The idea of saying, “Wow, I really can’t fathom what motivates a person who doesn’t believe in god…?” would be like saying, “Man, if you don’t like apples…why even bother eating?”
Now, if I, for example, truly was a freak about apples, it certainly could make sense for them to say, “If I couldn’t have apples, all the joy of eating would be gone from my life.” But it would only be considered sensible in jest to claim that if someone else couldn’t have apples, that I couldn’t imagine why they would bother even eating any longer (or to suggest they couldn’t have a reason to eat or like something else as much as I might like apples).
It’s this very glaring, and common, issue with Xians that they are hard pressed to grasp “other people” and that other people might view the world in a different light or through a very different framework. It makes me sad, because it’s very limiting to not be able to see the world from someone else’s point of view—if only as an exercise in understanding others.
I’m very glad this person is writing to ask—but there’s something sad about the reality that something so simple should be so elusive due to such harsh indoctrination (that makes it impossible to grasp how someone else might see something differently than we do).
[original post]
What Tracie describes here is something which I have frequently noticed in many Christians: an inability to truly put themselves in another's place and imagine what it might be like for them. Most of the time, I don't even detect an interest in trying and in the few cases where such an interest does exist, too often it only consists of imagining the truth of various prejudices and assumptions they have derived from evangelical literature and apologetics. It's like they are wearing mental blinders which prevent them from even realizing that others can live very different lives under different assumptions and beliefs — and be quite content doing so.
To be fair, though, this isn't a problem with just Christianity. I think everyone does it to some extent and is seems very widespread in America. So many Americans seem unable to understand that there are even other ways of doing democracy, never mind that some people aren't very interested in democracy to begin with. The idea that there are other cultures which do things differently are which still meet people's needs is ignored or denied. Christianity, though, appears to make things worse because it insists not only that it has the Only Truth, but in fact that everyone else already knows Christianity is true but is in denial. I don't know if there is any limit to the arrogance which such attitudes can engender.
This is a bit of a tangent – but hopefully not too off topic.
I have always avoided labels. I had my own thoughts and beliefs, but I never evaluated them all together to see which “group” I belonged in. Over the last several months I have spent alot of time soul searching, reading, and learning about myself. I have discovered that I am a “godless liberal democrat”
This does not really surprise me – what does surprise me is that I didn’t see it before. I look back on things in my life and realize I have always been this way. I mentioned that to my husband. His comment. “I have always known you were liberal.” I asked him how he knew. His reply: “Because you are so open-minded.”
I really think that is the trick. The ultra conservatives and especially the religious right are SOOOO CLOSED MINDED. And they actually teach their followers not to think. That it is wrong to think. It just makes me want to scream – why would anyone give up their ability to think for themselves???
When I was a Xian, putting myself in someone else’s place consisted of imagining _me_ in someone else’s situation and thinking what _I_ would do.
That was the extent of my capacity to empathize. And now that I’m over it, I see so many other Christians doing the same exact thing, really frequently.
The goal is to think about what the other person feels like/thinks in their own situation. I can’t think: “What if my husband hit me? What would I do?” and call that considering someone else’s perspective.
I need to think about all the factors that make that abused woman different than me. The only difference is NOT that her husband hits her and mine doesn’t hit me. Quite a lot went into developing her personality to the point where she is now in a situation with an abuser. While I may not be able to ever fully grasp her perspective, asking myself what “I” would do in her place is a waste of thought. What “I” would do doesn’t matter and doesn’t help anyone and doesn’t expand my capacity to understand _her_ or _her_ situation.
I need to first ask: Who is _she_? What is motivating _her_? Not “what would motivate _me_?”
I also agree with Austin that it’s not only a Christian issue. It’s really any elitist issue. Whenever someone thinks “this is the right way to be…” they are going to have problems understanding all those unfortunate others who are doing it the “wrong” way–which 9 times out of 10 isn’t really wrong at all, just different than what _they_ would do.
I would say to an Xian who can’t get why I don’t believe in god: Do you believe in Zeus or Shiva? Why not? Well, I feel the same way about the Christian god.
I doubt if this would really make much of an impression on a typical fundie, but you never know. It might be worth a try. I think I have a better chance to communicate using common sense than with bible contras, refutations of academic args, etc.
“I would say to an Xian who can’t get why I don’t believe in god: Do you believe in Zeus or Shiva? Why not? Well, I feel the same way about the Christian god.I doubt if this would really make much of an impression on a typical fundie, but you never know.”
