Strange email [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Mon 2008-08-18 14:55
Strange email

I had an odd email this weekend. Someone mailed me about a couple of minor points on my website, and then added at the end of the message that he found it curious that I hadn't written anything about religion. He said, in particular, that he thought knowing something about what I believed in that area might, in his words, ‘shed some light on an important aspect of [my] personality’.

Well, I was willing enough to answer his question in private email. It's true that I've never bothered to mention on my main website that I'm an atheist, but that's not out of any strong feeling that it's Nobody Else's Business; partly it's because I'd expect any such mention to attract too much email flamage to be worth the trouble, but mostly I've just never felt that I had anything particularly interesting or original to say on the subject. (And if I did, it would more likely be a vague musing to mention in passing in this diary, rather than something to publish on my permanent website as a Serious Essay intended to attract ongoing widespread interest.)

But it struck me as particularly strange that someone might feel their understanding of me as a person was noticeably incomplete without knowing my religion. I mean, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find there are people whose religion is responsible for significant aspects of their personality (e.g. if their personality changed noticeably when they converted). And I certainly know there are people who at least believe their religion is the most important thing about them: I occasionally come across LJ bios saying faintly nauseating things like ‘The most important fact about me is that I love God’, or ‘I'm a Fooist, and once you know that, you know everything you need to about me’. (My general feeling tends to be that if they say everything else about them is even less interesting than their religion, I'm willing to take their word for it.)

But it's always seemed to me that such people are a small minority: for the most part I wouldn't have said there was any particularly noticeable divide of personality between the various theists and atheists I know. So when I meet somebody new, I've never felt a particular need to know about their religion, beyond finding out whether or not they're the sort of person who makes an overwhelmingly big deal of it. Sometimes I've managed to know people for years before finding out that they've been a devout Fooist all along and I'd never known – and once I've blinked a couple of times, it generally alters my attitude to them not one jot.

Am I unusual in this? Does anyone else round here feel that their understanding of someone's personality is necessarily (or even usually) incomplete without some knowledge of their attitude to religion?

LinkReply
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:00
Was this somebody you know, or a random stranger?
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontMon 2008-08-18 14:02
Random stranger. (Sorry, I meant to make that clearer than I did. Most common writing error in the world is to forget that the audience doesn't already know everything you know...)
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:17
I think he is trying to do the internet equivalent of door-to-door evangelism...rather than a typical sample of what he might say to people in general I think he is doing it as his job or what have you. Like, "I see you have not yet removed a clubcard from your wallet. Do you have one? We have these leaflets, all you have to fill in is your bank account details, address, mother's maiden name, IP address and political alleigance..."
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-08-19 13:20
Since several people have speculated as to his motives: he turned out to be an atheist himself, and apart from very tentatively wondering if the cause of general rationalism might be advanced by people like me being willing to declare atheism publicly, he mostly just seemed to want to chat about it.

(I'm posting this same response at about five places in the comments to this post. Suddenly I wish LJ had a means of re-merging lots of branches of a threaded discussion in some way...)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:03
I think I agree with you. I don't generally care what religion or belief someone follows as long as they're a good and interesting person. Obviously I don't think religion is a taboo subject not to be talked about at the dinner table (I wouldn't work where I do if so!), but as long as someone's not claiming to be better than me simply because they have 'faith' in the existence and/or benevolent guidance of a particular god or gods, I have no gripes.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontMon 2008-08-18 14:09
Indeed, I certainly don't object to religion coming up in conversation; I know the religion of many of my friends, and no doubt vice versa, because of that happening. I just don't think there's anything vitally important missing if it doesn't happen to come up.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:17
I agree I would hope it's not the overwhelmingly only aspect of you, but on the other hand, it's one of the things I would naturally expect to know about someone I thought I knew well. It probably tells you about their general beliefs, and is the sort of thing that would come up.

To me, the very strange thing is why he did expect to know anything about your personality. Your website is, surely, to talk about interesting things. If you read it, you may learn something about who you are as a software designer and a little about who you are as a mathematician. Why should anyone need to know anything about you personally, unless you happen to feel you want to talk about it?
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontMon 2008-08-18 14:20
Well, there is an "about me" page on there, which is vaguely intended to give people some idea of what I'm like as a person in case they want to know. (It could do with some serious rewriting, admittedly.) So if one were to think that religion was a vitally important thing to know about somebody, it wouldn't seem completely unreasonable for one to be surprised that my "about me" page is silent on the subject.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:38
Yeah, that would make sense. In fact, I think it would fit perfectly well in the "about you" page, but by no means be necessary.

