Santorum spreads stupidly

So, it’s no secret that I despise people like Rick Santorum. I mean, the guy is pretty clueless, homophobic (but I repeat myself!), and the couple of times I met him he creeped me out as few have. He’s smarmy, slimy, and pretty consistently socially conservative.

I’ll give him credit for at least being pretty consistent (in today’s political climate, that actually is a virtue), and being conservative is not necessarily bad in itself…right?

So, in reading a post on Friendly Atheist today about a speech Rick Santorum recently gave, I bumped into a quote by the man himself that went as such:

I always say that if your faith is true and your reason is right, you’ll end up at the same place. Why? Well because God created us, created the universe, created reason. And, of course, why would God create something where your faith would bring you one place and your reason would bring you another if your faith is true? Right? [Scattered applause.]

I also believe as a public official that you have a right to speak to people of faith and no faith. You have to present a reason why you want to advance a certain public policy. Not just because, “that’s what my faith teaches me and that’s why I believe it.” That’s fine, but from the standpoint of public policy, it’s insufficient, because you need to appeal to people who may not share your faith.

That is actually quite an interesting idea. I think I agree…with Rick Santorum.

Of course, he goes the opposite direction as I do with how we implement this idea, but at least he recognizes that if reason goes a different direction than his faith, there is a problem. Also, many people seem to believe that their faith is sufficient for implementing policy. You would be surprised (or not, if you have been around religion enough) how uncommon that point of view is.

So, I don’t want to address specifically what he says about public policy and religion per se. I just want to say a few words about the relationship between faith and reason, and perhaps a few things about intelligence and conservatism.

I don’t think Rick Santorum is stupid. I also don’t think he’s particularly intelligent, enlightened, or has a good grasp of sufficient perspective in order to be a good leader for either the United States or any group of people. His views on Islam are pretty extreme (which is fine; so are mine I suppose), but he seems to fail to recognize that much of what he says about Islam could be said about Judaism and Christianity.

I don’t know specifically what his “reasons” are about Christianity, nor how he meshes reason with his faith, but it is clear that he disagrees with me about how religion and faith relate. Where I see them at necessary odds, he seems to think that reason and faith do lead to the same conclusions (or at least can do so) as he is a practicing Christian who said the first paragraph above, where he implies that reason is a good tool to employ.

I am skeptical at his ability to think critically, as well as many of the other conservative candidates, and I wonder whether the vast majority of his fans are not, well, complete idiots. The ones I have talked to seem to be just that, despite my desire to believe that most people are basically smart if not misguided and ignorant. Sure, I’m sure a few fairly intelligent and educated people like him, but they seem to be an exception rather than the rule.

So, what of intelligence and political conservatism? I mean, there has been some talk of it recently (here is a quick post by a colleague of mine about the recent studies hitting the news), and if there is any legitimacy to the idea that bigotry, low intelligence, and right wing politics are significantly linked then, well, should liberals use this? Is it truly arrogant to think of ourselves as better educated, intelligent, and therefore more likely to have better opinions if we are liberal-leaning skeptics who know something about critical thinking?

Or is it just more ammunition for people calling us arrogant jerks?

Personally, I don’t care if people think me arrogant. If I’m wrong, demonstrate that I am wrong and I’ll try and change my views accordingly. But in conversations with racists, libertarians, and conservative theists over the years I have found myself feeling smarter, better educated, and better informed than my interlocutors. Is this bias or is it something different? Is it a little bias, but mostly difference in intellect and education?

I just don’t know. And if Hamby is right in saying that

When the science demonstrates that liberals are in fact more intelligent and tolerant, they sheepishly retreat to their labs, unwilling to publicly admit the characteristics that made them skeptic scientists in the first place, and virtually unmovable in their refusal to admit the logic demanding more intelligent liberals in office. Far from a “liberal conspiracy” to take over the country, there is arguably an unspoken agreement to cover up the growing body of evidence that there is a scientific difference between the parties. It’s far too boorish and elitist to point to our own studies demonstrating how smart we are.

well, then perhaps we liberal-minded skeptics should not be quiet about feeling smarter than bigoted conservatives, right? I mean, if it is true that conservatives simply think themselves superior (due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps) and so they barge through our culture with ignorant and simplistic ideas which do damage while cautious skeptics sheepishly pull back, unsure of our own adeptness, then this spells disaster for our culture.

