On Death and Being a Dick

I don’t consider myself a dick.

Sure, I’m an active skeptic and as typical in this population I don’t shy away from contentious and/or conflictual discussion. I’m ready to note a logical fallacy or some flawed reasoning wherever it pops up. But I do consider myself caring, compassionate even, on the right occasion thoughtful. I don’t get involved in so-called “flame wars”. I try to phrase my positions, when they are combative in nature, to be accommodating and open. I like discussion and I love debate, but I love more than all else, people. Even at times the rather ignorant ones.

So, when I found myself recently in the midst of an online debate with a stranger over the “mosque” (that isn’t really a mosque) at “ground zero” (which is actually a few blocks from the crash site), although I became frustrated, I tried to remain civil. The woman with whom I was debating (or women, really, but only one stuck it out) seemed to hold the position that she didn’t hold a position. She claimed she was ‘undecided’ on the matter. Regardless, she felt (and I wish to emphasize this, as it becomes quite relevant later) that these times make her ‘fearful’, and was sorrowful that her children would never know the innocence of our childhood (I’m not sure what innocent time she grew up in, I was a kid during the cold war, and a teenager at the height of early to mid 90s gang violence, but I digress). She also claimed that (even though she wasn’t a racist or anything, and knew that not all Muslims are terrorists) that Muslims attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11, and raised suspicion over this site being chosen to spite the victims. During our back and forth, she also quoted Gallup polls showing a slight majority of New Yorkers who oppose it, as if somehow that strengthens her position.

Throughout, I was frustrated. More so, and to put this within some level of context, I was having a really awful week. A few days before this discussion, a dear friend and co-worker was struck by a livery cab driver, who had lost consciousness at the wheel, while she stood waiting at her bus stop. This woman helped me through an earlier difficult time in my life, when the man who raised me past away during my sophomore year of college. She helped me cope, and stay focused on school. Later, she would help me apply to graduate programs. It was a sober experience starting doctoral classes this week, reflecting on how influential she had been on my path to that classroom. This atheist was quite shaken by her quite sudden and very tragic death.

All of the logic and skepticism in the world cannot comfort this sort of grief. Her end could not have been predicted with the most sophisticated of statistical software. Nor can it be explained by any just or conscious reason. It was simply a horrible accident; a combination of circumstances acting independently before their unfortunate interaction.

Despite knowing how irrational it is, it was hard not to look at the world for a few days and think how lacking it is in justice. Of course this notion is predicated on the idea that the world should be a just place and can therefore be easily dismissed, but it felt unjust. One wants to cry out, and demand an answer, how could this have happened? Who is responsible? To whom shall I address my letter of complaint?

And there I found myself, in the middle of the night, surfing the internet for a little something to distract myself, only to come face to face (metaphorically speaking) with a debate over the “ground zero mosque”.

The back and forth of this discussion is really inconsequential, and most of it is replicated in the media anyway. Typical arguments against it being built were proposed, lacking in clear thinking or rational arguments. I initially proposed some questions, food for thought sort of things. I attempted to describe analogous situations, in an effort to get them to reflect on the variables of the situation without context, in the aim that they would see their thoughts as being fueled by anti-Muslim sentiment.

I failed. Miserably.

The rebuttal included an admonishment for using “big college words”, indicating that using them (the big, college words) would not change what was in her “heart”. She then concluded by saying “If my thinking is flawed, well then I am just fine with that too.” and proclaimed that god’s will would be done regardless, and in the meantime she would pray about it. This hit a nerve for me, one she was obviously unaware of.

Now, I’m a non-believer, and I work hard to remain open to those who believe even if ultimately I disagree with them dramatically. However, this idea that somehow our posturings on this matter was a futile exercise because in the end, everything is god’s plan, wouldn’t that mean that my friend’s tragic end would likewise have been part of a master plan enacted by said invisible deity? So, this god of which you speak thought that it was a good idea to prematurely end this woman’s life, taking her from her five children, and hundreds of friends, family and colleagues who adored and depended on her? For that matter, wouldn’t the attacks on the World Trade Center also have been a part of this plan? It’s just too weak, and too convenient an argument. Granted, I am aware she couldn’t have known the personal implication of what she was saying, I admit I too was not really aware at the time as to why it hit me so very hard.

So, I went off, below I’ve pasted an excerpt:

A magically being is going to intervene anyway, so who needs an intelligent and informed discussion? Who needs to evaluate claims offered in support and opposition? Who needs arguments that withstand logical scrutiny? It’s so convenient, you know, when the questions get to hard, or the criticism cuts too deep and exposes the deep holes in the argument, to back away and say that some deity will swoop down and take care of things. Or, my favorite, taking up the anti-intellectual position, “If my thinking is flawed, well then I am just fine with that too” , it’s “‘what’s in my heart”, “your big college words”. Mocking the person literate on the topic for being all smart and stuff was never a rebuttal.

Was I justified in my rant? Perhaps, perhaps not. And I admit, it didn’t make me feel any better about losing my friend. But it did get me thinking about what it means to be a dick. I applauded Phil Plait for his now infamous “Don’t be a dick” presentation at TAM8. And I don’t believe that yelling and screaming at people is an effective way to promote skepticism or rational thinking. But, could I really have made headway here (and I’m asking honestly, I appreciate comments)?

This woman stated explicitly that she was fine with her thinking being flawed, because of what she believed in her heart. I wager, there was little I could have said that would have convinced her I was somehow not being a dick. As I see it, although I might think I’m simply trying to encourage someone to examine their arguments a bit more clearly, ultimately I’m being a dick, regardless. I mean, it’s kind of inherently dick-ish to suggest that a firmly held belief is false, even if you have evidence and reason on your side.

The extent to which my response itself was emotional, I admit I was initially a bit unnerved. One might suggest that I probably shouldn’t have gotten involved in the first place given my state of mind.