To some, science seems like “the new Authority”, the new self-sustaining system perpetuated by clergy named “scientists” and to be dogmatically obeyed by the rest of us in the pews. (Heh. Not even church is like that, assuming you choose a nice progressive community.) The problem is “science” is pigeonholed into something it isn’t, and this is helped by the fact that it has such a handy pre-existing label. Develop a pigeonholed understanding of the label, then the job is done!

So instead of saying “I care too much about science”, I’m going to talk about… “I care too much about understanding reality/creation as best I can”, “I’m too interested in the evidence about the past that surrounds us”, or something similar.

And so my quest for maximizing understandability continues down the road of ever-increasing verbosity. *sigh*.

There are so many things wrong with this theory, but if I point them all out now, I’ll be going against my stated purpose of trotting out my theory. So bear with me… keep in mind I’m talking rubbish, and do point out all the problems of my theory in the comments. (Like one person I met this weekend, that argued German, French, Italian, Dutch, Spanish… are all the same language. *grin*)

In this little world in my head, the effort of translating from one language to another brings people to a greater understanding of how cultural context guides communication. This is especially the case with mind-shifting differences, like word order on the lower impact side of things, or on the higher impact side of things: different words that are related in one language but not in another, guiding realisation that associations can differ tremendously, but that the other associations also do make so much sense. And then there’s the idiomatic expressions… those things that remain ever-elusive to a “non-native speaker”. (Anyone to whom they don’t remain elusive, I’m therefore calling native. )

South Africa has many languages, and dramatically different ones at that (European and African), but typically not enough communication happens, or happened, between the cultures. At least from a conservative Afrikaans speaking culture perspective. Many Afrikaans people also speak English, but to some degree, it is too easy. They know it too well, it’s a second language, not a foreign language. And it is still much the same culture.

America has the problem that they had the rail road before they settled the content, so it became a single invasion of a single language, and now everyone speaks English. (And I’m discounting the native Americans, on the grounds that the invaders so thoroughly wiped out local culture. I’m talking about the current status quo, rather than the sad history.)

Then there’s Germany. (Hmm, and how about Italy?) What’s wrong with Germany? Well, a few years ago on a ski trip, we decided that the problem is dubbing. We decided that the root of all evil in Europe comes from using the same voice actors to dub all movies and TV programs into the same language. I mean, everyone knows that foreign language films with subtitles are a great source of World Peace, don’t they? Don’t they? How might we cure this dubbing blight?

In any case, moving on… I’m in the position where I struggle to communicate with the local culture. Or with foreign non-English speaking culture as well. It has brought a number of interesting realisations, but more on that on some other day. When it comes to bilingual cultures, having more than one language is the first step. I suggest the second step should be to force people to translate pieces of high-level writing from their “second” language into their “first” — giving them the advantage of greater prowess with the sentences and paragraphs they’re creating, so that that isn’t the hurdle.

Enough nonsense from me for now. This is a light-hearted post, so fire away. The next one to be published will most likely be the translation of a friend’s Afrikaans post (spot one of the sources of inspiration for this post ), much more serious. Be like fire with light-hearted posts, be like water with the serious.

It seems to me that the most grief in such exchanges is created by newcomers and passers-by that drop in out of the blue and blurt out a comment, or an entire manifesto for that matter. In particular, I’m referring to comments like those by “Turn or Burn” and “Food for analysis” in a recent post. The regulars on this blog are typically much more thoughtful in their responses, and naturally have a much better idea of what this blog is all about. They respect its “raison d’être”.

The newcomers, on the other hand, don’t keep in line, and understandably so: they typically drop in via a Google search, see a couple of thoughts that resonates with some of their thoughts. Spotting an opportunity to have their own rants heard, anonymously, they jump on the soapbox and provide us with a monologue. Then they’re off on their merry way again.

In the meantime, the rest of our “little community” here have to deal with being stereotyped together with these passers-by. Rather more importantly, curious silent-types exploring the outskirts of our little gathering, eavesdropping for a while to hear what it is about, often not used to how Internet gatherings work, sees this guy shouting inanities from a soapbox. Not being around for long, they can’t be expected to distinguish between regulars that are thoughtful and curious and really compassionately care, and those weird ones uttering inanities.

Inanity: The property of being inane, of lacking material of interest or satisfaction, emptiness

An example of a perceived inanity to a passer-by? “Turn or Burn” ended with this gem:

SHOFAR!!!
sHO Good
We exorcise
more demon
4 ur $$$

The problem is that the regulars, the thoughtful types, turn their heads to look at these soapboxers, grin and smile at them and enjoy the brief entertainment, then return to their thoughtful discussions. Why care more than that? The soapboxers will leave soon anyway. Or they might eventually integrate and take part in thoughtful discussion themselves. “Whatever”. “Meh”. So no-one bothers to explain to them that they’re not being helpful, that that’s not what we do around here.

