The Inviolability of Belief System (for jmercer in particular)

[elliotfc]

I haven't initiated a new thread in at least a year, so kindly indulge me...and it's going to be roundabout, but that should be expected, so tough.

Jmercer, a solid poster, made some admirable comments about skepticism, in general, in a separate thread, so admirable that I want to open them up here and not within a thread that had to do with sex or something. :) Actually, I'll switch it around and talk about sex in a thread that ostensibly about belief systems or something. :)

A few years ago I had a confrontation with a professor (oh god I've had many) and this one got so messy that I was asked to leave the class. I actually apologized and didn't (yeah I folded like origami). Anyhow, it was about sex. In a literature class. I wish I could remember what led to the point she made...I can't...but she makes the *brilliant* declaration that rape isn't about sex. No, it's about power, patriarchal control. Actually I think we were talking about marriage. Anyhow, then I say "but rape is sex, how can it not be about sex"? And then she says "you really can't think of it as sex because it's all about power". And then I say "but couldn't *any* incident of sexual activity be about power if someone wanted to see it that way". Then she got pretty mad if I recall, and said something like "I'm not talking about anything else but rape. Rape is always about power". And then I said "but that doesn't mean that rape isn't also about sex". I was probably getting a bit animated at this point. Then it was more about patriarchy from her, and how sex is a tool for men and all this nonsense. I think I said what she was saying was bullsh*t, and I probably shouldn't have said that. Oh well!

Reflecting on it later that day, I realized that of course she did have a small point. Sure, rape is about power. It's important to understand that. But I couldn't really understand why she had to also say that it wasn't about sex? And I still can't understand it. But here's what I came up with...

If a person has a problem with moralizing, or moral systems, or religion, or whatever, it's a bit tricky to say that something is *wrong*. Like, anybody can say rape is *wrong*. Nothing brilliant about that. But, it is brilliant to indict something in the way that she did. Sex is inviolable after all, that's the modern position. And if you can't moralize it (this sex is bad, this sex is good) you can *exculde* some sexual activities from the umbrella sex. The bad kinds of sex? They aren't sex! This way sex can be *freed* from morality. Brilliant!

Dumb too. Rape is still sex. Pedophilia is still sex. And of course power *can* be applied wherever you want to apply it, based on your standards. The inserter can *always* be dubbed as the one using power in sex. Therefore her argument falls apart. But whatever, the point I'm making is that the tendency to declare something to be *not* what you want it to be is attractive, particularly to the modern and enlightened way of thinking.

Now. I *could* use her way of thinking, if I wanted to. I could say, in response to a priest molesting a child, that that is *not* religion. How can it be religion? Religion says to love your neighbor and not sin and all that. So, if a religious person sins, how can you call that religion? I think that is a more defensible way of thinking that the case I related above. In the previous case, sex is *not* a human construct but a biological reality. Religion is a human construct. A belief system. A belief system which defines itself via *ideals that are above the believers*. In other words, the belief system can't be tainted by the believer based solely on the activities of the believer. I kind of do believe that wholeheartedly actually, but I don't say it that much (maybe I say it sometimes) because I don't want to diminish the significance of believers doing bad things. I don't want to shrug it away. But sometimes, I admit, I'd like to. I'd like to say that when religious people do *bad things* that what you're witnessing is *not religion*. And I can defend that via constructed definitions and accessible religoius dogmas and ideals. Religion is self-defined to be good, after all. A search for truth and love and beauty. Now is not the time to be skeptical about that, based on how religious people act. I've already admitted that. I'm talking about ideals now.

This leads to jmercer's point. He would have the *ideal* of skepticism to be inviolable. So a self-proclaimed skeptic who misrepresents the truth is not being skeptical. Sounds good, doesn't it? Does it sound as good as a self-proclaimed religious person who misrepresents the truth not being religious?

What about a scientist who misrepresents the truth? Is he not being scientific? Or a lawyer who misrepresents the truth; is he not being legal?

And if anyone wants to hold on to the inviolability of a particular belief system, or way of thinking, or methodology...that's fine I guess. Maybe you can be universally consistent then, in respect to other belief systems that you have?

I think I'm making an important point here. For example, scientists who promote ID theories are defused as being "unscientific". Very well. Science remains untainted. So extend that. Religious people who do bad things should be defused as "not being religious". But it isn't helpful to have the things you don't like being untainted, I guess. Right?

