So, I have been considering doing this for a while, but today I did it. I have a new domain, or a new URL, or a new web address (depending on your familiarity with internet lingo).
What does this mean to you, dear reader? Well, it means that if you were to link, surf, or otherwise browse to shaunphilly.wordpress.com, you will be re-directed to polyskeptic.com, automatically. But it also means that you can update your links, bookmarks, etc if you like. The blog will still have the same title (although I did change it to Atheist, Polyamorous, Skeptics recently after inviting my fiance to blog here, which she may from time to time).Why did I do this? Well, it’s easier to remember (telling people how I spell my name makes telling people about my blog cumbersome). And if I decide to make a T-shirt to wear taht advertises my blog (with some awesome slogan, of course), I will have an easier domain to print on the back.
“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” [Matthew 15:13-14]
So, I’ve been reading Nietzsche again.
See, I went and got myself a Kindle. And I was getting free copies of all these books I already have (and will be donating many books at some point in the future to make shelf space for…something). And I downloaded a copy of The Antichrist which I have not read in many years. It is a fascinating book that makes many points that would be familiar to many gnu atheists. I have thought more than once of sending a passage to Jerry Coyne, Eric MacDonald, or even PZ Myers because they all have reminds me of things Nietzsche has said in this little book.
So, then the other day, on the way home from work, I read section 32 of said book. Before quoting and commenting, I want to point out that Nietzche does not identify as an atheist*, although his views seem pretty consistent with how the term is used today. I think it is fair to consider him an atheist for the purposes of simple categorization (as if Nietzsche could be easily categorized!) but recognize that he didn’t self-identify with the term.
As an introduction to today’s thought, allow me to make an observation. Many atheist writers, especially ones I read, talk about how Christianity, or theism generally—perhaps merely the concept of faith itself!—is philosophically and even methodologically opposed to basic critical thinking, skepticism, and secularism. There is a real worldview difference between the very religious and the essentially secular culture which surrounds it. Some call it a culture war, and this label is as good as any I suppose, but it is at bottom (one is tempted to say de Bottom) it is a difference of perspectives, whether those at odds see the underlying methodological distinctions or not.
I think part of Nietzsche’s point in section 32 of The Antichrist to point out that the faith of the Christian is incapable of seeing this perspective for what it is—a privileged perspective. But before he can make any such observations, he has a few necessary bushes to beat around. He starts the section with the following:
I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word impérieux, used by Renan, is alone enough to annul the type. What the “glad tidings” tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children; the faith that is voiced here is no more an embattled faith—it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is a sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit. [links obviously not in the original]
Nothing surprising yet. Nietzsche several times observes the child-like attribute of Christian faith, not that this observation should be surprising at all given that this idea is native to the New Testament. For example, in the book of Luke, chapter 18:15-17 (NIV):
“15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” [emphasis mine]
But Nietzsche seems to see a significance to this childishness which I think many gnu atheists either miss, or is no longer largely true. Nietzsche continues:
The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is not furious, it does not de nounce, it does not defend itself: it does not come with “the sword”—it does not realize how it will one day set man against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by rewards and promises, or by “scriptures”: it is itself, first and last, its own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own “kingdom of God.” This faith does not formulate itself—it simply lives, and so guards itself against formulae.
Now, in light of the history of Christianity, the evangelical nature of Christians throughout their history (and no sign of it slowing!), and the various formulas by which sects argue (with atheists and with each other), one might think that Nietzsche is being either naive or ignorant here. But Nietzsche is quite aware of the history and character of Christianity, and seems to be saying such to raise your eyebrows here, in order to set you up.
So, given that he is certainly aware of the objections rising in your mind, let us follow his bread-crumb trail to see where it is leading:
To be sure, the accident of environment, of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: in primitive Christianity one finds only concepts of a Judaeo-Semitic character (—that of eating and drinking at the last supper belongs to this category—an idea which, like everything else Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics[6] an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no work is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse[8]—and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.—With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth. The idea of “life” as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost—in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.—
In writing this, Nietzsche is pulling you in, especially if you are prone to seeing an ecumenical nature to religion. He seems to want to sketch the humanity of Jesus in order to create a larger picture, a larger historical and ideological contrast, of Christianity. Nietzsche here seems to be addressing the character of the ‘Saviour’ as a foil for the church which he sees as degraded and stagnant (“Oh how repulsive is this falsified light, this stake air!”). He is seeing the humanity hidden under ecclesiastical religion, a humanity too-well hidden by the finery of its tattered garb.
Here, Nietzsche the philologist comes through clearly. He is seeing the Gospels as a picture into a life lived by a man who stands prior to the dogmas of the church as they would become. It is here that the liberal believer, the ecumenicalist, and in general the respectable atheist can step up and try to claim Nietzsche as their own, as a representative of those for whom standing up and proclaiming that religion is a part of our humanity (even if it is not true), and we gnu atheists who despise and degrade it (as if it needed our help for that) ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But it’s not quite that simple.