Due to soapboxer, curious silent-type turns around and walks away again, while curious silent-type is actually exactly the kind of person we would like to openly welcome into the discussion. Thankfully every now and then there’s a non-silent-type on the outskirts that gets riled up due to soapboxer, and hurls back some criticism.

What are we regulars to do? Criticise non-silent-type for not bothering to first understand what we are about? Whip out a cluebat and attempt to quickly beat an understanding of internet culture into non-silent-type? So that we can continue being our own introverted little group of intellectuals making no real difference in the world?

Or do we thoughtfully approach the situation and realise that it points out we’re just being another congregation closed to curious outsiders?

Stellenbosch Gemeente uses Van Gogh’s church-with-no-doors as an illustration for what churches often are: groups of people focused on their own inward plight, but making no difference out there in the world. (And I’m sure many others use the same painting to share the same idea: there is much cross-pollination happening due to global cooperation, seminars, get-togethers, etc.)

My dream is that the community represented by this little blog could also be one with open doors, where people don’t get excluded due to us not noticing we’ve got no doors, or that those doors we do have are barred by a couple of soapboxers looking for limelight.

And that might mean we need to address those blocking the doors, even if we don’t mind them personally…

As much as I prefer finding social solutions to social problems, social inertia is often huge. On the internet, if we’re that open to random passers-by, looking for “social solutions” would mean dealing with internet-wide social inertia. An absolutely impossible task.

If there’s a technical solution to the problem, let’s try to find it?

Examples of comments that are really useless:

Rants about Shofar and money/finances. This really is a bore. Most people that touch on this topic sound like a broken record player, and are contributing nothing new, nothing of value, they’re just playing an absolutely boringly stereotypical role.

The other would be comments that speculatively attack people. Or ideally even any comments that attack people. In “Food for analysis”‘ case, he speculated about Fred May’s sex life, and pulled in ideas and concepts that he surely intended to offend. I’m all for calling it slander, especially if it isn’t about something specific and factual, backed by evidence. As fun as it may be to the soapboxer and to whomever to speculate, slander is counter to what this blog is about. In the examples mentioned, “Food for analysis” speculated about Fred May’s sex life (in particular, speculations about date of marriage and date of birth of his first-born).

As much fun as can be had speculating whether Buddha might have been gay (referring to a conversation between a Buddhist friend and I), there is an entire world of difference between such private and humoured speculation, and the kind of comment “Food for analysis” wrote. And I really do wish we could somehow avoid having any kind of personal attack on this blog. I really think it shouldn’t be necessary, there is more than enough other interesting things to discuss.

On Monday, an ordained minister and author commenting under the initials “H J” visited this blog and left us five comments. I think it worthwhile to pick apart how this conversation got derailed, or never found rails in the first place.

Her first comment:

Cynical and uninformed. What a bore these comments are. Ever thought of checking the facts before opining? Or would that defeat the object?

Comments, plural. I’m not sure which comments exactly she was referring to. Does she include the blog post itself, or does she mean the comments? I think “Turn or Burn”‘s comment was probably the most inflammatory, but she chose plural. Seems like a generally sweeping comment to me? I responded:

H J, do you have some facts to share with us?

While I was being patient, I wasn’t patient and thoughtful enough. In retrospect, I could have gone with “H J, can you be a little bit more specific, please? Is there something specific you could point at that you feel is uninformed or cynical?”

Her second comment:

Why would you expect me to do your homework for you? Seems like you have far too much time to chat baloney and party, and not enough work to do. Do your own research, washing, cleaning and cooking, and earn your own keep. By that time, you should have something worthwhile to contribute to society. Being part of the solution instead of part of the problem will make you feel better about yourself, and more positive about living on the planet. Then people will be interested in what you have to say. At the moment the only people who take note are those who share the same grouchy couch potato attitude, and those who happen to land here by coincidence – like me. Here’s hoping you get a life soon.

Now isn’t that a direct personal attack, if you ever saw one? Completely and utterly uninformed, unresearched, unwarranted. Angry? This comment rubs me up the wrong way in so many ways, I don’t even think I should start explaining.

In fact, just revisiting this comment requires me to breathe deeply and calm myself. At this point I didn’t know she was an author (of Christian books) or a minister, or female for that matter. But she obviously considered herself a Christian, valiantly defending Shofar. And unfortunately another giving Christianity a terrible name.

