Politics and Religion

[viscousmemories]

I've heard it said that politics and religion are two topics one doesn't discuss in polite company (or similar rhetoric), presumably because they are typically contentious subjects. I've always found that bizarre, given the fact that they are two areas of interest profoundly relevant in every human's life.

Of course we've seen here and at other forums where such discussions take place that casual conversations become debates become fights, and reasonably so. As I said, these two areas of interest are profoundly relevant in everyone's life. It's difficult to have a calm, reasonable discussion about something that has very serious personal ramifications. Not only do we all have psychological and emotional baggage that influences our views going into the discussion, but most of us have considerable investments (in ideas, people, places and things) that are endangered by challenging our assumptions.

So somewhere along the way, "civilized society" came to the conclusion that "getting along with each other" was important enough that we should simply forgo discussing these very serious, important, life altering issues. But for what? At first I was going to write 'cooperation' in place of "getting along with each other". But is clinging to a superficial interaction in avoidance of conflict really 'cooperating'? I mean sure fighting sucks and feels bad, but is burying our heads in the sand a productive alternative?

I have been accused many times of fighting for fighting's sake. I do not. I fight when I believe in the principle I'm fighting for. Yes, my 'tactics' are colored by my psychological and emotional baggage, but of course how I present my arguments says nothing about their validity. Similarly, the race, color, gender, values, and beliefs of my interlocutors say nothing about the validity of their arguments.

Frankly, I owe this knowledge to IIDB. Before I found that place (which is before I met most of you people) I didn't know that because I was not a careful thinker. I adopted a naturalist worldview 15 or so years ago based on a cursory reading of a handful of Existentialists and seemingly endless sitting-around-the-bong conversations with friends. It wasn't until I found IIDB that I started to seriously examine what I believe and why I believe it.

And in that same vein conversations with livius and Hugo Holbling - when liv and I were co-administrators at the historical Freethinkers Forum - gave me another jolt. For the first time I found myself wondering what I really know about my beliefs (or lack thereof). Suddenly it was no longer enough for me to simply parrot the vocal criticisms of religious belief from people more intelligent or educated than myself - I wanted to see the data and draw my own conclusions. And y'know, it was rather like reaching the pinnacle of the philosophical mountain I've been struggling to climb all my life and coming to realize that I had just conquered the tiniest of foothills.

So I am humbled. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible that I will - in this lifetime - have enough information to make any definitive statements about the nature of existence, the natural or supernatural, or anything else of any profound substance. All I have left are my values. And among those values are intellectual honesty, empathy, and compassion.

So for my part, that's why I engage in these discussions and that's why 'freethought' is so important to me. I reject dogma, be it religious or atheistic. I don't care if you're the biggest whack job or asshole on the face of the Earth, I know I can learn something from you if I keep my ears (and mind) open. I gain nothing but a little ego boost from selling an idea that has no merit, so I will try to defend the ideas I promote and abandon them when I fail, even if that means having to concede a point to someone I detest.

Most of all, I am going to try to learn. It's hard for me, I confess. I was reading a thread at IIDB today on the philosophy of science, and I kept finding myself skimming and my attention drifting whenever it got hard to follow. I don't know if it's ADD or intellectual laziness, but in any case it was fascinating stuff when I forced myself to stick to it. And moreover, I learned a thing or two. Not some bits of trivia to give me something to talk about at the next cocktail party I go to, but some things that altered (however slightly, given my paltry understanding of the topic) my view of the world. Now that, in my opinion, is something worth fighting for.

Now is that not the most preachy, self-important rant you've ever heard? :D

So who's with me?

[Hugo Holbling]

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible that I will - in this lifetime - have enough information to make any definitive statements about the nature of existence, the natural or supernatural, or anything else of any profound substance.

Perhaps the way out of this difficulty is to simply not make definitive statements (except insofar as you have to) and use this realisation to develop and maintain humility and tolerance? Everyone has a worldview (or several), as you say yourself below; but not all are reflexive.

