Don’t you see that by trying to convert people you are in fact acting precisely like the ‘new atheist’ types that they dislike?
Why, precisely, do you want to convert them anyway? Have you considered going door-to-door saying “Have you heard the bad news?”?
Theists compare Dawkins et al to fundamentalists because both groups are more interested in winning converts than having a conversation. When discussing religion with a theist—just like when discussing politics with someone of opposite views—far better to go in asking them, with honest curiosity, why they believe what they believe. Go into any conversation, on any subject, thinking “my view is the obviously correct one and anyone who doesn’t hold it must be stupid or dishonest” is a sure way to alienate people.
Not all religious people are stupid or evil—a majority aren’t. Some will even have already considered and rejected your arguments. Even as an atheist, I would be infinitely more likely to point to Andrew Rilstone’s series of essays “Where Dawkins Went Wrong” ( http://www.andrewrilstone.com/search/label/Richard%20Dawkins ) as an example of rational thinking than I would The God Delusion.
If you go into each conversation, not as an adversarial means of forcing others to share your worldview, but as a collaboration to try to find the truth, Aumann’s Agreement Theorem says that you’ll eventually come to an agreement with the other person assuming they do the same. If before you start you’ve already decided not to update on anything they say, which it appears you have, then you are a fundamentalist...
If someone is wrong about something, then I’d like to convince them otherwise, whether or not it has anything to do with religion. If I’m wrong about something I’d like to be convinced otherwise. And if someone thinks I’m wrong then they should try to convince me.
The people who are nice and moderate, and believe in religion but aren’t trying to convince anyone? Either they really haven’t internalized the dragons in the garage, or they are being awful.
Whereas I would say that if I disagree with someone, then I’d like to understand their reasons for believing as they do, and I’d like them to understand mine.
If the result of both of us updating our confidence levels about various assertions based on the new evidence provided by the interaction isn’t readily apparent, as for example if I go from believing something is ~10% likely to believing it’s ~11% likely but continue to classify it as “unlikely,” that’s perfectly fine.
Of course, if one or both of us update over a threshold—that is, if one or both of us is convinced of something—that’s perfectly fine as well.
But it’s far from being the only possible valuable end result of an interaction.
Or they have a third reason, like that they think their religious views happen to be true but that whether they’re true or not doesn’t actually affect most people’s day-to-day lives, and they don’t think it matters if you believe the same as them.
And why do you want to convince people when (you think) they’re wrong?
Or they have a third reason, like that they think their religious views happen to be true but that whether they’re true or not doesn’t actually affect most people’s day-to-day lives, and they don’t think it matters if you believe the same as them.
Oh to be sure, such religions exists. For example, most classical forms of Judaism believe that non-Jews aren’t obligated in the 613 commandment. But, that still means that not convincing people is letting people remain fundamentally ignorant about extremely basic aspects to the nature of reality. That’s not cool.
But note that even then, there are clearly people who aren’t doing that. Consider for example, how many evangelical Christians there are who believe that people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior will burn in hell for eternity. How many of those slack off and aren’t spending most their time trying to save us? They claim to think that the consequences of not believing is eternal torture. How can that not matter?
And why do you want to convince people when (you think) they’re wrong?
A variety of reasons. First, I intrinsically value truth. Second, in general, humans will do better having a more accurate understanding of reality (there are likely some exceptions to this but the general pattern seems clear). Third, (connected to 1 and to 2) I’d like to live in a world where people do try to correct each other when wrong (this also has a selfish element. If I live in such a world, then I get to be corrected when wrong.) and by trying to convince people when I think they are wrong, I am contributing to making the world more that sort of world.
Oh to be sure, such religions exists. For example, most classical forms of Judaism believe that non-Jews aren’t obligated in the 613 commandment. But, that still means that not convincing people is letting people remain fundamentally ignorant about extremely basic aspects to the nature of reality. That’s not cool.
To their credit, I suppose, the Lubavitcher Chabad people are promoting a Noahide movement for us gentiles, of which I’m sure you’ve been made aware. This movement has some interesting implications. For instance, I have a book in front of me which suggests that (if I believed) it would be kosher for me as a gentile right now, in 2011, to set up a private altar and make an animal sacrifice to God. Also, I’m supposed to set up courts of law that can administer the death penalty for violation of the seven laws of Noah. Women and slaves can’t be witnesses.
“Oh to be sure, such religions exists. For example, most classical forms of Judaism believe that non-Jews aren’t obligated in the 613 commandment. But, that still means that not convincing people is letting people remain fundamentally ignorant about extremely basic aspects to the nature of reality. That’s not cool.”
