Religion is nothing more than a way to make sense of the world. I can understand the need for our species to assign an agent to everything around us. We are after all pattern seeking mammals that crave meaning behind everything. Human history is littered with gods for everything under the sun, and even the sun itself was once a god (Ra). Explanations must be found everywhere. We must have Something/Someone to be thankful to for these elements that sustain life. We have to worship. It's that evolutionary trait passed down to need to be cared for. It's infantile and useless now that we know what we know. Once you understand religion's role in human evolution you can begin to take a step back from it.
One of the greatest ideas the "new atheists" have highlighted is the call to treat religion as a natural phenomenon. Daniel Dennett does this best in his books and lectures. We can't truly study religion and religious belief without detaching it from its privileged status. It's currently on an untouchable pedestal. You may have noticed this if you have ever debated with a believer. You can't argue about a philosophy when those supporting their philosophy can't separate themselves from their biases for the extent of time it takes to have a fair debate about their specific philosophy. *That sentence was way too long but I'm not changing it.
In many religious debates you may notice believers use a myriad of logical fallacies. Some of my personal favorites are the straw man, argument from authority, appeal to ignorance, or the non sequitur. My absolute favorite is the "appeal to ignorance." "You can't prove there ISN'T a God... so there MUST be a God." That's sort of an "appeal to ignorance", "non sequitur" combo right there. This happens constantly in discussions I have with Evangelicals. It's always a struggle to get people of this caliber to meet on the grounds that sound scientific data is where everyone should agree to meet before discussing anything. The respect and thus adherence to the scientific method is when most arguments fall apart before they even begin. I was once having a back and forth with someone on facebook and they basically just said, "What if you are wrong?" An old classic mind fart that is so easy to combat an infant could take this one. Um... What if YOU are wrong? Does that work? HA!
. . . What if I'm wrong though? What if there is a hell and I'm going to it? What if .. fill in the blank. I am not even mildly concerned about the absurd concept of eternal hell or feel joy at the idea of eternal heaven? Even the "good" part of the afterlife believers present as an option, I would pass on. Eternal burning? Obviously . . . No. and Fuck you. Eternal praise and worship? Um. . . . No again and Fuck you as well. I'll pass on both.
I remember as a child my Sunday school teacher told us that the burning forever part of hell wasn't as bad as the separation part of hell. Hell was separation from God. That was worse. Not having God around (the omniscient being who allowed hell to be made in the first place) was worse than your flesh burning for all of time. OK, got it. Had I known a little more about human history I may have raised my hand and asked the teacher where was God for the first 90,000 years of human history? Was that time period "hell on earth"? Christopher Hitchens said once in a debate, "..and for the first 96,000 years of this experience, heaven watches with folded arms, lets us go through all of this, with indifference, without pity, and then around 4,000 years ago decides ‘Gee, it's time to intervene’... And the best way of doing that would probably be around Bronze Age middle east, making appearances to stupefy illiterate peasants, which could then be passed on, the news would get to China around 1000 years after that.” But remember the earth is 6,000 years old.. and this is when a Creationist comes out of the closet (or ark) and you can explain to him everything we know about modern biology, geology, cosmology, paleontology, etc etc.
This notion of hell is childish nonsense and anyone with common sense can see through the lie. It's a fear tactic for means of controlling groups of people. If you can't see this by now you may need to dig a little deeper with your brain. Even some of the moderate Christian writers like Rob Bell have chucked this moronic idea of hell into the trash heap of dumb human ideas. But just like some still think two of every animal can fit on a boat, some think we get punished like bad children after death. Pathetic, childish nonsense.
The most unique of discussions I had was a recent one with a Christian acquaintance from the past. She told me that I really am saved still and just had some bad advice/instruction in my life to lead me down the path to atheism. *Remember friends, those that do not want you to think are NOT your friends. I found this fascinating and insulting all at the same time. I guess I've never really thought someone would be so disconnected with reality to think that I may actually find my way back to being ignorant. I don't mean to be hostile but that's what it is: ignorance. Whether this ignorance is by choice or just sheep mentality, every path down that religious road is different. That's just if I decide to steer back my life towards blind faith. So the other option is if I don't and die an atheist (which I can't really be because once a Christian ALWAYS a Christian!) Ignore the creepy connotations of that for a minute and focus on what this really is. I responded after being sort of taken off guard with a simple: "Pascal's Wager" comment. The dumbest idea ever. I am going to suspend what I know of reality so that I can fake "have faith" again just to hedge my bets so that I won't be burned for all eternity by a loving god. <-- *That sounds like a mental patient wrote that last sentence. I'm keeping it!