Nietzsche continues:
Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather ecclesiastical prejudices: such a symbolism par excellence stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art—his “wisdom” is precisely a pure ignorance[11] of all such things.
Hermann Hendrich's 'Parsifal'
And it is here we see the first strong glimpse of what Nietzsche is enlightening us to. From a purely formal point of view, Nietzsche’s cloaked criticism of Wagner here (the phrase “pure ignorance” is from Wagner’s Parsifal, which was largely responsible for Nietzsche’s turning into the greatest critic of his former friend) is perhaps an analogy of his criticism that lies beneath it. That is, this cloaked criticism is itself a clue that Nietzsche is not here cuddling up with the Gospels, but is rather creating a caricature, again a foil, of both the Gospel and its subject in contrast to the Christianity which we find ourselves faced with in modernity.
Nietzsche continues:
He has never heard of culture; he doesn’t have to make war on it—he doesn’t even deny it…. The same thing may be said of the state, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war—he has no ground for denying “the world,” for he knows nothing of the ecclesiastical concept of “the world”…. Denial is precisely the thing that is impossible to him.—In the same way he lacks argumentative capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a “truth,” may be established by proofs (—his proofs are inner “lights,” subjective sensations of happiness and self-approval, simple “proofs of power”—). Such a doctrine cannot contradict: it doesn’t know that other doctrines exist, or can exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining anything opposed to it…. If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy—for it alone has “light”—but it does not offer objections….
This observation lies in stark contrast to one of the sharpest criticisms of religion by many new/gnu atheists today; that religion and faith are anti-life, anti-science, and ultimately anti-reality. And while it is true that religion is all of these things, what I think Nietzsche is pointing out here is that this is a perspective that can only be seen from the outside, from one who looks at faith from the outside, and not from the inside of Christian faith.
(Remember, one does not need to have faith to look at it as if from the inside. This is the essence of accomodationism)
The Christian worldview, insofar as it is child-like, is not against the world or its various useful methodologies, technologies, or philosophies; it is unaware of them. A young child does not misbehave because it is against the rules of behavior and social interaction, the child cannot conceive of them yet. The child is just being child-like, yet to become aware of the society in which it is swimming, just like the proverbial fish. In much the same way, one whose entire world is lived within the simplicity of faith, worship, and promised salvation cannot see the conflict inherent with those who do not live with them in that world.
They see the world outside as rejecting this simplicity, and cannot comprehend why those outside would reject it. They see us secularists as the source of the conflict, and whine about persecution and oppression of simply living their lives according to the values (not their values, because that would require awareness of another possible value). They cannot see that their own worldview (if they are even aware that theirs s a worldview!) is in conflict with reality—they have no concept of “reality” as those who are methodologically aligned with science are!
In the end, it is just another privilege. In this case it is a religious privilege which blinds them to their own ignorance—they are ignorant that they are ignorant. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out many times, they are in chains and glad of it. They do not see their imprisonment for what it is, and they act in ways that look like whining children to the rest of us. They demand special privilege, undue respect, and don’t understand why we don’t give it to them.
It’s for the same reason you don’t allow a small child to do whatever it wants. That child has not yet learned to be an adult, and so we protect it and sometimes find it adorable, but we don’t allow it free reign lest it destroy itself and the things we value.
—
*Consider the following:
“God”, “immortality of the soul”, “redemption”, “beyond” — Without exception, concepts to which I have never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!
There should be no doubt that unhealthy relationships exist. Hell, I have been in a few in years past (and I was not always the one at primary fault, even despite my struggles and past failings). And the causes of such relationships are varied and attributable to too many psychological, cultural, and communication-based issues to cover here to any sufficient degree.
But I obviously want to address some of it, right? Otherwise I would not be posting anything. So, a rather cynical and, perhaps, true thought occurred to me this morning while on the subway. The thought immediately brought to mind real potential examples, from acquaintences of mine, of this thought.
What if one of the reasons that many people could not be polyamorous is simply due to the fact that many people are not in love with (and possibly incapable of such a thing) their partner? What if the fact that their partner, spouse, etc is a mere object to them (a trophy, for example) and that they cannot imagine what it would be like to love two or more people openly because they can’t really do it with one?
With some such people, their partner is just a sort-of space-occupier. Yes, this partner has certain attributes which the person likes, but ultimately they are pretty swappable or replaceable And perhaps they go about town being non-exclusive behind their back because, well, sometimes you just want a different flavor. Afterall, when your spouse is from Stepford, what’s the difference, right?
OK, so some of that is pretty extreme and cynical, but not completely useless to us here. So, for the sake of this idea, imagine relationships which are not very deep, open, or are merely primarily shallow or political in nature. What sense could polyamory mean to such people? Relationships for such people are not really about deep and meaningful connections made in an effort to complement ourselves, so what sense would it have to talk about doing more of this?
Such people might comprehend swingers better (which is not to put swingers down; they are not always shallow and scared of sharing intimacy), but their world is not dominated by thoughts or practice of authenticity, honesty, and quality (which is not to say that all poly people are seeking such things; I know quite a few who certainly aren’t).