Actually, I think this would rarely make make an impression on any Christian except to make them think your non-belief was a religion, because the response to “Why don’t you believe in Zeus or Shiva?” would probably be something like “because my religion teaches me not to” or “because they’re not in the Bible”.
Austin, I realize this is a little off topic, but I need to ask.
“So many Americans seem unable to understand that there are even other ways of doing democracy, never mind that some people aren’t very interested in democracy to begin with.”
Given that the alternative seems to be living under some kind of oppressive government that murders dissidents, why would anyone in their right minds NOT want to live under a democracy? Choosing anything else seems to make about as much sense as choosing to do drugs, or jumping into Hell.
411314:
In the Bible it says the Hebrews wanted to be ruled by a king because all the neighboring tribes had kings while they had only judges. It’s possible they felt that without a king, they didn’t have a central authority figure who seemed as powerful as the kings of the tribes around them.
Again, it’s about trying to get the individual’s motivations. Some people feel they want a theocracy, because they want to feel the assurance of a god looking after them on a national level.
I don’t agree with them, but I can understand them.
But really I was going to post to the earlier post from Paul:
The Christians I’ve dealt with see no difference between you saying “Why don’t you believe in Zeus,” and saying “Why don’t you believe in fairies?”
Zeus, to the Xian, is mythical/fairytale. Yahweh is _real_. It’s the same brick wall. They see other people who believe in gods (that aren’t Yahweh) as deluded people. But they can’t transfer that to themselves–because _that’s_ not _them_. Their god is _real_, so the other guy’s god is a fantasy or a bastardization of Yahweh.
So, those who believe in Zeus were either ignorant, but on the right track, or just plain deluded.
They can’t stand in the shoes of a Muslim and see that the Muslim is just like them. They’re right. He’s wrong. Period. When you compare Allah to Yahweh you’re comparing unicorns to dogs in their minds. You’re just being silly…
Ironically, for the same brick wall reason: They can’t see Yahweh and Allah as synonymous–so you’re just being silly. Obviously you can’t really think Allah and Yahweh are equivalent.
This is how their heads work. You’re equating reality to fantasy in their minds–and they “see” it as clearly as crystal. And surely you do as well–in their heads. You’re just being inflamtory to say Yahweh is just like Zeus–”really” you know the difference.
They are this brainwashed. And it runs so deep they really are UNABLE to share someone else’s perspective on a level most nonfundy people are generally capable of doing.
In fact, I should qualify that this may be more of a fundy issue than a comprehensive Xian issue.
You had me right up until-
“never mind that some people aren’t very interested in democracy to begin with. The idea that there are other cultures which do things differently are which still meet people’s needs is ignored or denied.”
Sure there are lots of other ways to have a government and it’s just a matter of taste or what you’re used to whether you prefer American style government or British or Japanese styles of government. However, all governments and cultures are not equal.
A society that does not interfere with two consenting adults who just happen to be homosexual is better than a society that puts people to death for practicing homosexuality. If you consider this arrogant western cultural imperialism so be it, but by any rational standard it is very safe to say that not all governments or societies are equal.
Excellently put, Andrew, and I agree completely.
Austin, I just had this exact conversation earlier today with a Christian friend who took issue with me saying, in my personal journal, that I was delighted to discover that some of my heroes (Douglas Adams, the boys from Mythbusters) were atheists. He took this as an invitation to inform me why he can’t understand atheists and that he considers our existence “a shame.” I think I’ll direct him to this article, because it’s so precisely spot-on. Thank you.
I didn’t say they were; however, a democracy isn’t always the only or best way for organizing every social group.
This is a red herring, because a democracy could put gays to death while a dictatorship could force tolerance.
>A society that does not interfere with two consenting adults who just happen to be homosexual is better than a society that puts people to death for practicing homosexuality.
I had a similar reaction to Austin’s, although a little different. Rather than red-herring, I thought “false dilemma.” It’s not a choice between a horrible totalitarian regime or democratic governance.
In Guatemala, I have a friend who works with native Indians there. They have a communal social structure.
They have no “head person” or group, and decide everything that affects the community as a communal group–with everyone who has a stake in the matter dialoguing over it until the matter is settled–even if it means sitting around for weeks with the entire community hashing the issue out.
What’s wrong with that?
“In Guatemala, I have a friend who works with native Indians there. They have a communal social structure.