That covers the comedic fascination of that absurd notion of me still being saved and that I'll "come around". The part that mostly just pisses me off about this is that it's frankly a sick game of pulling that trigger in an ex-believer's mind. When a person has been indoctrinated (quite literally) all of his/her life as a child/teenager he/she has these triggers that religious people try to pull at: the guilt, the emotion, family peace, etc. It's not only insulting but very low and evil. When you have no evidence or facts on your side you resort to mind manipulation. Religious indoctrination to children is plainly: mental child abuse. This person played that card and that's simply uncalled for. I wasn't bothered by it, but recognized it.
It reminded me of a recent visit home I had. I was in a local restaurant where I saw an older acquaintance from the past who was a Christian. We used to attend the same church/ Christian school. I said hello and smiled. "How have you been?" He just looked down at me with condescension and replied, "I've seen you on Facebook." He didn't need to say more. I knew he was showing his disapproval of my atheist and pro-evolution links and notes I post. I was transported back in time to church and the pastor calling us out for laughing. It was a feeling of being caught, being in trouble. The feeling of an older authority figure coming down on you for "acting up" or "rocking the boat". Of course that's childish but it's what is at the very core of all things religious: Fear/Control/Totalitarianism. I recognized the trigger and brushed it off and moved on to the salad bar. *Alright you guessed it, I was at Pizza Hut!
You may get a believer that will admit that when the rubber meets the road it just boils down to faith. Blind faith. Faith with insufficient or no evidence. Admittedly. This is refreshing when honesty pours out like this. Some, if pressed to that point of personal honesty, will admit that. It's somewhat rare, but of course can be laughed away when pointing out a simple question of why is your "personal faith" any more valid than say a Muslim's personal faith.. or fill in your religion and time period?. Oh, because the Bible tells you it is. Right. The Bible says it's true = the Bible is true. Genius! I have debated with a few "educated" believers that say they have mounds of historical evidence if only I would look at it. I will obviously look at any historical evidence presented to me, but if we are going to do this scientifically then your evidence better be extraordinary and there better be a lot of it. Of course there isn't when it comes to "proving Jesus was the Son of God and died for all of our sins". I require AT LEAST as much evidence as "doubting Thomas" was allotted in the book of John before I begin to talk about Saviors and hell. I think it's only fair.
And so we go around and around in circles with believers. We have problems getting them to "come down" to our level to debate by jumping off their high horse of "special privilege" because they have "the perfect book". Then the next step is getting believers to acknowledge the scientific method as a tool to understand reality. That's almost as hard as the first obstacle. As Sagan said "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works." They have to meet here before we can go over the evidence of the believers beliefs. If you are so lucky to have achieved this massive achievement and can have a legit debate about religion then that's when the real fun begins. OK so... Who wants to have some fun?
Friday, July 20, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
Tactical Approach
What's the best approach to lead theist friends to atheism?
If you are an atheist what is more important to you: 1. Seeing a theist friend come to the realization that the idea of god is nothing more than a construct of the human mind throughout human evolution or 2. that your theist friend comes to the realization that science is the the best tool ever devised to understanding how the world works? It's very difficult leading a theist back through all the unfounded nonsense they accepted as fact because this ordained fellow said this, or this old book said that. It's a challenge to get them to meet you on the same page which is: "I don't know". It's hard to know where to start.