It means that the truly intelligent and capable people tend to be self-critical and shy while less capable and less intelligent people charge through the world leaving destruction and stupidity in their path. Destroying educational institutions, insisting upon their privileged religious worldviews, and calling any skepticism of their power, authority, or conclusions oppression, lack of patriotism, or treason. What a nightmare!

If all this is true (and it is indeed a colorful example of liberal porn), then it amounts to a real problem for our political landscape for many years to come.

All I can say is that I hope that this view is not accurate. I hope this is but pure fear-mongering, hyperbole, and another example of the polarity of our political climate gone mad.

But if it’s true, that uncertainty above is just another intelligent, educated, and capable liberal pulling back rather than trudging forward in the fight against the dangers of conservative politics.

My head hurts. I’m going to go read some Nietzsche or something….

On accidentally coinciding anniversaries and possible futures

So, today is Darwin Day. That is, on this date in 1809 Charles Darwin was born, and so every February 12h many scientifically-minded people, including many in the skeptical and atheist community, celebrate the life and works of this man. And while I have some reservations about elevating Darwin to some quasi sainthood, which seems (Perhaps unconsciously) implicit in doing such, I am glad to have a day to remember the extremely important impact of his ideas on our view of the world. In many ways, evolution and the mechanisms which underlie it were a serious blow to the explanatory role of theology, which lays sick and holding dearly onto life as we speak.

Well, many of us know its already really dead, and merely being propped up and puppeted—poorly!—by those still intoxicated on the putrid fumes of theology.

But I allowing myself to be distracted. See, there was something else I intended to talk about today…. Oh, right!

Happy 3rd anniversary to this blog!

That’s right, folks! On February 12th 2009 (which was the 150th anniversary year of The Origin of Species, as well as Darwin’s 200th birthday!), I posted my first words on this blog.

And since then much has changed. I have gone through some pretty awful times, lived in Atlanta for a while, had some more awful times, and then met my future wife before moving back to Philadelphia. I have covered topics as wide ranged as the history of religion, commentary on culture and atheism, polyamory, sex, and (of course) philosophy. I doubt that will change much, but I will talk briefly about what kinds of things I have been thinking about recently which will turn into blog posts in the future.

In the next year, I want to start focusing on what I see as an interesting phenomenon from my point of view. See, I have been part of the atheist community for about 10 years now. I know many people within it (although many of the newer and younger contributors have slipped by me since I have not been financially secure enough to go to any conventions recently), and I follow what is talked about in the bloggosphere (I read like 30 blogs), on youtube, and behind the scenes much more than I talk about here. In many cases, I don’t comment on issues that arise because others are already doing so. So, for example, when the kerfuffle with the Amazing Atheist came up recently, I sat back and watched others tear him to pieces (I always thought he was a douche bag though).

But one thing I have been noticing recently is that the struggle that the atheist community has been through, the relative attention it is now receiving, is something that those in the polyamory community will have to deal with in the future…probably. I have already seen pieces of this recently, both in my writing and elsewhere. Many of the same cognitive biases, types of arguments, etc which atheists have long (and repeatedly) responded to from theists or their accommodaters, I sometimes see in response to polyamory–even from skeptics! There are exceptions (JT Eberhard, for example), but in my opinion if sexuality, relationships, and our emotional issues surrounding them were to receive the same skeptical treatment that religion has, more people would not only be accepting of polyamory, but they would internalize many of the lessons it has to teach. This does not mean everyone would (or even should) become polyamorous, but it should mean that the unhealthy, sex-negative, cheating over sharing mentality of our culture would decrease, even if many people would still find themselves content and happy while being actively monogamous.

I want to create a rhetorical platform for polyamory. I want to foresee the social implications of its collision with mainstream culture, anticipate the reactions from people of all kinds (the conservative Christians will have a field day saying “see, told you! We allowed homosexuality and now this!”), and use what I have learned from the atheist community to help people understand polyamory (much like how Greta Christina taught us how the atheist community could learn from the gay community).

