He makes a great case for being heard, respected and part of the discussion.

But when he starts talking about telling others that they have been harmed in the same way that he has, has crossed the line into proselytizing.

And that's not cool, imo.

If the author said that every interpretation and explanation should get equal credence, then he can't have also said that there were better or worse interpretations, or that the better ones "make us feel warm and fuzzy" as you put it. The author makes it clear that he's not talking about avoiding conforming with verifiable reality. He's talking about what happens after agreement with verifiable reality has been taken into account.

Or didn't you read that part? And yes, the author tries to appear superficially rational by saying that he's not going to swallow the totally, utterly, completely impossible (yippee for him), but then loses it when he says that as long as something is even remotely possible, he'll gladly suspend critical thinking in favor of feel-goodiness.

When you see something that boggles the mind say first "There is no such thing as magic." then begin the investigation. If after an in depth investigation one is still clueless admit the universe just threw a knuckleball that you missed.

Beckett says, quoting Fincke:

by missionaries for their urge to convert the heathen. The proper response in all cases is "Get out of my face.."

Now, if you want to persuade someone on an issue, present facts about the issue. Don't yatter at them about their "delusional thinking" or "cognitive dissonance" or insist that something about them is "fundamentally askew." That may feed your ego, but it won't persuade anyone.

because Fincke's piece is all about presenting facts, and not 'yattering'.

The conclusion:

If the issue, say, is global warming, present them with facts about global warming. It's quite possible to deal with issues calmly and rationally without attacking someone's religion.

And by the way, it's not the religious who are the problem in that regard. It's the petroleum industry and the addiction of the public to petroleum products that are driving it.

Oh you'll have no dispute with me that they play a huge role - funding climate change "skeptics," making campaign contributions to industry-friendly candidates, etc.

But when you look at the average low-information voter who is so easily led, so easily convinced that his position, which mirrors exactly what the right-wing noise machine tells him to think, when it meshes so tightly with the Republican party agenda which is tied to god itself, is it not possible to see, in just the tiniest way, that religious thinking - which declares itself ABOVE the facts of even "another way of knowing" DESPITE the facts - might just play a role?

Just maybe?

Hadn't seen that Christian Post piece before. Yikes.

...and that's more or less on point with what he was talking about.

He argues you have to view religion contextually, that religious people will often interpret their religion in such a manner that it comports with their political views. Some take this to mean that religion really isn't the problem, but that's just not the case. It is a huge problem, as religious people can, and will, find religious justifications for their bad ideas. Once the debate is framed in religious terms, it becomes necessary to attack the religion to expose the flaws in the argument.

or stand against one that you also stand against.

Does that mean that religion is part of the solution?

Posted just today, by Brian McLaren (though it's not the first time he's spoken out. Here and here, as just two examples):

They have started by looking at knowledge of the world, and then deciding what their personal beliefs say they should do in reaction. By doing it that way round, they are not a danger to the rest of us.

Last I heard, he was a radio talk show host with a history of addiction and possible pedophilia. Since when does he define doctrine? But yes, I take your point that a large part of his audience is undoubtedly made up of right wing fundamentalists and evangelicals, who would tend to agree with his points. And I agree that's a problem.

Here's the deal, though. If you want to persuade anyone of anything, you need to approach from that person's own point of view. One way would be to cite examples of man-made disasters that were remedied by human effort. Eg., Lake Erie was once so polluted with petroleum products that parts of the lake were actually on fire. No matter how perfectly the Great Lakes were "designed," we managed to mess them up. Humans almost destroyed a beautiful part of creation. But humans also cleaned it up. We can do the same with the CO2 going into our atmosphere. It's a destructive thing we can stop doing.

As for the architect example--speaking from experience here, since my dad was one--no matter how good the design is, the product is dependent on the quality of contractors and construction workers. (That's us, the humans who have been charged with "stewardship" of the "design".) If the work is shoddy and doesn't come up to specifications, your beautifully designed building can still come down on your head a squash you.

It's not that hard, really. And you don't have to get into an argument over the Bible to do it. That will get you an automatic "fuck off" and you've left the person firmer in denial that s/he was to start with.

Written by someone dangerously out of touch with modern politics. You ever meet someone who listened to Rush? Worked with them? Had them in your family?

I have. All three. His influence has waned, no doubt, but he has been as close to a pope as the distorted right wing political "theology" has ever seen. At his peak, millions of dittoheads (you remember that term, right?) hung on his every word. Tuned into his show every day to find out what they were supposed to think about the events of the day.

Trying to separate right wing politics and religion since, oh, the 80s, has been a nearly impossible task. In fact, that's been their strategy the whole time. Cloak the politics in religion, and they are shielded from criticism. Liberals like yourself even help provide that cover! Can't question someone's religious beliefs, can't tell them they are wrong, blah blah blah. Your most vicious hatred is thrown at liberal atheists here, in fact. I hope someday you realize we are not the enemy. But I doubt it. Your hatred is just too strong.

is always the best way to persuade people of something, you're dead wrong. Any lawyer, advertising agent or PR director would laugh in your face at that.

