Should Believers Turned Atheists Self-Censor What They Share?
I watched a collection of videos today from a Wakelet post called "The Ultimate Atheism Collection" shared by Richard Dawkins. It includes videos from Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Jacque Fresco, Bertrand Russell, and Stephen Fry along with a cartoon gameshow about biblical contradictions.
I was going to share it on Facebook, but decided not to (I did give enough information to Google it, if it sounds interesting). The reason I didn't share it directly is I realized this expression is seen by some of my friends and family as an attack on them personally because it is, in many ways, an attack on their beliefs which are an important part of their identity.
If I pause for a moment and consider this, it concerns me. If I was to talk about how silly it is for people to get violently upset about a cartoon of Muhammad, many of those same friends and family would agree with me. But if I share something anti-religious they personally don't like, especially as someone who myself believed in a version of their same religion for most of my life (including 6 years in full-time ministry), that is seen as if I did something wrong.
What I'm now thinking is wrong is not engaging with these arguments because it's like only representing one side of the argument. Growing up, I never listened to any of the individuals mentioned above. No one in my family or anyone I knew talked about their ideas. Not only that, there was this feeling that somehow doubt because of ideas from these men could come in like a cancer and lead to sin. Not immoral action, as I understand it today, but something else called "sin" which I now think to be somewhat circularly defined.
So I'm in this strange place where information I find very useful today, information I wish more people had shared with me earlier in my life and discussed with me openly, is considered threatening by many people I care for. For me to share it publicly isn't a welcomed activity for them (though for others it might be). I've asked some to just hide my posts (or unfriend me) if those posts cause them harm, but what responsibility do you think I should take regarding what is shared or not shared? If my opinion is unpopular and many people might not agree with it, is it not worth sharing or does that make it all the more important to share so that either a) more people can convince me why I'm wrong and show me a better way of thinking or b) more people can change their thinking to something that might be more accurate, even if it's not popular?
These are challenging things to consider in our hyper-connected reality with memes transferring faster than viruses. We take care to protect others from a virus, more so if it can cause great harm. Information which impacts identity and directs actions can also be seen to spread like a virus. In some cases, information is destructive, in others it's the cure to much harm in the world. I think the same can be said for a belief in a divinely powerful god or the lack of that belief. History shows a lot of good and bad on both sides of that coin.
And yet, many are more concerned with how I didn't use a capital "G" when I said "god" in the previous paragraph. I know this because that was me as well. From birth, I was taught a certain way to do things and when my experience didn't align with that familiar way, the discord created was very uncomfortable. It's System 1 and System 2 thinking as described by Daniel Kahneman.
I don't really have a closing point here. I just wanted to write this all down and "think out loud" as I enjoy doing. I hope societies around the world move towards an open sharing of information and ideas which do not threaten individuals.
First off, I enjoy reading your work. This is another example of a well thought through philosophy.
Secondly, Facebook is always a difficult place to discuss ideas. I believe you do have a responsibility to your audience. Yet, everyone has a unique situation so I won't say what you ought to do - that is your business.
If you could, may you reply with the link to these videos? I am a believer and would enjoy listening to these gentlemen.
Thank you! I really appreciate hearing from believers who are not upset by the sharing of ideas, even if they disagree with them. The videos can be found here. The second video (Sam Harris) is dead, so skip that one. Some include examples of attacking strawmen and some, I'm sure, are taken out of context without the rebuttal. They are, as many things, more along the lines of echoing things those within that tribe already agree with, though again, I do think there are some important ideas here I wish someone had shared with me earlier so I could have wrestled through them as I developed my faith. It's possible I'd still have some version of faith today if I had done so.
And yes, I agree Facebook can be difficult, but I've also taken it up as a personal challenge to share interesting ideas there. I've had many friends also tell me how much they appreciate my posts. Sometimes they do so in private messages or via texts or when I see them in person. I understand, for many, a simple reply or like is a scary thing because it signals something to your tribe which they may not be prepared to deal with yet.
Thank you for the videos! I have a few picked out that I want to watch first - the bible contradiction quiz show looks amusing.
You obviously take great care in how you present information. The fact that people are approaching you to show their appreciation is a testament to your integrity. I look forward to your next post Luke!
Thank you!
Be careful with that quiz show one. Some of their arguments aren't that great and some of the scriptures are taken out of context. Like the one where they say there's a contradiction where Judas hung himself or he fell in a field and his insides exploded (or something like that). Clearly it could have been both if hung himself and then later, as a corpse, fell to the ground with a not-so-pleasant result.
