Reductio ad Absurdum: How to most efficently communicate with theists

[The Grand Nudger]

It's slow, but for starting off as a young earth creationist six months ago I have to say I think we're making rather good progress I actually think in some ways it's easier to work with fundies, since their beliefs usually aren't as sophisticated. I've noticed sects with an academic tradition like Buddhists and Catholics will deflect questions on the basis that someone better qualified than them supports a theory ("Dr. X is so smart and believes this, I trust them") whereas non-denominational ones generally don't have an appeal to figures like that, perhaps an exception more recently to some Baptists who even then are a bit weaker than High Anglicans who can whip out High Church Psuedo-Aristotolian arguments.

You've got time, I imagine.  Keep us posted.

[Jesster]

If a religious person can approach a topic reasonably, I can meet them half-way. In fact, I quite enjoy religious conversations with some people that I don't ultimately agree with. The problem is that this is not often the case online. I tend to throw silliness at them in equal portions to their own silliness often enough. The internet tends to have this effect, and not just with this topic.

[SenpaiNoticeMeYouBlindShmuck]

It's slow, but for starting off as a young earth creationist six months ago I have to say I think we're making rather good progress I actually think in some ways it's easier to work with fundies, since their beliefs usually aren't as sophisticated. I've noticed sects with an academic tradition like Buddhists and Catholics will deflect questions on the basis that someone better qualified than them supports a theory ("Dr. X is so smart and believes this, I trust them") whereas non-denominational ones generally don't have an appeal to figures like that, perhaps an exception more recently to some Baptists who even then are a bit weaker than High Anglicans who can whip out High Church Psuedo-Aristotolian arguments.

You've got time, I imagine.  Keep us posted.

If you're interested I sure can. It's not an everyday thing, neither of us have the time to devote to that and I tend to try and leave the ball in their court. They'll come to me with something every week or so, we talk about it, they go away for a bit then come back with something else...Bit like hunting really, I've got to wait for them to come to me.

And sadly I think you're often right Jess. Not having to show ones face does seem to facilitate douchebaggery

[Angrboda]

I think people gravitate toward or away from faith based upon personal variables and biases that are unique to each individual. Each is engaged in a process of evaluating evidence. This evaluation will take some deeper into faith, and take others further away from faith. I think this process of the person's biases grinding away at the data occurs mostly in private, and there is little an outsider can do to change the trajectory of a specific individual. The hostile-to-religious-ideas approach may reveal some disparity between one's reasoning and one's beliefs may provoke some anxiety in the believer. But it is the unique trajectory of the believer that determines how they will respond to that anxiety. Naturally, we are inclined to adjust our behavior to minimize our anxiety. That may happen by changing our beliefs to more closely align with reason, or it may take the form of desensitizing the believer to those thoughts.

All in all, I think conflict with the religious can be a useful tool towards facilitating the exit of a believer gravitating away from belief, but its potential tends to be overstated. Whether that conflict takes the form of a hard sell or a soft sell, the greatest influence upon a believer's journey is their own peculiar faith trajectory, their biases, and what they think when no confrontation is present. Conflicting data usually ends up just being smoothed over by the most common biases, such as the backfire effect and the psychology of cognitive dissonance. I think that when in conflict, the themes discussed tend to acquire a "Somebody Else's Problem" field around them, and the believer discounts that the conflicting information has any applicability or relevance to them and their beliefs.

[Little lunch]

I like the Allegory of the cave. I've never heard that before.
It seems to me that ex-theists would stand the best chance of using the Socratic method on theists successfully as they have lived in the cave before.
It's also no wonder that people who have never been a theist would think theists are stupid, having themselves never experienced living in a cave.
I willing to bet that quite a few fancy that they would have seen through the illusion of the shadow even if they were born in the cave.

[chimp3]

There is nothing wrong with a bit of sarcasm in debate. Religion largely bases its arguments on the authority of scripture or religious figures. Hitchens was good about leveling the playing field by insulting the title of Reverend and referring it to something to be ashamed of rather than respectful of. Did that fortify the Reverends resolve? Probably. Was there a theist listening who laughed at Hitchens poke at the preacher and now has had one religious chain removed from their brain? Maybe. When we debate there is usually an audience and mockery or satire can work in the atheists favor if used to expose theist weaknesses and fallacies or promote the anti- authoritarian nature of atheism. Some arguments are so silly and irrational that a bit of mockery is called for.

[Mister Agenda]

I've found that kindly planting a seed of doubt is more likely to lead to a sprouting of skepticism, though perhaps years later, than a decisive victory in an argument.