As someone once said, very perceptively, you can't expect to easily reason someone out of a mindset that they didn't reason themselves into.

Fincke:

He's talking about "should". I'm talking about "can ".

Not the same.

you still agree that reason should be favored over emotional/social tactics by atheists who want to persuade people to abandon their beliefs?

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I've said and putting words in my mouth?

Is that the way you favor conducting a discussion? Is that the way YOU like to persuade people of something?

Last edited Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

what you think they are saying as a question, so they can either agree or correct misunderstandings.

I suggested that you were disagreeing with Fincke. You said, no, that he was talking about what should be done, and you were addressing whether it can be done. So I asked if you were agreeing with him. And you said no to that, too.

What is your position on Fincke's statement that atheists should use reason rather than emotional or social appeals?

that persuasion has to be one or the other, when no form of persuasion ever is. Nobody ever uses just reason, and if Fincke had thought about the issue in any depth, he would have said so. Or if you had, you wouldn't have needed him to.

His little rant is superficial and unenlightening, designed, apparently, to bolster his own sense of social and intellectual superiority.

I'll be reading Beckett regularly from now on.

This is the bottom-line quote:
"My reasoned defense of Paganism is unlikely to satisfy aggressive atheists any more than it satisfies aggressive Christians. That's OK --it doesn't have to satisfy them. It just has to satisfy me."

To phrase it a bit differently--neither Pagans nor Christians nor atheists nor those of any other persuasion have any obligation to justify their convictions to anyone else. Nor does anyone else have any right to demand that justification.

on people who don't share them, you'd be right. But on the planet most of us inhabit, the situation is exactly the opposite.

Perhaps you aren't aware, okasha, but there are religious believers across the globe trying to pass laws, change policy, and engage in activities to restrict my freedom and the freedom of others.

You bet your ass I'm going to make them justify their convictions and prove their beliefs when that's the reason they give.

that given the opportunity to "deconvert" a Republican, to educate them about the errors in their reasoning, to perhaps convince them to vote Democratic, is a good thing.

So why are religious beliefs so special and different? What is so horribly wrong about engaging people to think critically about them, or to question them?

College professors (the best of them, anyway) engage students in critical thinking. That's why they offer students readings from multiple perspectives, and try to find the best arguments on the different sides. And often the students don't find out where the professor stands, because he/she can argue opposing views equally well.

Is that how you play it when you discuss religious beliefs?

I'm all in favor of critical thinking, but I see it as what I described above. If you don't, then I want to know what you mean by critical thinking, so I can decide whether I agree that you are interested in critical thinking. Furthermore, I engage in questioning about religious beliefs all the time, with people who are interested in that. I'd be a hypocrite to claim that you can't just because you don't share my perspective.

If someone says their religious beliefs are special and not open for discussion, it might mean they simply don't want to talk about it or don't want to continue the discussion. Maybe it isn't an invitation to further debate over the proper way of treating religious belief in discussion.

then you obviously aren't the person who needs to be answering my question.

But thanks anyway!

You seem to be implying that the only way to engage in critical thinking is if you act neutral. That has nothing to do with critical thinking.

Someone having a discussion generally has different objectives than a teacher.

Is the privilege and power of religion. Part of the bubble religion lives in is the idea that criticizing religious beliefs is somehow inherently mean, no matter how true the criticism, much less respectful. What a wonderful way to shield bad ideas from scrutiny.

Beckett makes a couple bad points. He says that outside of the things we know aren't possible, believe whatever you want. This is where probability should come in. There really isn't anything that we know, 100 percent, isn't possible. It's why creationists with PHDs exist. With that kind of thinking, anything can be rationalized, like the idea that god put dinosaur bones in the ground to test people, or radio metric dating.

Also, he asks if we really want to rationalize away religion, saying that love is just a series of brain interactions. Of course, religion isn't needed to see the world as more than just facts, but he seems to miss that rather large point in defense of bad ideas. It also reinforces the idea that religion is wishful thinking and not well-reasoned, which I'm guessing wasn't his point.

He also seems to misunderstand Fincke's article, which says there is nothing wrong with challenging religious beliefs proactively. And there isn't.

Beckett also never defends his beliefs, or even defines them, which makes him look like he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, since he talks about being able to defend your beliefs or otherwise reexamine them.

It could also be that lots of people are rotten salespersons for ideas of any kind, and becoming an atheist doesn't inherently change things for the better. Plus, as Fincke mentions in the post, people have already experienced annoying, pushy evangelicals, and so there could be an allergy towards attempts to convince on the topic of religion in general. And fair or not, atheists trying to promote their ideas get caught by that too.

compared to something like switching political parties, and that does have to do with the privileged position religion holds as an idea.

I think most people come to religion through childhood indoctrination, which makes it hard to separate the ideas of religion from the culture and identity people form around it.

I think people don't feel it's polite to talk about religion because they see it as something inherent to identity rather than a set of ideas that can be discussed and criticized.

including atheism, and then they can go with what speaks to them.