Another analogy for being incapable of faith

Some clever internet person once said atheism is a religion like not playing golf is a sport.

As I've blogged about before, I'm an atheist because I'm congenitally incapable of religious faith. Today my shower tweaked this analogy to apply to the kind of atheism that results from congenitally incapable of faith.

Think about Olympic weight-lifting, where they have those ridiculously huge weights and lift them over their heads while making an enormous amount of noise.

Imagine you can't lift those weights. Even if you take them apart, you can't lift the individual components.  Furthermore, you were raised to think that being able to lift the weights was morally imperative, so you spent several years diligently engaged in a regime that, to the best of the knowledge available, would maximize your chances of being able to lift the weights.  But you never developed the ability to lift the weights.

So, atheism is a religion like not being able to lift the weights is a sport.

And faking religion despite being an atheist would be like claiming to be a weight-lifter, talking loudly about your training regime, making sure you're seen at the gym, but still not being able to lift the weights.

Secularism: ur doin it wrong

At first I wasn't going to blog about Quebec's Charte des valeurs. I've already written many times about how assholic it is to force people to expose more of their bodies than they're comfortable with and was weary of having to cover the same ground again, and most of the media coverage of this story has already taken that approach so I was weary of having to repeat myself and didn't think I had anything to add.

But in the shower, it occurred to me that it's interesting to look at it from from the other side: instead of looking at what's banned, let's look at what's allowed.

Here's an English-language version of the visual aid that's been circulating.

Look at the "banned" items in the bottom row.  Apart from the giant cross in the left-most picture, all these items have a practical and/or theological function.  They all have the practical function of covering a part of the body that the wearer wants to be covered (with the possible exception of the yarmulke - I'm not clear on whether covering that part of the head is necessary, or whether it's the yarmulke itself that's necessary.) They all also have the theological function of being something the wearer needs to do to avoid going to hell, or whatever the equivalent in their religion is.  (I have heard that the hijab per se is not necessary, just that covering the head is necessary.  And I have heard that the hijab per se is necessary.  So let's split the difference and say that some people believe it is theologically necessary.)

Now look at the "allowed" items.  They're all small pieces of jewellery that display the wearer's religious affiliation.  They have no theological function, and they have no practical function other than displaying the wearer's religious affiliation.  They aren't a part of the actual practise of the wearer's religion, they aren't going to help send the wearer to heaven or prevent them from going to hell (or whatever the equivalent in their religion is).  They are simply a gratuitous display.

If Quebec wants to create an image of secularism, the place to start is by eliminating gratuitous displays of religion that serve no purpose.  Banning the functional while permitting the gratuitous eliminates all credibility.

Analogy: Suppose I have a car, and suppose you have a baby. We have an awesome, supportive friendship full of mutual assistance, which includes me lending you my car on those occasions when you need a car.  But then one day I tell you "You aren't allowed to put your baby's carseat in my car.  As you know, I am a Voluntary Human Extinctionist, and displaying the carseat would come across as promoting breeding."  But, before you can even open your mouth to protest, I add, "But it's okay if you want to put your Baby On Board sticker on the car, because that's just small."


Update: I was so caught up in imagining how awful it would be to be forced to expose more of my body than I'm comfortable with in order to keep my job that I failed to notice two very important things pointed out in this article:

The Charte wouldn't (my emphasis):

1. Remove religious symbols and elements considered "emblematic of Quebec's cultural heritage." That includes: the crucifixes in the Quebec legislature and atop Mount Royal in Montreal, the thousands of religiously based geographic names (e.g. Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!) and the names of schools and hospitals.

[...]

4. Ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, which was recommended by the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission report into cultural accommodation. The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in May that such prayers do not necessarily violate Quebec's current human rights legislation.

Yeah. So they're forbidding people to wear as much clothing as they'd like to in government buildings because it might be interpreted as a religious symbol, but they're allowing actual religious symbols actually on display in government buildings.  They're forbidding individuals who happen to work for the government in one capacity to practise their own religion with their own body, but still permitting situations in which individuals who work for the government in another capacity are forced or coerced or pressured to participate in the collective practise of a religion to which they may or may not subscribe in order to do their jobs.


So let's revisit the analogy.  I own a car that I lend out to my friends in a spirit of mutual assistance, but I forbid people to put their children's carseats in my car because "displaying" the carseats would counter my stated Voluntary Human Extinctionist principles.  However, I permit the "Baby On Board" sticker on the basis that it's small.

But now, with this new information, it comes to light that I have a gaudy, brightly-coloured children's playground in my front yard.  Because, like, it's always been there.

Also, since I lend out my car to my friends so often, I'm gathering together a circle of friends to give me their input on the next car I purchase.  However, if you want to be part of this circle, you have to donate gametes to help me in my attempt to conceive a child of my own.