I get the feeling this correspondent suspects he knows your religious inclination and wants to talk about it for some reason, but don't know why.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] gjm11.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 19:36
FWIW I have the same reaction. More specifically, I suspect that he wants to be rude about atheism at Simon but doesn't feel that he can do so until he's got an actual admission of atheism from him, and that he is slightly resentful that he hasn't :-).
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comTue 2008-08-19 12:53
Yeah, that sounds likely. I think livredor described it best. (Although I'll offer 5-1 on the reverse evangelism from a militant atheist who wants to be rude at Simon for being religious :))
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-08-19 13:20
Since several people have speculated as to his motives: he turned out to be an atheist himself, and apart from very tentatively wondering if the cause of general rationalism might be advanced by people like me being willing to declare atheism publicly, he mostly just seemed to want to chat about it.

(I'm posting this same response at about five places in the comments to this post. Suddenly I wish LJ had a means of re-merging lots of branches of a threaded discussion in some way...)
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comTue 2008-08-19 13:29
Ah, that's interesting. Thank you for following up (I was going to ask if anything further happened, but expected the conversation would likely fizzle). Maybe we are too cynical, it's strange, but seems fairly nice.

Suddenly I wish LJ had a means of re-merging lots of branches of a threaded discussion in some way...)

Yeah, I'll definitely put that on the list for LJ/news 2.0 :) The feature I had envisaged was to be able to cross-post or flag a comment as if it were a rely to another post/comment, so you can (a) make a comment and say "Hey, X, you might be interested", (b) reply to several comments as one (c) make a post that's also a reply to a previous post, so people who have both on the friends list see one post about a meme, and several more as replies, but anyone with only the second on the friendslist see that as the post, with further as replies. (In some ways merging blogs back into threads, newsgroups and messageboards?)

I think the currently accepted method is to post the full comment once, and then make a shorter comment to other people (or the same comment, then delete it), so all the further replies go to that comment.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.comTue 2008-08-19 13:34
I've seen people do it by making a whole new post about the outcome of whatever they were discussing in their previous post.

Th downside of your way is that it means that people who are stalking the thread get five copies of the follow-up in their email.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-08-19 13:20
Since several people have speculated as to his motives: he turned out to be an atheist himself, and apart from very tentatively wondering if the cause of general rationalism might be advanced by people like me being willing to declare atheism publicly, he mostly just seemed to want to chat about it.

(I'm posting this same response at about five places in the comments to this post. Suddenly I wish LJ had a means of re-merging lots of branches of a threaded discussion in some way...)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] uisgebeatha.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:24
Personally, I've always thought wanting to know someone's religion or political leanings smacks of rudeness, and is the sort of conversation which if started by a stranger, I walk away from. But I realise that's a minority view...;)
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:24
Am I unusual in this? Does anyone else round here feel that their understanding of someone's personality is necessarily (or even usually) incomplete without some knowledge of their attitude to religion?

I think I feel something like that. I will have a go at explaining why, but it might not make much sense.

If you look for evidence for the existence of God there isn't really any, and I think that how you deal with that fact forms a major part of your personality. Accordingly, I divide people into three groups:

1) People who disagree with that (in my opinion, these people are mistaken, so I tend to see them as not being very good at thinking, or not having bothered to have thought about it very much).
2) People who accept this as a fact and do not see any reason to go beyond it, so call themselves atheists (or agnostics if they want to emphasize the fact that if any evidence did turn up they'd be open to hearing about it)
3) People who think one's approach to God needs to be radically different from one's approach to finding out about phenomena that exist in the universe, so think it's true but at least partially irrelevant that there's no convincing evidence for God's existance.

I divide 3 into 3a (people to whom this comes naturally, who are a bit like 1s) and 3b (people for whom this is a struggle, who are a bit like 2s).

[Edit: when I think about it, perhaps there's also a 1a and a 1b: 1as think there's evidence they can communicate to other people which makes it significantly more likely than not that God exists; 1bs think their personal experience of God makes it more likely than not that he exists, but acknowledge there's no reason why anyone else should believe on this basis.]

I'm a 3b, so feel an affinity towards other 3bs. I like and admire 3as and sort of want to learn from them and be like them, but also worry that they're woolly thinkers and no different from 1s, who I rather look down on sometimes, though I'm comfortable about talking about religion with them and indeed find it relaxing and refreshing and delightful [particularly if they're 1bs]. Most of my close friends are 2s, and I like them, and feel an affinity towards them, but sometimes feel uncomfortable discussing religion with them.

