I was inspired to write this post after conversing with a real candidate for a real job.
I realize the analogy doesn’t perfectly map. Having rare crazy beliefs is a bigger red flag than having common crazy beliefs. But that doesn’t eliminate discrimination entirely. Given two comparable candidates, one religious and one an atheist, I’d favor the atheist.
I realize the analogy doesn’t perfectly map. Having rare crazy beliefs is a bigger red flag than having common crazy beliefs.
Also, a religion has features that greatly appeal to people in a way country club membership does not and these features may lead people to become or remain members despite disagreeing with the religion’s social policy. Plus, though I don’t particularly like defending the Catholic church, they don’t refuse membership to homosexuals or revoke the membership of couples who use birth control.
Plus, though I don’t particularly like defending the Catholic church, they don’t refuse membership to homosexuals or revoke the membership of couples who use birth control.
Even the claim that “[l]eadership positions are reserved to unmarried males” isn’t entirely correct, if ordinary priesthood is counted as a “leadership position.” Latin Rite Catholic priests indeed have to be celibate, but there are other Catholic rites that permit married men to become priests, and married priests of other Christian denominations who convert to Catholicism can be accepted without having to renounce either their priesthood or marriage (see here) for more detail). On the other hand, even in Eastern Catholic churches, bishops have to be celibate (just like among the Eastern Orthodox). An interesting question is what would happen if a married Anglican bishop converted to Catholicism; I don’t think this has ever happened, but it seems like it will soon.
I tried to make the country club a version of the Catholic church that was nicer in every way. Instead of claiming you will be tortured forever if you do those things (and don’t go to confession), the country club asks you to leave.
Claiming you might get tortured forever while not doing anything materially to make sure this actually happens doesn’t seem as harsh to me as asking someone to leave a club.
Instead of claiming you will be tortured forever if you do those things (and don’t go to confession), the country club asks you to leave.
Well, but the Catholic church doesn’t implement the torture, it just tells you about it. The telling-about-it is itself a form of forceful persuasion in the right contexts (i.e. to young children), but in general it’s still roughly comparable to being denied access to the country club.
Having rare crazy beliefs is a bigger red flag than having common crazy beliefs.
Which should lead you to ask yourself the following. You recognize certain widely held religious beliefs as false. However, this is happening in a situation where there exists a large number of people who don’t share these beliefs, some of them reputable, high-status, and publicly prominent, and you are aware of their existence and exposed to various arguments they set forth against these beliefs. But could it be that there are some equally false beliefs—perhaps even equally “crazy” by whatever criteria you use to differentiate “craziness” from mere falsity—that you don’t recognize as such, and you might be sharing yourself? In particular, are there some such beliefs that are, unlike traditional religious beliefs, universally shared by respectable people in your society, to the point where it’s unwise to be on record as questioning them?
Furthermore, your post indicates that you have some criteria that you use to assign blame for the misdeeds of members and leaders of an institution to the institution itself, and by extension to those who support it and profess allegiance to it. Now, you haven’t spelled out these criteria, so I can only speculate on what exactly they are, but I’d still like to ask: are you sure that you would come off as innocent if similar criteria for the assignment of blame were applied to all the institutions to which you extend your support and allegiance?
I don’t think I can give very good answers to your questions. I’m much better at morality discussion closer to the object-level.
But could it be that there are some equally false beliefs—perhaps even equally “crazy” by whatever criteria you use to differentiate “craziness” from mere falsity—that you don’t recognize as such, and you might be sharing yourself?
Sure, but I wish to have correct beliefs.
In particular, are there some such beliefs that are, unlike traditional religious beliefs, universally shared by respectable people in your society, to the point where it’s unwise to be on record as questioning them?
are you sure that you would come off as innocent if similar criteria for the assignment of blame were applied to all the institutions to which you extend your support and allegiance?
Actually, yes. I’m pretty sure I am not a supporter or voluntary member of any organization that causes as much harm as the Catholic church.
So does everyone, at some level. But in my experience, whenever I felt superior over people because I didn’t share some of their beliefs that seemed crazy to me, after several years I’d usually feel embarrassed on recollection, considering how much even stupider stuff I believed myself at the same time. From what I’ve observed, once you’ve assessed someone’s character and abilities relevant to the business at hand, making conclusions based on their general religious and ideological beliefs is a fool’s game, unless perhaps it’s something that just screams weirdness.
I’m pretty sure I am not a supporter or voluntary member of any organization that causes as much harm as the Catholic church.
Well, that depends not just on factual questions, but also on normative questions of how exactly harm should be quantified. But still, I’d point out that the same principle applies here. You’re talking about an institution that faces strong opposition by many prominent high-status people, and you’ve clearly been exposed to their convincingly argued accusations against it. However, are you really sure that all the institutions that command much more unanimous respect and allegiance by respectable people, and are attacked only by various disreputable fringe individuals, could not be blamed equally convincingly by a truly neutral observer?
But in my experience, whenever I felt superior over people because I didn’t share some of their beliefs that seemed crazy to me, after several years I’d usually feel embarrassed on recollection, considering how much even stupider stuff I believed myself at the same time.
