither a drug user nor a libertine, nor did the conversation up to that point have anything do to with sex or drugs. But if you criticise fundagelicalism, they assume you must fit their stereotype of a wild heathen. So, too, with the Skeptics. I once pointed out that people frequently seem to have an irrational tendency to dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, without even looking at the evidence. I was told:
"If you want to suggest that there's something wrong with me because I don't believe the twin towers were really destroyed by Donald Duck or a cabal of basket-weavers, then I'm happy to disappoint you."
Of course, I had mentioned nothing about 9/11. But "Skeptics" imagine that everyone who disagrees with "Skepticism" is part of a morass of "True Believers" who believe in weird conspiracy theories, particularly involving 9/11.
The confusion of movement and ideal is exacerbated by the willingness of both Skeptics and fundagelicals to appropriate generic terms for their movements. Christians in general appropriate the term "God" to refer to their tribal deity, Jehovah. One frequently sees them claiming that the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God proves the existence of Jehovah, even though it clearly does no such thing: the Ontological Argument says nothing whatsoever about the crucifixion, for example. Sometimes you even see the more ignorant fundagelicals saying that Christianity is superior to Islam because Christians believe in God, while Muslims only believe in Allah. More frequently, you see them making claims like, "I'm not religious, I'm just Christian," or "Religions are man-made lies, like Islam or Buddhism. Christianity isn't a religion, it's just reality."
Similarly, "Skeptics" have appropriated the term "skepticism" for their little subculture of people who are interested in Bigfoot but don't believe in him, and then they pretend that all people with an interest in critical thinking are as interested in Bigfoot as they are. Extra!, for example, is clearly a publication that is devoted to critical thinking, but I've never seen it hailed in the pages of Skeptical Inquirer. It's difficult for me even to discuss the Skeptical subculture as something separate from genuine skepticism, because there isn't even a separate word for it. That's why I capitalize "Skeptic" and put it in quotes. Naturally, that always arouses the intense ire of "Skeptics" because they don't like to be reminded of the fact that joining a Skeptical Society doesn't necessarily make you a real skeptic. In other words, they object to my phrasing, but their real objection is to what I'm trying to say.
posted by Wintermute at 9:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home