More relevantly to your post, I think that which line you take has an effect on the way you see the entire world, which is why I think it's an important part of 'personality'. Though more strictly, perhaps I'm really talking about peoples' attitude towards reason (which will lead to particular religious beliefs) as the thing that's important to personality, but asking questions about religion is quite a good shortcut to finding out what that attitude is, since not everyone thinks within the same terms of reference.

[Disclaimer: I currently think this is the way I see things, but I did just make the tripartite division up off the top of my head, and might find I don't think like that tomorrow.]
Link Reply to this | Thread
[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:54
People who disagree with that (in my opinion, these people are mistaken, so I tend to see them as not being very good at thinking, or not having bothered to have thought about it very much).

Isn't that a bit harsh? I happen to agree with your basic premise (I think I'm a "3b" too), but I don't want to write off all the people who do perceive such evidence as unthinking. Some of them are people I know well and who do seem to be very good at thinking.

I tend to reckon that the evidence is obvious to some people and not others, just like music or maths or whatever come naturally to some people and not others. And most of the people who don't see it are atheists, but some aren't, like you and me.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 15:29
I don't see 'tending to see someone' in a particular way as very similar to 'writing them off'.

For a start, writing someone off is a conscious decision, whereas 'tending to see' them in a particular way isn't something I can really help, though of course I have a choice about how I act on my tendencies, and I definitely try to act on them by telling myself that there's a valid argument that there are many kinds of thinking and they might be good at others.

My head is always far kinder than my heart.

Secondly, writing someone off is very strong and absolute, whereas 'tending to see them' in one way doesn't preclude having other, opposite tendencies, though obviously it implies these are weaker.

Similarly, I don't see 'being unthinking' as the same as 'not being very good at thinking'. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said 'not being very good at at least certain types of thinking' though, if that helps.

I also think that people who are bad at maths are not very good at at leat certain types of thinking. Music is more complicated, because it involves lots of skills, some of which aren't much to do with thinking.

Though reading your last paragraph again, I think I might have misread it when I wrote my previous one. I really think there's no 'evidence' for the existence of God that doesn't have very solid arguments against it, and the solidity of these arguments isn't just a matter of opinion. I suspect many people are willfully deceiving themselves if they see it any other way. In fact, I'm pretty sure I used to do the same myself, and I also have a friend who has just stopped believing in God who said he did the same when he was a Christian.

Furthermore, I think that acknowledging the fact that there is no convincing evidence is a vital first step in persuading atheists to consider stopping being atheists,* and as such it's probably quite an important thing for Christians to understand if they're going to be effective evangelists.

(I say probably, because obviously people *are* convinced on the basis of supposed 'evidence', but that, being untrue, always seems to me like a very shaky basis for understanding Truth.)


* Note for passing atheists. I have plenty of atheists in my life who are interested in talking about this with me and who start the conversations all by themselves, and they've filled all the slots in the 'making disciples of all nations' part of my timetable. This means you're not really in any danger of me trying to start an unsolicited Serious Chat about Jesus with you.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 15:46
I don't see 'tending to see someone' in a particular way as very similar to 'writing them off'.
OK, fair enough; sorry for over-interpreting what you wrote.

I also think that people who are bad at maths are not very good at at leat certain types of thinking.
Yes, but I was using mathematical and musical ability as analogies for seeing the evidence, not as analogies for not seeing it. I'm raising the possibility that you and I are the innumerate or tone-deaf or colour-blind ones, and that the thing which other people can see and we can't might be real, rather than a delusion on their part. I try to remain open to that possibility.

Furthermore, I think that acknowledging the fact that there is no convincing evidence is a vital first step in persuading atheists to consider stopping being atheists
Doesn't work that way for everyone - I had an atheist friend who I tried to talk to about choosing to believe, and about faith being more about allegiance than intellectual assent, and about choosing to be on Aslan's side even if there isn't an Aslan to lead it; and he's now a type-1 Christian, convinced the evidence is there for anyone to see.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 16:27
I'm raising the possibility that you and I are the innumerate or tone-deaf or colour-blind ones, and that the thing which other people can see and we can't might be real, rather than a delusion on their part.

