I’ve never been in this situation and I can’t imagine what you’re going through.
But when I have positions that get challenged by a lot of people, I have had some success in writing very long and complete essays detailing why I hold the position, along with all of the responses I expect to get and why they’re wrong, and putting it on a blog or website. Then when someone asks why I believe X, I just tell them I’ll send them a link to the essay. It weeds out the people who don’t care enough to go to a link, and it lets the people who really want to know see the position defended as best I can without having to come up with it on the fly. If there’s any pre-existing explanation of atheism you really identify with, you could use that too.
And I have had good experiences with religious people by confounding as many atheist stereotypes as possible: being exaggeratedly nice and understanding, mentioning how much I enjoy religious music / religious writing / the teachings of Jesus / whatever else I honestly respect about religion but saying that some other parts aren’t for me, not bringing the issue up but having a few overwhelmingly strong points that they will agree with when it is brought up, and having a link to a more complete argument ready in case I feel a discussion is getting too confrontational and counterproductive.
I also find that if my goal is just to end an argument without losing too much social capital or coming across as confrontational, I get better results with emotional rather than intellectual points, as long as the emotional points are framed in a nonconfrontational and nonchallenging way. Going on about Biblical contradictions just gets a “You’re obviously proud of your worldly learning, but worldly learning leads you astray” or something from the less intellectual, and an attempt to rationalize the contradiction from the more intellectual. But if I say that some of my Jewish relatives died in the Holocaust and I don’t accept that a just God would allow that to happen, most people have the social graces not to go into a full-fledged explanation of proposed solutions to the problem of evil and to just let the matter rest, or to say that they think my heart is in the right place and they’ll pray for me or something, which is really the best one can expect in these sorts of situations.
I get better results with emotional rather than intellectual points, as long as the emotional points are framed in a nonconfrontational and nonchallenging way.
Huh, interesting. I’m going to have to try this more.
In a Philosophy class I’m taking, a popular counterargument to positions like materialism is just that it feels wrong. My best response so far “Its kind of like drinking milk—if you think about it its really really weird, but you just get used to it”.
If people don’t understand why milk is weird, just explain the industrial process by which a fluid comes out of a domesticated cow’s udders and into your mouth.
I have had some success in writing very long and complete essays...and putting it on a blog or website.
Good to know. I have been entertaining that idea as well and started trying to make it real at my blog.
Then when someone asks why I believe X, I just tell them I’ll send them a link to the essay.
This is extremely appealing. While further debate might arise later, I think this would quite defuse the situation and avoid the pitfalls of on-the-spot debates (especially since person-to-person discussion almost always lacks the ability to provide sources).
I have had good experiences with religious people by confounding as many atheist stereotypes as possible...
Interesting tactic! I’ll have to ponder this one. In my circles, the Lewis trilemma is still thought to hold and they don’t think very fondly of the Jesus-as-great-teacher crew.
...not bringing the issue up but having a few overwhelmingly strong points that they will agree with when it is brought up...
Could you expand on this? I’m not sure I understand what overwhelmingly strong points you might bring up that your opponent might agree with. Would this be something like priest scandals? Or not having your prayers for understanding answered?
I also find that if my goal is just to end an argument without losing too much social capital or coming across as confrontational, I get better results with emotional rather than intellectual points...
Another interesting strategy I’ll think further about. I’m tempted to think I’ve already adopted this sort of strategy, though more so through being overly “hazy.” Earlier, I would go into far more details, whereas now I’ve found that if I just say that “I’m not convinced,” and offer as few supporting details as possible, I do end up at your example destination: person shrugs, presents puppy-dog stare of pity/compassion (fine line...), and says they’ll pray for me.
Thanks for the response; there are some great points to ponder here and perhaps this is the encouragement I need to finally write my “summary of non-belief.”
Interesting tactic! I’ll have to ponder this one. In my circles, the Lewis trilemma is still thought to hold and they don’t think very fondly of the Jesus-as-great-teacher crew.
Even as a nine year old reading The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, it was clear to me reading Professor Diggory’s advice to the other children regarding Lucy that C. S. Lewis simply did not understand crazy people.