So this is where I'll be skeptical. A pet belief system, or way of thinking, or methodology, apparently can never be wrong, and can only be done in the way the believer wants it to be done. It's a nice ideal I guess. Now, can you treat other belief systems the same way? Like, if you're an expert in science, so much so that you can decree who is scientific and who is unscientific, could you yield to a professed believer who decrees who is religious or irreligious?

-Elliot

[drkitten]

Originally posted by elliotfc

I think I'm making an important point here. For example, scientists who promote ID theories are defused as being "unscientific". Very well. Science remains untainted. So extend that. Religious people who do bad things should be defused as "not being religious". But it isn't helpful to have the things you don't like being untainted, I guess. Right?

So this is where I'll be skeptical. A pet belief system, or way of thinking, or methodology, apparently can never be wrong, and can only be done in the way the believer wants it to be done. It's a nice ideal I guess. Now, can you treat other belief systems the same way? Like, if you're an expert in science, so much so that you can decree who is scientific and who is unscientific, could you yield to a professed believer who decrees who is religious or irreligious?


I think it's obvious, at least at some level, that you need to distinguish between the idealized practice of a discipline, belief system, et cetera, and the way any particular person might behave in any particular instance. In the part that I omitted, for example, you mentioned the possibility of a lawyer acting illegally. This is not only possible, but explicitly recognized as a possiblility within the law -- and there are appropriate sanctions and countermeasures if it happens. A lawyer who commits perjury, for example, risks not only personal sanction (for example, being disbarred), but also takes a rather serious risk of having any accomplishments he has achieved within the legal system negated -- for example, convictions set aside or verdicts reversed upon appeal.

A first point of examination, then, is to look at what the practitioners of a given art, discipline, or belief list for themselves as a standard of practice. Lawyers write almost uniformly (and have even coded into law) certain standards of practice. Similar standards of practice exist for medicine, for many branches of science, for various engineering disciplines, et cetera. And, of course, practitioners who have internalized the standards can recognize (and reprehend) the people who practice "outside the pale." But even an outsider can look at those standards and analyze behavior -- it's not something only an expert can do. It doesn't require a legal degree to read "an attorney and counselor who is guilty of deceit or collusion, or consents thereto, with intent to deceive a court or judge, or party to an action or proceeding, is liable to be disbarred, and shall forfeit to the injured party treble damages to be recovered in a civil action," and to infer from it whether the abstract practice of law permits such behavior.

Does such a standard exist for religious beliefs? I would argue that for many/most religions, it does. The Catholic Church, for example, has a well-defined magisterium that provides written guidance as to what the Catholic Church believes (and to the standards of practice to which Catholics should be held). The Catholic Church, as well as many other churches, also provide specific statements of belief, of policy, and of practice that are issued, not with the authority of any given churchman, but with the institutional authority of the church as a whole. Many of these churches also have internal disciplinary responsibility and a method of redressing grievances within the church -- these can extend as far as "convictions" for heresy, as "excommunication," or even of "shunning" the offenders. Finally, to the extent that these churches are "Christian," the entire body of Christian writing, including of course the Bible, also provide a basis on which to judge religious belief.

I need not yield to a self-professed "expert" on the law who claims that defrauding a court or judge is legal -- nor need I yield before the self-professed expertise of a lawyer who does so. Similarly, I need not yield before the self-professed expertise of a so-called "Christian" who is ignorant of the actual content of Christianity, or who repeatedly flaunts the defined norms of Christian practice and behavior.

[Z]

The Cat-Doc just about covered all bases.

Clearly, the point your instructor was trying to make is that the psychology behind rape isn't about 'getting laid' - anyone can get some, even the most desperate, without resorting to rape. Rape is a power issue - power over your victim, and power over a society that tells you rape is wrong.

As for skeptics not acting skeptically, religious folk not acting in religious manner, etc - that happens all the time. Humans tend toward hypocracy on a regular basis. Cops commit crimes, scientists discard scientific method to pursue pet 'woo' theories, so-called religious figures advocate or perform violence and innumerable sins... this doesn't ruin the system itself, only the practicioner. In spite of the Crusades and the Inquisition, we don't declare Christianity to be a bloodthirsty, violent religion.

