I’ve had several parents ask how best to deal with arrogance — especially in pre-teens, it seems — toward religious folks, especially extended family. “How do I keep my 13-year-old from sneering at other people for their beliefs when I frankly think they’re pretty darn sneerable myself?” That sort of thing.
It’s become such a common question that I included a story of mine in Raising Freethinkers–presumptuously inserting it into Jan’s otherwise excellent chapter titled “Secular Family, Religious World.” (Editorship has its privileges.)
In addition to clarifying the two different levels of respect about which I’ve blogged before — that ideas themselves have to earn respect, but people are inherently deserving of it — the best way to approach this is (if you’ll excuse the phrase) by inviting him who is without sin to cast the first stone.
I watch the odd bit of televangelism now and then. My son Connor (then 11) caught a few minutes of one program in which some outrageous thing was being foisted on a nodding throng. My boy reacted not to the idea itself, but by sneering at the people: “I just don’t understand how those stupid people can believe stupid things that make no sense!”
“Hmm, yeah.” I thought for a minute, then said, “Hey Con, could you go get me a Coke from the basement?”
“What?”
“A Coke. From the basement.”
“I…but…” he stammered. “Why?”
“I’m thirsty. Please.”
“But…I can’t go into the basement by myself.”
“Oh? Why not?”
“I…I just can’t!”
“Oh,” I said gently. “And…does that make sense?”
I quickly admitted to several irrational quirks of my own, like my completely over-the-top aversion to dead things (unless grilled), and my steadfast belief that M&Ms melt in your mouth but not in your hands, despite constant evidence to the contrary. There are surely many more quirks and irrationalities I carry around, but being me, it’s hard to see them. Just ask Becca what they are — then cancel your appointments for the day.
Connor and I then went after the idea in question as we always do, but he was able to do so from a less self-exalted and slightly more empathetic perch — one fallible human thinking hard and well about the errors to which we are all prone, not some glowing eminence smirking at the foibles of creatures in the mud beneath his feet.
We all have irrational beliefs and fears. Jumping at shadows and seeing faces in tortillas is a direct consequence of our deepest wiring — and all the new software in the world will never completely fix that mess. It’s a good and great thing to try, to pull yourself as far up out of the muck as you can, but it’s delusional to ever think you’ve completely escaped it, or to sneer too thoroughly at those silly fools you imagine you’ve left behind.
Now before I get a dozen furious emails, let me be absolutely clear. Reasoned critique is a great thing, and I encourage my kids to go after any and all ideas on their merits. But eye-rolling arrogance toward those who support a given idea is not reasoned critique — and religious discourse is filled with examples of people on all sides who allow dismissive arrogance to cloud their judgment. Start with arrogance, saying, “I can’t believe how stupid they are to believe xyz” and you have one foot on Ray Comfort’s banana peel. Start instead with a little humility, saying, “I may be wrong about this, but…” and you have a much better chance of actually getting things right.
We all live in glass houses, no matter how thoroughly we think we’ve attended to our own rationality. And that’s not entirely bad. It can keep us humble and, as a bonus, increases our chances of thinking well.
What if he had said “I just don’t understand how those people can believe stupid things that make no sense”?
Comment: Belgian Atheist – 20. March 2009 @ 4:12 am
Nice post Dale. The distinction between ideas and people is an important one. I believe the religious version is hate the sin, not the sinner?
Comment: boonxeven – 20. March 2009 @ 5:59 am
In either case it’s the start of a good conversation. The one thing I’m looking for is the tendency to separate one’s self out from “those fools” — something many of us do far too often, including me.
Comment: Dale – 20. March 2009 @ 6:30 am
Yes indeed, but without the first “stupid” he’s not separating “those fools” it could also be stated like this:
“I just don’t understand how those (intelligent) people can believe stupid things that make no sense”
Also a good conversation starter but your Coke/basement example would not be relevant anymore, now it is about the stupid things (thus including the irrational fear of the basement) and not the people.
It’s the fine line that us atheists have to walk all the time because some people’s beliefs can be safely classified as incredibly stupid but we have to remember that one particular belief doesn’t make people stupid in all fields.
Comment: Belgian Atheist – 20. March 2009 @ 8:05 am
Another way to think of it is that sneering at the stupidity of people OR their ideas, isn’t going to reach them with better ideas. It’s like Obama’s pragmatism — what is constructive and likely to work, to make the world a better place for all of us? Not sneering . . .
Comment: JJ Ross – 20. March 2009 @ 9:16 am
It’s interesting when perceptive and intelligent kids become aware of their own excellence. Of course it’s normal that they become arrogant, and it’s necessary to drag them back down to earth at times. Your approach with Connor is hilariously similar to the way my own parents dealt with my arrogance as a kid (not that I was perceptive, intelligent, or excellent by any stretch of the imagination; I was just arrogant! Har har.)
Anyway, yet another brilliant post, Dale. That’s such an important distinction to make with kids.
Comment: lneely – 20. March 2009 @ 9:32 am
Posted for a reader who is having difficulty logging in:
The difference, imo, between a thinking child and a religious follower is that the child may learn. The child will talk with you about the basement and, with time and reasoning, may be able to overcome the irrational fear of fetching a Coke.
I have not seen the same possibility in true believers. If you base your beliefs on faith, are comfortable with following a religion based on faith, state that you know there is no rational thinking involved, only faith, you are not likely to change and grow when new evidence is presented.
Now, a 13-year-old does need to learn when it is polite to use certain words and when it is safe.
I would think at home with Dad would be a safe place. A place to vent and be affirmed in your 13-year-old understanding that the religious followers on the TV are making stupid choices. In fact, they may actually be stupid, having given up on reason to live their lives based on faith.
And it can be unsafe to say that sort of thing in public. Navigating a world full of people with odd beliefs can be tricky and that does take some guidance, imo. But that doesn’t make the 13-yo’s assessment wrong and doesn’t make his personal foibles equivalent to a faith-based worldview.
I was very happy to see the latest ARIS study but I read your blog because we non-believers still need all the support we can get.
Nance Confer
http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/
Comment: Dale – 21. March 2009 @ 9:40 am
Very good points, Nance, and entirely agreed.
Part of the difficulty in blogging about parenting (or most anything else, I imagine) is that each post can appear to be a complete, self-contained representation of one’s approach. This one can be generalized to make it appear that I never allow my kids to vent or express honest frustration.
In fact, my kids and I bat these things back and forth all the time, and they are indeed free and safe to vent at home. This post is intended to illustrate one time that I chose to attend to another crucial issue too often ignored — that of overweening arrogance. It should be read in the context of hundreds of other interactions both documented in this blog and not. (I’ve now added a passage to make this clearer in the post.)
If this arrogance issue is never addressed — and too often, it is not — justified, critical venting can quickly become unjustified, uncritical venting. That’s a development worth guarding against.
Comment: Dale – 21. March 2009 @ 9:53 am
I wonder if it’s really possible to cleanly separate the idea from the person and only treating the latter with respect. Even if one can convince oneself that you really are only critical of the claim and not the claimant, it is extremely unlikely that the claimant will see or experience it that way. After all, our ideas are a large part of what makes us, well… us. It’s like saying “I really think [lefthandedness / red hair / blue eyes / an inability to do Sudoku puzzles] sucks, but don’t worry, I still respect the rest of you as a person.”
Maybe we must just all get a bit more thick-skinned? Sticks ‘n stones ‘n all that. At least that makes for a “spirited” debate!
Comment: Theo – 21. March 2009 @ 3:03 pm
It’s the stated intention that matters, and it makes all the difference in discourse. Part of what makes it so difficult to communicate across these lines is the sense that I MYSELF am under attack. If someone makes the effort to clarify the target as an idea outside of myself — even if I hold it — I can drop my guard a bit. (This idea has a long and successful history — read Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication for more. Don’t wonder in the abstract whether it can be done. Try it.)
As for wishing our collective skins into greater thickness — good luck with that one.
Comment: Dale – 21. March 2009 @ 8:38 pm
[...] Dale McGowan’s wonderful blog The Meming of Life last night and got caught up in his post on Glass Houses. In his post he talks about the importance of teaching his children that ideas need to earn [...]
Pingback: Teaching Tolerance | PhD in Parenting – 21. March 2009 @ 10:44 pm
“It’s the stated intention that matters, and it makes all the difference in discourse.”
Understood. Tell your opponent that you’re merely targeting the belief, not the believer, and (as you say) she is likely to drop her guard a bit. It works, so let’s use it. No problem with that.
My question was slightly different… Saying it is one thing, actually believing it, another. Saying it when you’re not actually believing it is, well… lying, no?
Don’t get me wrong, maybe the lie is completely justifiable under certain ethical frameworks like Utilitarianism or Habermasian Discourse Ethics… but it’s still a lie.
Re my dream of a general rise in thick-skinnery, why not just approach it as we approach other traits we’d like to see more of… start teaching our children! Every day my kids and I “practice” hurling words at each other and laughing it off. The words started off as the funny noises that seem to interest toddlers (”You’re a noonoo pully waga!”), but they’ve recently progressed to real first grade insults (”You’re a baaay-beeee!”)… Who knows what’s next?
Comment: Theo – 22. March 2009 @ 1:25 am
At first, perhaps. But I can attest to the ability to get better at it with time and effort, and the first step is articulating that separation to yourself.
I have *much* greater empathy and respect for religious believers than I once did while suffering no loss of contempt for many of the ideas they hold. It’s been one of the most eye-opening and effective paradigm shifts in my life. No mere abstraction to me, this.
As for your skin-thickening program, it’s brilliant! Right smack on the lines of other ‘inoculations’ I’ve advocated. (I was a bit taken aback by your brazen use of ‘noonoo pully waga’ without asterisks.)
Comment: Dale – 22. March 2009 @ 8:54 am
[...] Glass Houses talks about the importance of teaching children that ideas need to earn respect, but people are inherently deserving of respect – The Meming of Life [...]
Pingback: Articles of Interest « Raising Liam - Navigating the Minefield That is Modern Day Parenting – 26. March 2009 @ 10:09 pm