I thought it possible to open a conversation with such a person, both at the time of commenting there, and starting this blog post (at which point I wondered “wait, who is H J?”, and I did a quick Google search based on her email address).

Kenneth was the first to come to the defence of our little community (me the blogger, and my readers and commenters):

The above comment is both cynical.
And uninformed.
Pot, meet kettle.

Her next comment had her dishing out advice to me, which in retrospect makes much more sense if you realise that’s the role she typically plays. But again, her advice is premature, because she doesn’t know me. She calls me angry, warns me to keep seeking and avoid becoming a close-minded bigot. She says I have a backlog to catch up, as I received no training in the humanities (being an engineer). But, apart from that, I think some well-meant words of encouragement. Including this cute sentence:

Words create atmosphere, and your negativity and judgementalism about things you do not understand, are attracting negative things to you.

The problem was, in her previous comments, her words had created an atmosphere of negativity and judgementalism of my friends and I, people she does not understand, and this attracted some negative attitudes back to her.

What we must realise is, often people that find themselves in the “One True Church”(TM) or something of similar persuasion, really do believe they have the one truth. They are used to constant reinforcement from their friends and community. A direct and pointed challenge to their claims and ways is something they really are not used to. Now what do you think happens when you attempt to directly and blatantly point out to an ordained minister and Christian book author their own hypocrisy? You don’t get to start a conversation…

Sometimes you have to swallow the abuse other people hurl at you, and return nothing but compassion. After creating a relationship, after building some dialogue and interaction, only then can you find enough to build on to get to the point of explaining how the other’s words came across, carefully and gently.

H J’s last comment was this:

Oh and Hugo is allowed to insult and defame and spread false rumours about Shofar, brand anyone who believes the Bible as a foam at the mouth fundamentalist and offend them. That is perfectly ok. Everyone who disagrees is a troll according to you. Yeah yeah. Same tune, same chorus. It was not entertaining, enlightening or in any way worth the effort. Closed mind. Close the door. What a waste. Ho hum and so goodbye to you.

I would like to understand what she’s so upset about. Apart from the things she seems rather sensitive about: did I even call anyone a fundamentalist, anywhere in the past… many months? I’ve been consciously avoiding name calling for quite some time, and would like to have it pointed out to me if anyone perceives something I did not intend. And yet, “foam at the mouth fundamentalist”…

I realise the other problematic and likely unknown word is “troll”…

H J, I would like to apologise for coming on so strong in my blog. I didn’t mean any disrespect to you, but it is hard to remain completely calm when you and your friends have been accused of a number of horrible things. I’m sure you can appreciate that, as it seems you experienced a similar offence (even if it was not meant). I would still like to converse, if it is at all possible.

Hoping to hear from you,
Hugo

Nog meer ekstreem kies party vir fundamentalisme, wat vir jou sê dat net hierdie kerk (ja, ek weet hulle sê die Bybel, maar daarmee bedoel hulle eintlik net my interpretasie van die Bybel, en dus per implikasie net my kerk) die antwoorde het, en vertel jou dis sonde om op ander plekke in die wêreld te gaan luister.

If you understand Afrikaans, go read the original post to see what he was on about. In the case of this post of mine, I’m focusing on the ideas and implications of the concept of fundamentalism that his post inspired. In short, the relevant clause from Cobus’ post is this:

Fundamentalism: it tells you that only “this church” has the answers, and that it is sinful to go listen to other sources.

What concept does this “fundamentalism” word point to then? The basic principle is this: “we are right, those that disagree are wrong — listen to the right sources, avoid the wrong sources — believe/think these correct things, reject those incorrect things”. Combine with that principle the realisation that everyone is right about some things and wrong about some other things, then the “fundamentalism” label points to a concept unrelated to being right or wrong, and rather to a certain attitude.

(For the purpose of this post, expand your concept of believe or belief to extend to those things you think — “I don’t believe anything” is an absolutely lame cop-out.)

Now… we all believe the things we believe, because we believe those things to be true/correct — assuming we really believe them. (Yes, I’m stating a tautology, please bear with me. And read that sentence again and think about it.) If we give up on believing something is true, we… um… we stop believing it. (Duh.) Are we on the same page so far?

In contemplating the meaning of “fundamentalism” in this context, two cases or understandings present themselves to me (and unfortunately so — I was hoping to focus on one, but I can’t neglect the other).