The obvious fourth choice is that Jesus was deified after his death, and that the parts where Jesus appears to claim unambiguously to be divine were tacked on as the tradition built up around him, but provided that Jesus lived at all, I think it’s actually more likely than not that he was at least a bit crazy.
The obvious fourth choice is that Jesus was deified after his death, and that the parts where Jesus appears to claim unambiguously to be divine were tacked on as the tradition built up around him...
And off to the races on whether the scriptures are historically trustworthy, the “four facts” of WLC, etc. I do see your point, but the pill wouldn’t go down very easily :)
Do you mean regarding Susan (when she stops believing in Narnia)? Otherwise I can’t recall the section you’re referring to and would be interested in a reminder!
Edit: oh, I’ve just realised you’re probably talking about the very beginning, when Lucy has seen Narnia and none of the rest have. Never mind, sorry.
Could you expand on this? I’m not sure I understand what overwhelmingly strong points you might bring up that your opponent might agree with. Would this be something like priest scandals? Or not having your prayers for understanding answered?
The one I mentioned about the Holocaust would be my go-to example. But really what’s important is that it’s not something completely intellectual they’re going to have a cached response for.
On a side note, I’ve never understood people who use priest scandals as evidence for atheism. It seems totally ad hominem—“some of the guys who talk about this God stuff are bad people, therefore it’s wrong”. I guess you could get there by saying that if God existed He wouldn’t allow such evil among His followers, but the only possible response to that would be “And where have you been for the past five thousand years?”
If I’m accustomed to people arguing for theism from authority (e.g., “I know God wants me to perform these rituals in this way, because my priest said so”), impugning the credibility of the authority figure (e.g., “Oh yeah? Well, your priest molests children!”) is an understandable response.
But you’re right, of course, that it isn’t itself evidence for or against much of anything.
Thanks for the response. The note re. not having a cached response is helpful.
I don’t find priest scandals to say much of anything about the existence of god any more than I find the rote bringing up of Mao or Pol-Pot as evidence against atheism. Bad people exist. They tend to be tied to various ideologies. Get over it :)
Now, I will say, that when someone begins to tread on the ground that thinks the Pope has some incredible moral elevation on the rest of us, it’s then I think it can employed as a bring-one-back-to-earth tactic.
I also do find it a bit odd for someone to say that one should just disregard everything bad that comes out of Rome while insisting that the encyclicals or whatever else are nearly revealed wisdom.
This seems like a particularly good idea if they’re already trying to foist works of apologetics on him; it seems that it would encourage them to believe that the fair arrangement is to suspend the conversation and read each others’ material.
Agreed—this will probably work best for the incredible mass of people ahead who may or may not know (through the grapevine), but who I’ve never addressed the topic with in person (and who may volunteer some apologetics or want to know exactly why I don’t believe).
There are other types of situations where this wouldn’t help as much.
Some of the nearly-as-awkward conversations are the close friends who are aware of the situation and always want to know “if there’s been any progress” or “where I’m at since the last time.” Or those who feel that it’s necessary to tell me repeatedly that they miss the common ground we shared or even like a part of me is missing.
While I fully admit that we’ve lost the common ground, I don’t think I’ve necessarily lost any “part” of me. I think I’ve simply applied a studious tendency that was already present toward a new area that happened to be something we were incredibly immersed in. I wrote about this in a series of posts about my attempt to debunk a multi-level marketing scheme HERE. The pertinent passage is from part 3 (the preface was discussing my “anal” researching nature about other decisions, then connecting it with the current topic of interest, god):
...somewhere deeply ingrained in my nature is a desire to learn, understand, fiddle, and to know. I can’t tell you that I had anything to do with it being there, but it’s there. It comes out all the time when it’s not convenient (e.g. when I should be sleeping but am on Wikipedia or reading books until 3:00am instead).
When I questioned god, I simply did what I always do. I applied my reasoning skills in the best way I knew how. Suspend judgment and belief and try to prove Christianity to myself. It hasn’t worked. I think it’s a great idea, but I was met with immense dissent from fellow believers. But why?
My reflection on my nature has led me to think of how others perceive my decision making and analytical tendencies. Honestly it’s with almost unanimous respect...No one suggested that my reasoning or decision making is flawed.