That said, most of them are probably quite reasonable and the mental gymnastics I used to do to justify those contradictions are quite fascinating. I used to have a counter argument for every contradiction, but I didn't recognize my own bias. I wasn't looking for reasonable explanations, I was looking for confirmation. That's not, IMO, a great way to know what's real.
Haha. A contradiction with Judas is a new one for me. Thank you for the heads up.
I get a chuckle out of bringing up contradictions with some of my believer friends. You're right, the mental gymnastics to justify your own bias is not healthy. It does not need to be that difficult.
It is a tricky path to weave. You're a good guy and I'm sure you'll find what works best for you. I have more faith in you than I do in a religion.
I can tell you my thoughts. I share with people if they open the door to sharing, or they say something that prompts it.
Otherwise I view pushing atheism, deism, or any other religion as pretty much the same. The term "bible thumper" is one you've likely heard used in a derogatory fashion. I've met people that could be "atheism thumpers".
Now consider the reason people thump the bible. In their mind they are trying to SAVE people they care about.
Yet if you talk to people that may be overly aggressive in pushing atheism their motivation is almost the same thing.
I fall back on the Anarcho Capitalism statement "Good ideas don't require force".
So if you are religious and someone opens the door for a religious discussion then that is great. Feel free. The same is true for atheism. If that door is opened then I don't feel you should feel bad about discussing it.
The unwelcome approaches are when that door is not opened and someone slams religious, or atheist viewpoints down.
Example from the religious side. Not talking about anything religious related at all, but something bad happening and it suddenly turns to "that is Satan, and we need to pray to God to fix that". The same can be said by atheist along the lines of "that is a religious fool that hasn't seen how blind they are and how they are being lead about like a herd animal". Both are unwelcome and I've seen examples of them many times.
I've had a number of glimpses at who you are as a person. I actually would be very surprised to see/hear that you had taken either of those approaches.
As such, I believe you'll be a good judge of when it might be a good time to share, and when it will not. Yet, you are human. You're going to make mistakes. Own your mistakes and learn from them and you should be golden.
Respect.
EDIT: And if they try to force it upon you, you can decide whether it is worth countering or not.
Thanks @dwinblood. I really appreciate your comments, as always.
I completely agree with you regarding personal conversations, but I generally share everything publicly on Facebook. I'm thinking through the end result of that practice and how it impacts people I care about.
The challenge for me here is I really do have a bias now that sharing information counter to what someone has always been told by their religious upbringing is a good thing. I wish more people had done it with me earlier in my life. I can't, of course, know what my life would have turned out like if that had happened, and there's always a possibility it could have been worse, but I still have the bias now that it probably would have been better.
I agree, good ideas don't require force and thumping anything or shoving ideas down people's throats certainly shouldn't be supported. That said, I also think we all should promote good ideas, ideas we believe can improve the world (because what else ever has?). The challenge is when people disagree on what actually improves things. Theists may be more concerned with the afterlife while atheists may be more concerned with the here and now. At the same time, even a belief system which might be factually incorrect may lead to actions which benefit everyone through the building of schools, universities, etc.
So yeah, ideas are powerful things. They can harm and help.
I appreciate your statement of confidence in my choices as I work through this and thanks for sharing your experience as well.
You may need to share more subtle writings of your own before showing them something like Dawkins.
Get them to be willing to listen and not feel like their beliefs are under attack (even if they are) before giving them the more meaty presentations. If they get defensive they likely won't listen to the information no matter how valid it may be.
So if you did your own videos just easing into concepts, or your own writings that might get your shoe through the door so they may at least welcome you talking about it rather than feeling attacked.
And I know... easier said than done.
I agree. I've been doing that for the last year or so, though I haven't done videos yet, I don't think. That might be an interesting approach. Not everyone I know has read my "Losing Eternity" post, so maybe I should share that more regularly just so I can be "on the same page" with many of my friends and family so they can know where I'm coming from and how I got here.
Dwinblood makes a good point. Atheists seem like they have a need to force their opinions on everyone else, like Bible Thumpers (who have done more damage than good to Christianity). As far as religion goes, I believe that religion is the worst thing that ever happened to God. God created man...Man created religion. Religion is what turns people off to God. If someone chooses to be an atheist, it's fine with me...But I don't need it shoved down my throat. Believe what you want, or don't believe what you want...either way, it's your business and should stay that way.
Religion indeed does turn people away from theism or even "God" (however we define God), but there are quite a few of us out there that are not your typical Richard Dawson, Science vs Religion, atheist. Rather we reject theism on philosophical - what we, others might of course disagree, would consider "logical" - grounds.
We consider a "God" to be an outright impossibility and that we can know this for certain. Some call this "hard" or "absolute" atheism, to name some labels I've heard thrown around.
Yet I'm certainly not going to force that on you. In fact for the same reason, which is to say philosophy, I personally hold that in order to be good I must let you think for yourself. It's rather similar, in a sense, of how most Christians wouldn't want to force anyone into Christianity. It would be a self-defeating exercise of trying to enforce ethics by unethical means.
I think this is a great stance, but in the real world we aren't so isolated from each other. Our actions impact others. Our actions come from our beliefs (many of them, religious). So genital mutilation, abortion, the lack of access to safe abortion, contraceptive use, who we can have sex with, what substances we can put into our bodies, etc, etc... these decisions influence our societies and have legal ramifications. For the same reason the Bible Thumpers want to save the world, I think some intense atheists also want to save the world from what they see as irrational practices that provably lower the wellbeing of conscious individuals. They are worried about harm down now and they see others as worried about a perceived harm done in the afterlife. The conflict, for the most part, is between groups who think they are doing good but they don't agree on what "good" is. The problem, IMO, happens more when one group gets to used the monopoly on force within a geographic region (government) to ensure their views are forced on others.
Some consider just the act of sharing atheists ideas as "shoving it down someone's throat." At the same time, when someone asks for prayers for their sick child or a job interview coming up or whatever, I don't think they are shoving their religious beliefs down my throat, though I can imagine some might feel that way.
That implies to me this is a topic which shouldn't be discussed openly? If that's the case, what do we do about belief systems which harm people? Shouldn't we talk openly about the fundamental problems with islamism, as an example? At some point we have to defend the defenseless. When I see children being indoctrinated into a cult, as an example, that (to me) is an immoral action because their brains aren't fully developed to reason on their own and the ones they trust and who they turn to for reasoned logic to protect them might be leading them down a path which harms their wellbeing and the wellbeing of others in the long term.
Somewhere we have to draw the line. Your view makes sense to me. If there were no religions (but still plenty of theistic and non-theistic views), then we might at least be able to discussion individual actions on their own merits instead of having to "go against the church" or the power of a religion. To me, religion is another form of tribalism, our worst enemy.
It is your WALL in Facebook. You should put out who you are and what you believe. If people choose not to accept you as who you are then is it truly worth living a lie to retain their good favor?
It's a tough decision. You are reasonable enough guy that if you put WHO you are, and WHAT you currently believe out there, then if they respect you, they should respect that as well.
I like to tilt at mental windmills. I've come to the conclusion that most of the time I will lose. In very rare cases I may WITNESS a victory on my part. (changing someones mind then and there) In reality, the change in mind seems to take longer. I am usually not witness to it until after the fact, but I have seen some of my ideas months later being said by someone that disagreed with me before. So I don't view it as winning, losing. It is simply sharing. It is like seeds. They may lead to some new growth in a mind later on. It may even be very different from what I believe. This is good, because maybe they'll come back and talk to me and I'll learn things and have new seeds planted in my mind.
But, personally I say be true to yourself.
It is scary though as some people may not approve. The question I ask myself with that is if they do not approve of me, do I truly want to remain a facade to keep their approval.
I know this is not exactly what you are talking about. I am just shouting into the wind and perhaps some of what I say might mean something. :P I do that sometimes. Often all I hear is an echo.
Yeah, that's fun. Also fun to learn new things yourself and let other people's seeds grow, as you said.
Definitely the best plan, though I hope to improve it still by improving myself. Sometimes I'm a jerk. Sometimes I don't use wisdom when I speak, so my words hurt people I care about. Finding that balance leads to wisdom, I think. Be who you are and change who you are as needed to improve yourself.
We all are going to fail at times. We are all going to be a jerk at time. We simply need to be willing to apologize, and we also need to be willing to accept apologies from others.
Heheh... that was almost a Deist statement. God gave us Reason, Man created religion. :P
There's a great quote from Ramakrishna. I can't remember the whole thing but it goes something along the lines of...Religions are merely paths to God and it's important not to confuse the path with what's at the end. People tend to get caught up in the religion and forget what they're seeking. He goes on to say that religions are a cultural phenomena, that Buddhists should follow the teachings of the Buddha, Christians should follow Christ and Hindus the Aryan veddas. My spiritual beliefs are based on decades of research, not on faith (although I do have faith). I tried atheism (Humanism) and I found it to be lacking...it's pretty dishonest, just behaviors stolen from different spiritual teachings. Most of the atheists I've met were just people that hate God (how can you hate something that doesn't exist?). I do, however, hold to many Deist principles. God created everything (employing the laws of physics) and turned it over to man to manage...I think we made it to page 3 of the Bible before we started fucking up!