Personal Fundamentalism

The first is personal fundamentalism. This concept of fundamentalism deals with personal beliefs and how they are constructed and developed. How firmly are these beliefs held? Can they be changed, developed, replaced? Beliefs/thoughts/ideas which are non-negotiable to the believer/thinker/philosopher are their fundamental beliefs — with respect to those beliefs, the believer/thinker/philosopher is a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism started out as a positive term used by a group to describe themselves. (Source: Wikipedia – fundamentalism, citing two sources.) When understood in this sense, we all have fundamentals, and are all therefore fundamentalists of some sort.

When Richard Dawkins or his fans argue that he or they are not fundamentalists, they are typically arguing about personal fundamentalism, and they typically mean they will revise any of their beliefs if presented with evidence to the contrary. They are arguing that their epistemology is a non-fundamentalistic one, leaving them open to new understandings and ideas. (Epistemology: the study of the nature knowledge and justification, and the extent to which we have either. [src])

Thus: their ideas about epistemology are the right ideas, and other ideas, lower standards, are wrong. See where I’m going with this? They have as their fundamentals a certain epistemological standard. Keep on digging, and you should be able to find anyone’s fundamentals, fundamentals about which they could be proud to be called fundamentalists. Even, dare I say, nihilists! While my first thought was that they’d be an example of no fundamentals, I think maybe it requires a certain fundamental mindset to take you to nihilism: insisting, as a fundamental, that you don’t accept any fundamentals that are unprovable…?

As much as I like high epistemological standards and appreciate the particular ways in which Dawkins and fans are not fundamentalists, I will continue to insist on pointing out the other ways in which they are. When I do something like point out ways in which we are all fundamentalists, I hope to disarm name-calling and start talking about the actual concepts at hand.

Developing good fundamentals is certainly fundamental to living a good life. (Take as broad a view as you can on the meaning of “good” here.)

Interpersonal Fundamentalism

In personal beliefs, you can have an intense conviction of a particular belief/idea, living by it fully, but still be open to replacing or revising that belief/idea. Rephrased: being prepared to reexamine and change your beliefs or ideas does not mean you cannot be very serious about those beliefs or ideas while holding them. (Hint: all you need is humility to be able to let go of older ideas, and eagerness and a positive mindset in embracing new ones.) So I have no qualms about ideas and beliefs held strongly and dearly. Instead…

Introduce the big complicator for all aspects of human expression: interpersonal relationships. In moving away from the ego-centric concerns of personal fundamentalism, we discover an interpersonal version of the concept:

I’m right and you’re wrong. Period.

…what I do have qualms about, is the way we communicate and interact about our ideas and beliefs.

The interpersonal version of “fundamentalism” is the one I care about most, because it impacts other people. As I mentioned earlier, we are all right about some things, and wrong about others, and often it is a real waste of time — or even actively harmful to our well-being — to critically analyse every belief or thought/idea we have. Since we sincerely believe we are right about the things we are right about (there’s that tautology again), we effectively believe that those that don’t believe the same things have incorrect beliefs.

Given that this is the case for all of us, the concern should rather be about the way we interact about our differences. If we all try to convert everyone over to our way of seeing things, convince them to let go of the things we believe they are wrong about and start believing/thinking the things we believe we are right about, and we do so for everything, we will be fighting for ever. It will get us nowhere.

And this will always be the case, because there is too much that we disagree about and always will disagree about. (Never mind factual claims right now, we are talking about interpretive things, subjective things, we’re talking about Meh. Arguably that is all we really have to go by: consider (Re?)Introducing Meh and Lah and discuss it there if you want some clarity on this idea.)

This is where democracy comes in, for example: we know there are many things we will never agree on, and it is a waste of time arguing about many of these things, so we develop compromising systems by which we can settle on a decision or course of action that we decide is good enough for now. This works in some spheres, but not in others.

Getting back to the point… the interpersonal understanding of “fundamentalism” deals with how people interact, not about whether they are right or wrong. If using this understanding of the word, many Richard Dawkins fans would certainly be fundamentalists as much as any religious fundamentalist: they approach interpersonal conversations with the attitude and thesis of “we are right and you are wrong”, and often whack you over the head with it as often and as hard as they can. Ditto for religious fundamentalists. Who is right and who is wrong is not the point, because, remember, we are all wrong and we are all right. The point here is how we interact. I think this is the concept pointed to by the word “fundamentalist”, when people label Richard Dawkins or his fans as such.

