The Screwtape¹ Posts

An I eat Froot Loops for Breakfast² production

Preamble

Following is a series of posts I placed on (or referred to from) a discussion forum on BeliefNet — a self-described 'multifaith' site I tripped over in late November 2000. They'd put up a sort of 'spiritual type sorter' and a set of fora linked to these categorizations, in which you could participate — see my note on the sorter, and how I scored. These posts are from the 'hardcore skeptics' group, the one to which I came closest, though, as noted in the commentary I referenced above, I was apparently too skeptical even for this one (others participating here apparently had the same experience, perhaps unsurprisingly).

These posts still here primarily because there are links to them in the fora at BeliefNet (many of them I published here originally, and then merely posted the URL to the fora, rather than posting them inline in full in the fora, principally because they were generally too long to be posted as single entries). I've since made some minor efforts to weave them into a sort of narrative (with crosslinks and some introductory annotations), for the benefit of those who might find them separately, or wish to consider them outside the context of the fora. The main text of the posts, however, remains as originally published.

The occasion of the writing was the probably inevitable intrusion into this forum of a rather classically arrogant 'born-again' Christian type — bound and determined to witness to the infidels. There were among the atheists, of course, many making some bluntly rude comments about religion in general, and in a sense, I suppose, this character could protest s/he was only holding up the other end. But really, if you bound into something that clearly says 'hardcore skeptics forum' at the top of the page, and proceed to start raving about your mystical experience with Jesus, I think it's only reasonable of me to assume you'd like to get your butt kicked. Think about it this way: what else would Liberace be doing in a biker bar ³?

And I'm just not the kind to disappoint.

I should point out I don't make a regular habit of baiting or challenging these people — my original purpose for entering the forum was to critique rather bland assumptions about unbelievers I felt were being made by the survey itself. But I do have my priorities, and as this particular target did insist upon presenting itself, I decided I'd like to make a point about the validity of skeptical thinking, and the sheer arrogance of such faiths in assuming the right to pursue skeptical people as though they are spiritual scalps, especially in a fashion that does such violence to clear thinking. My feeling remains that we need more, not fewer, skeptics, and however unlikely the event might be, even the effort this treacly true believer was engaging in was tantamount to the attempted brutal murder of a valuable independent intellect.

I commented in these posts that this character was treating his faith like a mystery religion — and as one definition of these is faith systems in which the truth can only be found by mystical revelation, I think in retrospect I was quite right about this. It's one observation I think that makes these well worth keeping around, apart from stock comments on the role of dogma in the encouragement of brutality. There's that, and the fact that those of a particulary nasty bent are likely to find it a somewhat entertaining sport, reading these. On my bad days, I must confess, I rather enjoy it too, as should be obvious, as I suppose there's no mistaking I enjoyed (to a degree) writing them. In the Christian framework, of course, this is the sin of pride. In my more secular one, we call it being full of yourself. But what can you do.

The other point made here, and I'd say, worth making, is my general commentary on the fundamental (no pun intended) arrogance of such charismatic/evangelical faiths in their approach to conversion. Though these people have been taught repeatedly, I'm sure, that humility is a Christian virtue, the very community structures in which they are prepared virtually guarantees this kind of bland assumption of superiority, and lack of consideration for the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others — one which leads directly to an unthinking willingness to insult the intelligence at every turn, and on no grounds whatsoever. It is simply their assumption — clearly and repeatedly stated in these posts by my opponent — that anyone who does not believe as do they clearly has suffered some sort of psychological injury preventing them from reaching the supposed higher state they themselves have achieved. This, I would suggest, really amounts to a special kind of bigotry, tellingly excused by a social structure that feeds on it⁴. And while there's much in these pages that is little more than rhetorical entertainment, this is one message I would appreciate any follower of such a system taking home from them.

I know very well these posts betray a certain willingness to play the intellectual bully — probably the most telling criticism that could be made of these is that my method borders on that of the original scholastics, or of Loyola himself⁵ — in a sort of mirror image — reason applied in a vicious, strategic way not in defense of faith, but in challenging it. In my defense, however, I think I can reasonably point out that I didn't so much employ reason to arrive at a prearranged truth, as I did to reveal the dogmatic unreason of my opponent, and to frustrate and render impotent their usual methods of prerational prosyletization, through the slow removal of any respect any reader is likely to feel for this creature's bizarre claims to insight, and the criticism of the many unsupportable assumptions such approaches to faith as these must make. I don't quite put them here out of pride (or so I protest — while I feel the basic argument is more than justified, I'm still not sure the intellectual humiliation I visited upon this character was entirely called for⁶) — but because, as noted, they are in a sense an extended part of the discussion archived elsewhere.

I'll add: really, looking at this now with some time passed, I suppose it's only fair to say: this bloke wasn't the worst I've seen, not by far, and I was hard on him. He was probably even generally sincere, even well-meaning (and yes, intensely arrogant, but these two can go together quite comfortably). I think I hunted him down partly just because it proved so easy. More critically, I'd been juggling ideas about the nature of dogma, and the isolating/insulating qualities of the cultural structures in religions (us and them, the mythos about the psychological injuries of unbelievers) for some time before this exchange, and encountering someone who talked so very much like my picture of such people proved pretty much irresistible. I had to see where it would go, right or wrong. I've hung onto the posts for that reason as well (and bothered to annotate and index them) — that here, there really is something of a case study going on that reveals some of the nature of dogmatic belief, and the prosyletization arguments it employs.

Anyway, if the word is appropriate, enjoy.

— 30 November 2000, with revisions 18 July 2002 / AJM