You asked a question with a real answer, but I think you’ve asked the wrong question. Setting out with the goal of changing someone is an especially good way to ruin a relationship. It’s vastly more essential to learn to value the good in the midst of the bad, because that kind of mixed imperfection is all you will ever find anywhere.
As Catholics are quite specific about, conversion isn’t a one-time event. She’s in the process of converting, but I’ve known several people in RCIA who dropped out for one reason or another. And it’s sadly true that parish life will give her an unfortunate sense of how bitterly homophobic the hierarchy can be. My sense as a gay convert is that the hierarchy has been using LGBTs as scapegoats for institutional problems in the Church. It is probably the most effective wedge out there to push LGBT people out of the church. That’s really your only pressure point that you could push, but you should not stoop to that cruelty.
It’s good that you noticed the moment of your confusion! However, the paragraphs you wrote to address that confusion do not provide a correct analysis.
You wrote, “atheists who spend a great deal of their time analyzing and even critiquing the views of a particular religion are at-risk atheists.” Taken literally, this is necessarily true because only those who think about a belief can convert to it. But religion-in-general has no content to analyze or critique. It’s not possible to convert to religion-in-general, as only particular religions exist. Nobody converts to Thor-worship or pastafarianism; they do convert to major traditions. So the formulation of the problem seems to be designed to obscure the facts rather than express a useful truth. On the more meaningful level, then, the lesson is false—atheists who spend a great deal of their time analyzing and even critiquing Norse paganism are not at-risk atheists. The appeal to ancient personifications like Zeus/Thor/Osiris/etc or modern mockeries like the FSM is a weak move, substituting a straw man argument when the major traditions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism do have iron man arguments out there for those who can engage them.
What you should realize instead from your confusion is exactly what Leah wrote: that, given certain priors, other arguments gain considerable force. So most likely you failed to recognize that force due to having different priors. Don’t set out to convert her; set out to reach mutual understanding with her of what her priors were and why.
Nobody converts to Thor-worship or pastafarianism; they do convert to major traditions
I’ve met a number of converts to Asatru, as well as several relatively serious followers of semi-parody religions like Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius. Don’t think I’ve ever met a serious Pastafarian, but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of their existence. Unsubstantiated personal gnosis can point people in some pretty strange directions.
Interesting that the two came from opposite origins. I genuinely didn’t know there were serious followers of those religions. It seems I incorrectly generalized from the people I’ve encountered, who merely use those religions for jest and argument.
So I’ll retract my claim and instead agree with the author’s risk evaluation. If you’re going to analyze and critique a belief system, be wary of developing an unconscious Us Vs Them dichotomy in your mental model. If the argument is conceived of as strictly a two-player game, then weaknesses in your theory are strengths in your opponent’s. But where the range of alternative theories is practically infinite, a reduction in the probability of your belief is balanced by only an infinitesimal increase in the probability of a specific other belief.
You asked a question with a real answer, but I think you’ve asked the wrong question. Setting out with the goal of changing someone is an especially good way to ruin a relationship. It’s vastly more essential to learn to value the good in the midst of the bad, because that kind of mixed imperfection is all you will ever find anywhere.
As Catholics are quite specific about, conversion isn’t a one-time event. She’s in the process of converting, but I’ve known several people in RCIA who dropped out for one reason or another. And it’s sadly true that parish life will give her an unfortunate sense of how bitterly homophobic the hierarchy can be. My sense as a gay convert is that the hierarchy has been using LGBTs as scapegoats for institutional problems in the Church. It is probably the most effective wedge out there to push LGBT people out of the church. That’s really your only pressure point that you could push, but you should not stoop to that cruelty.
It’s good that you noticed the moment of your confusion! However, the paragraphs you wrote to address that confusion do not provide a correct analysis.
You wrote, “atheists who spend a great deal of their time analyzing and even critiquing the views of a particular religion are at-risk atheists.” Taken literally, this is necessarily true because only those who think about a belief can convert to it. But religion-in-general has no content to analyze or critique. It’s not possible to convert to religion-in-general, as only particular religions exist. Nobody converts to Thor-worship or pastafarianism; they do convert to major traditions. So the formulation of the problem seems to be designed to obscure the facts rather than express a useful truth. On the more meaningful level, then, the lesson is false—atheists who spend a great deal of their time analyzing and even critiquing Norse paganism are not at-risk atheists. The appeal to ancient personifications like Zeus/Thor/Osiris/etc or modern mockeries like the FSM is a weak move, substituting a straw man argument when the major traditions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism do have iron man arguments out there for those who can engage them.
What you should realize instead from your confusion is exactly what Leah wrote: that, given certain priors, other arguments gain considerable force. So most likely you failed to recognize that force due to having different priors. Don’t set out to convert her; set out to reach mutual understanding with her of what her priors were and why.
I’ve met a number of converts to Asatru, as well as several relatively serious followers of semi-parody religions like Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius. Don’t think I’ve ever met a serious Pastafarian, but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of their existence. Unsubstantiated personal gnosis can point people in some pretty strange directions.
A Pastafarian in boot camp
OK. Do you happen to know what they converted from?
Catholicism in one case, a secular upbringing in another. I don’t know or remember the rest.
Interesting that the two came from opposite origins. I genuinely didn’t know there were serious followers of those religions. It seems I incorrectly generalized from the people I’ve encountered, who merely use those religions for jest and argument.
So I’ll retract my claim and instead agree with the author’s risk evaluation. If you’re going to analyze and critique a belief system, be wary of developing an unconscious Us Vs Them dichotomy in your mental model. If the argument is conceived of as strictly a two-player game, then weaknesses in your theory are strengths in your opponent’s. But where the range of alternative theories is practically infinite, a reduction in the probability of your belief is balanced by only an infinitesimal increase in the probability of a specific other belief.