Here are then some of my suggestions to those that wish to avoid coming across as fundamentalists in this interpersonal sense:

• Remind yourself that you are wrong about a great many things, and that there are many things that you do not yet know and never will know.
• With some momentum picked up from the previous point, consider, even if for only a moment, that you may indeed be wrong about the belief in question, and that the other might be right. Basically, try to mentally take yourself a notch closer to center on the “Dawkins scale”, even if only temporarily for the purpose of a particular interaction.
• Approach interactions with the knowledge that you agree about some things and disagree about other things. Build and develop some common ground based on your agreements. Try as best you can to understand the experience and worldview of the other and how they see things and experience things. In that regard, stretch and challenge your talent for empathy to the point that it becomes a trained skill.
• When discussing disagreements, have some goal or purpose in mind. Know why you are discussing or debating a particular disagreement, and focus on that purpose or goal. Be clear about it: explain the reason you are disagreeing and why you consider this particular issue to be important.
• Listen! Be helpful and proactive in encouraging the other to formulate their concerns — in order to clearly demarcate what the discussion is about.
• As soon as you realise a discussion is only about you being right and them being wrong, rather than about some actually useful purpose, stop! Think for a moment. There is most likely a better use of your time, one that makes a much greater or useful contribution in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you could encourage the other to focus on positive contributions rather than fighting about the trivialities. (For my use of the word in this context, it is a triviality if you cannot identify a good reason or purpose for arguing about it.)
• Be humble in you demeanor, don’t allow confidence about your message, belief or idea turn you into a bully.
• Be prepared to walk away with the disagreement unresolved. Better yet, make it your intent to do so. I suggest aiming to avoid resolving the issue, as I believe the aim should be to stretch and encourage thinking. You shouldn’t be aiming to establish a new authoritarian relationship (where one is right and the other is wrong), but rather to try to create a mutually nurturing mindset. The ideal is to encourage something akin to metanoia (Wiktionary: “A fundamental change of mind; Spiritual conversion”), which is something personal and internal. And it should be for both of you.

  With regards to the purpose that drove the conversation, let the other draw up conclusions for themselves, in their own time, maybe after the conversation is finished (even long after). Don’t break your head over it though… while there was a purpose or focus for the conversation, what you should carry away from it for yourself, is a better understanding of the other, a better understanding of how their mind works, what makes them tick, why they operate the way they do. Ideally it should lead to something of a metanoia in yourself as well.

  Whether this happens gradually or in a sudden flash of Eureka! does not matter. Life’s a journey. May any eventual conclusion be one of mutual cooperation rather than one of victory and defeat.

These are just my suggestions. You are of course welcome to not follow them. You are welcome to have fun being a bully, as much as others are welcome to call you a fundamentalist.

If, however, you think I may be onto something here, or you want to discuss these ideas, in agreement or disagreement, or in figuring out how they can be applied, please do so!

Bear in mind I’m a bridge builder, my goal is to facilitate trade and travel between two banks — cross pollination is beautifully creative, in memes just as much as in genes. Here is a potentially worthwhile exercise: reread this post while mentally role-playing a resident of the opposite bank. The most useful contributions for my goals are those that work both ways.

Suggested thought-provoking reading material that can also serve as more food for discussion: Richard Lewontin: Billions and Billions of Demons, a critical review of Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.”

Dear Family,

With some hesitance, I attach a piece I wrote five weeks ago. I wrote it at a time when I was quite emotional, and did the writing in part for its therapeutic benefit. It sketches out my views with regards to our meeting that Sunday. Eventually I shared it with my pastor (Theo Geyser), who encouraged me to pass it on to you.

I share this now with you, not out of animosity, not out of wanting to start a debate or invoke a disagreement, but simply because I feel it necessary to be open about it. My beliefs encourage me to share my differing views, to stand up for what I believe.

We all have different perspectives. This really should not be a problem as long as we do not try to force everyone to believe exactly the same thing. I respect your beliefs, I respect your right to have a different take on things than I do, I just feel I owe it to you to give you the opportunity to respect my views as well, which requires that I actually share them with you in the first place.

With that in mind, you are welcome to read the attached text. If you choose to do so, please do not take anything in it personally. I wrote it in the middle of the night (all through the night, as we were waiting for my mother to go in for surgery for her cancer), in response to an emotionally charged event, and out of anguish with the potential unintended consequences and side-effects of certain beliefs.

The end of the text contains a particular “sting in the tail”, please don’t take it too seriously. It is there as a dramatic finale to leave the reader with a lasting thought, expressing how I felt during trying times. It is not, I repeat, not, addressed to you, I am not implying that you added stress. The sting merely expresses my defensive attitude towards my mother, passionately expressing my desire (but ultimate inability) to protect her from threats. It is like a swear word that sometimes slips out when you bang your head on a sharp cupboard corner… I trust you’ll understand.