But what about now? Now I am criticized for stepping outside of the bubble and suspending belief. I’m told that I should have had faith seeking understanding in order to come to the truth. For some reason, one can only reach “the truth” if approached from one of two starting positions: assuming that god exists and that Christianity is true.
Anyway, perhaps that wasn’t entirely pertinent, but I wanted to highlight that there are, indeed, other circumstances where someone might not be presenting new material for me to read… they just disagree a priori and are unhappy about it. And decide to reiterate that dissatisfaction frequently. This isn’t in a way that blatantly says, “It’s your fault that you don’t believe”—it’s just a verbal lamentation that has the same effects as following it up with, “Yeah, so I feel like shit about our relationship and you cause that upon me.”
I have not figured out what to do in these situations rather than simply say, “Yeah. I can absolutely see where you would feel that way.” That’s about it.
But what about now? Now I am criticized for stepping outside of the bubble and suspending belief. I’m told that I should have had faith seeking understanding in order to come to the truth. For some reason, one can only reach “the truth” if approached from one of two starting positions: assuming that god exists and that Christianity is true.
Perhaps you’ve already tried this, but I think I would point out that people who who have “faith seeking understanding” tend to end up with the same beliefs they started with in other religions as well, and indeed, with any sort of belief, it has a marked tendency not to change one’s mind. You can tell them you don’t think a benevolent god who wanted people to believe would provide so little evidence that people can’t come to the right conclusion without using methods that aren’t generally useful for finding out what’s true.
Absolutely. I should have added that, ever since I heard it, I have come to see “faith seeking understanding” as roughly equivalent to “believe that you may believe more.”
You can tell them you don’t think a benevolent god who wanted people to believe would provide so little evidence that people can’t come to the right conclusion without using methods that aren’t generally useful for finding out what’s true.
Indeed, and I think this is one of the easiest, simplest ways to offer a reason for non-belief. Theists also don’t go down so easy and would suggest that it’s possible, given the weight of the consequences, one should never give up and spend their whole lives seeking after a way to believe.
This is pretty much a prettied up version of Pascal’s Wager.
My wife was on retreat this weekend and talked glowingly of a talk in which a guest speaker said that he struggled with non-belief but concluded that since heaven is possible, he is going to dedicate his entire life to study and religious living so that if it exists, he will go. She thought that this was about the most admirable thing ever.
And hence, even if you don’t believe now, surely god has a plan and you need to keep your head in Swinburne and Kreeft until your death bed. There seems to be no way out that a theist will accept is honorable and justified, which is quite unfortunate. I dialogued with the author of Daylight Atheism, who made the great point that to join a religion, you just need to say a few words, but to leave you need to conclusively refute every theologian who’s ever lived...
Anyway, perhaps that wasn’t entirely pertinent, but I wanted to highlight that there are, indeed, other circumstances where someone might not be presenting new material for me to read… they just disagree a priori and are unhappy about it. And decide to reiterate that dissatisfaction frequently. This isn’t in a way that blatantly says, “It’s your fault that you don’t believe”—it’s just a verbal lamentation that has the same effects as following it up with, “Yeah, so I feel like shit about our relationship and you cause that upon me.”
I have not figured out what to do in these situations rather than simply say, “Yeah. I can absolutely see where you would feel that way.” That’s about it.
You might try telling them that you’re trying to follow up a case of genuine curiosity, the sort they never condemned when it didn’t touch on matters of faith, and it hurts you to feel that you’re being discouraged from being intellectually honest. If God wants you to believe, he can do it by placing the evidence you’re looking for before you, rather than preventing you from carrying out an unbiased investigation.
I’ve done this with a few. The response has been varied. I think my wife understood that. I had another friend basically tell me I was obligate to “have faith seeking understanding” because I was the one who defected and that I owed it to my wife.
I still have an incredibly hard time seeing as how that’s proper.
If God wants you to believe, he can do it by placing the evidence you’re looking for before you...
Indeed. Many initially object to this idea because they think it fiddles with free will, but if god is the author of all events and permits everything to happen according to his will and has all knowledge… he already knew what would cause any given person to believe and necessarily allowed that evidence to come before them. I think of people as having a “threshold of belief” and think they are blind to where it lies. Some unpredicted thing comes along one day, breaks the threshold, and you change your mind.