But I don't think an innumerate person would be able to articulate why mathematics as we understand it doesn't work (because it does!) or a tone-deaf person why all notes are actually the same (because they're not!), or a colour-blind person that there's no physical difference between red and green paint (because there is!)

However, I have never seen an attempt to prove God's existence where the 'evidence' offered can't be attributed to a cause other than God with more probability than it can be attributed to God. Richard Dawkins is rather good at articulating specific examples of how this can be done. I contend there's a good reason why there isn't a Richard Dawkins of colour-blind people writing books called The Colour Delusion!

In response to your last point, this is what I was getting at in the last paragraph of my previous comment, the one in brackets. What I said only applies to Type 2s (of course you get other sorts of atheist), and to really quite intelligent ones. And there probably *are* super-intelligent Type 2s who turn into Type 1s - if you say your friend is one I believe you - I just think they're rare.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 21:19
And there probably *are* super-intelligent Type 2s who turn into Type 1s - if you say your friend is one I believe you - I just think they're rare.
I'm definitely not super intelligent.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 21:22
... he's now a type-1 Christian, convinced the evidence is there for anyone to see.
Kind of... I think people are blinded / biased such that they won't accept that belief in Christianity is reasonable (if not absolutely certain). I think that revelation from God is generally required to bridge the gap from there to proper belief.

I think I'd classify myself as being partly a type 1 person and partly a type 3 person.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] simontMon 2008-08-18 15:10
That's a really interesting response, thank you!

I can certainly see that someone's attitude to reason might be an important thing, in principle. However, my general impression is that it's less important in practice than it looks: even people who speak strongly against reason being the be-all and end-all in spheres like religion don't (in my experience) seem to let that affect their willingness to be basically, well, reasonable in any tangible real-world matter. To take an extreme example, one doesn't tend to see the ignore-reason-and-follow-your-heart type of theist crossing roads without looking on the basis that God will protect them; put them in a practical situation like that and they'll look both ways just like anyone else.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 15:56
Having Serious Conversations About Issues is something I enjoy - I guess it's a sort of hobby of mine, so I tend to seek out the company of people who are good at them, and perhaps this makes attitude towards reason something I'm more concerned about as a personality trait than average people are.

Although your extreme example is clearly false, I have plenty of friends who think that alternative medicine is better than clinically proven medicine, and I don't doubt that if it wasn't for the fact that in this country conventional medicine is free and alternative medicine practioners are (thankfully) good about telling people not to eschew the normal kind, that they would choose it even in situations when it could be as dangerous as crossing the road without looking.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] simontMon 2008-08-18 15:24
Also, this 3b-versus-2 division is reminding me that I was curious about a thing you wrote on your own LJ a couple of months back, in which you said (unless I misunderstood) that even when you didn't believe in God you thought it was important to try to believe in God. And I wondered, hang on, why would you think it was important to try to believe in God, if not because you thought he was there to be believed in? (Discounting the possibility that your primary purpose was that you thought the belief would have desirable real-world side effects, on the grounds that I'm fairly sure you'd have said that if it had been what you'd meant.) In other words, must that thought of yours not spring from some sort of meta-"belief" you have at some level even if some other level of your belief was currently missing? I'm fairly sure it would have to if it were me, and I now find myself wondering whether that incomprehension on my part is typical of a type-2 rather than a 3.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] simontMon 2008-08-18 15:27
Oops. I've screened the second comment I just posted in response to this, because I suddenly realised it was repeating things you said in a friends-locked post. Sorry about that. I won't unscreen it unless you say you don't mind.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 15:35
Feel free to unscreen.

The best attempt I've had at explaining it so far is here (http://wildeabandon.livejournal.com/213154.html?thread=2450338#t2450338).

Also, I think there's quite a large chance I'm so much happier as a Christian than as an atheist, and also make other people happier, that I'd rather delude myself.

And thirdly, I think the common arguments why Pascal's Wager is wrong are stupid, so I see no reason not to follow it. I do plan to write about this in my lj at some point, but don't have the time now.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 21:24
And thirdly, I think the common arguments why Pascal's Wager is wrong are stupid, so I see no reason not to follow it. I do plan to write about this in my lj at some point, but don't have the time now.
I look forward to this post.
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.comTue 2008-08-19 13:37
I'm interested too at some point -- there seem to be so many arguments against Pascal's wager, (expressed much more amusingly to people who ever studied measure theory in probability). I think the confusion often comes because people arguing against Pascal's Wager assume God-as-commonly-understood is clearly untenable, and is no more likely that any other, hypothetical, belief system (in which case I don't think Pascal's Wager does make sense); whereas people arguing for imagine that God-as-commonly-understood, along with a relatively small number of other options, are the only plausible choices (in which case, Pascal's Wager does make sense).
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 16:15
I would put myself into category (1) in thinking that god and the universe are the same thing, so in the existence of the universe we have proof that god exists. However, I hope that I am neither spiritually stupid nor lazy-minded, or everybody else must have found extra hours in the day in which to think about it, and I would like to use them too.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] the-alchemist.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 16:31
I was using the word 'God' in a lazy way, to refer to the kind of thing that Muslims, Christians and Jews worship. What I said largely applies to polytheists too, but not pantheists. I apologise for sloppy writing.