I hope if there are any questions or comments about it, that we can sit down and talk them out. I realise how incredibly easy it is for misunderstandings to develop, and I would like to prevent that from happening. Please let me know.

Best regards,
Hugo

What do you think of a letter like that?

I have sought the advice of a couple of people, and I still don’t know what to do. Some of the feedback suggests the post is too strongly worded. If I want to share my views, maybe I should do so with a more carefully written piece. I come across too strongly…

Understood in the context in which I wrote the piece, people should understand why I write strongly, or the dramatic effect of a “sting-in-the-tail”. However, especially in cases where people are very defensive about their beliefs and their choices, they won’t be looking at things in that context, they will see if the shoe fits, and if not, they will make it fit. Something like that post could end up driving in a permanent wedge, causing a complete breakdown of interpersonal relationships… On reading a post like that, people may feel strongly criticised and very hurt.

Sometimes, even in simply having different beliefs, explicitly, they could draw up a number of conclusions that I did not mean. The path of reasoning could run like this:

Hugo has different beliefs. Explicitly. -> Clearly he disagrees with our beliefs. -> He must think we are wrong. -> He criticises our beliefs, he thinks we are believing incorrect things. -> He must think we lack good judgement on these things.

Etcetera. It can go even further. And it would be wrong. It is particularly irritating when the above happens due to projection. In projection cases, the person thinking along those lines usually criticises other people’s lack of judgement for having “incorrect beliefs”. They then assume that when someone disagrees with them, that someone is doing the same. Beams and splinters. I’m sure Matthew 7:1-5 refers, amongst other things, to the projection phenomenon.

But I digress.

Why is the above train of thought incorrect? Well, we do not all believe the same thing, and we never will. No one ever knows everything. It is thus of the utmost importance that we learn to respect and understand differences of opinion and beliefs, and how to get along peacefully. (Also, only once we get to that point, can we start learning from each other in our diversity.) I’m well aware of this (that we don’t all believe the same thing and never will), and being aware of it breaks the above train of thought.

Getting back to the motivation of not sending it: maybe it is more worthwhile to protect and maintain good interpersonal relationships, and share and talk about our differences of opinion in a less emotionally charged way? I’m sure there will be many more opportunities…

Much of human fighting and disconnectedness results from a lack of understanding of the Other’s perspectives. What one says, is not what the Other hears. Because we do not speak the same languages, even if we use the same vocabulary. What one word means to one group of people, is often something quite different from what it means to another. And this meaning? Is not always rational, is not dictionary definitions. Having the same definitions for words don’t lead to understanding. Because it isn’t words… It is feelings, it is emotional responses, it is the very sense of being. With a misunderstanding on that level, things can very quickly turn ugly.

Good communication requires empathy. It requires an understanding of the Other’s frame of reference, in order to understand what meaning the Other will attach to particular words or gestures. The meaning is found in the context of an entire Meh.

This post was not inspired by religion, it was inspired by something completely different, but it applies just as well: the meaning we attach to words, irrespective of our dictionary definitions, which we may agree on, can differ dramatically. In terms of “God”, what God means to the Believer, is not about the rational definitions, not about the words. So the battle is not about rational concepts, it is something touching deep inside. Abusing Tillich’s words, it touches your very Ground of Being.

Respect a person but disrespect their ideas? I’m sorry, sometimes people’s ideas are experienced as an essential part of them… I believe it shows a lack of understanding of humanity to think that disrespecting their ideas will not be experienced as a disrespect of their person. These things are too interwoven.

I would not vote for someone who does not understand religion. I don’t care if he’s an atheist or a theist, if he wants my vote, he needs to understand how the population thinks. The Out-Campaign serves only to dilute the meaning of the label “atheist” to the point where it no longer means “I don’t understand religion”. At that point, it becomes harder to discriminate based on how informed or uninformed they are.

South Africa long had the policy of not accepting blood donations from non-whites, purely because statistically, “white blood” was more likely to be AIDS-free. How is that for a can of worms? Statistics, dangerous stuff. Naturally, this policy was forced to change. I don’t know what statistics they now use to determine what blood is “safer” and what is “less safe”. Skin colour is a label, just like “atheist”. It means only what we make it mean. What is wrong with “freethinker”, “post-theist”, “post-atheist”, “naturalist”, or… um… I dunno, a gazillion other words? Ah, yes, we need to “stand together”. I think Dawkins realised he’s all alone (that’s hyperbole, guys), and created the Out Campaign to rally people to his side, when he noticed The God Delusion was not having the desired effect. (That’s just what I think, not necessarily true.)