Same here; I get embarassed at how that moronic pretentious former-me kept feeling superior to others.
One can give up citizenship and emigrate. The barrier to exit is higher but it is still at some level voluntary (although it might be that there’s some point where the term voluntary shouldn’t be applied and this may be above that level. I’m not sure.). Also, note that if instead of measuring harm one measures harm against good dealt, the US government might come out better than the Catholic church by some measures of harm and good.
I was inspired to write this post after conversing with a real candidate for a real job.
I realize the analogy doesn’t perfectly map. Having rare crazy beliefs is a bigger red flag than having common crazy beliefs. But that doesn’t eliminate discrimination entirely. Given two comparable candidates, one religious and one an atheist, I’d favor the atheist.
Also, a religion has features that greatly appeal to people in a way country club membership does not and these features may lead people to become or remain members despite disagreeing with the religion’s social policy. Plus, though I don’t particularly like defending the Catholic church, they don’t refuse membership to homosexuals or revoke the membership of couples who use birth control.
Jack:
Even the claim that “[l]eadership positions are reserved to unmarried males” isn’t entirely correct, if ordinary priesthood is counted as a “leadership position.” Latin Rite Catholic priests indeed have to be celibate, but there are other Catholic rites that permit married men to become priests, and married priests of other Christian denominations who convert to Catholicism can be accepted without having to renounce either their priesthood or marriage (see here) for more detail). On the other hand, even in Eastern Catholic churches, bishops have to be celibate (just like among the Eastern Orthodox). An interesting question is what would happen if a married Anglican bishop converted to Catholicism; I don’t think this has ever happened, but it seems like it will soon.
I tried to make the country club a version of the Catholic church that was nicer in every way. Instead of claiming you will be tortured forever if you do those things (and don’t go to confession), the country club asks you to leave.
Claiming you might get tortured forever while not doing anything materially to make sure this actually happens doesn’t seem as harsh to me as asking someone to leave a club.
I mean unless one resorts to magical thinking.
Well, but the Catholic church doesn’t implement the torture, it just tells you about it. The telling-about-it is itself a form of forceful persuasion in the right contexts (i.e. to young children), but in general it’s still roughly comparable to being denied access to the country club.
AngryParsley:
Which should lead you to ask yourself the following. You recognize certain widely held religious beliefs as false. However, this is happening in a situation where there exists a large number of people who don’t share these beliefs, some of them reputable, high-status, and publicly prominent, and you are aware of their existence and exposed to various arguments they set forth against these beliefs. But could it be that there are some equally false beliefs—perhaps even equally “crazy” by whatever criteria you use to differentiate “craziness” from mere falsity—that you don’t recognize as such, and you might be sharing yourself? In particular, are there some such beliefs that are, unlike traditional religious beliefs, universally shared by respectable people in your society, to the point where it’s unwise to be on record as questioning them?
Furthermore, your post indicates that you have some criteria that you use to assign blame for the misdeeds of members and leaders of an institution to the institution itself, and by extension to those who support it and profess allegiance to it. Now, you haven’t spelled out these criteria, so I can only speculate on what exactly they are, but I’d still like to ask: are you sure that you would come off as innocent if similar criteria for the assignment of blame were applied to all the institutions to which you extend your support and allegiance?
I don’t think I can give very good answers to your questions. I’m much better at morality discussion closer to the object-level.
Sure, but I wish to have correct beliefs.
There are lots of things I don’t say, especially during job interviews.
Actually, yes. I’m pretty sure I am not a supporter or voluntary member of any organization that causes as much harm as the Catholic church.
AngryParsley:
So does everyone, at some level. But in my experience, whenever I felt superior over people because I didn’t share some of their beliefs that seemed crazy to me, after several years I’d usually feel embarrassed on recollection, considering how much even stupider stuff I believed myself at the same time. From what I’ve observed, once you’ve assessed someone’s character and abilities relevant to the business at hand, making conclusions based on their general religious and ideological beliefs is a fool’s game, unless perhaps it’s something that just screams weirdness.
Well, that depends not just on factual questions, but also on normative questions of how exactly harm should be quantified. But still, I’d point out that the same principle applies here. You’re talking about an institution that faces strong opposition by many prominent high-status people, and you’ve clearly been exposed to their convincingly argued accusations against it. However, are you really sure that all the institutions that command much more unanimous respect and allegiance by respectable people, and are attacked only by various disreputable fringe individuals, could not be blamed equally convincingly by a truly neutral observer?
Same here; I get embarassed at how that moronic pretentious former-me kept feeling superior to others.
Are you an American citizen?
That’s why I said “voluntary.” Taxes aren’t optional.
One can give up citizenship and emigrate. The barrier to exit is higher but it is still at some level voluntary (although it might be that there’s some point where the term voluntary shouldn’t be applied and this may be above that level. I’m not sure.). Also, note that if instead of measuring harm one measures harm against good dealt, the US government might come out better than the Catholic church by some measures of harm and good.
Depending on how you feel about the effectiveness of their charities the Catholic church might come out looking pretty good too.
That’s a valid point. Hence my use of the weak language “might” and not a strong statement.