Each atheist has their own path to atheism. Some had to be de-converted like myself. Others were brought up from atheist parents and just stayed the course. For those that are active atheists it can be difficult to get our theist friends to talk about theism or atheism. There are a few exceptions in my personal life, but not many. Most ignore the subject due to "keeping the peace". Which I used to understand (comfort level), but no longer do. I do not agree with bottling things up. As friends or family, I despise not communicating our differences. The human animal is so sensitive to disagreements. I always notice I am when proven wrong about something I thought was true. I feel like I'm getting better at noticing that and understanding the merit of that, but it's a work in progress. It's healthy. It's easy to knee-jerk reaction everything.
There is this idea that the "new atheist" movement is militant (in a bullying verbal/written form). It's just as fundamentalist as the theist fundamentalists that they are "trashing". Despite the obvious flaw in logic in that last sentence, it's clear that there is push back against the "four horsemen" (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (RIP)) not just from the obvious theists but from agnostics and even some atheists. In general, atheists are not used to standing up and fighting for their ideology. People do not like the abrasive approach of these "new atheists". I guess because having a youtube channel, public debates, lectures, or releasing books for sale are abrasive approaches. I'm not sure I get the "abrasive attack" characterization. I can see how people may have thought Hitchens was a smart-ass at times but he was incredibly polite to all the people he debated (a.k.a. intellectually destroyed) and to the host of whatever show he was on. Same goes with Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. The closest I've seen Dawkins being angry was in an interview with O'Reilly (how can anyone not get annoyed with O'Reilly's attack interviewing style though?)
So the issue is knowing where to start in getting your theist friends to the ultimate mental/physical freedom of atheism. I've noticed when debating fundamentalist Christians, (people that still attend the church I attended throughout my childhood for example) they do not take science seriously. Not only do they not take valid scientific theories like the theory of evolution seriously but they do not respect/adhere to/practice the scientific method as a whole in every day life. In other words, they do not think scientifically about things. Obviously these theist I'm speaking of are not informed enough on the subject they object to: Evolution, for example. That's clear, but the core of the problem is: they do not understand how science works.
What if it's better for the theists I'm speaking of to start with discovering science and most importantly the scientific method. Maybe it is better for some to go the Kenneth Miller route. Kenneth Miller is a theist and a evolutionary biologist. He has fought publicly in the courtrooms against the teaching of Intelligent Design in the biology classroom in public schools in the U.S. He understands that Creationism is not science. His book is called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution". However before this book, it may be important to point to your theist friends in the direction of some basic books on science methodology. Maybe point to some works by Carl Sagan. If we can get the theist to meet us in the "I don't know. you don't know" arena then we can have an actual debate about god or no god. No specific privilege for God said so in my book. Science has to be the measuring stick.
In a recent "Big Think" youtube video Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why he is an agnostic and not an atheist. Neil is a genius astrophysicist and a personal hero of mine. I love his passion for advancing science literacy to everyone around the world. Though I find some fault (not much though) in what Tyson says in the video about his characterizations of atheists I do have to wonder if he hits the nail on the head near the end of the video when he says, "I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place. Just get you curious about the natural world." This may be a more effective approach to leading your theist friend to atheism. Get them started with science. Share with your theist friends the joys and the usefulness of skepticism. Get them obsessed with being a skeptic. It's absolutely critical and above all: evidence, evidence, evidence! Extraordinary amounts of it for an extraordinary hypothesis.
If we get the theist to become a scientifically literate individual then we will get them to become a step closer to reasoning away a theistic view of God then.. a deistic view (which is always the last to go, but seems to go quickly once we've let go of the infallible "word of god") At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves as atheists what we really would wish for our theist friends. We obviously want to help set their minds free from being a mental/physical slave to a celestial dictator. However, more importantly we want them to understand the natural world through the tools of science. This to me is the most important. This most likely (not always) will lead them to the path of at the very least, agnosticism. It takes magnificent mental acrobatic maneuvers to know enough science and still believe in any holy book as literal truth. Show your theist friends the wonders of all things science and let the brain do the rest.
If you are an atheist what is more important to you: 1. Seeing a theist friend come to the realization that the idea of god is nothing more than a construct of the human mind throughout human evolution or 2. that your theist friend comes to the realization that science is the the best tool ever devised to understanding how the world works? It's very difficult leading a theist back through all the unfounded nonsense they accepted as fact because this ordained fellow said this, or this old book said that. It's a challenge to get them to meet you on the same page which is: "I don't know". It's hard to know where to start.