But more broadly, I want to start connecting the dots between skepticism, sexuality, and the default status of exclusivity in our culture. I want people to be more educated about their sexuality, emotional issues related to it, and about better ways to communicate with people around them. I want people to have what they want without hurting other people to get it. I want the monogamous and cheating culture to gradually transform into a culture which values sharing ourselves as emotionally mature and authentic people.

Yeah, I’m an idealist. Sue me.

So, I’m probably not going to get all of that, I know. But perhaps we can make some inroads, create a few more skeptics in the world, and bring to light the related issues of both religious belief and sexuality. And maybe, before I die at a ripe old age after a happy life with people I love, I can see a world where cheating is not seen by most as morally preferable to sharing.

Oh, and no religion too!

So, here’s to another year, and thanks for reading, everyone!

Lies, deception, and default monogamy

We lie to ourselves quite frequently, us humans. We have the ability to conceal cognitive dissonance from our awareness in ways which are quite staggering, whether with the incoherence between religion and skeptical thinking or between our actual desires we have deep down and the way we actually live. Those internal lies expand into lies to others, ultimately, and create unhealthy relationships. It is better, I think, to explore all of our desires, share them, and (when possible) have them.

Now, there are obviously people out there that don’t lie to themselves or others in this way. These people truly explore what they want, are honest about those things, and have largely happy lives. Sure, they may sacrifice some temporary or insignificant desires in order to have what is more important, but generally they live their lives as they want to. And such people live lives of many varieties, including monogamy, asexuality, and the varieties of non-monogamous lifestyles. I want it to be out of the way at the beginning that my argument here is NOT that honesty and authenticity necessarily lead to polyamory, because that is quite obviously not true.

My argument is that if more people were honest with themselves and with other people, more people may be polyamorous (perhaps), but certainly more people would have healthy relationships however those relationships are structured. And as another side of this coin, I think that many people usually end up attempting monogamy because they are not being honest with themselves or their partner(s).

I am willing to wager that a significant percentage of people entering into an exclusive relationship are doing so by default or in the name of pragmatism. They either have no conception of other realistic options, don’t think they will meet anyone who will want those other options, or don’t think they could actually do it themselves.

So they lie to themselves that they can be happy being exclusive, and don’t even mention this as a sacrifice to their potential partners (because it offends the monogamous morale to do so). It becomes a background which is rarely openly discussed, and so monogamy is attained without as much as a conversation. That’s what it means for monogamy to be the cultural default; it’s never decided upon, it just happens because that discussion of other options is too likely to cause discomfort or even termination of a potentially good relationship.

And what happens so very often? Cheating, or at least thoughts about cheating which lead to resentment and damage to the relationship (because they don’t talk about those thoughts), which often leads to a monotonous life with sparks of fun here and there. It leads, essentially, to a life not lived fully or authentically. It leads to having unexplored desires, unexplored because many of our desires are not compatible with the fairy-tale of finding “the one” and being “Happy ever-after.”

Yes, I am the Anti-Disney.

There are expectations built into our culture which nudge us towards a largely unrealistic way of living which is not coherent with the desires that humans tend to have. We rationalize our decisions to seek exclusivity as a sacrifice towards loftier goals, because those other desires are somehow wrong, destructive, or simply unrealistic. But over the years we still flirt, fantasize, and sometimes go for that hot piece of ass anyway. And rather find a new potential partner, lover, and friend we destroy relationships and cause harm where harm is not necessary if we were just honest with what we wanted.

We are human beings with complex desires which do not fit neatly into the boxes our culture often finds acceptable. And yet these boxes are so resilient and popular. These ideals and goals that people seek in our culture are just so, well, silly. And when they are challenged (by freaks like me) those same ideals becomes so, well, sacred.

I guess it’s no surprise that I find sacred things silly.

And in a way, the word sacred is not stretching the term too much. It is pretty clear that the role of religion in these cultural ideas about relationships is significant, but even insofar as these ideas have become secular, they are coveted and central to much of our lives in a way which is at least analogous to sacredness.

