I think I see a motte and bailey around what it means to be a good person. Notice at the beginning of the post, we’ve got statements like
Anita reassured Susan that her comments were not directed at her personally
...
they spent the duration of the meeting consoling Susan, reassuring her that she was not at fault
And by the end, we’ve got statements like
it’s quite hard to actually stop participating in racism… In societies with structural racism, ethical behavior requires skillfully and consciously reducing harm
...
almost every person’s behavior is morally depraved a lot of the time
...
What if there are bad things that are your fault?
...
accept that you are irredeemably evil
Maybe Susan knows on some level that her colleagues aren’t being completely honest when they claim to think she’s not at fault. Maybe she correctly reads conversational subtext suggesting she is morally depraved, bad things are her fault, and she is irredeemably evil. This could explain why she reacts so negatively.
The parallel you draw to Calvinist doctrine is interesting. Presumably most of us would not take a Christian preacher very seriously if they told us we were morally depraved. As an atheist, when a preacher on the street tells me this, I see it as an unwelcome attempt to impose their values on me. I don’t tell the preacher that I accept the fact that I’m irredeemably evil, because I don’t want to let the preacher browbeat me into changing the way I live my life.
Now suppose you were accosted by such a preacher, and when you responded negatively, they proclaimed that your choice to defend yourself (by telling about times when you worked to make the world a better place, say) was further evidence of your depravity. The preacher brings out their bible and points to a verse which they interpret to mean “it is a sin to defend yourself against street preachers”. How do you react?
Seems like a bit of a Catch-22 eh? The preacher has created a situation where if I accept their conversational frame, I’m considered a terrible person if I don’t do whatever they say. See numbers 13, 18 and 21 on this list.
Seems like a bad comparison, since, as an atheist, you don’t accept the Bible’s truth, so the things the preacher is saying are basically spam from your perspective. There’s also no need to feel self-conscious or defend your good-person-ness to this preacher, as you don’t accept the premises he’s arguing from.
It’s a different situation if you do accept the truth of the Bible. In that case, if the preacher has good Biblical evidence that you’re doing bad things and can’t stop without God’s grace, that would be worth listening to, and shutting down the preacher by asserting that you’re a “good person” is illegitimate.
Of course, you may be concerned that the preacher is misinterpreting the Bible in order to illegitimately gain power over people. That would be an issue of epistemology and of legitimacy. You may be able to resolve this by doing your own Biblical scholarship and conversing with the preacher if it seems he has relevant ideas.
Seems like a bad comparison, since, as an atheist, you don’t accept the Bible’s truth, so the things the preacher is saying are basically spam from your perspective. There’s also no need to feel self-conscious or defend your good-person-ness to this preacher, as you don’t accept the premises he’s arguing from.
Yes, and the preacher doesn’t ask me about my premises before attempting to impose their values on me. Even if I share some or all of the preacher’s premises, they’re trying to force a strong conclusion about my moral character upon me and put my reputation at stake without giving me a chance to critically examine the logic with which that conclusion was derived or defend my reputation. Seems like a rather coercive conversation, doesn’t it?
Does it seem to you that the preacher is engaging with me in good faith? Are they curious, or have they already written the bottom line?
I think I see a motte and bailey around what it means to be a good person. Notice at the beginning of the post, we’ve got statements like
...
And by the end, we’ve got statements like
...
...
...
Maybe Susan knows on some level that her colleagues aren’t being completely honest when they claim to think she’s not at fault. Maybe she correctly reads conversational subtext suggesting she is morally depraved, bad things are her fault, and she is irredeemably evil. This could explain why she reacts so negatively.
The parallel you draw to Calvinist doctrine is interesting. Presumably most of us would not take a Christian preacher very seriously if they told us we were morally depraved. As an atheist, when a preacher on the street tells me this, I see it as an unwelcome attempt to impose their values on me. I don’t tell the preacher that I accept the fact that I’m irredeemably evil, because I don’t want to let the preacher browbeat me into changing the way I live my life.
Now suppose you were accosted by such a preacher, and when you responded negatively, they proclaimed that your choice to defend yourself (by telling about times when you worked to make the world a better place, say) was further evidence of your depravity. The preacher brings out their bible and points to a verse which they interpret to mean “it is a sin to defend yourself against street preachers”. How do you react?
Seems like a bit of a Catch-22 eh? The preacher has created a situation where if I accept their conversational frame, I’m considered a terrible person if I don’t do whatever they say. See numbers 13, 18 and 21 on this list.
Seems like a bad comparison, since, as an atheist, you don’t accept the Bible’s truth, so the things the preacher is saying are basically spam from your perspective. There’s also no need to feel self-conscious or defend your good-person-ness to this preacher, as you don’t accept the premises he’s arguing from.
It’s a different situation if you do accept the truth of the Bible. In that case, if the preacher has good Biblical evidence that you’re doing bad things and can’t stop without God’s grace, that would be worth listening to, and shutting down the preacher by asserting that you’re a “good person” is illegitimate.
Of course, you may be concerned that the preacher is misinterpreting the Bible in order to illegitimately gain power over people. That would be an issue of epistemology and of legitimacy. You may be able to resolve this by doing your own Biblical scholarship and conversing with the preacher if it seems he has relevant ideas.
Yes, and the preacher doesn’t ask me about my premises before attempting to impose their values on me. Even if I share some or all of the preacher’s premises, they’re trying to force a strong conclusion about my moral character upon me and put my reputation at stake without giving me a chance to critically examine the logic with which that conclusion was derived or defend my reputation. Seems like a rather coercive conversation, doesn’t it?
Does it seem to you that the preacher is engaging with me in good faith? Are they curious, or have they already written the bottom line?