Each atheist has their own path to atheism. Some had to be de-converted like myself. Others were brought up from atheist parents and just stayed the course. For those that are active atheists it can be difficult to get our theist friends to talk about theism or atheism. There are a few exceptions in my personal life, but not many. Most ignore the subject due to "keeping the peace". Which I used to understand (comfort level), but no longer do. I do not agree with bottling things up. As friends or family, I despise not communicating our differences. The human animal is so sensitive to disagreements. I always notice I am when proven wrong about something I thought was true. I feel like I'm getting better at noticing that and understanding the merit of that, but it's a work in progress. It's healthy. It's easy to knee-jerk reaction everything.
There is this idea that the "new atheist" movement is militant (in a bullying verbal/written form). It's just as fundamentalist as the theist fundamentalists that they are "trashing". Despite the obvious flaw in logic in that last sentence, it's clear that there is push back against the "four horsemen" (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (RIP)) not just from the obvious theists but from agnostics and even some atheists. In general, atheists are not used to standing up and fighting for their ideology. People do not like the abrasive approach of these "new atheists". I guess because having a youtube channel, public debates, lectures, or releasing books for sale are abrasive approaches. I'm not sure I get the "abrasive attack" characterization. I can see how people may have thought Hitchens was a smart-ass at times but he was incredibly polite to all the people he debated (a.k.a. intellectually destroyed) and to the host of whatever show he was on. Same goes with Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. The closest I've seen Dawkins being angry was in an interview with O'Reilly (how can anyone not get annoyed with O'Reilly's attack interviewing style though?)
So the issue is knowing where to start in getting your theist friends to the ultimate mental/physical freedom of atheism. I've noticed when debating fundamentalist Christians, (people that still attend the church I attended throughout my childhood for example) they do not take science seriously. Not only do they not take valid scientific theories like the theory of evolution seriously but they do not respect/adhere to/practice the scientific method as a whole in every day life. In other words, they do not think scientifically about things. Obviously these theist I'm speaking of are not informed enough on the subject they object to: Evolution, for example. That's clear, but the core of the problem is: they do not understand how science works.
What if it's better for the theists I'm speaking of to start with discovering science and most importantly the scientific method. Maybe it is better for some to go the Kenneth Miller route. Kenneth Miller is a theist and a evolutionary biologist. He has fought publicly in the courtrooms against the teaching of Intelligent Design in the biology classroom in public schools in the U.S. He understands that Creationism is not science. His book is called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution". However before this book, it may be important to point to your theist friends in the direction of some basic books on science methodology. Maybe point to some works by Carl Sagan. If we can get the theist to meet us in the "I don't know. you don't know" arena then we can have an actual debate about god or no god. No specific privilege for God said so in my book. Science has to be the measuring stick.
In a recent "Big Think" youtube video Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why he is an agnostic and not an atheist. Neil is a genius astrophysicist and a personal hero of mine. I love his passion for advancing science literacy to everyone around the world. Though I find some fault (not much though) in what Tyson says in the video about his characterizations of atheists I do have to wonder if he hits the nail on the head near the end of the video when he says, "I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place. Just get you curious about the natural world." This may be a more effective approach to leading your theist friend to atheism. Get them started with science. Share with your theist friends the joys and the usefulness of skepticism. Get them obsessed with being a skeptic. It's absolutely critical and above all: evidence, evidence, evidence! Extraordinary amounts of it for an extraordinary hypothesis.
If we get the theist to become a scientifically literate individual then we will get them to become a step closer to reasoning away a theistic view of God then.. a deistic view (which is always the last to go, but seems to go quickly once we've let go of the infallible "word of god") At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves as atheists what we really would wish for our theist friends. We obviously want to help set their minds free from being a mental/physical slave to a celestial dictator. However, more importantly we want them to understand the natural world through the tools of science. This to me is the most important. This most likely (not always) will lead them to the path of at the very least, agnosticism. It takes magnificent mental acrobatic maneuvers to know enough science and still believe in any holy book as literal truth. Show your theist friends the wonders of all things science and let the brain do the rest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)