The reason why some Atheist are so pressing is that they can't believe the bloody idiots just can't see that they are idiots. Like believing someone could walk over a lake. Or shove away several dozen meters of water with a wink of a staff.
Of course believers often think the same.
But the difference is that there is group A) who base their view on a book that is 2000 years old and contradicts itself in nearly every possible way, and group B) who base their view on centuries of trials and verification.
On every other topic as religion everyone would say group B) is the one to believe in. So this group finds it hard that group A) is resistant until death.
fakebook IS a religion
Hahah... nice. Is this Pawel Kuczynski? I love his work and featured my favorite piece here: https://steemit.com/politics/@lukestokes/the-loop-why-voting-and-revolutions-don-t-work
Yep, that's him - pretty cool pics!
Won't these same people who might feel offended by you sharing something like this also be people who expect you to respect their believes? Should they not extend the same courtesy to you? I don't think your A and B options (they teach you something or you teach them something) are the only possible outcomes. They might just accept that you have a different view on things and maybe they'll respect your difference of opinion? People who are open to other ideas might read it. People who aren't... well they might just skip your post.
Ofcourse I don't know these people and I know that things close to the heart will quickly be defended. I'm just asking if this third option is a possibility. Live and let live, or something like that.
Yes, live and let live would be wonderful! Unfortunately, within the category of people who do get offended by this information, is that even an option? It seems to me, when people get passionate and emotional about the topic of religion, and the relationship is to continue forward and not be abandoned, something has to give. An understanding has to be met because there's just too much cognitive dissonance going on.
Once people don't see the sharing of ideas as a personal attack, I think you're exactly right. Live and let live can work really well.
I do hope for that same courtesy to be extended to me.
Thanks for commenting.
Luke, you've always been incredibly respectful. And perhaps that's simply where you should draw the line.
Those who've rejected the faith of their parents in favor of atheism can often be the most vociferous atheism proselytes. It's kind of odd, IMO. Why would someone who doesn't believe really care if others believe? Of course, there is the fundamentalism that can be harmful. But if they're just believing and living a life that is loving and caring, why would someone want to change that?
OTOH, it's common for someone to come to believe a certain "thing" and then thinks everyone should know. They can often be very abrasive about it. I doubt that any belief system is an exception.
Being a Christian, I'd rather not read about your atheism. But, I read this article because of your respectful attitude and I have come to consider you a friend. If you had been derisive, I would have just moved on to the next article in my feed, more than likely. If you had done it a few times then I would sadly quit following.
Keep being respectful. If you want to post something that shares your perspective, make sure it's a respectful approach. Most memes are not. Much of the polemic material out there is sarcastic, which really helps nobody.
Thank you, Joe. :)
I consider it a great compliment to have someone who disagrees with me still read and comment on perspectives. I really appreciate that. I am working to have this conversation respectfully because I do think the conversation is important so we can understand each other which is the foundation for relationship.
Since you asked, I'll give an answer. Some views that are widely held are seen by others as acts of aggression (especially when combined with government). For example: is genital mutilation okay? Is it just okay with men but not with women? How do we decide? Do we let parents do whatever they want or do we have a responsibility to step in and help the helpless? What about restricting access to birth control? Studies have shown birth control can greatly increase human wellbeing for poor countries by giving them control over their reproductive lives and yet some religions actively work to prevent that which does harm people. There's also the argument that the moderate views give validity to the extreme views as they all fall within a non-falsifiable category of information which can't be refuted.
I could go on, but that's probably beside the point. What you believe works for you and brings meaning to your life (or else why would you believe it?). I lived that way for most of my life as well. It did bring me great meaning and explained a lot of things for me. I've since come up with better explanations (for me, personally) since then. The problem is, if I say that openly, honestly, and respectfully, it still often comes out as an attack on others because it implies I've moved to something better while they are stuck with something... unbetter. I haven't figured out a way around this. Honestly, I do think what I believe is better (or else I would believe differently) and I respect and appreciate others believe their view is better and I'm deceived. I'm okay with that also. When those views start turning into policy and lowering human wellbeing, then we have conflict. I'm still figuring out the best way to deal with that conflict and I'm not convinced just not talking about it is ultimately helpful.
The good news, to me, is that I do think both sides are trying to do good. One side thinks the lack of religion would improve things in the here and now while the other side thinks theistic belief (and maybe even more of it) could improve things in the here and now and for all eternity. Both sides, I think, are trying to improve wellbeing. They clearly have widely different timescales though.