If you can go along with that model as useful, then it could be said that god knows where my threshold is and isn’t meeting it.
I had another friend basically tell me I was obligate to “have faith seeking understanding” because I was the one who defected and that I owed it to my wife.
Have you tried asking if you were, say, a Muslim, if it would still be right for you to have faith seeking understanding? Does your friend think this is always the right thing to do, or just when you happen to start out believing the right thing?
Indeed. Many initially object to this idea because they think it fiddles with free will
If God can’t alter events that will affect our decisions, can he actually do anything in the real world?
Free will has always been one of the most frustrating arguments for me to deal with, because it’s subject to such an extent of doublethink. It appears that God is capable of everything, except when he’s incapable of anything. It’s extraordinarily difficult to get people to notice that they should be confused by this.
Does your friend think this is always the right thing to do, or just when you happen to start out believing the right thing?
In theory, I think he’d actually say that this is always the right thing to do if you are pre-committed in various ways to a life based on X and which affects close relationships.
In practice, I think he’d welcome me with open arms if I was a Muslim/Jew/Scientologist/Mormon and told him I was having doubts and wanted to seriously consider Catholicism as the one true faith.
If God can’t alter events that will affect our decisions, can he actually do anything in the real world?
Great point.
It appears that God is capable of everything, except when he’s incapable of anything.
Another great point. I played praise and worship at a friend’s wedding last summer as a non-believer (he asked and I wasn’t going to say no), and one of the songs was this one(I linked to the chorus), which has this refrain:
Savior, he can move the mountains
My God is mighty to save, he is mighty to save...
Having that in my head for so long to practice it and what not, I came up with a re-write that illustrates your point:
Savior, he can move the mountains
But he can’t do anything that’s tangibly observable...
I’ve never been in this situation and I can’t imagine what you’re going through.
But when I have positions that get challenged by a lot of people, I have had some success in writing very long and complete essays detailing why I hold the position, along with all of the responses I expect to get and why they’re wrong, and putting it on a blog or website. Then when someone asks why I believe X, I just tell them I’ll send them a link to the essay. It weeds out the people who don’t care enough to go to a link, and it lets the people who really want to know see the position defended as best I can without having to come up with it on the fly. If there’s any pre-existing explanation of atheism you really identify with, you could use that too.
And I have had good experiences with religious people by confounding as many atheist stereotypes as possible: being exaggeratedly nice and understanding, mentioning how much I enjoy religious music / religious writing / the teachings of Jesus / whatever else I honestly respect about religion but saying that some other parts aren’t for me, not bringing the issue up but having a few overwhelmingly strong points that they will agree with when it is brought up, and having a link to a more complete argument ready in case I feel a discussion is getting too confrontational and counterproductive.
I also find that if my goal is just to end an argument without losing too much social capital or coming across as confrontational, I get better results with emotional rather than intellectual points, as long as the emotional points are framed in a nonconfrontational and nonchallenging way. Going on about Biblical contradictions just gets a “You’re obviously proud of your worldly learning, but worldly learning leads you astray” or something from the less intellectual, and an attempt to rationalize the contradiction from the more intellectual. But if I say that some of my Jewish relatives died in the Holocaust and I don’t accept that a just God would allow that to happen, most people have the social graces not to go into a full-fledged explanation of proposed solutions to the problem of evil and to just let the matter rest, or to say that they think my heart is in the right place and they’ll pray for me or something, which is really the best one can expect in these sorts of situations.
Huh, interesting. I’m going to have to try this more.
In a Philosophy class I’m taking, a popular counterargument to positions like materialism is just that it feels wrong. My best response so far “Its kind of like drinking milk—if you think about it its really really weird, but you just get used to it”.
If people don’t understand why milk is weird, just explain the industrial process by which a fluid comes out of a domesticated cow’s udders and into your mouth.
I was going to suggest trying to find ways of shutting down in person conversation and this seems like a good one.
I was going to go with excuses such as “I don’t have time to discuss this at the moment, I busy doing activity that Christians would approve of”
Good to know. I have been entertaining that idea as well and started trying to make it real at my blog.
This is extremely appealing. While further debate might arise later, I think this would quite defuse the situation and avoid the pitfalls of on-the-spot debates (especially since person-to-person discussion almost always lacks the ability to provide sources).