Really, elliot, the point you're trying to make appears to be lost in a sea of absurdity.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

As for skeptics not acting skeptically, religious folk not acting in religious manner, etc - that happens all the time. Humans tend toward hypocracy on a regular basis. Cops commit crimes, scientists discard scientific method to pursue pet 'woo' theories, so-called religious figures advocate or perform violence and innumerable sins... this doesn't ruin the system itself, only the practicioner. In spite of the Crusades and the Inquisition, we don't declare Christianity to be a bloodthirsty, violent religion.


The flip side of this, of course, is that when a particular pattern of behavior or thought has demonstrable, systematic support, then it's reasonable to criticize the belief system itself.

Christianity per se is not bloodthirsty -- at worst, its central documents and proponents are ambiguous and inconsistent.

Christianity per se (or at least Catholicism, Anglicanism, and a representative sampling of other sects) on the other hand, is, as a belief system, demonstrably homophobic.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by elliotfc
A few years ago I had a confrontation with a professor (oh god I've had many) and this one got so messy that I was asked to leave the class. I actually apologized and didn't (yeah I folded like origami). Anyhow, it was about sex. In a literature class. I wish I could remember what led to the point she made...I can't...but she makes the *brilliant* declaration that rape isn't about sex. No, it's about power, patriarchal control. Actually I think we were talking about marriage. Anyhow, then I say "but rape is sex, how can it not be about sex"? And then she says "you really can't think of it as sex because it's all about power". And then I say "but couldn't *any* incident of sexual activity be about power if someone wanted to see it that way". Then she got pretty mad if I recall, and said something like "I'm not talking about anything else but rape. Rape is always about power". And then I said "but that doesn't mean that rape isn't also about sex". I was probably getting a bit animated at this point. Then it was more about patriarchy from her, and how sex is a tool for men and all this nonsense. I think I said what she was saying was bullsh*t, and I probably shouldn't have said that. Oh well!

Reflecting on it later that day, I realized that of course she did have a small point. Sure, rape is about power. It's important to understand that. But I couldn't really understand why she had to also say that it wasn't about sex? And I still can't understand it. But here's what I came up with...

[Snipped the rest for brevity]



Regarding rape, sex, and power... I'm actually kind of pleased in a way that you have trouble separating the act of rape and the act of sex. Most people have the same trouble, and that pleases me, too - it's not a subject that I would prefer people to be overly familiar with. (Except in the sense of how to avoid and prevent rape.) It is one area that popular TV has been doing a better job of addressing, so I hope that some of the age-old mis-beliefs about rape are being dispelled somewhat.

I wouldn't be particularly well informed either - except I was corrected some years ago by a bunch of law enforcement officials and rape counselors at an IT conference I attended. We corresponded for some weeks after the conference, and they pointed me to some excellent sources on the subject.

So - we were all at a formal lunch, and I had made an observation very similar to yours. It was then I was corrected. (Not gently, at first... but after they realized I was truly ignorant, they all keyed down a bit and gave me the facts of life. We actually ended up on good terms and went out drinking together that night.)

One of the counselors was a clinical psychiatrist who specialised in rape trauma and rape motivation; the others ranged from social workers to behavioral psychologists, to violent crimes police specialists. All in all, there were about ten of them.

Researchers have long known that there are many motivations for sexual assault and therefore that there are many types of rapists. Rape can be committed out of anger, sadism, and/or a need for power and control in a manner that is intentional, premeditated and coercive.

One thing that is NOT listed as a motivation for rape is the desire to have sex.

Many rape victims are never touched by the rapist's body... but are violated by objects, etc., and are tortured by the rapist in a number of ways. Rape victims are also often killed after the act.

Rape is not intercourse or sex - it's an act of violence intended to violate the victim as much as possible, and often includes other acts of violence, such as beating the victim, burning them with lit matches or cigarettes, etc. The fact that a physical act resembling sexual intercourse is sometimes a part of it is incidental, since the intention is not to have sex, but to hurt, punish, dominate, etc.

Regarding the rest of your post... I'm going to see where others lead this for a while, and then maybe I'll offer my views. (Which you know anyway from the other thread. :) )

(Edited to clarify opening remarks.)

[Beth]

I am reminded of a friend of mine, an aethiest who claims he's never met a christian in his life. Only hypocritical people who claim to be christian. Likewise, I think there are folks here who feel the same way about the skeptics on this forum. In truth, there are a few here who seem to think skepticism means adamantly denying even the possibility that things such as alien spacecraft or spiritual entities could exist. Truth is, some stuff is just beyond our ability to determine with certainty. We can only decide for ourselves, based on our own unique life experiences, what we think most likely or reasonable and recognize that others could disagree.

We are all skeptics to some degree. We all have beliefs we reject as well as those we accept. We just disagree on which ones they are. How willing you are to recognize a consistent argument and grant that others might rate the odds differently than yourself, thereby coming to a different conclusion?

[hodgy]

One thing that is NOT listed as a motivation for rape is the desire to have sex.


You are accepting a very selective set of data to support this argument. For example - a paedophile who rapes a child is generally doing this for sexual pleasure. That such sexual pleasure might partly or wholly be derived from the excercise of power does not make it any less a sexually-motivated activity.


Many rape victims are never touched by the rapist's body... but are violated by objects, etc., and are tortured by the rapist in a number of ways. Rape victims are also often killed after the act.


You are describing a particular category of violent rape here. I suggest that your use of the word 'often' would be incorrect outside of that category.


Rape is not intercourse or sex - it's an act of violence intended to violate the victim as much as possible, and often includes other acts of violence, such as beating the victim, burning them with lit matches or cigarettes, etc. The fact that a physical act resembling sexual intercourse is sometimes a part of it is incidental, since the intention is not to have sex, but to hurt, punish, dominate, etc.


You are wrong. Your definition of rape only applies in your limited data set as pointed out above. The logical extension of your argument is that any non-consenual sexual assault that has a sexual motivation is not rape. This is clearly incorrect, the definition of rape does not include a clause identifying the motivation.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by hodgy
You are accepting a very selective set of data to support this argument. For example - a paedophile who rapes a child is generally doing this for sexual pleasure. That such sexual pleasure might partly or wholly be derived from the excercise of power does not make it any less a sexually-motivated activity.


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The primary motivation is what is under discussion here, and no-one that I know of (or read anything by) has listed "sexual desire" as a main motivator for rape.

Originally posted by hodgy
You are describing a particular category of violent rape here. I suggest that your use of the word 'often' would be incorrect outside of that category.
[/B]

I'm not sure that I fully understand this comment. All rape is violent - it's an act of violence no matter how "gently" it's done. We can quibble over the statistics of toture and murder as a part of rape - and if you wish to, then I guess I'll have to try and dig up those statistics. (Which I've seen before, but don't actually have an easy reference to point you to.)

Originally posted by hodgy
You are wrong. Your definition of rape only applies in your limited data set as pointed out above. The logical extension of your argument is that any non-consenual sexual assault that has a sexual motivation is not rape. This is clearly incorrect, the definition of rape does not include a clause identifying the motivation.

As I said, I know of no-one who cites sexual desire as a primary motivation for rape. If you have a reference, I'd certainly reconsider my position on it - otherwise, I'll have to go by the opinions of various people I've met who are educated in the area in question.

[jmercer]

A couple of sites with more information for everyone to consider:

http://www.aardvarc.org/statistics.shtml

http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/sexual/sexual_stats.html


There are more, but you folks can search the Internet just as well as I can.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
In truth, there are a few here who seem to think skepticism means adamantly denying even the possibility that things such as alien spacecraft or spiritual entities could exist. There are a few people round here who seem to think that, yes, I agree. I've met 'em.

But would you like to name one person --- just one --- who claims that "skepticism means adamantly denying even the possibility that things such as alien spacecraft or spiritual entities could exist" and is a skeptic rather than a woowoo? Because all the people I've ever seen claiming that skepticism is all about adamant denial have been a few bricks short of a pyramid.

Cheers.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by elliotfc
This leads to jmercer's point. He would have the *ideal* of skepticism to be inviolable. So a self-proclaimed skeptic who misrepresents the truth is not being skeptical. Sounds good, doesn't it?Sounds sensible, anyway. Is a skeptic "being skeptical" when he steals, lies, or cheats? Well, is he "being skeptical" when he rides a bicycle, eats spaghetti, or plays table tennis? No.Does it sound as good as a self-proclaimed religious person who misrepresents the truth not being religious?If their religion forbids them to lie, then when they lie they are being, not religious, but irreligious.What about a scientist who misrepresents the truth? Is he not being scientific?No.Or a lawyer who misrepresents the truth; is he not being legal?He's just doing his job.