Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Converting Strict Religionists (or "How Not to Come Off As an Arrogant Bastard")

How do you get through to a religionist that atheists aren't scary, evil, uninformed or immoral without the conversation degenerating into angry shouts and flaring tempers? Over the years, I've found that trying to stay calm, rational and focused on the issues works much better than direct confrontation and blithe dismissal of the believer's errors.

One idea that I've developed over the years is that a person's religious and political views end up not only coloring how they interact with the world, but also how they see and define themselves. In most households, religion is a permeating and everpresent fog that envelopes a child from the day he is born until the day he sets off to college (or work, or wherever). In such a climate, it is natural not only that an individual gathers in the views and opinions of his parents, but also that such views and opinions will come to define the image of "self". Being told time and again that one is a "Christian" or "Muslim", while seemingly innocuous, is actually forcing a child into a mold that didn't previously exist -- and is damningly difficult to escape from.

After a while, especially in a strict fundamentalist upbringing, those beliefs come to define the person. When later in life such a person is challenged about their religion or beliefs, the believer sees them as questions or attacks on not just the religion, but on the person. This is one of the most insidious and diabolical ways that religion pervades, infiltrates and takes over minds. By coopting the egotistical and natural sense of self-protection, religions can avoid direct challenge and argument.

However, this can leave the believer in a very tenuous state. If their entire sense of self-worth and self-image is tied so tightly to their religion that the two become essentially unified, then any perceived or real error, mistake, or omission in the religion becomes an error, mistake or omission within themselves, too. This is how fundamentalism and dogma assert themselves, and it takes a lot of patience, trust and time to overcome. Most YECs fall into this mold - and anyone else who is taught that their "holy book" is innerent and infalliable.

So, how does one deal with such people?

I've found over the years that you have to take things very slow. If you wade in from the start with a whole list of errors and mistakes from their holy texts, you'll never make any progress. All such frontal assaults will do is cause the believer to throw up an impenetrable wall that cuts off any chance of communication and rationality. Not only that, it will just reinforce what he or she has always been told about "unbelievers" -- that we're trying to get them to go to hell, too.

I prefer to start with trying to understand the believer as a person, and ask "searching" questions to get a dialogue going. Although I might have an answer I'm satisfied with, this allows me to express an interest in the believer's views and show that I've got respect for them as a person. It also can, if done skillfully, push the believer to begin to rationally and critically examine their beliefs in a safer, less confrontational setting. Usually, I start with tangential issues -- I never challenge them to "prove there is a God", because 1) that's not realistic, and 2) it ends up pissing them off, and they end up throwing up their wall of silence again.

Instead, I try to get to know them, gauge how deeply held their beliefs are, and try to find out what areas they are themselves somewhat uncertain or curious about. This not only leads to a shared experience, but generates some beginnings of trust and mutual respect that are essential when dealing with a person's self-esteem and ego. Depending on the level of discussion and the frequency, as well as how deeply embedded their beliefs are within themselves, getting fundamentalists to take those first steps onto the path of rationality and reason can be a frustratingly long process. I've personally "converted" a few -- and in each case, it took patience and a lot of time. You have to start with small victories and work your way up to the larger ones. In the end, most didn't fully drop their religion, but what they had was a less restrictive and more accepting version that allowed them the freedom and self-confidence to travel their own path, and to generate their own questions and challenges without fear of destroying who they thought they were.

Just getting a YEC or strict fundamentalist Muslim to admit that their holy books might not be perfect and innerent is huge. It might not seem like much to most, but that is the critical -- and necessary -- first step. If they can accept that just because their Bible or Koran isn't perfect, that it's not a reflection of imperfection in themselves, then they are on the path to a freer, more open dialogue and understanding of the universe. By severing that "belief=self" connection, the religionist is then able to begin the ardurous and often painful process of shedding the strictures and bindings of religion, and they begin to see the possibilities and beauty of life without faith.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Chuck, the trouble with your analysis is that in practive, atheists invariable loose it ang get angry when you disagree. Like you do.

Futher, EVERY atheist I have personally met has ended up treating me badly when I voiced by view.

Admittedly, my experience is limited, but you and I both know there are some particularly vicious little jerks trying to promote atheism in the KC area.

And every officially atheistic government has ended up being a barabaric monstrosity.

Its nothing personal, I just don;e want you people to have power over me and I will do everything I can legally speaking to prevent that.


A Theist

Anonymous said...

In support of my contention, you link to the FSM site, which is constantly vomited about by IGGY and the Bill tammeus blog which he shits on regularly, and PZ MYERS...a Christian hating bigot. And I choose those last three words carefully.

And they are quite accurate.

IF you like to that crap, you are not a person of "good will towards theists", in my opinion only, of course.


A Theist

Chuck Lunney said...

Chuck, the trouble with your analysis is that in practive, atheists invariable loose it ang get angry when you disagree. Like you do.

Really? When did I get "angry" or "loose [sic] it"? I did get a little annoyed when I was insulted and mocked over at Faithwalk -- but that's a far cry from "angry".

Futher, EVERY atheist I have personally met has ended up treating me badly when I voiced by view.

And while I won't say "every theist has treated me badly", when the occasion for anonymous give and take occurs (such as on the Faithwalk comments), inevitably, I get insulted, attacked, mocked, etc. And all for giving voice to my opinion and viewpoint. Yet I manage to try and respond with substance, rationality and civility, no matter what.

Should I simply lump all theists together and assume they are all petty, insulting, vile little pieces of scum simply because I've run into a few obnoxious ones on the net? It certainly seems that YOU are doing that to atheists here.

Admittedly, my experience is limited, but you and I both know there are some particularly vicious little jerks trying to promote atheism in the KC area.

Ummm, I think you are referring to ONE PERSON. How is it that in a metro area of over 2 million, you single out one individual and extrapolate wildly? Taking even the most conservative estimate on the number of atheists (~5%), there is approximately 100,000 atheists in the metro. And you are basing your view of ALL OF THEM on a single individual?

And every officially atheistic government has ended up being a barabaric monstrosity.

Really? The USA is a non-theistic government. According to the Treaty of Tripoli, the US is certainly not a Christian nation -- and given that no other religion is as prominent or powerful in the US, that pretty much leaves "non-theist" as the default.

And I really wouldn't want to start trading barbs about whether theistic governments hands are clean. You'll lose.

Its nothing personal, I just don;e want you people to have power over me and I will do everything I can legally speaking to prevent that.

Good for you. I don't want "power over" anyone -- I want to be treated fairly, have my views and voice heard equally, and not be denigrated, denounced, vilified or marginalized simply because I disagree with the majority.

Chuck Lunney said...

In support of my contention, you link to the FSM site, which is constantly vomited about by IGGY and the Bill tammeus blog which he shits on regularly, and PZ MYERS...a Christian hating bigot. And I choose those last three words carefully.

And they are quite accurate.

IF you like to that crap, you are not a person of "good will towards theists", in my opinion only, of course.


I realize Iggy uses the idea of the FSM to denigrate religion -- so what?

Jim Jones and David Koresh used Christianity -- should I therefore base what I think of Christianity on those examples?

The links I post are things I think have humor, intelligence and biting commentary. I don't always agree with everything that's on those sites, but I do generally enjoy reading them.

Dr. Myers happens to be a very good scientist, and while his anti-theist views can sometimes be abrasive and cutting, his postings on current science and his explanations of theory are superb and clearly written.

Anonymous said...

I did not refer to "non theistic" governments, I referred to offically atheistic governments. SECULAR DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISTIC, so quit trying to pawn that off.

As for using other so called Christians to smear Christians, so what, go ahead. I don't give a crap, thats what your crowd does anyway. I am not referring to ONE PERSON but the whole swarm of KC"Free"thinkers.

And Myers hardly talks about science, he is a bigot first class.
Again, SCIENCE DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISM, so quite trying to pawn that off.

If you want to bring your smears to Christians sites, we will bring them back to you. Thats why I am here.

A Theist

Chuck Lunney said...

I have not "smeared" any Christian sites -- so what is the purpose of you doing so here? Are you so petty and petulant that you have to insult any random atheist you find?

Do you do this in real life -- or only when you are an anonymous slug on the web?

AdamH said...

I am anonymous because I don't want to be tracked by your sick little friend Iggy.

That said, you have been on the Tammeus blog with your tripe, trying to derail his discussions.

And, you trolled the Faith Walk Columnist trying to put them down under the guise of trying to understand them.

What goes around comes around I guess. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't vistit them with your blather and I won't vist you.

AdamH said...

And I just read your post again carefully.

You should too.

What you are admitting is that your attempt to "understand" is just a TACTIC to "deconvert" the believer.

A tactic, no more or less.

It does not involve honesty in any sense. Your postion is corrupt, your philisophy is evil.

Chuck Lunney said...

Adam,

What do you mean, you read the post "carefully" again? Didn't you catch the title -- Converting Strict Religionists? What part of that is confusing or unclear?

I was SPECIFICALLY pointing out that being arrogant, condescending and/or confrontational is NOT the way to convince someone who's whole sense of self is wrapped up in their religion.

And no, I am not trying to get people to completely abandon their beliefs (if you had actually read the post, you'd know that). Instead, it was trying to show a way to get closeminded literalists to open up and "generate their own questions and challenges without fear of destroying who they thought they were."

And I like the fact that you do EXACTLY what I said SHOULDN'T be done to convince someone they're wrong -- be arrogant, dismissive and insulting.

Talk about demonstrating my point with succinct clarity! Thanks!

AdamH said...

And why would your tactics be better.

Because you could convert your opponent.

That was your word, convert.

Chuck Lunney said...

Gee, last I checked, most religions emphasize and encourage "conversion".

Why shouldn't I use that word? Are you so weak and timid in your faith that you might be "converted" by a single blog posting?

I never once denied that the ideas I posted about were intended to change other's views and positions. In fact, it's mentioned in the article TITLE -- which most people would consider a not-too-subtle indication of the purpose and focus of the post.

Perhaps that's too sophisticated a "tactic" for you?

AdamH said...

So when you use that word are you admitting that atheism IS a religion, then?

Chuck Lunney said...

So when you use that word are you admitting that atheism IS a religion, then?

Ummm, no. The word "convert" does not automatically imply "religion". In fact, it can refer to any change of opinion, view, or characteristic.

From www.dictionary.com:

1. to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform.
2. to cause to adopt a different religion, political doctrine, opinion, etc.: to convert the heathen.
3. to turn to another or a particular use or purpose; divert from the original or intended use: They converted the study into a nursery for the baby.
4. to modify (something) so as to serve a different function: to convert an automobile factory to the manufacture of tanks.
5. to obtain an equivalent value for in an exchange or calculation, as money or units of measurement: to convert bank notes into gold; to convert yards into meters.
6. Finance. to exchange voluntarily (a bond or preferred stock) into another security, usually common stock, because of the greater value of the latter.
7. to change in character; cause to turn from an evil life to a righteous one: to convert a criminal.
8. Chemistry. to cause (a substance) to undergo a chemical change: to convert sugar into alcohol.
9. to invert or transpose.
10. Law.
a. to assume unlawful rights of ownership of (personal property).
b. to change the form of (property), as from realty to personalty or vice versa.
11. to appropriate wrongfully to one's own use.
12. Logic. to transpose the subject and predicate of (a proposition) by conversion.
13. Computers. to subject to conversion.
14. to become converted.
15. Football. to make a conversion.
16. (noun) one who has been converted, as to a religion or opinion.

Note that not one of these definitions is exclusive to religion. And the ones that do mention religion also refer to "opinion" and "political doctrine". Did you ever bother to consider that I might be trying to change someone's views of religion in general?

And "atheism" is not a religion, any more than not believing in unicorns is a religion. It's a NEGATION of something, not something in itself.

Of course, an knowledge of linguistics, vocabulary, history and logic would help you understand it all.

AdamH said...

In other words, you are equivocating, changing the meaning of the word to suit your argument.

And old game, but why bother?

Chuck Lunney said...

In other words, you are equivocating, changing the meaning of the word to suit your argument.

No, I was using a standard definition of the term. That you didn't understand or comprehend that is not my problem.

My post stands as written, clearly focused on changing another's views on a subject. It has nothing to do with atheism or whether it is a religion or not (it isn't).

You seem unable to actually deal with the substance and facts, and have to resort to insults, ad hominem and changing the subject. Why?

I know you say you aren't afraid to meet atheists -- but I've yet to see anything more than anonymous sniping from a cowardly position.

Grow up, Adam (Eddie/Clarissa/Diane/etc).

AdamH said...

Gee, list enough names and eventually you hit one!

And Clarissa called Iggy, and he wanted her to meet him in a parking lot with her blinkers on before he would show his face!!!

Ask him! Go ahead! Ask him!!!

Bahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

AdamH said...

ASK HIM I SAID! ASK HIM why he wanted her to be in a parking lot at a certain time with her BLINKERS ON!

Chuck Lunney said...

Gee, list enough names and eventually you hit one!

Thank you for admitting that you are a troll who uses anonymous sock puppets.

To quote Monty Python:

DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS! SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR KIND REALLY MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS, STUFFY-NOSED, MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

You will get no more responses from me (and if I find a way to block you from commenting here, I will).

PLONK.