All I have left are my values. And among those values are intellectual honesty, empathy, and compassion.

If you apply them evenly, i'm sure they will suffice.

I was reading a thread at IIDB today on the philosophy of science ... And moreover, I learned a thing or two. Not some bits of trivia to give me something to talk about at the next cocktail party I go to, but some things that altered (however slightly, given my paltry understanding of the topic) my view of the world.

Which one?

[viscousmemories]

Perhaps the way out of this difficulty is to simply not make definitive statements (except insofar as you have to) and use this realisation to develop and maintain humility and tolerance? Everyone has a worldview (or several), as you say yourself below; but not all are reflexive.
Yeah, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come to.

If you apply them evenly, i'm sure they will suffice.
I hope so.

Which one?
This one (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84452).

[Dingfod]

I've heard the adage, "Never discuss politics, religion or sex in [so-called] polite company." nearly my whole life. That doesn't leave much to talk about for me. Sports is out, I don't give a damn about sports and don't follow any close enough to comment on any kind of level. Plus, close fan affiliation with a sports team can lead to contention between fans of another team or just with society at large, e.g. soccer hooligans. I guess that pretty much leaves the weather and travel.

Discussing the weather is usually fairly curt. "Nice day today, isn't it." "Could it get any hotter/colder/wetter/etc. here?" "Yep." "Nope." "Maybe." "I've seen worse." Discuss the weather with me and we'll likely get into a discussion of mesocyclones and cirro-cumulous clouds or El Nino/La Nina. Then that might lead to a discussion about global warming and/or the ozone hole, which will inevitably lead to some sort of politics. Can't even discuss weather, I guess. Of course, I'm always willing to turn the topic into a more humorous light, such as pondering tornadoes' seeming affinity for sheet metal or just WTF is the heat index.

Travelogues can be boring to the normally homebound crowd. If they aren't they can also lead to discussions of politics, drugs and sex once you found out I drove from Paris to Amsterdam to smoke weed and get laid by a legal prostitute. So travel is straight out as well.

Don't even think about expecting an honest answer to the question "How are you doing?" Please accept fine and reciprocate the same as well. I don't really want to hear about your combination hemorroid and buttlift operation or your ingrown toenail amputation. Next thing you know, someone will say something about the health care system, which will lead right back to politics, or death, which will lead to discussion about religion.

So, in short, I think there is not much to talk about save politics, religion and sex because all roads lead to Rome, so they say.


Warren

[Hugo Holbling]

Yeah, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come to.

Even so, something you might like to consider is whether "it is impossible to have enough information to make definitive statements" is itself a definitive statement. If so, it is self-refuting; if not, there is no reason to suppose that the task is impossible all of the time. This is why it is perhaps more important to realise that we sometimes have to (and do) make definitive statements; how and why we hold them, however, might be the difference you are speaking of.

This one (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84452).

I hope the discussion was helpful, in spite of everything. I have saved (and am adding to) some of my posts here (http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=288) in the hope that they prove useful to those interested in the philosophy of science. I guess it's frustrating to make an effort to explain these issues and yet see that dogma is not limited to religion.

[Hugo Holbling]

So, in short, I think there is not much to talk about save politics, religion and sex because all roads lead to Rome, so they say.

You forgot rugby.

[seebs]

I will discuss politics and religion in mature polite company. :)

[viscousmemories]

Even so, something you might like to consider is whether "it is impossible to have enough information to make definitive statements" is itself a definitive statement. If so, it is self-refuting; if not, there is no reason to suppose that the task is impossible all of the time. This is why it is perhaps more important to realise that we sometimes have to (and do) make definitive statements; how and why we hold them, however, might be the difference you are speaking of.
If you're saying that the important point to consider is not whether a statement is definitive but if there is ample justification for maintaining it, that makes sense to me. If that's not what you're saying then I'm lost. ;)

I hope the discussion was helpful, in spite of everything.
It was very thought provoking, although I quit at around the end of page three to start this thread and forgot to go back. I swear it's ADD.