But you still aren't allowed to put your baby's carseat in the car.  Because that would promote breeding.


Not so very good for the credibility, is it?

Mme. Marois suggests that the Charte will unite Quebecers.  I believe it will, against her.  You don't win over the secularists by allowing gratuitous displays of religion in the name of secularism.

Faking it

Dear Carolyn: 

In the mid-1990s, when I was 22 and my brother was 18, our family took a Caribbean cruise. It was fun, but not so much fun that I cared to go back again.
Now that my parents are in their late 60s and retired, my mom has gotten it in her mind that all four of us should take another cruise together as a family. They have even offered to pay. 
 
Aside from not having an interest in the cruise, I am also not interested in taking a family vacation. I am single and in my late 30s, and a family vacation smacks of desperation, a way of saying, “Oh, how sad, he didn’t want to go by himself, so he went with Mommy and Daddy.” Also, traveling anywhere with my parents is never a simple process (I suppose that can be said of a lot of people, though). In short, a cruise might be a vacation for my parents, but it would be anything but one for me.

I have repeatedly explained that neither a cruise nor a family vacation (wherever the destination) interests me. Nevertheless, the badgering continues. 

For the record, I take my own vacations, usually by myself. I also see my parents about once a month, so it is not as if I ignore them and am being “guilted” into a vacation. Any thoughts?

 I was surprised to see not only Carolyn, but also a huge number of people in the comments, suggest that LW would regret not going on the cruise after their parents die, because they'd feel bad about missing an opportunity to spend time with their parents.

This surprises me because if you asked me in a vacuum "What if they die and you don't get to spend any more time with them?" my immediate visceral answer would be "Then it's even more important not to spend what time we have left together doing something that makes me resent spending the time with them."

This also makes me wonder if there are people who actually enjoy spending time with their loved ones doing something that their loved ones don't actually have interest in doing.  Because I hate it!  It makes me feel so awkward and just want to run away and go home.   When I was a kid, my parents would sometimes on their own initiative try to take me to something that I was interested in but I knew they had no interest in, and it just felt awful and cringey and dreadful, and generally not worth doing at all.  Even when I invite my friends to do something that I'm not completely sure if they're into, and they accept my invitation of their own free will,I still find myself worrying in the back of my mind that they might not actually be into it. So, in this context, I just can't fathom how someone can enjoy an activity if their loved ones don't actually want to be there and are going along just to humour them.

Actually, I wonder if there's a correlation between this group and the people who want others to go through the motions of being religious?  As someone who takes religion seriously (which is why I left the church and started living as an atheist in the first place), I've always felt it's terribly insulting to the deity to go through the motions and not mean it.  But if there are people who genuinely enjoy having their loved ones go through the motions of things they actually hate doing, maybe they'd think their deity would feel the same way?

Why do religious people want other people to say grace?

Ken Gallinger's ethics column in this Saturday's Star (which, weirdly, hasn't been posted online) has a letter from someone whose friend has recently become religious and now wants to say grace before every meal. But rather than saying grace herself, she says to the assembled group "Who's going to say the blessing?", trying to bully someone else into doing it.

I've heard of this happening quite a number of times in different contexts. Religious people put their non-religious guest on the spot by trying to get them to say grace. Even my own loss of faith was triggered by the fact that my parents suddenly wanted me to say grace. It wasn't that they wanted grace to be said, it's that they wanted me to do it, despite the fact that I didn't feel good about the idea. Desperate to be able to explain why I felt so strongly about not doing it (with adult vocabulary, I can articulate that the display of false piety made me feel hypocritical and rather dirty, and I was convinced that we would go to hell for trying to trick God by lying to Him, but as a kid I couldn't articulate this) I started thinking critically, long and hard, until I ultimately came to the realization that I'm an atheist.

So why do they want people who aren't interested in saying grace to say grace? If thanking the deity for the meal is so important, why aren't they eager to do it themselves? Why do they want to make their guests uncomfortable and have their deity get lied to rather than simply expressing their own genuine gratitude with quiet dignity in accordance with their faith?

Things They Should Study: does athletic success correlate with religious faith?

Watching Joannie Rochette's short program, I found myself coveting whatever sports psychology she does. I wish I had that mental resilience and focus!

Coincidentally, the next day Rosie DiManno wrote a column about sports psychology, and I realized it would never work on me. I know some people who swear by visualization or mantras or positive thinking, but it doesn't work on me because I know that it's just visualization. I'm not actually doing anything, I'm just picturing stuff in my head.

Within my own mind, in terms of the thoughts and feelings I experience, my inability to do visualization come from the same place as my inability to have religious faith. I know that it is powered solely by believing in it, and because of that I'm unable to believe in it.

Elite athletes are obvious able to believe in it. I wonder if this also means that they're more likely to be capable of religious faith?