Anyway, back to the story: I was also unable to tolerate things that seemed silly or wrong, but I hated being judgemental. I’m too compassionate for that. It nearly killed me. So which side do I choose? I saw truth on both sides of the fence. This was really, really tough. But I kept searching. He who searches, shall find. After a lot of grief, I reached a point where I finally understood. Now I don’t even have to “tolerate”, I can simply “love”. Love all of humanity in all of its great diversity. And English sucks, because it only has one word for “love”. Kill the other languages, and you kill lots of wisdom about “love”.

So which side of the fence? You have only to realise that there is no fence!

I’m not sure which group has more diversity of beliefs: atheism, or Christianity. I suppose comparing atheism with theism might be more correct. Either way, we have atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, “brights”, skeptics, freethinkers, more… (Maybe we can even include atheistic religions like Buddhism? Naah.) Similar diversity in Christianity is grouped together under the label “Christian”.

So, what is heard by some people when “I am an atheist” is uttered? This is what some people hear:

I have no appreciation for my existence, I lack any sense of wonder. I do not acknowledge any mystery in the world. I am not at all thankful or appreciative for my existence (as I am not thankful to the “original cause”). I just am. There is no meaning to life. It is all pointless. There is no action that can be labelled “good” and no action “bad”. I might as well just drink all day and all night, if that makes me happy. Hell, why not go shoot some people, considering I don’t have to be moral. There are no adverse consequences to immoral behaviour. I think all theists are stupid. They suffer from delusion. They are “dim”, while I am “bright”.

Yes, this is what some people hear, even if it is not what is meant. That’s quite a mouthful to de-stigmatise.

Again, to de-stigmatise the label, people need to get to know you, rather than your label. Only once they know you, can you make any contribution by telling them what label you use. Only then might they understand what you mean by that label. De-stigmatising the label is irrelevant, the aim is to de-stigmatising the world-view.

So this is the idea behind Dawkins’ “Out Campaign”. Many atheists out there have already built relationships with “religionists”. The “Out Campaign” aims to unify the efforts to de-stigmatise the world-view, through use of the label. Whether it will be useful for you to contribute or not, is something only you can determine. You know your audience, no-one else does. Do you care much for the “atheism” label? Do you think it worthwhile to de-stigmatise it? Or might it be counter-productive and serve only to stigmatise something else you’re standing for? Priorities… Tough call.

I have a very different approach, the post-modernist that I seem to be. (Dawkins seems a typical modernist.) Free people from labels all around, then they are much more free to develop their own world-view, rather than having it forced down their throats by some pigeonholing label. Have patience, the P campaign is on its way. (Give me another two weeks or so. And get me a copyrightable Red P!)

Do you think it is worthwhile de-stigmatising the “atheist” label? How do your thoughts about this post compare to your thoughts about the Christian language problem post?

Further reading: Language Differences.

This is a case of finding identity in the label, instead of the concept that the label is supposed to point to. What do other people hear when you say this? This is what some people hear:

I’m a person that believes the world is 6000 years old, that Adam and Eve’s children committed incest, that a genetic bottleneck occurred on the Ark, that the air pressure was a billion times what it is today because all the water of the flood was “above” the atmosphere before the world-wide flood, that God came down and had sex with an engaged woman, that if a Christian prays for a nice, sunny day, that God will punish all the non-Christian farmers by not providing rain.

If this is what you meant, great… However, if this is not what you meant, you have just miscommunicated to some of your audience. That is the problem with labels, the problem with diversity in members of your audience. If you want to de-stigmatise the label, that’s great, however, that still requires people getting to know you first, rather than your labels. Once they know you, you can tell them what your label is, and they might understand what you mean by that label. The label is not as important as the concept it is supposed to be pointing to.

For more on the misunderstandings of the label “Christian”, check out Get the Good News Right.

What would drive me mad, is an attempt to write in a way that everyone will find acceptable. That is damn-nigh impossible. The diversity of an Internet audience is simply too great. When I target my writing at black, white will think I’m the darkness itself, while if I target my writing at white, black will hate me for not respecting the tranquillity of the shade.

It is impossible to be everything to everyone all at once, so don’t even try.

This exact problem is also found in churches, as well as in attempts at understanding collections of books like The Bible. A congregation is typically very diverse. A message preached from a pulpit, falls on diverse ears, and is very very hard to target. It is really the responsibility of each member of a congregation to take the most out of a message they might receive. The most well-meaning and diligent pastor, with the most carefully worded sermon, in the process of helping out many people, is still very likely to lead others astray at the same time.