I guess it's frustrating to make an effort to explain these issues and yet see that dogma is not limited to religion.
I don't understand it, honestly. It almost seems as if some people are intentionally ignorant on subjects they claim to have a sincere interest in. It really makes no sense to me at all. I understand the egotistical desire to win a debate, but it just seems like that would be outweighed by a desire to learn.

[Dingfod]

I will discuss politics and religion in mature polite company. :)How about sex? That would show really how mature the company is.


Warren

[Dingfod]

You forgot rugby.No I didn't. I purposely left it out. You've already heard everything I know about rugby.
:D


Warren

[Gawen]

In my case, I virtually never discuss religion or politics...or sex. First, I have very few friends outside of work, as I keep to myself mostly. But that's a long story. This leaves me with work. Most of the guys at work are conservative, some ultra-conservative. Politics never goes outside the presidential debates where they sit and praise Bush & bash liberals. (I myself am in the middle of the road in my politics) The rest of the guys at work don't care. They only want their paycheck. I only know one liberal at work and he's a Wiccan...and the butt end of a shitload of jokes.

Religion? Give me a break! This is Bush country. Small town Texas where the city council and school board members are related in some way. This past election, three members of one church, all related in some way, vied for seats on the council. All staunch conservatives of a large Baptist church. But did anyone talk about it? Nope. Did I bring it up? Nope. It's par for the course down here. There's a little old man that works with us. He's 72 years old and an ex-Baptist preacher. When he says things, a lot of heads turn to listen and often there's a lot of nodding. He's the prayer leader at all the Public Work functions (Xmas party, Workers appreciation day party, etc)

And that brings us to sex. Intelligent sexual talk goes like this: Scenario-driving service vehicle with two worker passengers.
Me: "Wow, did you see that redhead?"
Worker 1: "Yeah! How'd ya like to fuck THAT?!"
Worker 2: "I'd just settle for letting her wrap those lips around my dick."...*laughing*
Worker 1: "Me too, after I pull it out of her ass...HEY WATCH OUT FOT THAT CAR!!!"

I quit pointing out pretty girls. It ALWAYS ends like this. And as for intelligent talk? There is none.

I can't have an intelligent conversation at work. I'm intellectually starved...and I don't even think I'm THAT intelligent! But definitive statements fly all about me everywhere, and I sit back and wonder where they come up with this shit. Like you VM, I don't understand it either. It's not that they're intentionally ignorant on subjects, but it seems that when they hear something they agree with, it stops there and there's no other side to a view but their own.

But this makes me sound as if I'm always right. I'm not. Rarely one of the guys will say something thought provoking and it'll make me think or even change MY definitave statement. But I think definative statements are rare. One would have to be the top expert in something to make his statements the last word. We're always learning. Well, most of us anyway.

[Penni]

If there's one thing I've learned as I've gotten older, and as I've interacted on bulleting boards, it's that I rarely may honestly say something definitively. Hhahah, see, I was going to say I never do, but after a second thought....

In casual company, I still do, maybe because my friends and I are drama-prone and everything must be exaggerated. When I am serious about something, or talking about a subject that may be sensitive, I've learned to think more before I speak, which leads me to recognize instances in which I may speak more accurately.

Then, sometimes that makes me mad and I think, Goddammit, I know that not EVERY time X happens, so does Y, but it happens so much in my perception that for all intents and purposes, it may as well be so. Some would call that laziness or dishonesty or just plain bias, but more often it leads me to think about human nature and why humans tend to do that, why it is a species-wide tendency.

Speaking of which, I learned something valuable and for all I'm worth, can't remember where, so I'm sorry if it's from somewhere that you all are likely to have read also. Basically, it's an attribution error that humans are prone to. When we judge other humans, we are much more likely to attribute behavior or circumstances to the person's nature or self rather than to the situation. There were some good examples I read, but one easy one would be that if someone is late, we are more likely to think they are just like that. They are inconsiderate and don't care and are late people. In reality (and there were some stats on this) we fail to an incredible degree to take in the situation, or we dismiss it as critical to the results (i.e. traffic, weather, etc.). We don't do that with ourselves however. I thought that was fascinating and could be the root of all kinds of conflicts and misunderstandings in human interaction.