Interesting tactic! I’ll have to ponder this one. In my circles, the Lewis trilemma is still thought to hold and they don’t think very fondly of the Jesus-as-great-teacher crew.
Could you expand on this? I’m not sure I understand what overwhelmingly strong points you might bring up that your opponent might agree with. Would this be something like priest scandals? Or not having your prayers for understanding answered?
Another interesting strategy I’ll think further about. I’m tempted to think I’ve already adopted this sort of strategy, though more so through being overly “hazy.” Earlier, I would go into far more details, whereas now I’ve found that if I just say that “I’m not convinced,” and offer as few supporting details as possible, I do end up at your example destination: person shrugs, presents puppy-dog stare of pity/compassion (fine line...), and says they’ll pray for me.
Thanks for the response; there are some great points to ponder here and perhaps this is the encouragement I need to finally write my “summary of non-belief.”
Even as a nine year old reading The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, it was clear to me reading Professor Diggory’s advice to the other children regarding Lucy that C. S. Lewis simply did not understand crazy people.
The obvious fourth choice is that Jesus was deified after his death, and that the parts where Jesus appears to claim unambiguously to be divine were tacked on as the tradition built up around him, but provided that Jesus lived at all, I think it’s actually more likely than not that he was at least a bit crazy.
And off to the races on whether the scriptures are historically trustworthy, the “four facts” of WLC, etc. I do see your point, but the pill wouldn’t go down very easily :)
Do you mean regarding Susan (when she stops believing in Narnia)? Otherwise I can’t recall the section you’re referring to and would be interested in a reminder!
Edit: oh, I’ve just realised you’re probably talking about the very beginning, when Lucy has seen Narnia and none of the rest have. Never mind, sorry.
The one I mentioned about the Holocaust would be my go-to example. But really what’s important is that it’s not something completely intellectual they’re going to have a cached response for.
On a side note, I’ve never understood people who use priest scandals as evidence for atheism. It seems totally ad hominem—“some of the guys who talk about this God stuff are bad people, therefore it’s wrong”. I guess you could get there by saying that if God existed He wouldn’t allow such evil among His followers, but the only possible response to that would be “And where have you been for the past five thousand years?”
If I’m accustomed to people arguing for theism from authority (e.g., “I know God wants me to perform these rituals in this way, because my priest said so”), impugning the credibility of the authority figure (e.g., “Oh yeah? Well, your priest molests children!”) is an understandable response.
But you’re right, of course, that it isn’t itself evidence for or against much of anything.
Thanks for the response. The note re. not having a cached response is helpful.
I don’t find priest scandals to say much of anything about the existence of god any more than I find the rote bringing up of Mao or Pol-Pot as evidence against atheism. Bad people exist. They tend to be tied to various ideologies. Get over it :)
Now, I will say, that when someone begins to tread on the ground that thinks the Pope has some incredible moral elevation on the rest of us, it’s then I think it can employed as a bring-one-back-to-earth tactic.
I also do find it a bit odd for someone to say that one should just disregard everything bad that comes out of Rome while insisting that the encyclicals or whatever else are nearly revealed wisdom.
This seems like a particularly good idea if they’re already trying to foist works of apologetics on him; it seems that it would encourage them to believe that the fair arrangement is to suspend the conversation and read each others’ material.
Agreed—this will probably work best for the incredible mass of people ahead who may or may not know (through the grapevine), but who I’ve never addressed the topic with in person (and who may volunteer some apologetics or want to know exactly why I don’t believe).
There are other types of situations where this wouldn’t help as much.
Some of the nearly-as-awkward conversations are the close friends who are aware of the situation and always want to know “if there’s been any progress” or “where I’m at since the last time.” Or those who feel that it’s necessary to tell me repeatedly that they miss the common ground we shared or even like a part of me is missing.
