Softening the Message of a Hard Truth

[Coconut]

In the letter, he asked the question of how to convince me there is no God.  I said he shouldn't.

It's interesting that a rhetorical question presented strictly for purposes of analogy was taken so personally and answered so passionately. It was meant as an example of (in very recent times though no longer) fringe idea that challenges a deeply held lifelong belief that we've been immersed in by our cultures all our lives and how such a challenge will almost inevitably evoke a strong reaction and should not be expected to change views overnight.

I figured that when you said it, you wrote it just as an example and one of the first things that came to mind. But you present your whole posting as fact.

"Fact: Government is force
Fact: Santa doesn't exist
Fact: God doesn't exist"

When you give the last one, you lose your credibility on the first 2. Your whole posting was about how to "convert" people as nicely as possible. Telling them what they believe about God is wrong makes them feel attacked and disrespected. It's not needed to get the rest of your points across.

[Kat Kanning]

I see Santa in the store all the time around Christmas.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yeah! Lots of them!

[DigitalWarrior]

I think the most important part of changing a person's thinking is making them believe that they are responsible for the change. 

First, you have to determine if the erroneous belief is emotionally important to the person.  If it is, you have to abandon logic.  The emotional attachment is a guarded fortress.  Instead, you can try to emotionally approach it from the other direction:
Conservative principals have triumphed.  The validity of strong families has been accepted.  Even those who in times past opposed us no longer argue against it.  Everyone is on our side.  Even gay people want to marry.  Good job!  *smile*

You can also attempt to drain the topic of emotion (using the Socratic method), then approach logically, but I think it is slower and much more risky but also more honest:
What is Marriage?  What are some other religions who have had different ideas about marriage? Why do we have legal benefits for Marriage?  How is Marriage different than Baptism or Confirmation?  Why don't they have legal benefits?  Would it be OK to recognize Marriages from other religions?  On a different track, what were some of the reasons that interracial marriages were banned for so much of history (make sure to mention that race mixing was prohibited in the Old testament)?  How many of those reasons have been proven true over the last half century?  What are the reasons to be against marriage for people who are the same sex?  Do they look anything like the reasons against gay marriage?  What makes the reasons against gay marriage more likely to be valid that the same passionate opinions about interracial marriage?

You cannot dismiss the importance of feelings in arguments.

[Raineyrocks]

I see Santa in the store all the time around Christmas.

[dalebert]

Well, ignoring the palatability of the analogy between government and religion for a moment, don't you think that the analogy is sort of an ineffective one?

Not for my purposes, no. Looking back on the relatively recent trend for atheism, I see something that seemed quite fringe in the general media and public eye when I was a child that has rapidly transformed into a viewpoint that nearly everyone is familiar with even if they don't share it. It's changed the whole public discourse about the subject of religion. I can remember when freedom of religion was essentially interpreted to mean you could be Methodist, Baptist, perhaps even Catholic, or whatever flavor of Christian you wanted to be. I remember as a child the first time I ever heard of a Jew. Some guy on TV asked a woman what it meant to be Jewish and her answer was "It means we believe but we don't pray" and that was the end of the discussion. It was just enough to make me really fascinated about what it really meant to be Jewish. In time, the language of freedom of religion started to include *gasp* non-Christian religions. It was still more time before it began to include freedom from religion altogether. America continues to be a predominantly theist country but with a lot more non-Christian liberal spiritual types and a smaller number of self-identified Christians and even smaller number of fundamentalists than ever before as younger generations start to replace older ones. We're pretty darn close to the point where religion can truly be an individual choice, which is where it ought to be. It's still working it's way into politics and hence forced into our lives, but less so, and it has to do it in a more round-about way. The notion of separation of church and state is nearly a given now even while politicians carefully dance around the subject so they can pander to voters of various religious views.

And so, as someone who quietly and frightfully questioned the existence of a god as a child in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist family, I feel like I was attentively witnessing the trend of atheism starting from a fringe viewpoint that was just beginning to be taken seriously. I can look at my own progress there and see the parallels to my progress in understanding the nature of government. If I can remind atheists of that, they may see the same trend that I see in anarchy and begin to take it more seriously. Also, atheists already have that tendency to question broadly held beliefs and that's at the heart of what anarchy is all about! The atheist already understands that basic point that an opinion held by a majority can still be wrong. Get them to examine that knowledge and the foundation of establishing government authority via democracy, via majority opinion, crumbles in their minds.

So take those two things. One, atheists are a receptive audience to the message. And two, that we have made significant progress in terms of religious freedom due in large part to a growing fringe viewpoint that rejects religion altogether. Religion isn't gone, but its stranglehold on our culture is considerably weaker. This has happened not by achieving a majority of atheists but simply by our becoming a visible and vocal minority! So you see, I don't feel the need to convince everyone in order to make significant progress, and thank the flying spaghetti monster for that because it would be egotistical of me to think I could in my lifetime. This is what I'm talking about when I say a small number of anarchists can be a tremendous wrench in the system. I see the beginnings of the atheism trend in anarchy now and I aim to be a contributing part of that transformation.

I see anarchy as a personal viewpoint that rejects a belief in government, not as a system to be somehow implemented en masse in place of government. Any attempt by any government to impose a fictional collective will by force will be fought by anarchists and our voices will be louder as our numbers grow. It's an individual philosophy and you can only change individuals to the betterment of freedom for all of society. Hence my personal quote, one I'm quite proud of, about achieving more personal freedom:

Anarchy isn't the goal. It's the path. Anarchy isn't the end. It's the beginning.
-Dale Everett

[dalebert]

Your whole posting was about how to "convert" people as nicely as possible.

No, that was a rhetorical question meant to demonstrate why it can't be done nicely or gently or tactfully. Heck, just re-read the title which demonstrates the dichotomy between a soft message and a hard truth. Don't even consider whether God exists or not. That's another post. Just consider this. If you have a message, that if it turns out to be true, rocks the foundations of a person's world view, then there is no way for it to be gentle.

[John Edward Mercier]

Force exists without government... so government is force... not quite logical.

The First Amendment only protect religious beliefs from the Congress... not the States. NH's constitution hold religion differently.

[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

June 2, 1784

Not sure where atheism fits in that.

[dalebert]

Force exists without government... so government is force... not quite logical.

It's completely logical if government is a subset of force. And to be more specific, government is aggressive force.

[dalebert]

Force exists without government... so government is force... not quite logical.

It's completely logical if government is a subset of force. And to be more specific, government is aggressive force.

Thanx for helping to inspire today's comic where I attempt to elaborate on this a bit. 

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/08/20/aiyh-ven-diagram/

[John Edward Mercier]

Your trying to elaborate that government is a subset of force...
But that would be comparable to saying your a subset of a snow shovel.

Government may use force (I state may as in free associations have governing principles but not mandatory membership), but more as a tool.
A more exacting example might be authoritarian government with a cuddly puppy named Bribery, and a shovel from 'Force-R-Us'. If they can't get you with the bunny... the shovel will do the trick.

The problem being of course that many people do not see democracy as authoritarian government. They don't get the part that its not voluntary, and in it representative form is custodial (Nanny).

[dalebert]

Your trying to elaborate that government is a subset of force...
But that would be comparable to saying your a subset of a snow shovel.

It's the one factor that separates it and defines it as what it is. Take that away and it ceases to be government. It's just activity like any other in the free market. But anyway, this is why I said "You may now begin over-analyzing the crap out of my silly bubble graph in the comments." when I posted it. 

[Caleb]

Fact: Santa doesn't exist

"There is a Santa Claus....Been around since, like, the 1500s. He wasn't always called Santa, but you know, Christmas night, flying reindeer, coming down the chimney—all true....He doesn't traditionally bring presents so much as, you know, disembowel children, but otherwise..."  -- Anyanka on Santa Claus

[Caleb]

I can remember when freedom of religion was essentially interpreted to mean you could be Methodist, Baptist, perhaps even Catholic, or whatever flavor of Christian you wanted to be....In time, the language of freedom of religion started to include *gasp* non-Christian religions. It was still more time before it began to include freedom from religion altogether....we have made significant progress in terms of religious freedom due in large part to a growing fringe viewpoint that rejects religion altogether.

I don't know, we must have grown up in completely different Americas cuz i don't remember any time when it wasn't ok to question whether god exists.

If I can remind atheists of that, they may see the same trend that I see in anarchy and begin to take it more seriously. Also, atheists already have that tendency to question broadly held beliefs and that's at the heart of what anarchy is all about!

ok. so when I asked, "Are you trying to convince people that anarchism is true by appealing to their atheism?" the answer to that question was "yes". Your intended audience was atheists. That's fine, of course. I tend to market my anarchism to christians, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Just for the record, I am a Christian and I didn't find your sentiments to be offensive. Mainly, I just thought that they wouldn't have much broad-based appeal beyond the atheist target group.

[dalebert]

ok. so when I asked, "Are you trying to convince people that anarchism is true by appealing to their atheism?" the answer to that question was "yes". Your intended audience was atheists. That's fine, of course. I tend to market my anarchism to christians, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And that's good too. Like I said before, I see parallels between anarchism and atheism that I cannot ignore with intellectual honesty. I can, and often do, talk about anarchy without always addressing the analogy to atheism, certainly. However, the Christian anarchist viewpoint is like a different language to me and so perhaps you and Russell and others can be more effective in that regard.

That said, I think those theists who don't get hung up on their disagreement with that one viewpoint, if they're sensible, should still see that the analogy holds and it makes a point. When I wrote that earlier post, I was preparing for another post on my blog about the reactions and why I think they're misguided. I'm pretty happy with it so I may not even edit it much.