Ok. I realize the post title is basically an oxymoron. How do you evangelize for something that has no guiding principles and no unity of "doctrine?"
But the reason I bring it up is because I've been browsing around the forum and I see a few patterns that make me wonder if the cause of atheism/skepticism/critical thought/etc could be more cohesively advanced.
I gather from the posts I've read and the debates and creationist books I've read, that young-earth creationists (my former self included) learn just enough pseudoscience to be loud and proud. This tends to make them ask questions that they don't even realize are arrogant and insulting even when they are hopelessly so. I think it isn't difficult for a rational mind to follow the psychology and see why they behave the way they do.
I then notice basically four response types from the atheist viewpoint:
1. Mock them blatantly. Take offense at every (admittedly offensive) opportunity and shred their arguments, character, and religion. All of this is easy to do as it's similar to dismantling a child's belief in Santa Clause. Simple facts will do it.
2. Mock them subtly. Usually simply dismissing them with what amounts to a sigh and an eye roll.
3. Answer their questions with cold rationality maintaining emotional neutrality.
4. Answer their question/objection with the patience and kindness that I got from folks when I posted about feeling my loss of faith like a missing limb.
I can see the reasons for numbers 1-3. These creationists/theists are exhausting. Their arguments are clones of clones of clones that have already been gutted repeatedly. They seem to WANT to be stupid and uninformed. They are antagonistic, bigoted, blind, and stubborn. Therefore, why bother wasting the time to politely inform them of things they clearly don't want to learn. Why engage, in other words, with fools, trolls, and toddlers (mentally speaking)?
However, I think that rationally number 4 makes a hell of a lot more sense if (as I assume) a couple things are true:
1. Most atheists think faith is destructive
2. Most humans are attracted by kindness and repelled by mockery
3. Most atheists would agree that the very best thing for humanity is to unite on the basis of a reasonable number of facts that can be scientifically proven as a baseline for all our knowledge and philosophy, and abandon blind fundamentalism before some faithful nut pulls the trigger on nuclear war.
Now if I've got any of that wrong, let me know. I'm new to this.
Anyway, assuming the former three points have near universal acceptance among rational minds, would it make sense to take a page from the religious playbook in the same way the "seeker church" does?
In short, would it make sense to have a group of rationally minded people reaching out socially to others and forming local clubs/groups/etc that meet so that people can begin to see that it isn't god they need, but social contact?
Likewise, doesn't it make sense for the future of humanity that atheists take an active participatory role in the "evangelism" for such movements? Both here online and in local groups?
When I was a christian, I found the thought of evangelism distasteful as I was never completely convinced of my beliefs. However, now that I have admitted my atheism to myself, I find I can actually prove those beliefs. At least to the point of being an agnostic atheist. Also, evangelizing for christianity never seemed to do anyone in THIS life any good. The focus was always on the afterlife. But helping people come to dismiss divisive and dangerous faith through rationalism seems a more than worthy goal.
I guess what I'm asking ultimately is this: how do we, as a group of free-thinkers, bring enough unity to our "message" and blend it with enough kindness toward our fellow confused humans, without forming a church doctrine of our own and giving up what makes us free-thinkers in the first place?
Is there a baseline of unity of thought and method to which all (or most) atheists could subscribe? And if there is, could it be used socially to advance the humanist cause against faith? I assume I'm not the first to ask these questions, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. And I apologize if any of this comes across as critical, I am in no way trying to attack anyone. Just trying to wrap my brain around a new life purpose.
Oh and I'm aware that often theists that come here (and everywhere) are not open, and will probably never be open, to changing their minds. They often come for a fight. What I'm suggesting is that we don't give it to them. That we instead (again via some type of unity of purpose) "out-Zen" them and remain calm in the face of abject, inciteful, intentional, foolishness.
In fact, maybe I'm suggesting turning the power of natural selection on them. Every once in a while, there has to be a beneficial mutation in a creationist mind. I'm one such example. Therefore, given the proper conditions, over enough time, maybe we could subvert enough of them to make a difference. The natural selection argument is tongue in cheek...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Many great points to discuss there, Dark. Excellent.
Busy day today, so I do not have much time to linger. However, I would like to leave a little saying I was taught long ago relating to your statement "Why engage, in other words, with fools, trolls, and toddlers (mentally speaking)?" It goes something like this:
"Be careful when arguing with an idiot, because after a few minutes an outside observer may not be able to tell the difference."
Just a fun little saying I try to keep in mind whenever appropriate in a given situation. *chuckle*
Atheism is about rationality, religion concerns emotion. It can be difficult to counter emotion with logic.
I can see this on one hand, but I wonder if at some level it isn't a fundamental weakness of the argument for convincing people of the atheist (or maybe I mean humanist?) viewpoint.
Humans are irrational emotional creatures first (evolutionarily speaking) and logical rational creatures second.
So isn't it possible that an emotional approach to "filling the void" that theists always want to stick god into would serve better?
I'm not saying I know what this would look like exactly. Just that if a picture could be painted of the extreme value of human life, and the beauty and importance of it. And how it's actually worth MORE without some petty deity in whose image we are made. I guess what I'm saying is I think atheist humanism is inspirational in an emotional sense as well as being a rational approach to life.
Atheists are notoriously disorganized, huh? Yeah.
There are groups though. Different atheist communities and organizations that fight to protect the separation of church and state et cetera. Would it be accurate to say that these thoughts stem from a desire to help as many people find their way out of religion as possible? If so then I sort of have similar thoughts.