The modernistic way to reduce this diversity and thereby maintain sanity, is to develop a creed. If everyone submits to this creed, and direct their lives according to it, it becomes a lot less tricky to communicate well.

However, this also does not work perfectly. On the one hand, there is still diversity. On the other hand, forcing uniformity is one of the greatest evils known to man. It suppresses each individual’s identity and creativity, in favour of the supposed “common good”. What humanity is slowly realising, is that this sacrifice still does not appease the god of chaos and misunderstanding.

Allow me to quote Thomas Paine, revolutionary author during the Enlightenment, notorious for his book “The Age of Reason”, from which I am quoting:

Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

No matter what you think of the rest of his writing and philosophy, you must be able to recognise the truth in that quote, even if you do not take it as far. In my personal experience though, that last clause is much more true than I ever thought it could be.

But I digress. The point is, moulding people into identical little boxes, defined by some label typically attached to a creed of some sort, is unhealthy. Dare I say evil…?

Allow me to draw on an example from a Charismatic/Pentecostal-oriented religious organisation named Maranatha Campus Ministries, which existed from 1971 until 1990. Obviously, they teach from The Bible, drawing heavily on the teachings of a very famous man known by the name “Jesus”.

Now Jesus was an excellent teacher. He taught largely in parables, which have this knack for raising more questions than they give answers. He taught in the context of a culture from two thousand years ago, a culture obviously quite different from our current one. Each culture has its own unique challenges (and yet, in the bigger picture, exactly the same challenges, because we are all human).

Pre-modern culture was story driven. People told stories, over and over, and stories spread far and wide. It was an oral culture. We don’t see very much of that in modern, supposedly “civilised” culture. I think one of the remnants of this tradition, is campfire stories.

An essential ingredient in story telling, especially stories that carry meaning and truth, is metaphorical language, figurative language, imagery. “Beeldspraak” in Afrikaans, which translates literally to “Image Speech”. Jesus wielded this weapon like a sword. The pen may be mighty, but it merely emulates the tongue.

Now here is where things become sad or ironic: modern humanity, with all its supposed knowledge, seems to be losing sight of its wisdom. As “fact fundamentalists” (thanks Marcus Borg), we take this incredibly rich heritage of ours, and try to read everything in terms of absolutes. Black and white. We are destroying ourselves, digging our own hearts out with a spoon. Truth is not dependent upon facts…

In 1982, the University of Waterloo in Canada, expelled its Maranatha chapter. “Religious discrimination!” I hear people shout. Unfortunately, such expulsions do not happen before someone actually gets hurt. One member sexually maimed himself, quite likely citing the likes of the hyperbolic “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”. Or better yet, If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. These verses do contain truth, they do contain wisdom, but they cannot be read literally.

I really do believe militant, fundamentalistic atheists have to bear some of the blame for reinforcing literal readings of this culturally rich piece of heritage. Maybe we do need to bring the Bible back into schools, together with the Quran, maybe some Buddhist writings, and any other very significant pieces of human history and cultural heritage. These could be invaluable tools for teaching children how to think and look at the world around them, and appreciate the diversity…

Which brings me back to the question, what then, to do with the great diversity that is humanity?

The other solution to the problem of diverse audiences, is to form tiny little groups. The smaller the group, the easier it is to have everyone think alike. You can pick and choose your inner circle. Birds of a feather, flocking together… I hope it is becoming clear that “knowing” someone by the friends they keep, is rather modernistic. The error in this suggested solution should be obvious to everyone.

Humans evolved into a highly gregarious species. We have big brains so that we can handle larger communities. We are exposed to culture from all corners of the world (did I just state the earth is flat?). As if that spatial diversity is not enough, we read diverse texts that were written over a span of thousands of years. We are developing a global village, with so many inhabitants that you can no longer count the billions on one hand, soon possibly two.

Our increased connectivity, in the sense of communication tools rather than true intimacy, makes it abundantly clear that it is of utmost importance that we learn to cope with incredible diversity. This may seem like a brave new world, with significant new problems never seen before. What is the solution? Simple:

Communication skills.

As old as the ages. As true as it is that we have problems that have never been seen before, there is still nothing new under the sun. It is quite a cliché that “we have two ears and one mouth, and should use them in that proportion”. The most important skill for good communication, is still the listening skill. The more diversity we run into, the more understanding and empathy we need.

Enter the post-modernistic realisation that those little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky, little boxes all the same, simply do not work.

I label myself as someone that rejects all labels – ’nuff said.