Thank you for your reply. If my future posts on topics like this cause you to unfollow, I totally understand and will not take that personally.
I don't think there's much danger in that, unless you have a strong lapse in character. :)
I could spend a few reams responding to your comments, but you've likely heard and even said most of it. Perhaps another day when the topic is more focused.
Hahah! Yes, great point. I probably did say (and strongly believe) much of what you might say. That's what makes this such an interesting and challenging process for me. I know how little other people's arguments would have changed my mind and yet I didn't study many things (how the brain works, etc) that I've studied now.
Either way, if two people who disagree on something so fundamental to their identity can still be friends and learn from each other, that's a valuable thing to be repeated in society. :)
This, IMO, is where many fail. The Christian fundamentalist yells at people, judging while attempting to beat them into salvation rather than show them the love of Christ. Which is more endearing? Which shows what's at the heart of the gospel?
There are many challenges to an interfaith or believer/atheist relationship. I wouldn't recommend it for marriage, for instance. But if folks hold honor, honesty and integrity in high esteem, and are humble and gracious in their personality and demeanor, they can still be the best of friends. I think perhaps the hardest part is that a Christian who truly loves a good friend will constantly be desiring to see their salvation. They must discuss it. But they can discuss it compassionately and respectfully in such a way that leaves the conversation open rather than bombastically and judgmentally, closing off the ability to discuss it later.
Indeed. The last couple of years have been very challenging for @corinnestokes and I, but I'm quite proud of how we've so far weathered the storm. In many ways, I think we're closer, but obviously in many other ways we are not. She still goes to church most Sundays and leaves it up to the kids as to whether or not they want to go too. We're still figuring that stuff out, but in the beginning there was a lot of hugging on the couch crying together.
Something to consider (which I had never considered previously): just as the Christian seeks to save their friend out of love for that friend, I think many atheists are essentially doing the same. They see their friend who they love stuck in a manner of thinking which negatively impacts them in ways that can't even comprehend. From that vantage point, they want to "save" them also. I think my business partner did that with me for about 8 years. Though we met in church, he left theistic thinking and we worked through that together as business partners and great friends for years after that. He was always patient and never threatening or demeaning. He taught me to search for counter arguments on my positions before sharing them with him as confirmation for my views. I started thinking, "How would Brett view this and what might he search google to refute it?" Eventually, over time, I stopped sending him things because the things I found refuting my views seemed more rational and involved fewer logical fallacies. That is a process I'm so very thankful to him for and, naturally, I'd like to return that favor to others who I care about because I also want them to live at peace with themselves, remove cognitive dissonance, etc, etc. I won't go on and on about the benefits of my current position, but know there are many, something which would have seemed absurd to me before. That conflict between how I imagined an atheist lived their life, treated their family, viewed love, morality, etc and how my good friend and business partner actually lived was a strong influence on me. It forced me to question assumptions I had and I now think that's always a great process.
It's interesting to me how the number one criticism many atheists have towards theists is their judgmental actions, any yet Jesus didn't judge the sinners much at all. He did judge those religious people who claimed to know things they didn't know, which is quite similar to the argument many atheists have.
When I posted these thoughts on Facebook, someone posted a reference to Psalm 14:1 and deleted it before I could post my reply (I sent it to them as a private message instead to which they simply replied "lol"). I realized how judgmental (and factually untrue) the claims were and how they were directly squarely at me. It was very judgmental. I too was that judgmental person, without even realizing it about myself.
Again, thank you. I really appreciate being able to have these conversations respectfully without all that judgment.
That's tough on a marriage anyway. I can't imagine how much more difficult when both claimed to believe when they got married.
Yes, I would say the same. :)
You should post a specific or two in an article sometime for discussion. IMO, there is no cognitive dissonance, though there certainly are some challenges and unknowables. Of course, that exists no matter what one's worldview is.
Religion is personal.
There are things you should not say - like "everyone from religion X is a terrorist".
You may think "Everyone believing in an God is an idiot". But you should not say that (even if you may be right) because that does not help in any way.
However you are free to say that there is no God, that the bible is not Gods word, that Allah does not command anyone to face Mekka 5 times a day or that Buddha may have been a nice guy, but he is still death and nothing from his person left.
And if a religious person gets angry about that THEN they are definitely idiots, but you should still not say so, because it does not help.
But it is the problem of the religious person, not yours. If they get angry that probably means they know you are right and just don't have the mental power to accept that they have erred.
Anyway you are free to believe what you want, and also to say that.
You are not free to push others into your believe.
