Josh Rosenau has tweeted and done a post about how stupid I am to think beliefs aren’t a matter of identity*. Well that would be somewhat stupid if I had just stated it like that, but I didn’t. As is typical of Rosenau, he ignored all the qualifying language that would have made it clear that I wasn’t just stating it like that, and quoted 15 words as if they were all I had said.
beliefs aren’t actually a matter of identity and shouldn’t be treated as if they were.
With his commentary:
This claim seems so obviously false that I can’t really imagine how she could have written it.
The version I actually wrote:
What if there are people whose New Age or “alternative” beliefs feel like commitments and part of their identity?
Well there are such people, and there are also their cousins who are that way about their religious beliefs. So actually articles about whacked beliefs can draw a lot of heat, and can make people feel very outraged.
That’s a kind of category mistake, in my view, because beliefs aren’t actually a matter of identity and shouldn’t be treated as if they were.
That’s one way to make the distinction that Eric asks about, but it won’t be as satisfactory to people who do think of their beliefs as their identity as it may be to us.
Ironically, or something, Rosenau ends the post with a paragraph that says pretty much what I was saying.
What was the point of truncating what I said so drastically, do you suppose? Just a friendly gesture?
*And Chris Stedman agrees with him. Surprise!