And back round to the topic at hand. I do adjust my convos based on the company. Sometimes it's just not worth it. It's called Choosing Your Battles. On vacation one night, my partner's 85 year old grandmother started going off on illegal Mexican immigrants in CA in addition to the idea that we would definitely have a hard time in Mexico, because they would be out to screw us over. I was shocked because she really is sweet, even though I knew perfectly well that she is conservative and religious. Well, I have plenty to say about illegal immigrants and social services and the economy but do you think I said it? No, it was not a war I could win, even if I managed to win the battle. I offered up the thought that we weren't too likely to be completely screwed over in Mexico because we were going to an area that relies heavily on tourism and it is in their best interest to ensure that tourists are safe and happy while there, and that was generally agreed with, but I certainly wasn't going to go into the hypocrisy of illegal immigrants in America and the important impact they have on our economy. On a discussion board I would. With many friends I would. But, sometimes there's little to gain and a lot to lose. Only when you have either very little to lose (a discussion board) or a lot of trust and a deep network of connection through a variety of avenues (i.e. friends) do I think it's productive and safe to discuss these things. No matter how important politics is, if the discussants close you out immediately, you've gained no understanding, shed no light, and also lost some credibility or trust.

Human interaction: it's all an intricate game that requires a lot of strategy...

[Dingfod]

Gawen, are Oklahoma and Texas like conjoined twins or what? I see Texas as the stronger more outgoing twin and Oklahoma as the shriveled and nearly useless twin whose feet don't quite reach the ground and has only one arm; but, they are genetic twins neverless. Sheesh.


Warren

[viscousmemories]

Most of the guys at work are conservative, some ultra-conservative. Politics never goes outside the presidential debates where they sit and praise Bush & bash liberals. (I myself am in the middle of the road in my politics) The rest of the guys at work don't care. They only want their paycheck. I only know one liberal at work and he's a Wiccan...and the butt end of a shitload of jokes.
Are you sure there aren't more liberals or middle of the road people if you never really talk about politics? Not saying that it would necessarily be a good idea to raise politics at work, but ya never know right?

Religion? Give me a break! This is Bush country. Small town Texas where the city council and school board members are related in some way.
See above. Maybe the overtly religious only appear to be the vast majority. Have you tried meetups or anything to find more open minded people? Maybe there are more than you realize.

And that brings us to sex. Intelligent sexual talk goes like this: Scenario-driving service vehicle with two worker passengers.
Me: "Wow, did you see that redhead?"
Worker 1: "Yeah! How'd ya like to fuck THAT?!"
Worker 2: "I'd just settle for letting her wrap those lips around my dick."...*laughing*
Worker 1: "Me too, after I pull it out of her ass...HEY WATCH OUT FOT THAT CAR!!!"

I quit pointing out pretty girls. It ALWAYS ends like this. And as for intelligent talk? There is none.
Maybe if you initiate the conversation with a focus on something other than a particular woman's physical appearence the other guy's won't follow suit. :P

I can't have an intelligent conversation at work. I'm intellectually starved...and I don't even think I'm THAT intelligent! But definitive statements fly all about me everywhere, and I sit back and wonder where they come up with this shit.
I've been in a lot of places where the opportunity to have intellectual conversations never came up. The Army leaps to mind. Still, despite the fact that I've been interested in 'deep' discussions since I was young, as I said in the OP I didn't really start learning how to think critically (in any meaningful sense of the word) until this last year. I'd like to think it's not because I'm generally stupid or thoughtless (and btw I'm not saying you said this, I'm just thinking aloud on this point), I just wasn't really aware of it.

Like you VM, I don't understand it either. It's not that they're intentionally ignorant on subjects, but it seems that when they hear something they agree with, it stops there and there's no other side to a view but their own.
Yup. That sounds about like me growing up. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, but I wasn't buying it. So I pretty much latched on to any reasonable alternative that was presented and dismissed any challenges to it (even if reasonable in their own light) that came from anyone I identified as ideologically other than me.

