May 24th, 2008
Occasional commenter Innominate posted a very good response to yesterday’s post, in short calling me out for my alleged non-judgmentalism. I excerpt the comment here, which you can read in full in the previous post:
Vex,
I think the reason that people get so up in arms is because they feel that by making a choice in your personal diet, you are tacitly condemning their choice to eat meat.
I think they have a point.
Your internal dialogue presumably goes something like this… “Making animals suffer so one can eat meat is unethical” and “One should not be unethical” ergo, “I shouldn’t eat meat”, which, if the premises hold true, seems logical and true.Coming out of the same syllogism, we could also see “If ‘Joe Blow’ eats meat, he is acting unethically” which, is of course a judgment of Joe’s character.
As a woman who seems quite confident in her beliefs, I wonder why you don’t just call meat eaters on the carpet, and boldly proclaim them unethical. You seem to have little problem painting religious folk as wrongheaded, why not carnivores?
Regards,
~I.
This bears careful response, because he has an excellent point, but before we even talk about meat we need to talk about something he attributes to me which is incorrect: I don’t consider religious people wrong headed. It is entirely true to say that I’m not religious – but that doesn’t mean I believe religious people are wrong. This probably requires some clarification, because as he says with regards to meat, following a logical path suggests that the equation should be something like: “I am satisfied that the evidence and logic strongly support the hypothesis that there is no god. Therefore, one should not believe in god. Therefore, people who do are wrong-headed.”
Alas, it is nowhere near so simple. To begin, I didn’t choose to be an atheist. For whatever reason, I’ve been one by nature my whole life. I went to church as a little gaffer and remember clearly trying to believe, and failing. It was always an exercise in pretend for me; I have never believed God exists. But I must repeat this, though I (and many other smarter people) have said it before: belief is not a policy decision. Either you do, or you don’t, and in arenas like this it is not the norm that the side you side with is arrived at through logical discourse. One cannot simply decide to believe in God (though one can certainly decide to say so, and to engage in behaviours associated with belief such as attending church services). But the core, the truth of actual belief? It’s either there or it isn’t. Whether you like it or not.
So first of all, it would be incorrect to say that I don’t believe in God because I have all kinds of great reasons for it. I do have loads of reasons to be an atheist, but they are very post hoc. My atheism predates my ability to read philosophy and science, though my justifications and explanations have gotten quite a boost since that time! The important part here is that my atheism, regardless of where it came from, is nothing more or less than a true statement about myself. It doesn’t matter if I’m right or wrong, only that I with total honesty proclaim what I really think: there is no God.
I am therefore quite prepared to accept that people who are religious do so in the total absence of wrong-headedness; in fact, I believe this state of acceptance is nothing more than a necessary outcome of understanding how beliefs work. Put another way, rationality is not a necessary element for belief or, as in my case, non-belief. One can be religious (or atheist) without having to prove why – all that is necessary to assert is a sincere and true belief. So it is nonsensical to discuss religious beliefs as wrongheaded, because they are simply nonheaded. Asking people to defend their religious beliefs does little more than demonstrate in the questioner a lack of understanding of how belief functions.
But of course there are further layers that complicate things. For example, people can lose their faith through a process of critical inquiry which leads them to the logically based (i.e., based on philosophical arguments or some evidence provided by the sciences) conclusion that God must not exist, and their belief in God evaporates. It is my opinion that this sort of evidence is so enormously weighted in favour of atheism that, if religious belief were predicated on logic, the only logical choice would be atheism. But that’s not the case. It is entirely possible – in fact common – for people of faith to hear what I consider to be rock solid arguments against faith, and retain their faith. This does not mean they are illogical. It means they are honest about the state of their faith, which does not answer to rationality (so we can talk about non-rationality, as versus irrationality).
Some atheists who are poor logicians cannot adequately defend their atheism to a person of faith who can marshal better arguments for his side, and this does not invalidate their atheism or necessarily cause them to become believers. In this sense atheism can function in the same way as faith, though it is a different thing entirely to assert something (such as the existence of God) than to not believe, which is itself not a belief. Just keep in mind that atheism is not impervious to belief-type mechanisms (like non-rationality) simply because it is not itself a belief, and may be based on logic. We’re talking about how human minds actually work, not how they should work.