You described four ways of approaching theists' arguments. The thing is all are useful. What works on one may not work on others. Religious thinking is like a multiple layered mental Chinese finger trap. I tend to mostly fall between ways two and three. But it really depends on the person. I think the best approach is brute force (by that I don't mean flying airplanes into churches but brute force in the sense of finding the right combination to a lock by trying all of them). Try as many things with as many people as possible as often as feasible. Probability would have it that you are bound to help a few along the way. And the better your communication skills and the better your arguments and the stronger your logic is the higher the rate of success you will have.
We are like the three hundred facing the entire Persian army. We've got a long road ahead of us. I'll end with a quote:
"The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god... can bleed."
I think it's difficult for people who value their free thinking identity so highly to be organized in the same way as sheeple following a club leader.
I wouldn't even want that really. I'm just concerned that if our "club" requires free thought, honesty, and intelligence that develops in mature and rational people... well we may not end up with many members in the long run.
Yes I want to help people free of the trap of their religion. But I want them to see that it isn't just a grim path of accepting the cold realities of the world. I'm still struggling with sadness over "losing" eternal life, but at the same time I'm overwhelmed daily by just how valuable every moment I have to live has become. I feel like a person given a terminal illness diagnosis, yet it has brought joy and meaning rather than fear.
I hear so many people in the church say "praise god. I just couldn't do it without Jesus." These and similar statements show their dependence on a mental illusion that they don't need at all! They ARE doing it without jesus. They are strong enough. And brave enough. What an empowering revelation!
I don't think I want a new form of ideology. Granted I agree with what you have stated, but I don't care if others do. The end game, in my mind, is that we become history. A time when people take science seriously, and don't claim to know things that either can't be true, or that they have not even read about. That being said, we need not all interpret and perceive things the same. It would be nice if people could educate themselves, come to conclusions, keep open minds, and agree or disagree without turmoil, or feeling that they must get everyone else to live the same lifestyle and come to the same conclusions. What I think we could do without, is ideology and indoctrination.
First, I'll give my perspective on "shedding light" into the lives of believers. As a former evangelical, you know how their minds are conditioned. No fact or approach of any kind will work, ever. Ever, that is, unless they approach you. It's the same thing they tell people in Alcoholics Anonymous (which I have quite a few quarrels with because of their religious agenda), "it's a program of attraction." These people are drunk on religion, forced upon them since before their mind even had the ability to recognize danger. You can't go around seeking drunks and telling then to stop. It doesn't work that way. In the same token, I don't think going around debating wins over a whole lot of religious people. It wins over the people that already question their beliefs (just like you already did). The trick here is to be well read, and prepared, so that when a Christian who might be consciously or even subconsciously on the fence approaches you, you can give them an honest, fact based answer. Then you let them mull it over on their own terms, and follow their own journey through life.
What I think is more important, is the children. If atheists have any "duty," it's to teach their children how to think (should they choose to have any). Not just parents, but teachers and role models of all kinds. I have 2 children, and my goal is to teach them to think critically, and let them make their own conclusions. Granted, my situation is a bit difficult, being as my wife is a luke warm catholic who none the less pushes the Jesus story. But one day, I think that when my boys approach me with questions and see that I can answer openly and honestly, without making looking like a hypocrite, and in a way that isn't biased or loaded with an agenda of indoctrination, they will be capable of discerning truth from fiction. Then, slowly but surely, religious numbers will dwindle.
I don't want an ideology either. And I agree that convincing creationists in the way you describe would probably be even more difficult than convincing drunks (who at least have unpleasant physical symptoms to turn them off their path).
I think what I'm imagining is an attractive option. Something about atheism that draws people in (out?). To illustrate, you often hear christians share stories about how they had a non believer come up to them and ask them why they are always so happy. Well obviously they take great joy in sharing their faith at this point and how jesus made their formerly horrible life all better.
Now, realizing that atheism isn't a religion, I don't want to try and make it one. I think I'm saying that having an attractive emotional argument for how atheism can allow you to feel about your life may help.
I definitely agree with you on the non-indoctrination of children. But I don't follow you when you say you don't care if no one else agrees that faith is dangerous, to take one of my points. If no one agrees that faith is dangerous , indeed, if a whole bunch of people don't realize soon that faith is dangerous, aren't we likely to do significant damage to our species in short order?
Is there such a thing as being too kind. I find mockery very effective; however, I do combine it with discussion and kindness. Mockery points directly to contradictions and irrational thinking. It is a "You are wrong" statement, which is meant to confront and be remembered. My girlfriend was once religious, Catholic, and when she when to church I would tell her to "have fun talking to the magic people." It is mockery and it is also true. She realized she was talking to magic people and there was no magic.
Confronting a believer is a bit like being a good comedian. Especially where mockery is concerned. Timing is everything. If it is being used to simply put another person down of be insulting, well... you probably will not change many opinions. However, using it in a fun and lighthearted way while pointing out contradictions or even the obvious can be life altering.
I do not evangelize. I am more of a "lie in wait" type of predator!
I am reminded of a point Makcob made about complimentary approaches. It isn't simply a matter of getting everyone to take the most effective approach and avoiding other approaches. Posts often reflect personality. Perhaps all four ways are useful and sometimes appropriate, just different as they reflect the mood and personality of the contributor?
It seems human nature to respond more readily to people who talk and act as does oneself; people we identify with. Being unduly offensive or loud simply indicates to most people a lack of intelligence, lack of intellect or a lack of education.
@darkwolff you mistook me when I said I don't care. I simply meant I don't care if puerile share my views. I have no desire to, like religion, sove my views and beliefs down people's throats. And, so long as you aren't mandating others to believe as you, hurting people that don't, aren't indoctrination children, and aren't involving religion in lawmaking and political platforms, I don't care what you believe. Because at that point, it doesn't affect the rest of us.