But this makes me sound as if I'm always right. I'm not. Rarely one of the guys will say something thought provoking and it'll make me think or even change MY definitave statement. But I think definative statements are rare. One would have to be the top expert in something to make his statements the last word. We're always learning. Well, most of us anyway.
I'm glad you clarified, but I didn't get the impression that you think you're always right. I do think you generalized a fair amount but you're obviously aware of doing that and I really do believe it's a natural impulse. Or so it seems to me. And yeah, I think I'm still learning but I also think that in some areas I'm more "set in my ways" every day. :(

[Hugo Holbling]

:yawn:

[godfry n. glad]

I will discuss politics and religion in mature polite company. :)

Well, that excludes rugby.

godfry

...and you left out sex. Any particular reason?

[viscousmemories]

:yawn:
So far I continue to try because my principles are more important to me than popularity and because someone's being closed-minded to my point a thousand times is insufficient proof that he/she will be closed-minded next time. Maybe that's the point.

[Gawen]

Gawen, are Oklahoma and Texas like conjoined twins or what? I see Texas as the stronger more outgoing twin and Oklahoma as the shriveled and nearly useless twin whose feet don't quite reach the ground and has only one arm; but, they are genetic twins neverless. Sheesh.


WarrenNot a bad analogy really. The bigger one steals all the little ones thunder and stunts its growth.

[Hugo Holbling]

So far I continue to try because my principles are more important to me than popularity and because someone's being closed-minded to my point a thousand times is insufficient proof that he/she will be closed-minded next time.

Are you extending this approach to all areas and all people, including yourself? If i were a betting man i would say you've been reading about the problem of induction. (Then again, if i were a betting man i'd be poor from putting money on the All Blacks.)

[viscousmemories]

Are you extending this approach to all areas and all people, including yourself?
When not a slave to my emotions.

If i were a betting man i would say you've been reading about the problem of induction.
Ah, but you'd be playing with loaded dice. I owe my intro to the idea to yours.

[livius drusus]

If there's one thing I've learned as I've gotten older, and as I've interacted on bulleting boards, it's that I rarely may honestly say something definitively. Hhahah, see, I was going to say I never do, but after a second thought....

In casual company, I still do, maybe because my friends and I are drama-prone and everything must be exaggerated. When I am serious about something, or talking about a subject that may be sensitive, I've learned to think more before I speak, which leads me to recognize instances in which I may speak more accurately.

I indentify with this very strongly. I'm the queen of exaggeration. (There. See? I just can't stop myself. ;)) I try to slow down my tongue when the context requires careful treading, but I find it far more manageable at the beginning of a conversation than it is once the flow is flowing.

Then, sometimes that makes me mad and I think, Goddammit, I know that not EVERY time X happens, so does Y, but it happens so much in my perception that for all intents and purposes, it may as well be so. Some would call that laziness or dishonesty or just plain bias, but more often it leads me to think about human nature and why humans tend to do that, why it is a species-wide tendency.

Are we sure it's species-wide? Can we say that, well, definitively? :wink:

Speaking of which, I learned something valuable and for all I'm worth, can't remember where, so I'm sorry if it's from somewhere that you all are likely to have read also. Basically, it's an attribution error that humans are prone to. When we judge other humans, we are much more likely to attribute behavior or circumstances to the person's nature or self rather than to the situation. There were some good examples I read, but one easy one would be that if someone is late, we are more likely to think they are just like that. They are inconsiderate and don't care and are late people. In reality (and there were some stats on this) we fail to an incredible degree to take in the situation, or we dismiss it as critical to the results (i.e. traffic, weather, etc.). We don't do that with ourselves however. I thought that was fascinating and could be the root of all kinds of conflicts and misunderstandings in human interaction.