Such a large segment of our culture seems to be about finding some arm-candy, a sugar daddy, or just someone who appeals to us right now rather than a truly good personal match. Part of this is the fact (it seems pretty true to me, anyway) that many people lack a true ability to find what they like, want, and are capable of. Finding a good match necessitates some level of self-awareness, which takes work and some courage to attain.
And since our culture is fairly unaware of itself, many relationships tend to be co-dependent, co-objectifying, and shallow. Polyamory, to such a culture and to the people which inhabit it, simply would make no sense. The only sense it could make is having more hot bodies to touch and enjoy, which is not bad in itself but is limiting on how we can see potential partners.
Yes, sometimes another hot body to enjoy is what we polyamorous people want and what we find. But ultimately I find it much more worth-while to find people I really like intellectually, emotionally, and sexually. If some people are not looking for all of that with their one (ideally) exclusive partner, then of course polyamory makes no sense to them.
This only leaves why people who do want all that are unwilling or unable to share the wonderful people they find. Sounds selfish, possessive, and silly to me.
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….
Hey all! My wonderful fiancé Shaun has invited me to become an author on this blog. Anything I have to say about skepticism and polyamory I’ll post over here; for broader discussions of human sexuality and other areas of interest to me, check out my own blog.
As an introduction, I thought I’d write about how I became polyamorous. A lot of people find it perfectly natural that a man would want a relationship where he could have multiple partners, but balk at the idea of a woman’s embracing the same thing. So here’s my story.
I have the disadvantage of still being in my first poly relationship. Before I met Shaun, I just assumed I wanted a monogamous lifelong partner; the fact that it was meeting him that got me reconsidering that assumption casts suspicion on my decision to be polyamorous for a lot of people. “Ah,” they think, and some have outright said, “she knew she had to put up with this to keep him, so she went along and is making the best of it.” If I’d broken up with my first non-monogamous partner and continued to pursue non-monogamous relationships on my own, I’d have more credibility. Unfortunately, I found a terrific, loving, compatible partner the first time around. Sucks to be me.
I’d heard of polyamory before I met Shaun: my best friend dated a poly woman for a while, and we had several discussions about it, during which I concluded that, while I didn’t think there was anything wrong with honest, ethical non-monogamy, I wouldn’t want to do it myself. A truly original statement, that one.
What I meant when I said I wanted monogamy for myself was that I wanted a relationship of deep intimacy and commitment. I wanted to pour my energy, care, and devotion into my hypothetical partner, and I wanted him to do the same for me. And like many monogamous people, I just couldn’t imagine the same depth of love, intimacy, and connection happening in a non-monogamous relationship.
Being confronted with real life has a way of shattering faulty assumptions and expanding our imaginations. When I met Shaun, I knew he was attractive and interesting, and someone I wanted in my life. I also knew that I was pining, fairly hopelessly, for a boy who had been sending me mixed-but-mostly-negative signals. If that boy ever came around, I would want to jump at the chance, which I knew would be unfair to anybody new I’d started dating. In that light, meeting a cute polyamorous man was like a revelation: maybe I could have it all! As it does for many people, just the fact of being interested in two people at once made me realize several things: first, that I was very capable of wanting relationships with more than one person at a time; second, that my interest in one of them had really no impact on my interest in the other; third, that the inconveniences and challenges of polyamory might well be balanced out by the solutions it offered to other inconveniences and challenges that I had always taken for granted.
I didn’t embrace it all at once. I did a lot of reading and thinking. I remembered a lot of daydreams that I’d had as a child and suppressed as I “matured” into the realization that these didn’t fit with the pattern of adult life I’d been taught to aspire to… daydreams about having different lovers that met different needs of mine, shared different interests. I thought of how I’d always said “I could forgive being cheated on, but not being lied to”: I’ve never felt that a partner’s being intimate with someone else was in any way a betrayal of me, but it is vitally important to me that I can trust my partners to be fully, radically honest with me. I thought of how important family is to me, how I’ve always loved being part of a small, close-knit group of peers that shared life and supported each other, how I’ve wondered how to make those communities stable and permanent rather than only for a time.
At the same time, I told Shaun I was interested in polyamory but not making any promises. I might turn out to hate it; I’ve had too many exciting ideas turn out to be unhappy realities to talk confidently about how I’d feel a few months down the road. I took it slow, but what I found as time went by was that non-monogamy felt easy, natural, comfortable and happy. There was never a moment that I said, “Okay, I’m officially polyamorous now, not just trying it out,” but as our relationship progressed and we each dated other people, it became harder and harder for me to imagine going back to monogamy.
For me, it’s not primarily about being able to have multiple partners. I like having multiple partners, and giving that up would be a sacrifice, but it’s a sacrifice I could imagine making if I had a very good reason. The things I couldn’t give up are the view of love without possessiveness, the ethic of honesty and communication, and the opportunities to develop close-knit communities where sexual or romantic interest doesn’t have to jeopardize everybody’s existing relationships. I’m a happy woman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Skepticism, Properly Applied 