On Kris Nelson's "3 Myths"

I was recently linked to this article by a close friend of mine, and she asked for my thoughts. I have too many thoughts I think for a Facebook comment, so I thought I'd try to tackle it here.

The Article

(A short summary for those without context, and for me to try organizing my brainz)

In their article (I think this is the preferred pronoun), Nelson recollects their experiences in radical left groups and how these groups tend to strongly oppose the idea of anyone within their circle being of a faith. Nelson tells of a comrade who stated "you can't be a radical if you are not a devout atheist." Nelson found this to be somewhat shocking, as it flew against Nelson's personal experiences with faith, who found that their own faith fed their radicalism (Nelson is a practicing pagan). In response to this exclusionary attitude, Nelson notes the harms that atheism's critique of imperialistic Christianity has rendered against less mainstream religious groups, and also lists what they believe to be three myths about religion that many far lefters hold: 1) Spirituality and Politics Don't Mix, 2) Spirituality is Inherently Irrational, and 3) Being Spiritual Means Your Against Science.

Initial thoughts

My first thoughts on this article were of general agreement, especially with Nelson's conclusion that "radicals of faith are still radicals." And I can certainly understand Nelson's frustration at leftist circles dismissing religion (and people with religions) out of hand. In my time at my university's philosophy club, I witnessed a couple instances of people becoming excluded because they held a faith. It was never anything particularly nefarious, and the exclusion was never intentional as far as I could tell, but I did note that members of faith would simply stop coming to the meetings over time. Surprise, surprise -- it turns out that people don't want to hang around people who belittle some of their most personal beliefs. There is certainly this idea in much of the academic world that faith no longer has a place at the table, and I think that this idea is hasty at best and exclusionary at worst.

Some personal feelings

I've wavered back and forth on this topic myself. I can say for sure that I don't like the assumption that people of faith cannot engage rationally. On the other hand, I understand the atheist's general claim: a person of faith holds beliefs that are not rationally grounded. Philosophy (and other academic fields) are supposed to be grounded in reality, and so if one is an atheist, it seems like a person's religious experiences are not grounded in that reality.

I've been on both sides of this. I myself once stood semi-proudly under the pagan label. I don't think I do anymore (at least not this month). Before I compressed into my current agnosticism, I kept compartments in my mind: one for reason, and one for faith. I think it worked rather well for me for a time, and I certainly feel as if I was capable of engaging rationally. Eventually (and recently) my inclination towards internal consistency won out and I had to give up that part of myself. Despite this, I still don't regret my faith. It gently nudged me into my interests in the environment and towards exploring ethics. When my world was filled with magick, there was a kind of wonder and awe that I haven't (yet) been able to recapture.

To exclude people of faith from the left, or from academia seems an awful shame, and a loss of opportunity. Regardless of their reasons for religion, people of faith often come with interesting new perspectives and can really shake up our thinking on a lot of subjects. They often come with specific passions in areas that are regretfully thought of as boring/not-worth-the-time. This isn't to say that atheists don't have their own unique ways see the world, but merely to note that their perspective isn't the only one at play in the world.

Some annoyances and a critique

As I said, I can see where leftist atheists are coming from, but there is something about the attitude of rule-laying that really bothers me and not just from this group. It seems that for every label, that members of it make up these bizarre exclusionary rules. In this case it was "you can't be radical if you have a faith," as if it were so clear that the two were mutually exclusive. Why can't people simply state that it seems "less likely?" Nelson themselves commits a similar act in their preamble to the article: "you can't be a white pagan and use non-white traditional elements." I get the reasoning here, cultural appropriation is less than desirable, but I can't help but feel that this is just another rule can only be mouth service. Somewhere there is a white pagan who pulls from non-white traditions and does so sincerely. So say that you cannot do this if you want to be part of the "club" is a fruitless effort in my opinion. Especially when it comes to faith: most people feel called to their faith, they don't choose it in a rational sense. (I think I'm digressing.)

One critique I have against this article is that it doesn't actually seem to make an argument against the  alleged myths, but simply calls them myths and moves on. Telling us about how people see pagans as hippies, and the connotation that drums up doesn't make a case for why "Spirituality and Politics Don't Mix"is in fact a myth. Similarly, the other two myths are not really shown as such. I've already rambled on here for too long, so I'm not going to try and argue them as myths. In fact, I'm not certain, in my current state of agnosticism, that I could.

Too long, didn't read

People of faith should not have their ideas excluded simply because they are people of faith. 

Stop making up rules for your label(s); you will find someone who doesn't conform to it. 

If you call something a myth, you should probably show us why.