I agree with most of what you said, but what about when religion is no longer personal? What about when one person's beliefs impact those of other people (such as through legislation, culture shaping, etc) and the result is lowered wellbeing? What about children who are indoctrinated into extreme views prior to having fully-developed brains to decide things on their own? This is tricky stuff.
I get that and agree, but I wrestle with the moral nature of helping the helpless also. I do not believe all ideas are equally valid on a moral scale. Some can be demonstrated to cause harm and some are causing harm to those who can't defend themselves. Do any of us have a responsibility to do something about that? That's what I'm working through, I think. Finding the balance between talking about this stuff openly while respecting many people's desire to keep things personal and private. If something is harming people, IMO, it lost the privileged position of remaining private.
I'm not trying to say that religion always harms people. It's just part of the argument made by some atheists that even modern religious views do impact policy decisions and in many ways validate the more extreme and destructive versions of those beliefs.
Yes, if something harms, you lost the right to do it.
Alas, the question is what harms, right? It often is not that easy. And even if you can be sure an action harmes, what can you do to prevent that?
Unfortunately there isn't a always working recipe.
Also, and I know that sounds bad: Should you try to prevent that harm?
Something bad happen 24/7 everywhere on the world. As you read it, a child dies of hunger because of either natural occurences, wars or dictatorships, or simply economic politics (e.g. to "prevent job loss" in your country).
You cannot prevent everything.
Decide which you can do and help there and don't feel bad if you can't do more. To put it religious words:
Indeed. I think about this often. If the children dying on the other side of the world were instead at my doorstep, everything about how I spend money would change.
I have hope technology will help us with this. With augmented and virtual reality, I think we'll be able to share in other's experiences at a whole new level, much like the novel changed our empathy for each other's stories. I'm hopeful for the future.
I very much enjoy your ramblings... it can be tricky to freely express in a world where people seem more prone to "reacting" than to "responding" to what they encounter on their path. And those reactions arise when folks perceive a different opinion to be an attack, rather than just a different opinion.
For me, one of the greater challenges in thinking freely and wanting to share no more than my observations is this (growing?) notion that it is not enough for someone to merely have their opinion (along with the freedom to have it), but somehow the presence of someone else with a different opinion is simply not tolerated... and so, that person has to be "converted" or somehow beaten into submission.
I have no axe to grind with conservative Christians; I am not on this planet for the purpose of "talking them out of their faith." Sadly, many are unwilling too extend me a reciprocal courtesy. Experience has taught me, however, that I get further by expressing my views in a tone of kindness and compassion, as opposed to the somewhat more "militant" tone I took when I was younger. Although the old truism "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" may sound trite and overused, I have found that its core mostly holds.
I'm not even sure what that means functionally speaking (just typing out some thoughts, much like you) other than maybe not attaching too much weight to an outcome; stating my point gently and allowing others of different persuasions to self-discover, in a way. As @dwinblood wrote, "good ideas don't require force."
Well said and thank you.
For many people, I think, the conflict comes when the mere existing of a different opinion leads to actions they believe lowers wellbeing. Theists may believe it angers god, causes people to spend eternity in hell, leads to others falling away from faith, etc, etc... while atheists may believe it leads to genital mutilation, terrorist violence, policy decisions which harm conscious human beings, etc, etc.
The opinions and ideas are what drive the actions which people are the most upset about based on their framework for right and wrong. The good thing, I think, is that most people's intensions are good. Agreeing on what "good" means can often be the problem.
Indeed. Yes. "Good" is a slippery beast. Half the time, it feels like many people don't even have their own parameters for "good" defined, let alone the world's.
To wit, I have asked a number of quite conservative friends-- and NOT in a malicious or probing manner-- to define for me what "Make America Great!" actually means to them, since they voted for it. Most found it surprisingly difficult to characterize it. I was on no witch hunt... I was just inviting them to sit with the functional reality that existed beyond "a rousing slogan."
It's brilliant psychology. "Make America Great!" is just like "Change We Can Believe In" or "Yes We Can" or the more simple "Hope."
It's a fill-in-the-blanks message which anyone can interpret however they want. Much of religion, IMO, uses similarly vague wording. "I feel it in my heart and soul" or "God spoke to me and said..."
I now ask things like, "Where in your heart? Are you sure that wasn't in the limbic system of your brain which deals with emotional responses?" or "You actually, audibly, heard a voice in your ears or was it a thought you had which you attributed to an outside, super natural source? How do you distinguish those types of thoughts from other thoughts that pop into existence (and by that, I mean the ones you don't attribute to Satan)?"