Question I wish I could ask religious people

Suppose there's someone who is completely unable to believe in your deity, despite all the convincing evidence otherwise. They just can't, any more than they can lick their own elbow.

Would your deity prefer that person pretend to believe, going through all the motions in order to convince the people around them (and the deity) and they are in fact a devout member of your religion? Or would your deity rather that person live honestly as an atheist?

Analogy for being incapable of faith

As I've mentioned before, the reason I'm an atheist is because I'm congenitally and inherently incapable of religious faith. My brain just doesn't bend that way.

Not everyone can grok this, so here's how it works:

Think of colourblindness. A person who is colourblind only sees one colour where a person with normal vision sees two colours. The colourblind person simply cannot see the two colours. They cannot be talked into seeing two colours. They cannot be reasoned, threatened, bribed, coerced, seduced or manipulated into seeing two colours. If they're crafty and a good actor, they might be able to put on a good show and convince people that they can see two colours, but the fact of the matter is they can't.

Another analogy that might work: if you're monosexual (I know some people don't like that word but it is le mot juste in this case), think about the prospect of being sexually attracted to the gender you aren't sexually attracted to. You just can't, can you? You could fake it, sure. You could even look at someone of your non-target gender and see intellectually why someone might be sexually attracted to them. But you just can't actually feel it yourself. Similarly, I can fake religion, and I can see intellectually why a person might engage in, say, Judaism or Buddhism. But I just can't do it for real myself.

What I'm still trying to figure out: are there actually people anywhere who can truly change their faith on demand?

Open Letter to the wife whose husband lost his religion

Dear lady who posted this on PostSecret:



Even if he does see the connection, he can't just start believing again. Yes, he could go through the motions, but he'd just be attempting to trick you and your god. He wouldn't actually believe in it. Religious faith is not something you can turn on and off on a whim; as you know from your own faith, you have to truly believe in it.

Think of it this way: could you truly stop believing in your god if you thought it would bring you luck to do so? Could you truly believe in, say, Allah or Ganesha or Athena or Gitche Manitou? You could go through the motions, sure, but would you actually believe in it?

Analogy for why I didn't convert to another xian denomination

In the past, people have suggested that my leaving catholicism for atheism was rash and closed-minded, and that I should have tried other denominations of xianity first.

As I've blogged about before, I view catholicism as an abusive ex. I view the other denominations of xianity as his brothers. Now we all know that siblings don't always have a lot in common. We all know that's it's very possible for one sibling to be a complete asshole while all the others are perfectly nice guys. And there is room for the possibility that your abusive ex's brother might be a perfect match for you. However, that doesn't mean that your first step should by default be to date your ex's brother. Most people would agree that the reasonable step at this point would be to spend some time being single, or to date someone who is completely unlike your ex. Even in a Jane Austen matchmaking-über-alles world, it is by no means closed-minded or judgemental or indiligent to move on to someone completely else rather than systematically trying out every brother.

If you don't see the fallacy of this xiancentric approach, look at it from the other perspective. Suppose you have a real asshole of a brother who is abusive to his spouse. His spouse finally leaves him. Do you expect the spouse to start dating you? Do you feel personally dissed if they don't automatically start dating you to see if you're a better match than your brother?

Half-formed analogy

This one's not perfectly formed yet, but I think it might be productive so I'm posting it.

Yesterday I was kind of drained from all the xmas, plus my muscles were achy and I didn't have much of an appetite. So I spent the day alone with no interpersonal contact whatsoever, ate ridiculously little food, and went to bed way early to sleep myself better.

No one would ever dispute that it was entirely my right to spend the day that way.

However, I'm sure everyone would agree that I in no way have the right to make other people spend the day without human contact, eat no more than half a meal during the entire day, and go to bed way earlier than they usually do. It would also be exceeding my authority if I were to pressure other people into implying that they were going to spend the day this way, or set up situations where their presence or not-rocking-the-boat would imply that they were planning to spend the day this way and they'd have to make a Big Hairy Deal to ensure that people don't interpret their actions that way.

Some people say that atheists are trying to stop xians from enjoying xmas, but that's not what we're doing. We just don't want to do xmas ourselves, and don't appreciate our actions or quiet cooperation being considered part of xmas.

You don't care that I spent my day like I did, but you probably wouldn't want to spend your day the same way. You'd probably also be a little irked if every time in the two months before boxing day, if you walk past the store without buying food, people assume that this means you plan to not eat very much on boxing day.

Analogy for how my atheism works

This analogy may not apply to everyone in the world's atheism, and it obviously won't work with everyone's gender identity. But I'm putting it out there because it might help explain the concept to a lot of people.

I am atheist the same way I am female. I just am. I can't be anything else. I could perhaps pretend to be something else if I wanted to, but that wouldn't actually make me something else.