And it’s all because we ignore our real desires, pretend that they will not affect our relationships, and invest in relationships which do not match what we really want. All because we don’t honestly explore and talk about what we really want, all too often. And when those chickens come home to roost, we find that our desires destroy the sham relationships we have constructed.

A relationship built upon lies cannot stand forever. And wherein it does stand, it will not provide happy shelter for very long. Relationships are hard, and they are not made easier by attempting to live a life which does not match our desires. No one person can fulfill all of our needs and wants all the time, and it is irrational to allow our fears, insecurities, and jealousies to prevent us from having what we want.

So if you do want other people in your life, why would you pretend otherwise? Yes, sacrifice of small, insignificant, and temporary desires is healthy for a relationship, but when that sacrifice is something which perpetuates, festers, and creates (often silent) resentment…well that’s not healthy.

Polyamory is an option for relationships for people who genuinely still care about each other but simply desire something more. Do not allow the expectations of culture, religion, or your own acculturation to limit your imagination to the small, parochial boxes of exclusivity and fairy-tale love. Be honest with yourself, with those closest to you, and through work and courage to overcome your own fears and insecurities you can have whatever you want in this short, potentially wonderful, life.

We need a world of adults who are willing to challenge themselves and their worldviews. Because only with such people can we make the world and the lives of individuals better.

Borderline

I don’t talk about everything about myself on this blog. I try to keep it pretty focused on skepticism, polyamory, and religion. But there are certainly more things about me than this.

Recently I wrote about my struggling with Borderline Personality Disorder, and the post went up today at this new blog which I have been following about Mental Health issues in the secular community.

Here is a link to my post.

Today’s rant: “that’s just semantics”

One of my biggest pet peeves goes something like this.

While talking about some complicated issue (like free will, for example), one participant makes some distinctions between words and ideas in order to elucidate some important points in the conversation.

They do so usually in response to a comment which either confuses two uses of a word, brings to mind a conceptual distinction, or otherwise indicates a bifurcation of ideas which are relevant to the conversation.

So, you articulate the relevant distinctions in order to clarify the various positions, uses, etc. And then someone (often the person responded to) says “that’s just semantics.”

Well of course it is! It does have to do with the definition or use of a term. It is indeed hair-splitting of terms and ideas. That is precisely what making fine distinctions in order to elucidate idea is about, and pointing it out is nothing but demonstrating that you are not really capable or interested in fully participating the discussion being had.

This comes up when I talk about what atheism is, especially in comparison with agnosticism. But is happens quite frequently, and it annoys the fuck out of me.

/rant

A conversation about paganism, monotheism, and science

For anyone who is interested, I am having a conversation with another (Pagan) blogger about the relationship between science and religion.

It was in response to some comments made by him about the recent video about loving Jesus and hating religion. The post is entitled Why I Like Religion (But Hate Jesus), and it is an idea I have heard before from people many times (it is even and idea I used to espouse) and which which I have a little sympathy. Very little.

I don’t often talk with pagans about religion and science, mostly because I don’t run into many, but find it a different environment for discussion than talking with Christians, Jews, or Moslems.

If you are interested in the discussion, you can find it in the comments here.

I love Mr. Deity

…and so should you. If you are not yet familiar with the show (what have you been doing? living outside the atheist community?) then you should catch up here.

And if you are aware of it, are you aware that the first episode of season 5 just came out?

Here it is!

Now, I have enjoyed the show very much over the last few years, but since I have not been financially secure for much of that I have not been able to support the show. I am about to change that, and I urge you to do the same.

Click here to donate to Mr. Deity in any way you can. We need to support talent where it is, so that it can reach larger audiences.

Polyamory, self-improvement, and mainstream conservatism (oh my!)

I was pexting (poly texting. Alternate ‘ptexting’. All rights reserved. That’s right folks, I share partners but not patented phrases) with Gina earlier and we started talking about how being in the relationships she is in is providing motivation to be a better person.

Specifically, she was talking about how awesome I am by saying…well, I will let her own words express it:

I know…becoming addicted to you has resulted in me becoming more responsible, more organized and more committed to a positive lifestyle.