If I do challenge someone in RL, it's because they've sought it out, and the challenge I like to give is for them to read their holy book cover to cover without asking anyone else what to think about what they've read. The worst that can happen is that they wind up more knowledgeable about their own religion, and fundamentalists often discover that they don't want to be fundamentalists anymore. Some react like I did, and conclude that if there is a tri-omni God, their favorite holy book was not authored by him/her/it/them.

[drfuzzy]

What would be your own example of such an element.  One which could be discussed without the believer feeling (or recognizing) the threat to their beliefs?

Sorry, Rhythm!  Got busy last night and forgot to look up an example.  Ok, here is a variation of one of Boghossian's "interventions":

One amusing encounter Boghossian describes was a chat with two women in a diner.  They were somewhat miffed because a man had just spent a few minutes trying to convince them to attend his church.  

They were upset about the encounter, and told Boghossian that they already had a church.

PB: Well, why not go to his church? Then you would have TWO churches!  

They were confused.  

PB: Wouldn't two churches be better?  Two points of view? Covering all the bases? This other church might have things that your church is missing.

Women:  "Our church isn't missing anything!"

I won't write out the whole dialogue, but he gently questions how they are so certain that their church is perfect, their church is better than the other guys' church, etc.  How did they know they were "saved", when the other man was so certain that they weren't?  Why didn't they ask him for his reasons?  Etc.
PB didn't attack their belief in god.  He just got them to think about, even if it was only for a moment, why they were so sure that their Protestant church was "right" and this other guy's Protestant church was "wrong".  He got them to think about that assumption, and then he walked away.

From my own experience, it is often these small questions that lead to the larger ones.  The "waitaminnit, why DID I think that?" questions are the effective ones.  Attacking core beliefs gets a person to shut down.  Little things, though, can be fun.  That's why I like Boghossian's approach.  Not that I'm any good at it.   Yet.   

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that's as useful as it might seem.  It would only be through ignorance of the breadth of the divine that any given believer considers their faith against another subset of the same faith and comes out the other end feeling like they have to make a choice between two concepts to maintain a rational belief in the overriding set (that of god). 

I could tell you about a conversation I had with my father in law - similar in approach, no argument of particulars, tacit assumption of truth..that sort of thing.  His frustration by the end was palpable.  He barked at me that he didn;t have all the answers and we didn't speak for the rest of the drive.  It might be the only time in my life that I can say with certainty some dissenting notion I wanted to communicate had found a home in someone else's head.  

Now here's the rub.  It wasn't any sort of victory.  Either personally or ideologically.  He has near constant occasion to cite Joshua, and whenever he does..I hear my own words, my own dissent to his previous beliefs, buttressing his now modified faith in the miraculous as a fundamental observation.

Those girls, in the "best" of cases...I'd estimate that their faith was ultimately strengthened by the encounter, conversation, and subsequent consideration. We can stop looking at the moment that we see a blank expression on someones face and say "see, it works", but if we stop observing that face at that moment, we don't really know what end to which it will ultimately be put. We might imagine, pleasantly, that "reason wins out" (as loose as I use that)..I think that;s naive.

[drfuzzy]

I'm not sure that's as useful as it might seem.  It would only be through ignorance of the breadth of the divine that any given believer considers their faith against another subset of the same faith and comes out the other end feeling like they have to make a choice between two concepts to maintain a rational belief in the overriding set (that of god). 

---

I could tell you about a conversation I had with my father in law - similar in approach, no argument of particulars, tacit assumption of truth..that sort of thing.  His frustration by the end was palpable.  He barked at me that he didn;t have all the answers and we didn't speak for the rest of the drive.  It might be the only time in my life that I can say with certainty some dissenting notion I wanted to communicate had found a home in someone else's head.  

Now here's the rub.  It wasn't any sort of victory.  Either personally or ideologically.  He has near constant occasion to cite Joshua, and whenever he does..I hear my own words, my own dissent to his previous beliefs, buttressing his now modified faith in the miraculous as a fundamental observation.  

Those girls, in the "best" of cases...I'd estimate that their faith was ultimately strengthened by the encounter, conversation, and subsequent consideration.  We can stop looking at the moment that we see a blank expression on someones face and say "see, it works", but if we stop observing that face at that moment, we don't really know what end to which it will ultimately be put.  We might imagine, pleasantly, that "reason wins out" (as loose as I use that)..I think that;s naive.

---

I think that we have to realize that every person we encounter is going to react differently, watch for those reactions, and adjust as necessary.  The point was that the women were led to question just one small assumption: "my church is the right one".  Questioning small false assumptions can lead to bigger questions.  Whether this question had that effect with the two women is not the point.  My point was that it's can feel safer for someone with beliefs that they are not allowed to question to chip away at the tiny ingrained beliefs that are safe to question.