They have no “head person” or group, and decide everything that affects the community as a communal group–with everyone who has a stake in the matter dialoguing over it until the matter is settled–even if it means sitting around for weeks with the entire community hashing the issue out.
What’s wrong with that? ”
They could decide as a community that a minority could be coerced and manipulated.
I had a similar reaction to Austin’s, although a little different. Rather than red-herring, I thought “false dilemma.” It’s not a choice between a horrible totalitarian regime or democratic governance.
In Guatemala, I have a friend who works with native Indians there. They have a communal social structure.
They have no “head person” or group, and decide everything that affects the community as a communal group–with everyone who has a stake in the matter dialoguing over it until the matter is settled–even if it means sitting around for weeks with the entire community hashing the issue out.
What’s wrong with that?
If everyone has a say, that sounds like a type of democracy to me. I am also curious what the population of this community is. You did read the part where I said “there are lots of other ways to have a government and it’s just a matter of taste or what you’re used to whether you prefer American style government or British or Japanese styles of government”
I did not mean that to limit it to those choices, but a system where everyone has a say is better than one where one person or a small group of people can say for everyone and there is no way for the people to say who these people are.
I ran into a left winger a couple weeks ago who was defending Fidel Castro’s Cuba, so this was fresh in my mind when I responded yesterday. Not a free country by any stretch of the imagination.
I do have a problem with cultural relativism because it because it seems like an excuse to forgive the atrocities of non western societies when no such forgiveness is given to even the past of western civilization.
“Who am I to say treating women like chattel is wrong?”
“Who am I to say stoning someone for adultery is wrong?”
If you live in a society where women are brought taught that they are inferior many of them will believe it and even oppose changing the system, this does not make it Ok.
Since they don’t have elections, I am not comfortable calling it democracy. I guess this gets into “what do you define as a democracy…” But that was why I didn’t equate it to democracy.
They are small groups, to answer your query about size. We’d think of them as villages–since they have no centralized government.
I did read where you wrote: “there are lots of other ways to have a government and it’s just a matter of taste or what you’re used to whether you prefer American style government or British or Japanese styles of government” But you followed it up quickly with the comment that they weren’t all equal–and then presented what I interpreted as a false dilemma–but I admit I think I missed your point.
At first it came off as though you were saying that if it isn’t a democracy, it’s totalitarian. But reading your latest reply, I don’t think that’s how you intended it to be read.
>I do have a problem with cultural relativism
I’m also on the fence with this. I was educated in Anthropology. And the idea of destroying native civilizations doesn’t go over well in that circle. Especially missionaries are lambasted; but it carries over to things like capitalism which also creep out into 3rd world nations, and, I think, takes advantage of their poverty and ignorance (ignorance of what accepting capitalism might ultimately mean to them as a society).
However, that said, is it right to not affect a group by offering them things like medical care or immunization? Western education? Stopping them from harsh rituals such as sutee or genital mutilation?
What is the line between noninterference in order to preserve a culture or society and an inhumane lack of interference that allows suffering to continue?
I haven’t, personally, been able to define that line for myself.
However, that said, is it right to not affect a group by offering them things like medical care or immunization? Western education? Stopping them from harsh rituals such as sutee or genital mutilation?
What is the line between noninterference in order to preserve a culture or society and an inhumane lack of interference that allows suffering to continue?
I haven’t, personally, been able to define that line for myself.
I think we might agree on this more or less.
Those are tough questions and we can’t force these things on them, but we should certainly encourage them and try to help them modernize with medicine and science; and even in more modern societies, I think democracy in some form should always be something to strive for. Where at least people have a say in some way how their society is run.
I really wish I had found this discussion sooner! Fascinating stuff. Has anyone here read the Daniel Quinn novel “Ishmael”? It’s certainly relevant to the discussion here.
EE you sound extremely egotistical about being such an “open-minded” “godless liberal democrat”… yet you seem totally incapable of understanding how anyone could be something else… like a “godless conservative libertarian”…
… it is hard for any of us to truly “understand” how someone else has different beliefs… once we believe something, it’s difficult to put ourselves on the other side of the fence…
… when I was a Christian, as hard as I tried, I could not accept or understand the stances taken by non-Christians…
… now that I’m on the other side, I find it difficult to understand how I ever believed any of that other stuff…
… I certainly wish I could figure out exactly what thing(s) caused my eventual (de)conversion… so I could truly “save” my family…