And I was all like, that’s awesome. I like being with people who are into self-improvement and all that stuff. And I appreciate how being with her has a similar influence on me. She and Ginny, together and individually, inspire me to persist in my own project to grow and mature further.

She capped it off by saying

My love for you makes me do dishes

Hot!

See, for those of you that don’t know me well, I’m a bit on the tidy side. I’m not crazy about it, I just do dishes after cooking (the vast majority of the time), put away clothes rather than letting them stay on the floor etc, and do things like organize my various objects. The other people in our little polycule (I can’t claim that term as my own invention), not so much.

But that has improved, largely due to my influence as well as their genuine desire to make me a part of their lives. You see, I clean because to be around significant clutter makes me viscerally uncomfortable and anxious, which they know about me. And because they want me to be calm and relaxed in the space we share, they (often, but not always) make an effort to make themselves more organized.

As demonstrated by these positive attributes, there is a general sense of wanting to actually grow as people among the people in my life. There is a desire to actually improve ourselves intellectually, emotionally, and sexually. It is a result, I believe, of having the right attitudes towards relationships and the world.

These attitudes are not unique to polyamory, of course, nor are all polyamorous people actually good at such things. But in my experience, having these complicated networks of relationships with people of various strengths, weaknesses, and different levels of experiences exponentially increases your own relationship experience and makes it more likly that we will mature faster.

Either that, or like natural selection it will eliminate those who are not capable of such lifestyles and those people will usually return to monogamy because it is easier and less emotionally challenging.

My experience with polyamory has opened me up to people of quality (and some not so quality who have returned to either normality or to unhealthy poly relationships), circumstances of personal challenge, and the freedom to truly be myself in ways that I don’t often see in mainstream culture because of the conservative and restrictive nature of hetero-normative monogamous culture.

In many ways, self-improvement is a progressive trait, even if most ‘progressives’ are too conservative in other ways to see what I see as regressive sex and relationship norms. it’s my belief that the progressives of today will largely be the conventional and mainstream social conservatives of the next few generations. As the current conservatism dies out, it will be replaced with a less crazy mainstream conservatism. As gay marriage becomes mainstream, polyamorous marriage will become radical and eventually progressive, for example. Time will tell if I am right.

But back to today….

Having now surrounded myself with people whom I actually like, as well as a more recent attitude to only spend personal effort with people I think worth the time, means that I will likely find new challenges and see new possibilities for more substantial personal growth.

My polyamorous lifestyle creates motivation to make myself a better person. It has contributed significantly to this effort that is, frankly, invisible to much of the world. When you live in abnormal lifestyles and have abnormal opinions, the abnormality is most of what the world sees, even the friends you have had for years but whom you don’t see every day.

I wish more people could understand what both skepticism and polyamory have done to improve my life. Sadly, most of the people I know and see only rarely have only a superficial understanding of it all, and usually avoid talking with me about much of it.

Its a consequence of being weird, I suppose. So, thank you, weird people in my life, for getting it. May we continue to be weird together.

I am no Islamophobe, I am anti-Islam

There has been a bit in the news over the last week or so about Islam. There was an incident in London recently where a planned meeting was cancelled due to threats by a Moslem with a camera phone, for example (I’m mobile, otherwise I would link that story). And today there is some talk about what Karen Armstrong has said about Islam, one example can be found at Jerry Coyne’s blog website.

A word which is often used in such conversations is Islamophobia. It has been a politically charged word for years now, especially after 9/11, and pops up again with the perpetuation of Islam in the news, especially in the context of violence, oppression of women, and issues surrounding sharia law and secular laws.

A few years ago, for example, the lovely man that is Rick Santorum (gag) came to speak at the University of Pennsylvania (at the Hillel building, if I remember correctly) during some “Islamophobia week” (or something like that) in order to speak about the horrors of Islam and the wonderful alternative of the truly peaceful and wonderful Christianity.

(I threw up a little in my mouth while I typed that)

During the Q&A, I challenged Santorum on this distinction by pointing out that Jeebus (I may have actually said “Jesus” as to not confuse him) and Allah were both the God of Abraham, and by pointing out that the god of Islam was so awful, he was ignoring not only that it is the same basic god concept as JHWH/Jesus, but much of the Bible demonstrates the equality of atrocity of his own god. How could he justify the harsh criticism of Islam given the relatedness to his own god and similar attrocities in his own scripture?