But here is where judgments come in: I don’t believe people’s faiths excuse or permit them to, for example, infringe upon the rights of others. In this sense I consider some of the behaviours of religious people to be reprehensible and abhorrent. While you cannot control what you believe, you most certainly must control how you act.
So it would be more correct to say that I take issue with things like the consequents of the large scale institutionalization of faith. That, to me, can be wrong headed. And I believe that religion by its nature has great potential to slide into the encouragement of terrible behaviours. But simply being religious? How can I attack people for something they do not control?
The discussion gets really interesting when you start talking about what anthropologists and other scholars have to say about why we as a species are so prone to religiosity, but that’s a topic for another morning. The purpose of this post is to make clear why I think a more sophisticated approach to religion than the usual atheist one (“religious people are stupid”) is required. Religion may itself be blameless, but the things it inspires can be terrible, and we need useful ways of discussing and dealing with these. This post is also intended to make clear why I am tolerant and accepting of religiosity in all people. I may joke about religion (such as when I herald Easter with “Happy zombie Jesus day”), but I don’t intend that to be an indictment of religious folks’ religion… though it is something of a jibe against those who are uptight about it.
The world doesn’t need more sectarianism.
Can I deflate this thinky post with the following query?
What definition of “gaffer” are you using when you say you were a young gaffer?
1. the chief electrician on a motion-picture or television production.
2. Informal. an old man.
3. British. a foreman or overseer, esp. the boss of a group of physical laborers.
4. Glassmaking. a master glassblower responsible for shaping glassware.
Oooh~! I hope it is glassblowing.
Vex, guardian of words and a malapropism?
Now I’m certain there is a God.
But back to topic.
Vex,
Perhaps I needed to define how I was using “wrong-headed”. I’m not referring to logical or ill-logical per se, but rather to holding a belief that doesn’t correspond with reality.
So if you assert that God does not exist, and I assert that he does, it would seem that one of our beliefs cannot be said to correspond to reality, (either He does, or doesn’t exist) and thus one of us must be wrong-headed, by definition.
Now, you might contend that wrong belief doesn’t carry with it any stigma of judgment, if a person can’t help what they believe. However that seems somewhat patronizing, because it doesn’t allow the believer to hold any true responsibility or ownership of his or her beliefs. They are more like afflictions, than anything else.
Maybe you’re willing to concede and even champion this idea, that we are only to be judged on our actions, and not our beliefs.
But I believe eating meat is ethical, and I act on that belief by eating meat.
Or maybe I believe in God, and I act on that belief by feeding homeless people in the park, and talking to them about Jesus, and the like.
Unless your increasingly hypothetical person exists only as a believing being and not as an acting being, I think at some point you will have to judge them.
So I put it to you, Is the act of eating meat unethical for the average westerner with no pressing need to eat meat? Are they less ethical in their eating behaviors than a person who doesn’t eat meat, all other things being equal?
I await your judgment.
~ I.
Fuller response to come. I’m on the way to school at the moment. But do note I clearly state above that I judge folks for their actions. I do not accept that beliefs necessarily lead to consonant action. People act against their beliefs *all the time*. The hypothetical person is the one who acts consistently in accordance with beliefs! And I do accept that one cannot help one’s beliefs.
Ok, just clarifying your strong “action only” position.
I can then accept your position of respecting the religious in their belief, (assuming the actions that either flow from, or contradict that belief are those of responsible, caring persons), as reasonably cogent.
But to be clear, I have seriously considered the issues surrounding animal testing, meat eating, and the meat production industry, and have made a point of becoming reasonably aware of the facts, and arguments presented by both sides. Having examined the evidence, I BELIEVE that eating commercially produced meat in the fashion most people consume it is not unethical. Thus I ACT on my belief and eat meat on a regular basis.
Again, to be clear, if in the future I come to BELIEVE that it is unethical, I will ACT upon this belief, and cease eating meat.
In your best judgment, am I less ethical in the particular area of my ACTION of meat consumption, than a person, all other things being equal, who in ACTION eat only vegetables?
Enjoy School and Sunshine,
~I.
Jeez, I, can you hang on a second? I haven’t even gotten to addressing the meat part of your initial comment, though I promise to do so, when I have a little time. What’s the hurry?
No hurry, I just thought I’d take the time to clarify, so that you can speak straight to the point with as little confusion as possible. I know how you love precision in language.
And vegetables.
~ I.
Actually, I hate vegetables. That’s why I eat them. Those little fuckers deserve to suffer as much as possible!