FreeThought
Open Forum Friday: Can believers and nonbelievers ever have a productive conversation about belief?
This Week’s Topic
Recently Jerry Coyne turned down an invitation to a conference because of sponsorship from The Templeton Foundation. Now, this week’s OFF isn’t about whether or not the Templeton Foundation does good by giving large amounts of money to scientists. I think the vast majority of us see Templeton as having a ulterior motive and I encourage you to read PZ to find out why.
Rather, I was intrigued by this paragraph in Coyne’s post.
In the end, all these dialogues [between faith and science] can do is make the participants walk away thinking, “Aren’t we fine fellows? We’ve engaged the other side. And maybe they were pretty good fellows too.” But nothing substantive is accomplished. As for the listeners, well, these are like debates between creationists and evolutionists. (Most scientists now recognize that these latter debates are futile.) There is simply no time to cover substantive points, and each side is preaching to its choir anyway. As Steven Weinberg said, “I’m in favor of a dialogue between faith and science, but not a constructive dialogue.” I would go further and say that there’s really not much point in any dialogue or “conversation.” Let us publish and speak about our side; let them publish and speak about theirs separately. Eventually a winner will emerge. Indeed, it’s emerging now, as the proportion of nonbelievers rises in our country.
I think it is important for scientists to understand how people form and why they harbor extraordinary beliefs, by which I mean the whole gamut of beliefs seemingly counter to reality — gods, pseudoscience, the paranormal, etc. However, when it comes to scientists (and atheists and skeptics) engaging true believers in dialogue, I think Coyne is spot on. It’s fruitless. No good can come of it.
Or can it?
Well, I think one has to define what they mean by productive or constructive. At minimum I think the definition would be convincing the other side of the validity of our point of view. You’re certainly not going to affect a true believer, but is it possible that you might just sway people whose beliefs are on the edge over to our side? Maybe. But aren’t books and documentaries and lectures and blogs better mediums for that? At least in those venues one has the time to formulate a reasonably complex argument and deconstruct/debunk the other side. Which is one reason I’m no fan of debates. It often comes down to cheap rhetorical theatrics and the actual truth tends to get set aside in favor of “winning” the debate.
How about the broader picture though? We all deal with belief in the extraordinary by friends and family almost daily. Is it possible there at least to have a productive conversation with a close friend who wholeheartedly believes in conspiracy theories? Or what about family members who fervently believe in god? Is it even worth trying or are you just going to risk destroying your relationship with the other person?
I think it’s possible if there’s a sufficient level of intimacy and caring between the two people involved. If both people go into the conversation accepting that they’re probably not going to change the other’s mind. If they’re careful to not to accuse the other of lacking intelligence or being “brainwashed” or some other way of demeaning the person for their beliefs. Then maybe, just maybe, it can be pulled off.
Is it worth it though if you’re probably not going to change their level of belief? That’s a tough question. I don’t know. I suppose it all depends on how much you value that relationship. I think in the end if you really care about the relationship then you’ve got to try because close personal relationships, be they friendships or romantic partners, are too hard to come by. And if you don’t try then there’s a good chance that the disagreement is ultimately going to wreck the relationship anyway.
So what do you think? Can believers and nonbelievers ever have productive conversations about extraordinary beliefs? What does “productive” mean to you? And when is it worth it to you to try?
Open Forum Friday Ground Rules
- Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
- We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
- Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
- If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
- This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by an individual contributor to this blog are not necessarily shared by all members of FreeThought Fort Wayne. That is what makes this organization so interesting. Commenters on the FreeThought Fort Wayne blog are expected to abide by our comment policy. About the author: This member has moved on from FFW for other pursuits. Read more from this author
The Open Forum Friday: Can believers and nonbelievers ever have a productive conversation about belief? by l, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Discussion
6 comments for “Open Forum Friday: Can believers and nonbelievers ever have a productive conversation about belief?”
Post a comment
Categories
Our Readers
I think that in order to *really* listen and to get what the other side is saying, you have to have some leanings toward that side yourself. It wasn’t until after I was past being a believer did I really hear what agnostics and atheists had to say. Much of it came from within me, conclusions that I had to draw myself.
For two opposing parties to listen to the other side and, as you say, recognize the validity of the other viewpoint, definitely, debates aren’t the correct format. No one’s going to convince Richard Dawkins in a debate that there is a god anymore than anyone can convince Ray Comfort that there isn’t. Like you said, it is for those on the fringes, the “swing voters” if you will.
I think the reason I like to watch and attempt to engage in debates is because of the talking points. If I can stump a theist on a point, that doesn’t mean they will renounce their beliefs right there. It may not even convince them that that particular point has been validated. And if I am not being a complete asshole about it (Please! Nobody disemvowel me!), I might just get them to see that I do indeed have a valid point.
If we are using a formal debate format then the eternal pessimist in me says no. No way, no how. You can’t debate a true believer because the answer is always God and/or your holy book of choice. However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t have a discussion about religion and that good things can come from that conversation. Even if I only convince one person that I don’t sacrifice goats on the evening of the full moon, I feel like I have made a difference.
@Andy W. says:
Aye. Absolutely. Which is one very important reason (of many) that we need to learn as much as possible about 1) how and why people come to extraordinary beliefs and 2) how and why they continue to hold those beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Additionally I think it’s important for nonbelievers to have at least some empathy towards believers. And that’s not condescension. We’ve all strongly believed in things we didn’t have good evidence for. We have to remember what it felt like to have those beliefs challenged.
@K. Ward: You make a good point. Sometimes a “productive” conversation isn’t convincing someone with an opposing viewpoint of the validity of your argument, but merely convincing them that you’re an OK person. Acceptance and tolerance, after all, is a primary goal for everyone.
neuralgourmet: I couldn’t agree more. And if I may add, I think that’s why it’s important for us to keep a high profile. I see strong parallels between the freethought movement and the gay rights movement. Gays didn’t start to become respectable until a large number of people came out unapologetically.
It may just be a bandwagon effect, but don’t knock it. I’d like to see our society progress to the point that no one gives me a second glance if I answer “atheist” to a question about religious affiliation.
If we rub a few bigots the wrong way, well, sorry but that’s how it goes.
I know NOT engaging in debates with “true” believers goes nowhere.
Whatever methods (such as debates, arguments, casual conversations, blogging, etc.) are employed to engage believers in actively thinking has at least the possibility of making a difference. “Think about it.” was one of the finalists I had as candidates for our slogan. It is short and sweet, and spells it out:
The more thinking a person does about any subject increases awareness of that subject. Even thinking in circles and brainwashing yourself with blinders on increases the chance that you may actually learn something of value about said subject.
To me, it seems more fruitful explaining how to train your brain to think critically. It’s harder than it looks to think critically. It takes hard work and constant vigilance and dedication (and courage) to allow your own mind free reign without worry of boundaries or (gasp!) mistakes. I can speak for myself at least when I say it takes as much effort for me to concentrate and focus intense thought and scrutiny on an idea as it does for me to put my body through a good physical workout. Neither can seem particularly appealing at times, but both have their rewards.
But explaining HOW to think as opposed to WHAT to think is not usually easy, and all believers’ learning curves and tolerance for mental jumping-jacks varies. Anxiety, stress, fear and embarrassment are great motivators for keeping people in their comfort zones and away from open inquiry and critical thought.
You have to tailor your arguments to your audience. The better you know your audience, the more likely you are to make them think.