As you can imagine, those conversations don't go so well, so I don't really do that anymore. Now it's more of a smile and nod type thing. :)
. . . it can be tricky to freely express in a world where people seem more prone to "reacting" than to "responding" to what they encounter on their path. And those reactions arise when folks perceive a different opinion to be an attack, rather than just a different opinion.
People are indeed on their toes today. They tend to pick a narrative and stick to it. The fact that so many on both sides of any issue tend towards demagoguery and cynicism makes for a bad social climate, in which actual discussion (or even expression, as you pointed out) of points of view is repressed and more room often is given to "warring" over next to nothing. Claims of "fake news" and all the rest of it "alternative facts" etc, makes for a good excuse to ignore anyone who's not on "their side", in practice often leaving us with only two socially acceptable choices to choose from; Both of them often being exaggerated or entirely made up.
Although the old truism "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" may sound trite and overused, I have found that its core mostly holds.
Yes, I sure would tend to agree with this. And even speaking of when (if) one is actually looking to "convert" (ethically, intellectually, that is) - and it is very important that one is able to express why in particular one holds a point of view, rather than just making up straw men (which can be done without malicious intent) as so many do these days - the saying you mentioned still obviously remains relevant.
Whatever you believe is for you to believe, if you are an atheist fine, a christian fine, in fact whatever you believe in is fine because we are all on a path through life which no one knows where it leads, for example I believe in a creator, believe in no religion or religious book, I hope that after I die there will still be something for me, but if not, well that's it, why worry about it?
Do not try to force your beliefs on anyone and I think you will be fine.
I think that's a great stance to take. At the same time, I think we also have some responsibility as a species to figure out what increases wellbeing and decreases wellbeing for the helpless. That's part of my moral framework. I'm not against the use of defensive force, as an example.
So, if we take genital mutilation as an example, is that an act of force against male and female babies who can't defend themselves based on religious beliefs? Should that be allowed or should we take steps to prevent that behavior? Same question could be asked of other religious practices which are now no longer the norm in modern societies.
This is tricky stuff, to be sure.
I would suggest you don't post anything by Hitchens or Dawkins if you are not also prepared to have the philosophical discussion on theism.
No theistic religion can be entirely debunked by science and empirical evidence alone, which is why a lot of what the "new atheists" do only makes theists closed off and untrusting of others, much in the same way as half of the United States of America doesn't trust the celebrities, news outlets and radio show hosts promoted by the other half.
But no, please don't stop talking about the issues with theism, just make sure you are not merely promoting demagoguery that's aimed at a particular atheist audience, or you will never convince, convert or most likely even peak the interest of your theist friends.
-Looking back, it took me almost a good 10 years to find an actual coherent argument based strictly on logic, that could be used against theism. Most of what's out there is only meant to be consumed by theists, sceptics or decided atheists. Not much is ever meant to convince anyone.
Since I know this is an interest of yours Luke, I would suggest you give this talk a listen:
It is not a final word on the topics of faith, philosophy or communication, but it covers a lot of ground and touches on a lot of things that are particularly relevant to the topic of your post.
You seem to be of a very analytical mind, similar to mine, so I think that you should be able to find a lot of value in it.
/Thomas
I listened to this whole discussion. Thanks for sharing. I liked it, but I didn't love it. I get less excited talking about people who have ideas than just talking about the ideas themselves.
Very understandable, I'm the same way really. The talk was really for typical "intellectuals", more than it was for us as more so regular "consumers" of the content. As I said, it's not really the final word on anything, but a comparison made from a specific perspective. It presupposes some agreement and knowledge and/or research into the topics discussed, so it can certainly be perceived as somewhat of a boring talk even by me.
I think the biggest takeaway from the talk however, was that a lot of new atheists really never end up fully rejecting (theistic) religion, but rather they usually end up reject the "extremes" very loudly and proudly, but then later usually align themselves with the moderate forms of religion or collectivism.
This is because they haven't really constructed any epistemological or ethical theory of their own, but rather they build on previous theories; As such, they can't defeat most of the more senior theologians, who've spent their entire lives considering such questions from their own angle and defending their religion using such tools.
I think it's more about not rejecting the moral aspects of human existence which keep showing up in every religion (such as the golden rule and the Jesus/hero narrative who sacrifices themselves for the tribe).
But yeah, I like how Ayn Rand did take a pretty extreme stance and through the philosophy of virtue argues the moral results we want will also come about if objectivism remains true to treating rationality as a virtue. That way, we don't screw over other people because, on the long enough timescale, it hurts us also. So we then get rid of altruism while maintaining the moral truths which seem to bedrock functioning society.
Related note: I think it's disingenuous for those of the Judeo/Christian worldview to claim unique ownership on the golden rule concept. Seems to me that's been around for a long time in many different cultures and religions. I'm almost done reading The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker and he has a lot of interesting points to make about human nature which, I think, relates to how we think about religion and culture.
Actually, that's another aspect and not quite what I was getting at here, even though I do agree this is an issue as well. However, ask Dawkins or even Hitchens if they could refute faulty epistemology which is the base of very advanced theology (Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas etc) and they usually couldn't. It simply isn't/wasn't their area of expertise.
But they're still very good writers and if there's one person apart from Rand that could really tear up a debate, that would've been Hitchens. The guy had a sense of humor and fierceness unmatched.
Yes, and in fact, we as Objectivists (or at some point students thereof) would suggest that it hurts the unethical person even in the present, way before his "punishment" may ultimately come around. Some ways; A liar develop the tendencies and weaknesses of a liar, becoming inconsistent in his own thinking, thus making his own mind weaker and often quite confused even past just being a liar. A slave master is far from master, but either ideologically convinced or entirely ignorant of the side effect that in the process of enslaving others he is developing the relationship of being willfully dependent - thus a slave - to his own slaves. It is he that can not function without them, not the other way around. In many cases, this has been what finally gave the "slave" a chance trick his "master". (Everything gets complicated when an entire society is involved in an unethical behavior of course, then we would have to look at social behaviours, health and national stability etc)
Right, ethics is the bedrock. Altruism is a phony standard that theoretically makes ethics impossible. There would always have to be a weaker, unethical receiver, to benefit from the self abstaining (self abandoning, self refusal, self destroying) by the "moral" person.
"Charity", depending on the aim of the individual involved in it, may not qualify to be altruism. Real altruism in practice is to knowingly do something that doesn't make ethical sense doing. Something by which the person doing it is gaining absolutely nothing.
For a narcissist, that doesn't understand mutual benefit, having a mindset of "altruism" might be better than his current mindset, but it would still be far better to have him actually understand logical reasoning. Logically, and for most human beings, keeping to a mindset of actual altruism is a horrible principle.
Very well said. :)
Thanks for sharing! I'll definitely check it out.
I shared the text of this post on Facebook and the immediate response I got from someone was a reference to Psalm 14:1. I typed up a big reply and when I tried to send it, it failed because they had deleted their comment. So I sent them the whole message via messenger and they just said "lol." It was essentially about how judgmental some theists can be and they don't even realize it. I see it as a form of tribalism where the theists and the atheists virtue signal and share things which only their side even understands. That's not helpful if there's a goal to reach some understanding.
I like a lot of Matt Dillahunty's videos because he, like me, used to be in ministry. I think he really understands the theistic perspective. His videos, I think, are very well supported and reasoned with solid evidence and logic. Mostly though, I don't think many people have these conversations on the logic level. It's mostly just emotional responses.
Exactly, that's how it usually ends. Each side content with their version of what they think is obviously right.
How interesting that you've been in ministry! Have you written any posts specifically about this in the past? I'd really like to gain more insight into the mentality that goes with that whole situation.
Some of it I imagine that I myself might have picked up, from my parents, as I was born into a "christian", but very unorthodox so family and came to understand that more could be learnt from reading the Bible or really any book at all and listening to people I would consider wise, rather than the average peer in my own age group. Then I would go on to "preach" this wisdom, for better or worse, to these same peers... Sigh. The youth. The naivety, but also the joys of the simple life of being a child. So many memories. :) Guess I'm still kind of a preacher ;)
I was specifically labeled a preacher by my brother recently on one of the posts I shared on Facebook. :)
I haven't written about my time in ministry. In many ways, I think, it would not be a great review and would cause even more harm to people I care about. I'll have to think more on this, though. I do think it would be valuable for me to process more deeply my thinking which lead up to being in ministry and what it was like within that environment for those who have never experienced that. I have told my story leaving eternity, but not the story of what it was like within that thinking. That would be interesting.
Please do think about it. If it was hardship and a tough experience, then obviously I can both see how it might be troublesome to share some of it and I would also recognize that there are already stories of conflict or separations available on the internet. But many of these stories don't examine much of the "preachers" own thinking except for the more obvious mistakes or misreadings of whichever holy book they made etc. I think there is still a place for a more personal story about faith from a philosophical, as well as from a psychological perspective.
I've not yet read your story of loosing eternity in full, but I've already saved a link on my hard drive and promised myself that I will get back to it. :)
Signing out for the evening,
be well,
/Thomas