That depends if you think the other people care. In my experience, most people don’t. In which case it would be ‘not cool’ to bother them about it.
I do agree, however, with your example. If you believe in a literal Hell for nonbelievers then it is your absolute, overriding priority to prevent people from going there. However, not all religious people hold those beliefs, and it’s unfair to the ones who are capable of amicable disagreement to tar them with that brush.
You don’t have to precommit to not updating on another person’s arguments to anticipate not updating on their arguments.Would you precommit to not updating on the arguments of a Young Earth Creationist? It would be a pretty silly thing to do, but so would expecting to come away with a significantly higher confidence that the world is less than ten thousand years old. Besides, many if not most “new atheists” have greater familiarity with the arguments for religion than most theists. Whether or not they’re open to being persuaded by them, treating each dialogue as a new and unique opportunity to discover the reasons behind someone’s beliefs is not a very practical way to learn things; I’ve been there myself.
Aumann’s Agreement Theorem describes the behavior of ideal Bayesian rationalists, and acting on principles designed with the assumption that all the parties involved are ideal rationalists when neither you nor the parties you’re dealing with actually are simply isn’t sensible.
Which ‘new atheists’ would those be? Certainly the ones generally talked about—Dawkins and Hitchens—are frighteningly ignorant when it comes to actual religious arguments.
Most of the atheists in communities I frequented back when I felt that being an atheist was Important.
Hitchens I wouldn’t particularly disagree with. Dawkins is certainly not the most well acquainted person with religious arguments that you could find, but I find that he often tends to be be portrayed as ignorant in cases where he’s actually being reasonably dismissive.
Have a look throgh the essays I linked above (unfortunately the way Blogger works it starts with the end—find the first essay and work forwards). Rilstone pretty comprehensively destroys Dawkins’ book, and I say that as someone who should be on Dawkins’ side...
I read it; I wouldn’t remotely say that he “comprehensively destroys the book.” There are points on which he rightly points out ways in which Dawkins is misinformed, and points where I think his arguments are a complete tangent to Dawkins’ actual points. I’m a bit tempted to do a comprehensive run-down of the whole thing, but I doubt that it would be of much worth to many of the members here, so I don’t think that would be a very good use of my time.
It’s not so much that I have decided not to update, but rather than I don’t expect to. I argue from a position of secutiry and self-righteousness, but that doesn’t mean I won’t give others a chance to sway me. However, I won’t go out of my way to beg for anti-atheist arguments the way I did when I was losing my religion and horribly afraid of what was happening to me.
Don’t you see that by trying to convert people you are in fact acting precisely like the ‘new atheist’ types that they dislike? Why, precisely, do you want to convert them anyway? Have you considered going door-to-door saying “Have you heard the bad news?”? Theists compare Dawkins et al to fundamentalists because both groups are more interested in winning converts than having a conversation. When discussing religion with a theist—just like when discussing politics with someone of opposite views—far better to go in asking them, with honest curiosity, why they believe what they believe. Go into any conversation, on any subject, thinking “my view is the obviously correct one and anyone who doesn’t hold it must be stupid or dishonest” is a sure way to alienate people. Not all religious people are stupid or evil—a majority aren’t. Some will even have already considered and rejected your arguments. Even as an atheist, I would be infinitely more likely to point to Andrew Rilstone’s series of essays “Where Dawkins Went Wrong” ( http://www.andrewrilstone.com/search/label/Richard%20Dawkins ) as an example of rational thinking than I would The God Delusion.
If you go into each conversation, not as an adversarial means of forcing others to share your worldview, but as a collaboration to try to find the truth, Aumann’s Agreement Theorem says that you’ll eventually come to an agreement with the other person assuming they do the same. If before you start you’ve already decided not to update on anything they say, which it appears you have, then you are a fundamentalist...
If someone is wrong about something, then I’d like to convince them otherwise, whether or not it has anything to do with religion. If I’m wrong about something I’d like to be convinced otherwise. And if someone thinks I’m wrong then they should try to convince me.
The people who are nice and moderate, and believe in religion but aren’t trying to convince anyone? Either they really haven’t internalized the dragons in the garage, or they are being awful.
Whereas I would say that if I disagree with someone, then I’d like to understand their reasons for believing as they do, and I’d like them to understand mine.
If the result of both of us updating our confidence levels about various assertions based on the new evidence provided by the interaction isn’t readily apparent, as for example if I go from believing something is ~10% likely to believing it’s ~11% likely but continue to classify it as “unlikely,” that’s perfectly fine.
Of course, if one or both of us update over a threshold—that is, if one or both of us is convinced of something—that’s perfectly fine as well.
