May 31st, 2009
This should have been obvious but wasn’t: read what the other side says.
I have been thinking about this lately as I have been reading Christian apologists, listening to their debates, and otherwise educating myself in what we at the BV household are calling “atheism level 2.” The arguments are in some cases new to me, or at least new in their formal philosophical formats. (I see now why Dawkins is scoffed at by high level Christians – and atheists!)
And speaking of a back door to religion, it is becoming clearer and clearer to me that the kinds of arguments that are persuasive to atheists are in no way guaranteed to have the same rhetorical weight with believers. So what to do? Lots of us throw up our hands and say, “Those Christians, sheesh, can’t accept reality, won’t look at the facts, dismiss the arguments. Idiots.” But I think the problem – well, one of the problems – is we’re trying to engage them on our terms. It doesn’t matter if we’re right if we can’t be heard. So we need to understand where they are coming from: what arguments are persuasive to them? What sorts of challenges might be able, in principle, to work?
Aside: I’m speaking of the realm of intellectual debate. Which, as I have said, is not at all the only place for examination and I believe not even the most relevant one. But it is something we can at least access.
I recently said to someone that, based on how they argued, it seemed to me that they had not read any challenges to Christianity written by atheists (and to that person, did you receive my apology sent later in the day?). The same charge could have been leveled against me not so long ago. My reading on religion was all by atheists. I am correcting that.
I see several advantages of this strategy: One, you learn more and get a better understanding of the issues. Two, you begin to see what the important things are to the other side, which helps you target your debate. Three, you begin to relieve any potential charges of ignorance or hypocrisy. Four, you become better prepared for the types of arguments you will face from people who aren’t spending their free time reading atheists. Five, it’s the decent thing to do. If you’re going to shit on a perspective, you should at least know it. From it’s own side.
With that in mind, I would like to make a recommendation of a book I am reading. I’m not done it yet and I do have some criticisms, but in general I think it’s great. It’s written by a former evangelical preacher, highly educated, who has written a book for christians about problems with the theology and philosophy. It’s by John Loftus.
Because this has long troubled me: clearly the batch of books written by the so-called “new atheists” (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens are the most famous) are by atheists, for atheists. The self-congratulatory tone is irksome even to me, and I can easily see how a believer would be more annoyed than persuaded by them. I’m not saying they don’t persuade people – I’m sure they do – but the world needs more than one approach. Loftus brings a different approach, one targeted not at the already confirmed atheists who wants to feel good about themselves but at the questioning believer. He really understands what it is to be a christian, and can target his critiques accordingly. So that’s why I think it’s a very useful book.
Debates are great too – they’re all over youtube, and you see not only the other side’s arguments, but how they rebut the atheist arguments, and how the ‘professional’ atheists rebut the religious arguments.
I wonder though, if the goal should be to engage with theists on their terms in order to deconvert them, or rather should it be to address the more general differences in thinking. You said in an earlier post that if you look at logical, philosophical, and empirical arguments, atheism comes out on top. If someone can be shown exactly what critical thinking is, and convinced that it’s the best way to derive truth in general, then it’s trivial to argue against supernatural religion, and they’ve received a kind of innocculation against all sorts of loony ideas to boot.
Nod. Agreed. I am quite struck by your statement recently that perhaps their beliefs have just never been vigorously challenged – it makes me wonder if the loony creationists who seem to be willfully misunderstanding evolution aren’t just truly ignorant. Maybe they really have never been exposed to a proper explanation!
I tell you, ever since I got involved in the skeptics groups I am seeing woo *everywhere*. It mostly slipped below radar before. That flaky shit is pervasive!
This is the main issue that I have with the most vocal atheists. If your intention is to score cheap points and ridicule people for their beliefs, by all means use the fairies, FSM, and celestial teapot analogies. You won’t change anyone’s current positions, but all your fellow self-congratulating atheists can have a good chuckle together.
However, if your intention is to enlighten someone and possibly change their point of view, you might want to dial back on the rhetoric. You can’t change someone’s mind unless you can really communicate with them. Attacking and ridiculing their point of view gets you nowhere.