While I fully admit that we’ve lost the common ground, I don’t think I’ve necessarily lost any “part” of me. I think I’ve simply applied a studious tendency that was already present toward a new area that happened to be something we were incredibly immersed in. I wrote about this in a series of posts about my attempt to debunk a multi-level marketing scheme HERE. The pertinent passage is from part 3 (the preface was discussing my “anal” researching nature about other decisions, then connecting it with the current topic of interest, god):
Anyway, perhaps that wasn’t entirely pertinent, but I wanted to highlight that there are, indeed, other circumstances where someone might not be presenting new material for me to read… they just disagree a priori and are unhappy about it. And decide to reiterate that dissatisfaction frequently. This isn’t in a way that blatantly says, “It’s your fault that you don’t believe”—it’s just a verbal lamentation that has the same effects as following it up with, “Yeah, so I feel like shit about our relationship and you cause that upon me.”
I have not figured out what to do in these situations rather than simply say, “Yeah. I can absolutely see where you would feel that way.” That’s about it.
Perhaps you’ve already tried this, but I think I would point out that people who who have “faith seeking understanding” tend to end up with the same beliefs they started with in other religions as well, and indeed, with any sort of belief, it has a marked tendency not to change one’s mind. You can tell them you don’t think a benevolent god who wanted people to believe would provide so little evidence that people can’t come to the right conclusion without using methods that aren’t generally useful for finding out what’s true.
Absolutely. I should have added that, ever since I heard it, I have come to see “faith seeking understanding” as roughly equivalent to “believe that you may believe more.”
Indeed, and I think this is one of the easiest, simplest ways to offer a reason for non-belief. Theists also don’t go down so easy and would suggest that it’s possible, given the weight of the consequences, one should never give up and spend their whole lives seeking after a way to believe.
This is pretty much a prettied up version of Pascal’s Wager.
My wife was on retreat this weekend and talked glowingly of a talk in which a guest speaker said that he struggled with non-belief but concluded that since heaven is possible, he is going to dedicate his entire life to study and religious living so that if it exists, he will go. She thought that this was about the most admirable thing ever.
And hence, even if you don’t believe now, surely god has a plan and you need to keep your head in Swinburne and Kreeft until your death bed. There seems to be no way out that a theist will accept is honorable and justified, which is quite unfortunate. I dialogued with the author of Daylight Atheism, who made the great point that to join a religion, you just need to say a few words, but to leave you need to conclusively refute every theologian who’s ever lived...
You might try telling them that you’re trying to follow up a case of genuine curiosity, the sort they never condemned when it didn’t touch on matters of faith, and it hurts you to feel that you’re being discouraged from being intellectually honest. If God wants you to believe, he can do it by placing the evidence you’re looking for before you, rather than preventing you from carrying out an unbiased investigation.
I’ve done this with a few. The response has been varied. I think my wife understood that. I had another friend basically tell me I was obligate to “have faith seeking understanding” because I was the one who defected and that I owed it to my wife.
I still have an incredibly hard time seeing as how that’s proper.
Indeed. Many initially object to this idea because they think it fiddles with free will, but if god is the author of all events and permits everything to happen according to his will and has all knowledge… he already knew what would cause any given person to believe and necessarily allowed that evidence to come before them. I think of people as having a “threshold of belief” and think they are blind to where it lies. Some unpredicted thing comes along one day, breaks the threshold, and you change your mind.
If you can go along with that model as useful, then it could be said that god knows where my threshold is and isn’t meeting it.
Have you tried asking if you were, say, a Muslim, if it would still be right for you to have faith seeking understanding? Does your friend think this is always the right thing to do, or just when you happen to start out believing the right thing?
If God can’t alter events that will affect our decisions, can he actually do anything in the real world?
Free will has always been one of the most frustrating arguments for me to deal with, because it’s subject to such an extent of doublethink. It appears that God is capable of everything, except when he’s incapable of anything. It’s extraordinarily difficult to get people to notice that they should be confused by this.
In theory, I think he’d actually say that this is always the right thing to do if you are pre-committed in various ways to a life based on X and which affects close relationships.
In practice, I think he’d welcome me with open arms if I was a Muslim/Jew/Scientologist/Mormon and told him I was having doubts and wanted to seriously consider Catholicism as the one true faith.
Great point.
Another great point. I played praise and worship at a friend’s wedding last summer as a non-believer (he asked and I wasn’t going to say no), and one of the songs was this one(I linked to the chorus), which has this refrain:
Having that in my head for so long to practice it and what not, I came up with a re-write that illustrates your point: