philosophy, deconversion, psychologyIf someone trusts you enough to tell you that they are questioning their beliefs, I’m not really sure how to go about talking to them about those beliefs in an optimal way, either to avoid offending them, or to minimize coercion while maximizing influence (if indeed these can be separated at all).
The primary motivation I have for asking this question is to figure out a sort of best practices for helping people to see what I think is the truth, given a starting point of such questioning.
I think that relevant considerations will mostly be psychological in nature, but should avoid manipulation-heavy techniques, thus also adhering to logical (as in logical fallacy) standards.
To clarify, I don’t think that answers to this question will be the same as the answers that have been provided to the following:
What has proven the most effective way to reduce religiosity?
I think that the specific ways in which someone should deal with someone “on the edge” will be substantially different from a veritable shot in the dark approach to anyone who may have any host of beliefs which will be differentially affected by the things that one says to them and/or teaches them.
I have often looked back and asked, "How did I escape? What allowed me to stop being a devout Catholic and transition to non-belief? I have asked your question in a slightly different way by saying, "What would be the "inoculation" meme that could help a "religious-mind-virus" infected person form some antibodies and eventually recover?"
It took me many years of working through it, so a pat answer is not easy, but here are the conclusions I currently think are useful
1. What if? This idea can undermine most dogma, but the believer has to advance to a stage where they let themselves question things they have been told they must not question. I eventually allowed myself this tactic, when I could not reconcile inconsistent dogma, practice or attitudes.
Different questions for different folks, but here are a couple that really got the ball of non-belief rolling when I was still a believer.
What If the bible isn't verbatim dictated by God? What would I have to reconsider? What parts of the world would suddenly collapse? What If I am the only person in my life capable of discerning "God's Will" for me... even if I consult a mentor, or the bible... I ultimately am the ONLY one deciding? What if there IS no God's will for me, and it's all just me making choices?
2. Seek Consistent thought: The believer (all of us, for that matter) need to pay attention when something just doesn't seem right. Play with the niggling doubts you run into. Seek consistency across your whole worldview, and when you find yourself saying something like "I can't continue pursuing this thought, because it violates my faith," the believer has to be comfortable asking the "Why" and "What If" questions... Why can't this area be made consistent? Says who? Why are they saying it? What "would be" the consistent position here? Why would that be bad?
3. You're not alone: It's a lot less difficult in the internet age, but at the time I was "de-converting" I had the pervasive sense that I might be the first person who had ever left his faith. :-) I exaggerate, but the believer will think they are alone, and they might even be told by family that they will be abandoned. Don't sweat it. That kind of emotional blackmail is indicative of a bad reason to stay in any group/mindset. Let your friend know there are LOTS of good places to turn for more information.
4. It Gets Better. (with a tip of the hat to Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign). Based on my experiences, it was a tough couple of years of re-structuring my thinking before I truly got comfortable with the implications of atheism. It is because a believer must uproot foundations of their former model of thought. Tell your friend don't be afraid...talk, ask questions, keep thinking. The world will go on, and you WILL eventually realize that the fear you are feeling NOW, on the cusp of leaving beliefs behind, evaporates over time.
5. Ya Gotta Want It: The believer, implicitly or explicitly, is asking "Why would I WANT to give up my lifelong friend, spiritual comfort, community?" If you can help them see that "our way of life" is desirable, enjoyable, fulfilling, sufficient, that will help them loosen the grip on the thing they perceive as their life raft. (Another useful analogy, to help YOUR approach, is to recognize that a life-long believer is in some ways like an abused spouse. The psychology of staying with an abuser is deep, but at its core is the assumption, "The devil I know is better than the devil I don't." We MUST help someone seeking escape see that there are better alternatives out here.)
6. Share some ridicule and laughter: This one I have only recently come to consider valuable. A well done, insightful, non-attacking bit of comedy can really quickly establish the "dissonance" that is the motivation for someone to re-consider deeply held beliefs. Use your judgment, but I have found a bunch of Tim Minchin's satirical songs to be wickedly funny and they expose some core faith ideas to appropriate ridicule. Germane to my "What if the Bible isn't dictated by God?" I recommend Tim's "The Good Book." Apologies to any pants-wetting caused. :-)
7. It's their journey. , if asked your opinion on specific, difficult issues that the person is currently trying to navigate, give your perspective while avoiding an attack on the belief system or Religion as a whole. They have to understand that it is their journey and choice to change. If they ultimately want to, it will be their choice, not because you rammed arguments down their throat.
Matter of fact explanations, "Well, this is why XYZ doesn't seem to make sense to me..." will help, without setting off the deeply ingrained, heavily evolved defense mechanisms embedded in most religions. The defense mechanisms of this virus are deeply rooted... partially in total demands to give one's life to the faith, and partially in self-containing circular logic evolved to keep the flock from noticing there are significant gaps in the fence.
If you're going to be "fishers of men," then you don't want to scare the fish.
Tell them to read the bible cover to cover. Then send them off to read the Koran, and have them wrap it up with the Bhagvad Gita. Hopefully they’ll come away from the experience a richer person.
Be nice, dont judge and answer with honesty. Easy.
Hopefully this doesn’t slide away from the context you’ve presented, but I’d avoid stepping into the “goal to influence them to become an atheist”entirely.
My primary focus would be to ascertain what personal value system they have; essentially figuring out what makes them happy and what they genuinely resonate with. Some people may not be ‘shove it down your throat’ theists…heck, they may not even be ‘I KNOW I’m right’ theists, but may still feel more personally comfortable with some concept of spirituality or metaphysical fluffiness.