Some people try to talk me out of my atheism because they perceive there to be a god. But no matter how strongly they believe there is a god, that isn't going to make me capable of the same faith. (Believe me, I've tried.) This is just like how no matter how strongly other people believe themselves to be male, it isn't going to make me male.

Some people try to convince me that I will one day find religious faith on the basis that they themselves used to be atheist and then found religious faith. However, the fact that they found this faith doesn't mean that I will. There are people with female bodies like mine who have come to the realization that they are actually male, but that doesn't mean that I will one day come to the same realization.

Some people tell me that it's irrational to be atheist because one has no way of knowing for certain that there is in fact no god. I could respond to this by citing empirical evidence, but ultimately the fact that it cannot be proven for certain is irrelevant. I simply cannot be anything else because I am incapable of religious faith. Similarly, I can't prove or justify my gender. I could point to empirical evidence of my physiological sex, but I have no way of proving that I do actually identify as female. But I simply cannot be anything else.

From PostSecret

An email commenter said that they did this too, and several other people in the community agreed. And, it feels bizarrely personal to admit, my first thought after he was elected was to wish that I was able to pray so I could pray for his safety. Later on I did try to pray, but I'm still incapable of it. I'm still just empitly going through motions, even though I actually wanted to be able to do it.

But it occurred to me, this might be the one thing in the history of the world that has inspired the most atheists to attempt to pray. That would be...kinda weird, kinda cool, kinda sad, kinda scary.

Analogy for opting out of Pascal's Wager

Previously I blogged about how the flaw with Pascal's Wager is that the best a person without faith can do is go through the motions of having faith, which is utter hypocrisy and not about to fool the deity anyway (and isn't it terribly disrespectful to the deity to presume to fool it just by putting on an act?)

Today my shower gave me an analogy:

Suppose you have a military in a society that values being a big brave strong soldier. There are also some pacifists in this society. Some of the pacifists opt out of joining the military, claiming conscientious objector status, and simply go about their everyday lives as usual even if it does attract scorn from society. However, other pacifists still want the societal respect that comes with being a big brave strong soldier, so they join the military. However, they don't care about achieving the military's goals or getting the job done, they just care about appearances. So they do the absolute minimum they can get away with and only when someone is looking. They use any excuse to get out of doing their duty. They don't care about the cause, they don't care about their buddies, they just care that people will look at them and go "Look, a big brave strong soldier!"

Now it's true that in some cases these closeted pacifist soldiers might still be helpful - sometimes you just need manpower - but mostly they're detrimental to your military's mission and reputation. And even if you don't agree with their pacifism, isn't what the conscientious objectors are doing more honourable?

Why do chaplains have to be religious?

This train of thought started with this article, then wandered a bit.

So you have a group of people brought together by or for some purpose other than religion. Then you think it would help for them to have a chaplain. So why does it help that the chaplain is religious?

I can sort of see in military deployments abroad how it would help to have someone on hand who can conduct religious services, although the chaplain can only be on denomination at a time so I'm not sure how well it helps (Father Mulcahy on MASH claimed to be able to do multiple xian and Jewish denominations, but I'm not sure whether that counts properly.)

But in the workplace, you don't need that. When people finish their workday they go home every night, and their place of worship if they need one is right there. If they require spiritual guidance specifically, they can go wherever they'd normally go for that sort of thing.

So what else do chaplains do other than their specific religious jobs? Counselling and morale, essentially. So why does being religious help for that? If the person they are helping is an active and devout practitioner of the same religion it might help (or it might be irrelevant), but because the workplace is a group of people gathered together for a purpose completely unrelated to religion, you have no way of knowing what religion the employees are going to be.

So suppose you need counselling or morale, and the person you go to has some kind of pastoral training in a religion that is not your own. What's the best that could happen? The best that could happen is they help you without introducing any religion into the matter at all. But any intrusion whatsoever by a religion that is not your own would be simply detrimental. You'd be worse off than you were before, because now not only do you have this problem, but you have to deflect the person the company has sent to help you with it.

But suppose you need conselling or morale, and the person you go to happens to be the same religion as you, but their training and the help they give you is completely secular. So what's the best that can happen? The best that can happen is they help you in every aspect of your problem except the religious aspect, for which you'd have to go to your place of worship. What's the worst that can happen? They can't help you at all because it's too spiritual a problem. So you go to your place of worship for help.

So if the best thing a religious chaplain can do for employees of a different religion is keep their religion out of it, and the worst outcome of a secular chaplain for religious employees is that people who go to church have to go to church, why bother to hire religious chaplains? Why not hire people with secular training in counselling etc.?

I'm pondering whether it would be an effective political statement to list myself on my municipal assessment as Catholic by religion, but as a supporter of the public school board. Do they keep stats that would show the number of Catholics voting public? I do have the right to identify as Catholic since I was baptized, but I'd rather not do so unless it would be an effective political statement.