Let’s just say that this question was not received well by Mr. Santorum. He became visibly flustered and angry and both challenged me to argue such a “ridiculous” case while not really allowing me to do so nor answer the question at all. He rejected the premise of the question and called me an idiot or something similar It was pretty much what I expected.

So, back to Islamophobia.

See, I don’t think this is the right word, at least not from my point of view. I am not afraid of Islam. I am concerned what Islam may do if it is allowed to influence policy and law in the West (its influence in the Middle East and elsewhere is already problematic). But I am not afraid of the religion nor its adherents.

What I have is an extreme dislike of Islam, bordering on hate. I find it an ignorance-perpetuating, women-oppressing (men-oppressing, as well), violence-causing, and ultimately dangerous ideology. I hate what it has done to much of the world, creating a repressive and restrictive way of life for millions of people.

It is a faith, much like Christianity, which asks people in the age of technology and science to believe ancient superstition on pain of not mere death, which is infinitely more humane than that which it does offer, but on pain of eternal torture. It is a disgusting and anti-human (anti-life!) ideology not worthy of our reverence nor our tolerance.

Yes, people have the right to be Moslems. And rather than hate them I feel pity for them. It too often makes women into cattle, men into misogynists, and all of us into slaves–Islam means ‘submission’ after all.

So no, Islamophobia is not the right word. We should not fear Islam, we should see it as our enemy. Not in the way that we make war with Moslems (the Ummah), but in the way that we don’t allow its doctrines, superstitions, or laws creep any closer to the rest of the world. The people under Allah’s metaphorical thumb are victims, and those who seek to expand Islam are the most affected by this virus.

I am anti-Islam. I fear it not, so I am no Islamophobe.

Where profession and lifestyle meet

The other day I was watching one of the older and more experienced teachers deal with several 3-year-olds with practiced skill. It occurred to me that the skill of knowing what children are likely to do, how to respond to them in groups, and generally how to work with groups of children has analogues to poly relationship skills.

We, as teachers, can tell a lot about parenting tendencies by watching their children. And it is clear that some parents surely are taking their responsibility with more or less…let’s call it wisdom. And I imagine that many parents might make different decisions if they had more experience with children.

Its not unlike us more experienced polyamorous people watching younger and less experienced people in relationships (whether they are learning about polyamory or are monogamous). We see mistakes, or the seeds of mistakes, arise. If only they had more experience! (And if only we could have the experience we will have, but have it now). We always have more to learn.

I have identified previously the fact that maintaining multiple relationships simultaneously forces you to become better at communicating, dealing with interpersonal and psychological problems, etc. Well, in many ways working in childcare is similar in that it shows you many ways children can behave, and how groups of them illuminates their character as they learn about themselves and the world.

Just like polyamory.

Its hard to hide your inner demons and imperfections in the more difficult circumstances of your partners and their partners interacting in ways that may irk you or make you uncomfortable. And spending a whole day (or weeks!), through garious changes in mood and environment, with children is similarly illuminating.

So, people who have children surely know a lot about their own offspring (hopefully, anyway). But to understand children in general takes experience with groups of them, especially if they all have different home lives from which they draw their worldviews. Similarly, people with one partner know a lot about how to maintain a relationship with that person (again, hopefully). But to be good at relationships, that either requires having had many relationships either serially or in parallel. I have had both.

And, to tie this to religion, having more experience with different ideas about the universe and the supernatural leads you to a perspective where you are able to see the nature of religion and how it interacts with our psychology and society. Knowing more about different religions leads you to start seeing what makes them all-to-human enterprises, rather than divine.

Inexperience leads to perochial perspectives. Diversity in experience leads to a broadening of perspectives. My academic background in religion, culture, and philosophy has lead me to the broader perspective that religion is largely unjustified and harmful. My experience with my own desires and with relationship leads me to the conclusion that monogamy, at least as a natural and default relationship structure, is a deception and a lie of tradition.