It is fascinating to me as well. I bet you learned about the fundamental attribution error from this wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) which vm found and linked to in our original post voting discussion, way back in the day (a whole month ago :)) I'd love to talk it about in its own thread. I don't know why I haven't started one yet.

Only when you have either very little to lose (a discussion board) or a lot of trust and a deep network of connection through a variety of avenues (i.e. friends) do I think it's productive and safe to discuss these things. No matter how important politics is, if the discussants close you out immediately, you've gained no understanding, shed no light, and also lost some credibility or trust.

I think that's a very good point. Examining the context, your audience, your aims, the best and worst case scenarios etc. is so important, and this value can be sorely underestimated when ideals and passions are involved. An example of this is in "should I come out to my family/friends/co-workers" discussions on IIDB, which have a goodly portion of "you must stand by your beliefs nomatter who gets hurt" posts as well as the "weigh the costs and benefits of all your options" posts.

[Clutch Munny]

I bet you learned about the fundamental attribution error from this wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) which vm found and linked to in our original post voting discussion, way back in the day (a whole month ago :))


Maybe so, but let's not rule out a possibility closer to home (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=9). :wink:

[livius drusus]

Maybe so, but let's not rule out a possibility closer to home (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=9). :wink:
/me grins
Let's not, indeed.

[Adora]

I've always agreed with the comment, "Religion is just Politics with a Big Invisible Friend". So that kind of sums up my 2 cents on the main comment.

I have been accused many times of fighting for fighting's sake.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Then again, I am a born shit-stirrer, so I like poking people and seeing the reaction I get. I like hitting on important subjects and making people talk about them, no matter what the "politeness" required at a gather or the amount of kicks I get in the shins under the table. You're right, we should talk about them, and people certainly don't enough, and honestly I don't know why. I agree, it seems stupid not to.

Perhaps if people did talk about it more, we wouldn't be in this shitty mess we're in.

[seebs]

How about sex? That would show really how mature the company is.

I have weird boundaries on discussing sex. I'll discuss it clinically with nearly anyone, but anything that gets out of that narrow field, I won't talk about with anyone I'm not actually romantically interested in. (A very small set, these days.)

[viscousmemories]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Then again, I am a born shit-stirrer, so I like poking people and seeing the reaction I get. I like hitting on important subjects and making people talk about them, no matter what the "politeness" required at a gather or the amount of kicks I get in the shins under the table. You're right, we should talk about them, and people certainly don't enough, and honestly I don't know why. I agree, it seems stupid not to.

Perhaps if people did talk about it more, we wouldn't be in this shitty mess we're in.
See, I wouldn't call that fighting for the sake of fighting, I would call that being deliberately provocative to incite discussion. It's often called 'trolling' on discussion boards like these, but I disagree. It's a symptom of trolling, sure, but I don't think it can be called trolling in and of itself.

Now, if you stuck with your first sentence (that you do it just because you like seeing the reaction you get), I'd probably call it trolling. I think pissing people off to make a point or making a point despite knowing that it will piss people off are fine behaviors. Pissing people off just to piss people off I consider antisocial and annoying.

[JoeP]

I've always agreed with the comment, "Religion is just Politics with a Big Invisible Friend". So that kind of sums up my 2 cents on the main comment.
How about: "When I was a kid I used to play with imaginary friends, but Jesus told me they're not real."

[Adora]

Pissing people off just to piss people off I consider antisocial and annoying.

Sounds like me in a nutshell anyway. ;) It's a two-fold thing. I do it just to see reactions, and I do it because I want people to talk about this stuff more. However, the first one comes first mostly. I push people's buttons, to see what happens, more often than I start conversations with people to see their opinions on D&M subjects. But I push the boundaries of people who I find intelligent and interesting in these subjects more often than I do just random conversationalists, because there's no point to trolling people that don't interest you. It's like trying to engage a goldfish in a discussion about the Far Right powers working in British Politics. It simply doesn't work and there's no point to it unless the person has something worthwhile to poke around in. *shrugs* It's what I do, and have done ever since I can remember. Make of it what you will.