But it’s far from being the only possible valuable end result of an interaction.
Or they have a third reason, like that they think their religious views happen to be true but that whether they’re true or not doesn’t actually affect most people’s day-to-day lives, and they don’t think it matters if you believe the same as them.
And why do you want to convince people when (you think) they’re wrong?
Oh to be sure, such religions exists. For example, most classical forms of Judaism believe that non-Jews aren’t obligated in the 613 commandment. But, that still means that not convincing people is letting people remain fundamentally ignorant about extremely basic aspects to the nature of reality. That’s not cool.
But note that even then, there are clearly people who aren’t doing that. Consider for example, how many evangelical Christians there are who believe that people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior will burn in hell for eternity. How many of those slack off and aren’t spending most their time trying to save us? They claim to think that the consequences of not believing is eternal torture. How can that not matter?
A variety of reasons. First, I intrinsically value truth. Second, in general, humans will do better having a more accurate understanding of reality (there are likely some exceptions to this but the general pattern seems clear). Third, (connected to 1 and to 2) I’d like to live in a world where people do try to correct each other when wrong (this also has a selfish element. If I live in such a world, then I get to be corrected when wrong.) and by trying to convince people when I think they are wrong, I am contributing to making the world more that sort of world.
To their credit, I suppose, the Lubavitcher Chabad people are promoting a Noahide movement for us gentiles, of which I’m sure you’ve been made aware. This movement has some interesting implications. For instance, I have a book in front of me which suggests that (if I believed) it would be kosher for me as a gentile right now, in 2011, to set up a private altar and make an animal sacrifice to God. Also, I’m supposed to set up courts of law that can administer the death penalty for violation of the seven laws of Noah. Women and slaves can’t be witnesses.
“Oh to be sure, such religions exists. For example, most classical forms of Judaism believe that non-Jews aren’t obligated in the 613 commandment. But, that still means that not convincing people is letting people remain fundamentally ignorant about extremely basic aspects to the nature of reality. That’s not cool.”
That depends if you think the other people care. In my experience, most people don’t. In which case it would be ‘not cool’ to bother them about it.
I do agree, however, with your example. If you believe in a literal Hell for nonbelievers then it is your absolute, overriding priority to prevent people from going there. However, not all religious people hold those beliefs, and it’s unfair to the ones who are capable of amicable disagreement to tar them with that brush.
You have summed up my problem with “moderate” religious people.
You don’t have to precommit to not updating on another person’s arguments to anticipate not updating on their arguments.Would you precommit to not updating on the arguments of a Young Earth Creationist? It would be a pretty silly thing to do, but so would expecting to come away with a significantly higher confidence that the world is less than ten thousand years old. Besides, many if not most “new atheists” have greater familiarity with the arguments for religion than most theists. Whether or not they’re open to being persuaded by them, treating each dialogue as a new and unique opportunity to discover the reasons behind someone’s beliefs is not a very practical way to learn things; I’ve been there myself.
Aumann’s Agreement Theorem describes the behavior of ideal Bayesian rationalists, and acting on principles designed with the assumption that all the parties involved are ideal rationalists when neither you nor the parties you’re dealing with actually are simply isn’t sensible.
Which ‘new atheists’ would those be? Certainly the ones generally talked about—Dawkins and Hitchens—are frighteningly ignorant when it comes to actual religious arguments.
Most of the atheists in communities I frequented back when I felt that being an atheist was Important.
Hitchens I wouldn’t particularly disagree with. Dawkins is certainly not the most well acquainted person with religious arguments that you could find, but I find that he often tends to be be portrayed as ignorant in cases where he’s actually being reasonably dismissive.
Have a look throgh the essays I linked above (unfortunately the way Blogger works it starts with the end—find the first essay and work forwards). Rilstone pretty comprehensively destroys Dawkins’ book, and I say that as someone who should be on Dawkins’ side...
I read it; I wouldn’t remotely say that he “comprehensively destroys the book.” There are points on which he rightly points out ways in which Dawkins is misinformed, and points where I think his arguments are a complete tangent to Dawkins’ actual points. I’m a bit tempted to do a comprehensive run-down of the whole thing, but I doubt that it would be of much worth to many of the members here, so I don’t think that would be a very good use of my time.
It’s not so much that I have decided not to update, but rather than I don’t expect to. I argue from a position of secutiry and self-righteousness, but that doesn’t mean I won’t give others a chance to sway me. However, I won’t go out of my way to beg for anti-atheist arguments the way I did when I was losing my religion and horribly afraid of what was happening to me.