I think being able to assist them in being introspective and discovering where they actually lie on that philosophical spectrum would be most important.
I’d probably couple that with a discussion about the divide between the scientific method (as a system of incorporating information we can be as sure as possible is factual in our tangible reality) and imaginative thought processes, because I have met some theistic/spiritual people who are honest about admitting that there is no genuine solid evidence to support what they believe, but that it’s still a gut feeling they have that they feel shouldn’t be squelched (for whatever personal reasons).
I think that helps turn people towards a mindset that prevents any metaphysical notions from turning to judgmental dogma, particularly to where it would infringe on the imaginative freedoms of others.
I take some pride in having, to a degree, influenced some highly religious people to become non-believers. In my experience, this is no easy task given the defense mechanisms that religion embeds upon it’s adherents, often starting from a very early age. It’s important to recognize that you’re unlikely to make highly religious people give up their beliefs, identities and rituals so your goals should be modest. Sure, helping a theist become an atheist would be wonderful but just empowering a believer with stronger critical thinking skills is what ought to matter most.
To do so, you should be mindful of who you choose to influence. I think this is even more important than the methods employed. There are some who are incredibly stubborn, unreflective and deficient when it comes to objective thinking. In my experience, the people worth influencing need to be fairly intelligent and it helps if they’re educated. Those with a liberal arts education have a background that provides a basis in critical analysis while those with a science education should have a firm grasp of objectivity and the scientific method. People need to learn the value of truth, seeing diverse perspectives, as well as the merits of logic and the basic fallacies. Of course, these kinds of backgrounds aren’t essential but they do provide a good leg up.
Critical thinking skills can be discussed without getting into religion. While there are some who are willing to debate and/or listen to arguments and prescriptions for skepticism, most theists avoid such challenges. I know several who despised the likes of Dawkins and Harris and would immediately tune out of anything they had to say. Over time, you can eventually lure them back into the debate but it takes some philosophical building blocks and subtle chipping away at the defenses to do so.
It’s uncomfortable for someone to hear ideological advice from a peer. Fortunately, there is plenty of media that can challenge a believer’s defenses without ruining a relationship. The media spectrum ranges from gentle messages to in-your-face confrontation. Movies, books, television, blogs and music can illustrate the diversity of ideology, sympathy for different viewpoints, as well as the immorality of dogma and prejudice. For those who have a sense of humour, one of the best chisels is comedy. Atheist comedians, such as George Carlin, Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher, may be blunt but the hilarity of absurdity is hard for even strong theists to resist. Exposure to the right types of media can plant seeds of doubt in the minds of believers and shape tolerance for different ideas.
I expect that a typical theist won’t lose his/her religion on account of such media but he/she will likely face cognitive dissonance on some level. That is key to bringing the theist into a reality where he/she is able to question beliefs. Once a believer is willing to accept internal challenges, doors are open for conversation or even argumentation that can alter his/her preconceptions.
I wouldn’t try to ‘convert’ anyone at all. At most I would enjoy finding another person who isn’t shocked by my own lack of neurotic absorption in metaphysical theology and can converse without habitual recourse to verbal tics like ‘God told me to do such and such’. My pleasure in such conversation isn’t conditional on someone else’s abstract commitment to positive assertions to the effect that “there is no God”. Atheism has no creed, hence no need to convert anyone. It’s just an indifference to spurious magical doctrines. Talking frankly about this indifference expands others’ freedom to distance themselves (even temporarily) from god-talk if they are becoming uncomfortable with it. That’s as much ‘conversion’ as I find meaningful.
Influence, coercion, goals. Sounds like authoritarian personalities trying to convert the people. As an atheist, I wouldn’t try to convert anyone. The knowledge is there and freely available to anyone if they wish to learn. The path to atheism is critical thinking.
De-conversion is, I imagine a very traumatic time for anyone. Having an untrained authoritarian messing with your psyche at any time could never be considered as helpful, little own ethical proposition. However, by presenting the freethought community as an open and accepting one, where your friend’s questions may be answered in a contextually sensitive way, is not a bad idea. There are many xxians in the community who, I am sure, are willing to share their thoughts and feelings on these matters.
It is unfortunate that some seem predisposed, with equal fervour to the local priest, to take on the role of authoritarian leader at such vulnerable times.
I’d like to chime in and agree with others that coercion isn’t the way to go. But it is important to understand why they are going through the crisis of their faith. Something bad happening to them, or a close friend or family member, for example, isn’t the same as being upset or turned off by the injustice committed by a particular faith’s doctrines. I’m sure there’s no shortage of Christian denominations waiting for the catholic who doesn’t like his church’s handling of the pedophilia scandal.
So once you know why they’re questioning it in the first place, you can get a better sense of where to go, conversationally. And it is important to listen. Your friend will appreciate it, too.
There’s an interesting website out there, the Iron Chariots Wiki.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php
Unlike RationalWiki, which can get snarky, Iron Chariots is a good one for laying out common arguments both for and against the existence of god, with common sense responses to those arguments. It’s one of the more fascinating websites out there on the overall topics of apologetics and will definitely help anyone gain a more balanced approach to theistic and nontheistic dialogue.
If you don’t “get” the reason why it’s called Iron Chariots in the first place, it’s because in Judges 1:19 god couldn’t repel Judah’s enemies because their chariots were made of iron.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.