(Also, I find it really annoying that the English language isn't better at distinguishing these things.)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] gjm11.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 19:34
Doesn't that just change the question from "what evidence is there for and against the existence of God?" to "what evidence is there for and against the idea that God and the universe are the same thing?"?

I mean, I could declare that my laptop and Bigfoot are the same thing, and of course I have good evidence for the existence of my laptop; but that wouldn't really make it reasonable for me to do what everyone else calls "believing in Bigfoot".

In general, I'm very very suspicious about anything that amounts to a claim to have resolved a notoriously difficult or controversial question *by definition*.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[identity profile] feanelwa.livejournal.comWed 2008-08-20 10:40
Your laptop does not stomp around the mountains
I think I'm addressing a different question, rather than resolving a hard one. I don't think I would be able to resolve the question of "the Bible professes to describe God and what he wants, but a lot of it makes no sense and there is no proof either way so what should we do?" - to me it looks a lot like somebody trying to push water up a hill because they think God told them to, instead of looking at it and saying "gravity, fluid mechanics, how does that work?".
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 14:30
Does anyone else round here feel that their understanding of someone's personality is necessarily (or even usually) incomplete without some knowledge of their attitude to religion?

ObPedant: Yes. In that my knowledge of anyone's personality, even my own, is invariably incomplete, inconsistent and full of mistakes. Therefore it is trivially true that if I don't know someone's religion, I don't fully understand them.

That said, knowing someone's religion adds surprisingly little to my understanding of them. The way they approach their religion, maybe, but the datum that goes on the census form is surprisingly uninformative.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] hilarityallen.livejournal.comMon 2008-08-18 15:00
I wouldn't nesc. make a big fuss about knowing it. However, if you know that someone is a strict Jew or a strict Muslim, then you already know a useful set of things about them, namely, that having a dinner party and serving them meat is problematic, and that you needn't offer your Muslim guest your Chateau Yquem wine. For most intelligent people, there will be areas where their opinions differ from the hard line laid down by their faith, so you don't actually know all about them, just because you know they are a Fooist. (For those that say Fooism is the most interesting thing about them, then you probably do know all their opinions on certain subjects, because they are probably strict Fooists and haven't bothered to make their own opinions.)
Link Reply to this
[personal profile] livMon 2008-08-18 19:47
Having been subjected to a lot of them in my time, I'm pretty sure that's a standard evangelistic opening gambit, not a sincere request. It's the missionary equivalent of asking someone, so, do you come here often? You don't care whether they come here often, you just want to get them talking so you can present your brilliantly persuasive argument why they should sleep with you.

I think that religion is an interesting thing about people who are intensely religious, and indeed can be an interesting thing about committed atheists. But any consuming passion is interesting; there are plenty of people who don't have religious or anti-religious beliefs at the core of their identity, so I wouldn't assume it was something I always need to know.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontTue 2008-08-19 13:20
Since several people have speculated as to his motives: he turned out to be an atheist himself, and apart from very tentatively wondering if the cause of general rationalism might be advanced by people like me being willing to declare atheism publicly, he mostly just seemed to want to chat about it.

(I'm posting this same response at about five places in the comments to this post. Suddenly I wish LJ had a means of re-merging lots of branches of a threaded discussion in some way...)
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] darcydodoTue 2008-08-19 16:21
I think more that when I find out that religion plays a major role in someone's life, then it potentially alters my understanding of their personality. Probably because most of my friends are either a-religious or anti-religious — but that's my standard assumption, therefore, when I meet anyone at all, even though I don't actually think about it. So finding out that someone's devoutly X doesn't necessarily change my attitude towards them, but it does reveal a facet of them that I've been missing.

So I'm not sure that this is actually any different from your own reaction. :)
Link Reply to this
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]