Quagmire
Offline (Disclaimer: I have made some generalizations and they are nothing but generalizations and have all the weaknesses of generalizations. Nothing in this post is meant as an insult or to belittle. If I have come off wrong I apologize.)
I have noticed something about creation vs. evolution debates and atheist vs. theist debates in general (you all probably have too), they never get anywhere, no one ever changes their mind. I am not saying we should stop trying. I think that when theists try to convert us and save us from damnation that is a worthy ambition (totally different from trying to force your beliefs on others using schools or governments). And I think that when atheists try to “convert” theists, that is a good thing too.
Debate is especially helpful to those on the sidelines who are leaning one way or the other honestly looking for truth. The fence sitters might become convinced but very seldom does the debate end with a theist saying “You’re right, this god thing is just delusion, how could I have been so blind” no supporter of evolution ever says “You’re right, evolution is patently wrong, it must have been god all along.” Evolutionists think that the creationist is willfully closing his eyes to the facts because he doesn’t want to give up the crutch of religion and they may be right but I would suspect only about a tenth of the time. Creationists might think that evolutionists just don’t like god for one reason or another and have hardened their hearts, or something along those lines. This is possibly correct in some cases but once again, not most.
But I think that the real problem is that evolution is not an easy subject. To fully understand it you need a background in anatomy, genetics, biology, microbiology, embryology, geology and many other subjects. To understand pretty well you need to have a decent understanding of biology and genetics at the least. Not many people have that background; science education in this country is seriously lacking. Everyone else needs to trust that evolutionary biologists, who have that background and years of experience, know what they are talking about. Evolutionists feel it is more reasonable to trust the scientific method and the word of many, many scientists living today than to trust a book written centuries ago, translated and retranslated, miscopied, edited, revised and interpreted. Christians, because of their faith take the opposite stance.
If you only put the effort into understanding evolution that you put in to high school biology it is likely to seem far-fetched and more full of holes than Swiss cheese. I can understand that after only a quick run through on the major points of evolution many creationists are not convinced. To me, it seems that many of creationists’ arguments against evolution reflect an incomplete understanding. The more you understand evolution the more plausible it is. I admit there are scientists, smarter scientists than I, who don’t accept evolution, however, there are many more who do.
So I guess the message I am trying to get across is this:
Atheists: You do your position no good to heap scorn, no matter how well deserved, upon religious folk. You can call an idiot an idiot but that won’t help you convince him he’s wrong. Do not call him names even if he deserves them. Don’t insult her intelligence, no matter how big of a moron you think she is. It is entirely pointless. If they say something truly hateful or wrong, by all means call them on it but be a bigger person. If it is a factual error, point out what the error is, explain yourself, if possible cite some actual research; that is what science is about. If they are insulting you, let them know that, correct them, but don’t insult them back. Insulting some one does not make them any more open to your arguments. If they persist in being hateful, ignore them, anyone feeling that much hate is not open to argument.
Theists: Please, please, get the straight facts about evolution. Please stop saying atheists are evolutionists (i.e. evolution is their religion). Please don’t imply that we are not moral people, that we don’t care for others, that we don’t want the world to be a better place. I don’t care if you think all of these things are true, saying them does your position no good, quite frankly it just pisses most people off.
Don’t threaten us with hell. It is a great big waste of your time. We. Do. Not. Believe. In. Hell. Because of this simple fact your threats accomplish nothing and just seem hateful and small-minded. Creationists if you want to effectively debate atheists you are going to have to look at evolution carefully and make scientific arguments with evidence. It is the nature of the atheist that he demands scientific evidence (definitely not the Bible), nothing less with suffice.
I would like to suggest that both sides start looking for some new arguments because the old ones just don’t seem to be working. Also be careful using analogies, nothing can sidetrack a discussion so fast. Sometimes they illustrate a point well but most often the other person will seize upon the inevitable flaw and totally ignore whatever point you were trying to make.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
- Login to post comments
I mostly agree with your sentiments, but not with your lack of paragraphing! (Please, big bodies of text like that are painful to read!
)
Insults make your 'opponent' psychologically 'defensive' and makes them more inclined to defend themselves than listen to the arguments.
As to "old arguments not working", it's not the arguments that are the problem, just that they are difficult to communicate sometimes, especially to someone with a closed mind. Perhaps you're saying that an argument that convinces you not necessarily convinces another and that we should tailor our proofs to those address the doubts we are trying to convince?
In the case of evolution doesn't really interest me as creationist arguments are that bad and anyone can see that they're desperately clinging onto a mythology. It's a political battle more than an intellectual one. (although it did force many of us to come to understand better the theory we'd taken for granted so in someways it was a very good thing.)
The case that interests me is the arguments between atheism and theism. I think that to anyone who has fully comprehended the philosophical arguments, atheism wins. However, these arguments require an understanding of some of the more complex concepts in philosophy and are difficult to express towards the layman public. I think that's where our challenge lies.
I think that in a debate format, it is very difficult to concede the point entirely, so usually there is no direct progress made. People's egos get involved and the whole discussion becomes about winning rather than being right. However, when the debate ends, and person who made the weaker case can reflect in private away from other influences, that is when the arguments can really have effect. And there is also a possible informative effect for people who are just watching the debate, as you said.
The problem with finding new arguments is that all the good arguments are really taken, so often the only thing to do is inform the uninformed. It's either that, or use the bad arguments.
I would be quite impressed to see a theist come up with a really novel approach to proving the existence of god that also makes at least some sense. Atheists can't really do anything until these new arguments have been invented, because we mostly just refute their arguments.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Another important point is that changing one's mind takes time.
When you first hear an argument you can't refute, it doesn't necessarily mean it's irrefutable, it just means that if there is a flaw then you haven't seen it yet. It can take people a long time to be satisfied with proofs, especially when the conclusions are counter intuitive to them.
That's why I like to be able to prove things from multiple angles, if I can, as they increase the 'confidence' in the result.
Sorry about the paragraphing, they were there, there just was not space inbetween (I wrote in in Word).
I expressed myself poorly (knew that would happen). It is not that the arguments themselves that are not working but the way in which we are using them. As you said, we need to pay more attention to who we are talking to, what their specific issues are. Also I have found that an argument can have no effect on a person but when rephrased can make a lot more sense.
I agree with you here, creationist arguments are bad, unscientific is the nicest thing that can be said but creationists don't agree. They think there arguments are bad and while they may subconsciously be grabbing at straws they don't think they are. We have to treat them as reasonable people who just don’t have all the facts.
The dearth of rational creationist arguments does not excuse the poor job so many atheists do of presenting evolution. If we can't give people a workable explanation and help them to understand it, it is understandable that they look elsewhere for explanations.
Whether it is reasonable or not there are many people who make evolution to be a central issue. No matter how good of job you might do of presenting a philosophical argument, if we in turn can't provide an alternate explanation then they with return to the only system that does, no matter how unreasonable. They will find comfort in their faith.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
Rexlunae, Strafio,
Thanks I appreciate your input here and agree with your points. We need to "inform the uninformed" rather than merely concentrating on shooting down their faith. Also it does take time to change your mind. Anyone who "converts" too fast will most likely convert right back because their opinions have no depth.
I think it would be helpful, as other have said, to catalog the most common arguments of theists along with responses by people who really know what they are talking about. So that we are able to respond in a well thought out and informed way. I could use help with questions of philosophy while others might need help with scientific questions. And not just for use in the forum, for use with family and friends as well. Perhaps not even in a thread format because it gets annoying to weed through so many many posts. Perhaps more of a wiki type set up.
For example I know that the argument that we get our morals from a god is irrational but I don't have the philosophical arguments to back it up, only my own reasons.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
Catalog of Theist Arguments
Theist Arguments "rebutted"
Notice how few rebuttals there are?
Also, check out my thread, where I ask for a simple yes or no answer to a very simple theological question, "Is God in Hell?"
So far, four responses, and I had to pull teeth to get a couple of them.
My point is that theists are very fond of pontificating, but when they are given the opportunity to enter debate, they seldom do.
I was having dinner with a friend who I can only call a deist, because he refuses to let me call him an agnostic, and we were discussing the problem of atheist vs. theist debates.
The initial problem is that there cannot be a proper debate, because the atheists claim nothing. In other words, atheists don't have anything to say until a theist says, "God exists." The atheist response is, "Prove it." If the theist doesn't prove it, the atheist has nothing more to say. That's not really a debate.
It's also not very interesting, and so on boards like this, many atheists post responses to common theist claims in order to start a conversation. Even so, this is not a real debate.
For the record, I don't disagree with you about the ineffectiveness of debate if conversion is the goal. What you have to understand is that boards like this have a broader goal... visibility. The more openly atheist people/websites/companies, etc... there are, the easier it will become for individuals to question their beliefs, and the less powerful the cultural hold of religion will be.
The easier it is to question, the more de-converts, and won't that be a lovely day.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hmm I am getting the impression that I have given the impression that I somehow disapprove, or think that forums such as this are pointless. Definitely not the case. I agree we need to put ourselves out there. We need to help others understand what atheists are all about. To many people link atheism with anarchy, or immorality, or satanism, which is obviously not the case. But if we aren't careful we will put out the wrong impression. I also think that people who are "fence sitters" don't participate in these discussions, they read them as a form of research. I just think we need to make the research worth their while.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
Yeah not too many actual rebuttals there. That is why would suggest a different format, not a threat, too easy to get sidetracked and then there is other stuff to wade through to get to the answers.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein