Comment of the Week: Gods & Fairies
Then again, isn't it arguable that there is only "trivializing" here insofar as belief in gods can't be adequately differentiated from believing in other creatures from myth and legend? If there is a tremendous difference — not in what the beliefs mean to the believer, but in the quality and reasonableness of the beliefs — then it should be easy to respond to this comparison. Refusing to address the comparison, though, creates the suspicion that responding isn't so easy... and perhaps that the argument has struck a little too close to the truth.
This connects in my brain to a very brief discussion I had recently with a theist who wrote to an atheist list to state that it was wrong to say there is no “rational argument” (his exact phrase) for belief in god. He mentioned that there were mathematical proofs for other dimensions and that the idea was that there is a 10th dimension that seems to be controlling all of the other dimensions.
I have no idea if this claim is an accurate representation of the scientific thought regarding dimensions, but I tend to give people a lot of leeway “for the sake of argument.” In this case, the theist was not claiming that he could present facts to support his belief, only that he could present a rational argument.
So, I asked him how the 10th dimension presented any more evidence for the existence of gods (which might inhabit the dimension) than for fairies (who might inhabit the dimension)? He became so offended that his response back was simply that the universe is too complex to exist without a god, and that mocking him by equating his god to fairies was uncalled for, and meant the end of the discussion.
I did reply in hopes of making my point more clear. In fact, I equated his god to fairies in every instance. For example, he stated that the fact humans had evolved to the level that we can even conceive of gods should be evidence gods exist. I pointed out that we had evolved to the level that we can conceive of fairies.
I didn’t make these equivocations in order to offend this person. I made them because, to me, they are justified until he can show me something he claims god did that I can’t turn around claims fairies did—with just as much support (which would be none at all). I pointed out there are ancient stories of fairies existing and interacting with people—just as there are with gods. And there were more things I equated.
The point is, he felt I was equating these things to be an ass. But really I was sincerely equating them because I see them as being the same. If he wants to show they’re not the same, while I continue to draw parallel after parallel, then he needs to show some area where they are not parallel that can be demonstrated.
Mainly he wanted me to simply roll over. I was supposed to not disbelieve him or question him or stick to my view that his god doesn’t appear to exist. And when I wouldn’t accept his claims without reason or justification—he was offended. I simply “shouldn’t” equate his god to fairies—because his god is not at all the same as fairies…just because he says so. And if I disagree, I’m just being an offensive ass. I told him I was writing him in all seriousness—not mocking or joking at all. I see no difference between his god and fairies. I’m not trying to upset him.
But I got no reply.
I wish I could say that I was surprised that Tracie didn't get a reply, but I'm not. How often is the accusation that atheists are "disrespectful" or "intolerant" based on little more than the fact that atheists won't "roll over" and tell believers how wonderful it is that they believe? How often is the demand for "respect" really a demand for approval or deference?
Even as such religious theists whine about not being taken seriously, though, they are clearly refusing to take seriously the questions and critiques being offered by atheists. Claims about being offended thus serve to mask avoiding questions that cut right to the heart of the reasonableness of their position.
How does this relate to the point of this article? Because if my perspective can’t even be considered seriously, how can anything I believe that follows from my perspective be taken seriously? If, when I say, “Seriously, I don’t see how your god exists.,” I’m met with disbelief, incredulousness and even open offense, I’m basically being told that to express my views is unacceptable. My views won’t even be discussed, addressed—taken seriously.
I DID take this man’s belief seriously. I believe he seriously accepts the proposition “god exists” to be true. And I’m curious how he sees that as being different than the proposition “fairies exist”--seriously. But he can’t imagine that I can “seriously” ask such a thing. And so I’ll never get a serious answer. I’ll only get—“Well, things exist—there has to be a god.” And when I ask, “What makes you think fairies aren’t the ones who created it all?” the conversation will end in a huff. I’ll never get my answer. And the Xian will pat himself on the back for not allowing himself to be offended by someone as rude as me, someone who asked a serious question and never got a satisfactory answer.
In other words, I still don’t know what the difference is between his god and fairies. And from what I got back, he doesn’t seem to, either. In fact, to him, even asking that question is wrong. How sad is that? Asking a question is wrong.
[original post]
Does the theistic position even deserve to be taken seriously in the first place, though? There seems to be the assumption that it should — that because it's important to believers, then certainly the rest of us should treat it with all due care. It could be argued, though, that whether the position deserves to be taken seriously or not is something which believers themselves need to demonstrate. One means for doing so is to demonstrate how their position differs from a position which they don't take very seriously — like, say, belief in fairies.
If we atheists are supposed to regard belief in fairies as unserious, but belief in gods as serious, I think we should expect believers in gods to explain how and why. If the fact that we don't automatically do so is "offensive" to believers, then isn't that their problem? Maybe they need to learn that the rest of the world doesn't owe them deference. They shouldn't be allowed to use being offended as a substitute for defending or supporting the reasonableness of their position.
Comments
I thought about this for some time, and eventually came to the conclusion that belief in fairies and belief in gods is not equivalent.
Belief in fairies is more defensible.
Essentially, a “god” (which is never well-defined, unfortunately) tends to be a supernatural being with vast or limitless power. Gods are usually moralistic and tend to concern themselves unduly with the affairs of mortals.
Fairies are under no requirement to display enormous powers. They don’t typically create worlds, demand or somehow know they’re being worshipped, and may or may not concern themselves with mortal affairs. Fairies could presumably be restricted to Earth and a normal timeframe. Gods often cannot be.
To believe in gods, you need to believe in everything that would allow fairies to exist, plus the vast sums of power, the intense interest in human life, probably a certain noncorporeality, and the potential to create universes wrapped up into a single (or perhaps pantheon) of beings.
Fairies, at least, have a body structure similar to what we’ve seen in nature (albeit, often six-limbed, and some may shapechange, which would invalidate the point). Gods often do not have any fixed body structure.
“And when I ask, ‘What makes you think fairies aren’t the ones who created it all?’ the conversation will end in a huff.”
It makes sense to replace gods with fairies in most cases (for instance, “How can you be sure it wasn’t fairies who wrote that bible prophecy that you say came true?”) but isn’t the definition of a god something that can create universes, or at least invent something that didn’t exist before from nothing? Once we consider the possibility that fairies could have “created it all”, how are these fairies not gods? What is the difference between gods and extremely powerful fairies?
In fact, how are we defining “god” here? How would this website generally define it?
>but isn’t the definition of a god something that can create universes, or at least invent something that didn’t exist before from nothing?
No. Apollo never created the universe and there are gods who never created something from nothing. There is nothing inherent about gods except that they are thought to generally possess some sort of supernatural ability beyond human ability. Gods can even die according to some stories.
411314: Atheists don’t define god. They react to predefined gods that theists put forward. It’s up to the theist to define what they mean when they say god.
That’s a huge problem with a dialogue about god. Unlike something that exists–like a coffee mug–we have nothing to point at and say, “OK, this is a god…” where we can draw some consensus of what a god is and what the word can/should mean.
When there is nothing there to refer to, it becomes hard to define the term. On what grounds do I tell someone their definition of god is incorrect, since it is a self-defined term with no apparent object (no point of reference to say, “See here–this is a god, and it doesn’t have the attributes you are saying it has…”
In general, I find that most atheists use a highly ambiguous, loosely defined Xian model in the U.S.–since the major theistic presentation is the Xian model. However, that god, even being a “Xian” god–has many, MANY variants, some of which are minor, but some of which are quite major.
Asking “What are we talking about when we say ‘god’?” is a terrific question.
But again, it’s the same as fairies. Since they don’t exist, we have sort of our own mental image of them. Are they pretty or ugly? Are they malevolent or benevolent? They can do magic? They can be invisible? What can’t they do? Is there a limit to their magic powers? Says who…?
When there’s nothing there, and it’s just some ancient magic notion–it’s anyone’s game, really.
Tracie’s argument is a sound one, but it’s likely to offend the other party since A) Tracie clearly doesn’t actually believe in fairies and B) hardly anyone believes fairies are ~omnipotent~ gods which created the universe.
It would be a more compelling argument in this case to mention “those who believes the universe might have been created by Allah, Vishnu, or a race of superbeings in another dimension.” Drawing comparisons to “fairies” just sounds a bit demeaning and insensitive, even if it isn’t intended that way.
It’s like the guy who says, “I don’t know why that cook got so offended. All I said is that his soup smells like pee.”
Using a contemporary god for comparison is more likely to achieve the desired effect: Force the theist into arguing how they know that it’s their own god (rather than all the others) which exists or inhabits the 10th dimension or whatever. That is a much harder argument for the believer to defend.
I can’t believe it, we’re having a discussion about the omnipotence of fairies.
I also like Tracie’s Alien Abduction argument.
The problem with using another god is that Christians will usually feel that another religious believe _does_ merit more respect than fairies. Also, they often don’t see Allah as nonexistent–they see Allah as a misinterpretation of the One True God ™.
To most Xians, Allah is a bastardization of Yahweh, not a nonexistent being.
You might be able to use Zeus, but they have the same reaction in the sense of feeling like comparing “religion” to “mythology” is belittling religion. They don’t get that X’s mythology is Y’s religion.
>It’s like the guy who says, “I don’t know why that cook got so offended. All I said is that his soup smells like pee.”
What if it does smell like pee?
If the guy makes a soup that smells of urine–what is the point of everyone pretending it doesn’t smell like urine just to avoid hurt feelings?
If it smells like pee, and I say, “Wow, this smells like pee,” and it DOES smell like pee–on what grounds is the chef offended?
Alien abduction does work well, Nal. I agree.
>but it’s likely to offend the other party since A) Tracie clearly doesn’t actually believe in fairies
I should note this is the point of the argument. I need to choose a thing they clear do not/would not believe exists. I need them to see “This is how I view your god–totally nonexistent.”
Then they Xian can understand my starting point. I’m not asking him to accept my position. But he should understand it if we’re going to enter into dialogue, otherwise the communication will be a mess. He will make all sorts of assumptions about the reality of his religious belief and be surprised time and again when I stop him to say, “I don’t accept heaven…I don’t accept hell…I don’t believe Jesus did miracles…”
Rather than stop him at every step to say, I think this is malarky, I want that clear right up front. I think this is malarky. And if you want me to think otherwise, you need to start from the point of view that this is all malarky. And we can build from there. Show me where my reason is flawed.
I do find it necessary to flat out get it straight up front that god is no more to me than fairies would be to him.
If he’s offended by that–what he’s really saying is that it’s offensive for ME to hold that view of HIS god. And he’s wrong to be offended, in the sense he has no valid grounds to take offense. HE’S the one who accepts his god, not me. And being offended that I don’t share his view is utter bullsh*t–to put not to fine a point on it.
I expected this response, so here is my answer. It all comes down to your intentions for the debate. Is your intention to “win” the argument regardless of whether you offend the other party or “hurt their feelings”? Or is your intention to *tactfully* draw the other party into a deeper debate and discussion?
Based on the response you received (or lack thereof), it looks like they assumed the former.
If I want to get kicked out of the restaurant, I’ll tell the cook that his soup smells like pee. If I want to have a productive conversation with the cook, I might respectfully state my distaste without making such a gross comparison. It’s called tact.
Obviously from your perspective there is logically no difference comparing god to fairies since you don’t believe in either. However to the believer, there is a difference. It’s much *harder* for the believer to put their god up against other contemporary deities which supposedly created the universe and have as many if not more followers.
It’s true that believers write off other gods all the time (”Allah is a perversion of Jehova”, “they’re evil” etc), but I think that’s a much more specific argument which demands more specific evidence. It’s also great for making parallels (”So what if Jehova is a perversion of Allah?” etc). Either way, it’s a lot more specific than arguing whether there are fairies or gods in the “10th dimension”, something which obviously can’t be proven or disproven.
In other words, by using fairies or pixies or spaghetti monsters, I think you’re essentially making it too *easy* for the believer to be offended and/or to write off your argument completely. Remember people are easily offended when it comes to their religious beliefs. If you don’t mind offending them then that’s up to you, but I don’t think your arguments will have the same results.
[oops, forgot to quote what I was responding to…]
Traceih wrote:
>What if it does smell like pee?
>
>If the guy makes a soup that smells of urine–what is the point of everyone pretending it doesn’t smell like urine just to avoid hurt feelings?
I expected this response, so here is my answer. It all comes down to your intentions for the debate. Is your intention to “win” the argument regardless of whether you offend the other party or “hurt their feelings”? Or is your intention to *tactfully* draw the other party into a deeper debate and discussion?
Based on the response you received (or lack thereof), it looks like they assumed the former.
If I want to get kicked out of the restaurant, I’ll tell the cook that his soup smells like pee. If I want to have a productive conversation with the cook, I might respectfully state my distaste without making such a gross comparison. It’s called tact.
Obviously from your perspective there is logically no difference comparing god to fairies since you don’t believe in either. However to the believer, there is a difference. It’s much *harder* for the believer to put their god up against other contemporary deities which supposedly created the universe and have as many if not more followers.
It’s true that believers write off other gods all the time (”Allah is a perversion of Jehova”, “they’re evil” etc), but I think that’s a much more specific argument which demands more specific evidence. It’s also great for making parallels (”So what if Jehova is a perversion of Allah?” etc). Either way, it’s a lot more specific than arguing whether there are fairies or gods in the “10th dimension”, something which obviously can’t be proven or disproven.
In other words, by using fairies or pixies or spaghetti monsters, I think you’re essentially making it too *easy* for the believer to be offended and/or to write off your argument completely. Remember people are easily offended when it comes to their religious beliefs. If you don’t mind offending them then that’s up to you, but I don’t think your arguments will have the same results.
What if the cook is selling soup that is pee? A scientific analysis of the “soup” has found that it has no nutritional value and can be poisonous in some individuals. People spend their hard earned money for this “soup” and the cook gets rich off their gullible taste buds.
The cook doesn’t deserve any consideration. The others patrons, who try to convince the newcomers that a bowl of pee is actually soup, don’t deserve any consideration. The patrons who quietly sip their pee, without any soup prophesying, deserve consideration.
I’m sure you expected this response.
“I’m sure you expected this response.”
Of course I did. Obviously you can twist the analogy so far that it doesn’t address the original question of the article, i.e. whether the believer is justified in being offended by someone drawing comparison between their god and fairies.
“What if the soup is a poison that will destroy the world?” We can throw around what-ifs all day. However, Tracie didn’t argue that “god” is really just a “fairy”. And the problem is there is no “scientific analysis” showing that god or fairies do or do not exist in the 10th dimension. Unless you have some evidence we all don’t know about?
And even if you suspect the soup is pee or poison, telling that to the cook without any *evidence* will still give you the SAME result. You get thrown out of the restaurant and probably don’t convince anyone there. Maybe you could write to the newspaper about it or hand out flyers, but don’t expect to have a worthwhile conversation with the cook.
TracieH: “And I’m curious how he sees that as being different than the proposition “fairies exist”–seriously. But he can’t imagine that I can “seriously” ask such a thing.” A: Because you obviously don’t *seriously* believe in fairies. Or do you? Many people out there seriously believe in Allah and Vishnu.
TraceiH: “If he wants to show they’re not the same, while I continue to draw parallel after parallel, then he needs to show some area where they are not parallel that can be demonstrated.” A: Fairies don’t have millions of worshippers who believe they created the universe. It’s not a matter of logic; it’s a matter of legitimacy to the theist.
I’ll say it again, it’s called Tact. Strategy. You catch flies with honey, not vinegar. I’m not talking about *whether* we should argue against god & fairies, I’m talking about *how* we argue about god & fairies. If we want to elicitit an emotional reaction or indignation, just make comparisons to fairies. It has that nice *demeaning* ring to it. If we athiests want increase the likelihood of continuing the conversation and maybe winning them over to our side, we can be a bit more sensitive with our comparisons…
“I don’t know why my wife got so mad. All I did was tell her that dress makes her look like a fat cow.”
“I don’t know why that artist walked away. All I did was tell him that his work looks like a hunk of garbage.”
“I don’t know why the guy I was debating with got upset. All I did was equate his belief in an omnipotent god with my non-belief in fairies.”
Well, duhhhhh. You needed an article to have somebody explain that to you?
You don’t need to believe in X in order to seriously ask whether and why belief in Z is more reasonable than belief in X. In fact, it’s quite common and normal to argue against some idea, proposition, or belief by comparing it against some hypothetical which everyone agrees is unreasonable, wrong, or silly, then asking how and why the proposed idea differs from the unreasonable hypothetical.
So it appears that what we have here is an example of a common type of argument which, in this one case, people are taking so personally that the entire type has to be abandoned. The argument type depends upon using some X which no one accepts as reasonable, but comparing Z to an unreasonable X will inevitably be labeled offensive, no?
Tact can be good. However, at what point do we say “no” to people excluding entire argument types merely by complaining “that offends me”? At what point should someone be expected to be mature enough to not take an impersonal argument personally?
Actually, it is my understanding that actual tests of this reveals that you catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. This can be true metaphorically as well — there will of course always be people who are put off by vinegar, but there will also be people who are incited enough by the vinegar to pay attention or engage others in an effort to fight against it. Honey never would have attracted them to begin with.
Which group is larger: those put off by the vinegar or those drawn to it? I don’t know and so wouldn’t presume to insist that one or the other must be preferred over the other. On the contrary, because I know that both can be effective in attracting attention, I would insist that both be used at different times.
Comparing a proposed idea to something much more obviously ridiculous easily creates indignation in those offering the proposal; rarely, though, do they presume to shut down discussion by playing the “I’m offended” card. However much they may object to the comparison, they are expected to explain why the comparison is unreasonable — which, of course, was the point of the comparison. If they can make a good case for why the two items differ, then they are making a case for their own proposal; insofar as they fail to differentiate, they reveal the problems with their proposal.
I really can’t think of any other context where someone is likely to say “comparing my idea to that ridiculous idea offends me, so I’m just not going to talk to you anymore.” I can’t think of any other context in political, ethical, or philosophical debates where such a reaction would be regarded as reasonable, understandable, or acceptable. The comparison would have to be unusually extreme, awful, and very personally phrased in order for such a reaction to become reasonable — and I have never seen that happen.
You’re misrepresenting the situation here. The comparison is between belief in a god with a hypothetical belief in fairies, with the question being what differentiates the two such that the former is more reasonable or rational than the latter.
>If I want to get kicked out of the restaurant, I’ll tell the cook that his soup smells like pee.
NAL—I thought the SAME thing when I read NP’s reply: So, if a chef puts a bowl of piss in front of me and says, “Eat this! It’s for your own good! It’s wonderful soup I made—and if you don’t eat it, you will surely suffer for it!”
And if I stand up, in that circumstance and say, “I make it a rule never to eat piss—even if it’s called ‘wonderful soup.’”
I’m somehow trying to upset the chef, if I know he really, really believes it’s wonderful soup and not piss—even though it’s really piss he’s trying to get me to eat?
I don’t go looking for dialogues with theists. Every conversation I’ve had with one was one _they_ sought out with me. I don’t insult them, name call, use vulgarity aimed at them in a derogatory fashion. I don’t use all caps to shout at them. But I do speak directly. Guilty as charged. Frankly, the Emperor gets offended when the little boy yells “OH MY GOD! You’re parading down the street NAKED!”—is the little boy really the one with the problem?
Your note to NAL was way off base: “And even if you suspect the soup is pee or poison, telling that to the cook without any *evidence* will still give you the SAME result.”
Saying “there’s nothing there” when there is nothing there is not “without any evidence.” If I say, “I don’t believe god exists because I see _nothing_ there,” I’m right unless the theist can produce “something.” Without “something” manifesting—what the hell does he mean by “exist”? If he can’t produce a manifestation of god—he’s got, literally, “nothing.” That absolutely IS a bowl of pee—not a bowl of some unidentified something that may or may not be pee. In your analogy you’ve got to say it’s pee, but the chef BELIEVES it’s soup. So, we should all be respectful. Until someone produces a god manifestation—it’s completely proper to state that there’s “nothing” there.
>However to the believer, there is a difference
Yes, I get that. And I’m not offended at all by the fact that he sees it differently than I do. If he says, “Gods are real and fairies are fake,” I don’t say, “I’m so offended that you don’t respect my perspective that god doesn’t exist!” Why is it that if I express how I see it, it’s offensive? But if he expresses how he sees it, it’s not?
>but I think that’s a much more specific argument which demands more specific evidence.
It’s also a different argument than the one I’m putting forward, though. It’s apples and oranges. I’m not interested in going round in circles with theists about why one god is superior or true when compared to others. I’m interested in how it is that they say “something” exists where there is, quite obviously, “nothing.” And like the Emperor’s new clothes, they can either cough up a manifestation or they can’t. It’s much more concise and to the point—if the question is one of “does item-X exist?”
I don’t care how one god compares to another. I am holding up fairies as a non-existent item and saying god appears to me to also be a non-existent item—along the lines of fairies. Can you show I’m wrong?
>It’s much *harder* for the believer to put their god up against other contemporary deities which supposedly created the universe and have as many if not more followers.
Not from what I’ve seen. They simply tell me these others are “misguided, but on the right track, since at least they recognize a god/s exists.”
>Either way, it’s a lot more specific than arguing whether there are fairies or gods in the “10th dimension”, something which obviously can’t be proven or disproven.
It doesn’t need to be disproven. It only needs to be proven. Without any reason to accept it in the first place, disbelief is the rational default.
>TracieH: “And I’m curious how he sees that as being different than the proposition “fairies exist”–seriously. But he can’t imagine that I can “seriously” ask such a thing.” A: Because you obviously don’t *seriously* believe in fairies. Or do you?
Again, not getting it. I’m serious about what I’m asking. I didn’t claim to seriously believe in fairies—even to the theist. But when he has an emotional reaction to my question, I have just as much right to get offended that he doesn’t take _me_ seriously when I propose there is no difference in my mind between his god and fairies.
>A: Fairies don’t have millions of worshippers who believe they created the universe. It’s not a matter of logic; it’s a matter of legitimacy to the theist.
Not getting it. I’m talking about manifestation not popularity. And I’m happy to point that out to the theist. It takes all of two seconds to provide an example of a false popular belief to dispel the notion that popularity has any bearing on whether or not something is real or true.
>In other words, by using fairies or pixies or spaghetti monsters, I think you’re essentially making it too *easy* for the believer to be offended and/or to write off your argument completely.
That bothers me not at all. You asked about my motivation at the beginning of your post. My motive is to get info “out there.” So, if the person dialoguing goes off in a huff, I don’t really care. That’s not my goal, but I don’t control other people—they are going to react however they like, and that’s not my concern at all. But if someone comes along and sees my arguments, and the theist huff off, he/she can make of that what they will. Most times the reaction I have received from voyeurs is that the theist didn’t do very well. I recall one occasion where I got this response from another _theist_. And I don’t go looking for dialogues with theists—they come to me _every time_. I honestly can’t recall the last time I spoke to any theist about religion _off of_ an atheist list. They know my stance before they bring it. That’s their choice.
>Remember people are easily offended when it comes to their religious beliefs.
Not my problem.
>If you don’t mind offending them then that’s up to you, but I don’t think your arguments will have the same results.
I can’t offend people—for the record. I don’t have control over anyone else’s emotional responses. A person has to make a choice to be offended. That’s up to them, not up to me. I never intend to offend. That’s the best I feel I need to do. If a person gets offended, that’s their right AND their choice. I’m more interested in the level-headed guy who’s waiting in the wings trying to see which views have the most merit. The guy who’s going to try to use emotional blackmail to make me use kid gloves isn’t going to get his way with me. I’m civil. And I offer that same level of respect to everyone. But their emotions are their own to do with as they will.
>If we athiests want increase the likelihood of continuing the conversation and maybe winning them over to our side
I’m not trying to win anyone over—they’re approaching ME and trying to win ME over. I’m just letting them know right up front what that’s going to take.
You don’t need to believe in X in order to seriously ask whether and why belief in Z is more reasonable than belief in X.
Austin, I agree with this and most of your points. The first thing I stated was that Tracie’s argument is a sound one. I think I’ve said this now several times, that I’m not challenging the logic of the argument. I’m merely pointing out the practical effect of choosing the term fairy over a host of other possibilities.
So it appears that what we have here is an example of a common type of argument which, in this one case, people are taking so personally that the entire type has to be abandoned.
As you said, it may be a “type of argument” which is intended to have the theist put their god up against something silly which nobody really believes in. I understand, and as I stated before it’s a different approach which I believe will usually lead to a different path or outcome for the debate. What I don’t understand is why Tracie or you or anyone would be surprised or “curious” that use of a term such as “fairy” might come across as demeaning to some (not all) theists even if that’s not what was intended.
However, at what point do we say “no” to people excluding entire argument types merely by complaining “that offends me”?
Nobody is suggesting we all exclude entire argument types. You’re free to argue with people however you choose to do so, and I’m sure the argument will have more success with some than others. But the outcome of Tracie’s debate, i.e. the theist felt “mocked” and simply cut off all contact, is very telling.
I don’t think Tracie’s intention was to “win by default” or offend the theist, and she clearly made a good faith effort to let the theist know she respects his belief. So maybe it might be useful to discuss why he felt mocked and how such an outcome could be avoided. I’ve suggested that “fairy” just has a demeaning and childish connotation for some people, so maybe using another example like “race of superaliens” or Zeus or Omnipotent Dragons *might* just sound a bit less offensive. Better yet, she could try throwing a whole bunch of possibilities out there rather than parroting out “fairy” until the other side gives up.
At what point should someone be expected to be mature enough to not take an impersonal argument personally?
Of course it differs for each person, and it’s probably correlated with their education level and their ability to defend their own views. I don’t think you need me to tell you that when it comes to religion, people tend to take things personally and be easily offended.
there will of course always be people who are put off by vinegar, but there will also be people who are incited enough by the vinegar…
That’s very true, and maybe I haven’t made that clear. Some people will respond better to some arguments than others. Clearly in this case the theist did not respond well to the vinegar. We may not know which group is larger than the other, and it really doesn’t matter as long as we pragmatically find the correct approach. I can only speak from my personal experience, but I’ve found in face-to-face discussions that the vinegar approach (equating god to fairies, etc.) tends to end in a stalemate since neither side can really prove or disprove anything. And if you don’t show the other side that you respect and understand their beliefs, the debate goes downhill pretty fast.
I can’t think of any other context in political, ethical, or philosophical debates where such a reaction would be regarded as reasonable, understandable, or acceptable.
There’s a good reason that you can’t. Debating religion isn’t like debating politics. Consider the power of dogma, especially on those converted or brainwashed at a young age. There’s probably no other topic which cuts more to the heart of a person’s upbringing/hopes/dreams/fears/insecurities/etc. than their personal religious beliefs. Not all believers can be won over with logic and facts. Offending someone about their religious beliefs might just get you the silent treatment or a punch in the nose. In some countries it may get you killed. The fact that many atheists are insensitive to this probably to some degree explains why religion is still so pervasive today.
Should atheists be afraid or overly cautious of offending believers? Certainly not. But in a debate should atheists be somewhat sensitive when phrasing their arguments if they hope to win those believers over to the side of reason? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.
Dear Tracie,
I appreciate your rebuttal to my post. I feel I’ve adequately responded to most of these items in my response to nal and Austin above, and maybe it’s best not to continue this ad nauseum. I will respond to two items…
Your note to NAL was way off base: “And even if you suspect the soup is pee or poison, telling that to the cook without any *evidence* will still give you the SAME result.”
Saying “there’s nothing there” when there is nothing there is not “without any evidence.”
I just wanted to point out that this is a little fallacy known as “Assuming the Conclusion.”
Even the most respected cosmologist could not rule out the most remote possibility that there may be fairies or god or dragons living in the 10th dimension, as implausible as it may sound. There is no evidence to prove it, but there is no evidence to *disprove* it either.
That bothers me not at all. You asked about my motivation at the beginning of your post. My motive is to get info “out there.” So, if the person dialoguing goes off in a huff, I don’t really care.
That’s very enlightening. Thus I’m not surprised that your conversation was cut off so abruptly. In any case, it sounds like the end result was that the theist dropped out after realizing he could not convince you with his arguments.
np:
You made up that quote. It’s nothing I wrote.
np:
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when there is good reason to believe that the evidence would be absent if the (god/faerie) hypothesis is false.
You made up that quote. It’s nothing I wrote.
Correct, I was not quoting you. Just making up more outlandish what-ifs, a fun game we can play all day.
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when there is good reason to believe that the evidence would be absent if the (god/faerie) hypothesis is false.
if the (god/faerie) hypothesis is false
if the (god/faerie) hypothesis is false
But that’s what you’re trying to prove. You’ve just assumed the conclusion (or begged the question, depending on how you constructed your argument). If A then B. B: therefore A.
What if the god/fairy hypothesis is true, and there may be evidence out there but we are incapable of obtaining it? Your argument is only as strong as your “good reason to believe.” It may be a convincing argument to some people, but it’s far from infallible.
I wrote: The fact that many atheists are insensitive to this probably to some degree explains why religion is still so pervasive today.
I should point out before someone jumps all over me for this, that I’m not blaming atheists for the prevalance of religion. It’s really not our fault. But as I mentioned, there are some pretty strong reasons why some religious people get emotional and don’t respond to logic and facts in the same was as if you were discussing the weather or economic policy.
The outcome of Tracie’s dialogue with the theist is clear evidence of this. The fact that she is “not trying to win anyone over” and doesn’t really care “if they go off in a huff” might further explain that outcome. It’s tough to say without examining the actual text of their dialogue, and it sounds like she did not initiate the debate anyways.
Tracie can argue however she likes; that’s her prerogative. All I can say is that I would not have argued in the same way and would have probably dropped the “fairy” routine and tried another approach or analogy. It’s too bad the other party felt mocked and cut off the conversation, but that’s often the way it is. For the same reason, I try to avoid telling a girl that dress makes them look fat. Winning people over often requires tact, and lack of tact often has the complete opposite effect of pushing people more deeply into their beliefs.
Of course it all depends on the circumstances and who you’re arguing with. If someone’s shoving a bible in my face or trying to pass a law to teach “alternate theories” in schools, then maybe “ridiculous” fairy analogies are very appropriate for a variety of reasons. But if I’m having a more intimate dialogue with a longtime believer and I hope to convince them to at least start questioning their beliefs (something I’ve done successfully in the past), I would be more careful and considerate with my approach. Whether or not that’s your approach, I wish you the best of luck and more power to you.
I think I gave a very good reason why we should be surprised: this is a common and normal type of argument which is not treated the same way by anyone else in any other context.
That is precisely what you have been doing: suggesting that this type of argument be dropped for tactical reasons. If that wasn’t your intention, then you need to rephrase what you have been arguing.
In my experience, expectations that others “respect” one’s beliefs is precisely the problem. First, beliefs do not deserve automatic respect — people do, but beliefs don’t. Second, “respect” is typically treated as a form of deference, and on beliefs deserve deference.
Of course it’s not, but expecting others to abandon basic standards of arguments is no more reasonable than expecting them to abandon basic standards of evidence and reason. If a person presents themselves, voluntarily, to debate the merits of their beliefs, they cannot expect others to not treat those beliefs like they treat other ideas and opinions. They cannot demand that special rules and standards suddenly be applied to them and their opinions.
If and when they do, they effectively admit that their beliefs cannot be defended on their merits.
Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence
Seeing evidence increases the probability of a hypothesis; failure to observe evidence decreases the probability of the same hypothesis.
Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?
Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence
Seeing evidence increases the probability of a hypothesis; failure to observe evidence decreases the probability of that hypothesis.
NP:
>What if the god/fairy hypothesis is true, and there may be evidence out there but we are incapable of obtaining it?
Then it is nonexistent to us.
How else can you determine existence if not by observable manifestation?
What are you–or the theist–in this case defining as “existence”?
There are only three possibilities with regard to existence:
A thing manifests and is there.
A thing does not manifest and is there.
A thing does not manifest and is not there.
The term “exist” encompases all things that manifest and are there. How can it possibly encompass things that do not manifest and are there and still retain any useful/practical meaning?
If existence includes items that do not manifest–how can we differentiate things that exist from things that do not exist? We can’t. So, what you’re actually arguing is that existence must be assumed to include all things–even those that do not exist.
Just to add–and this is just to put it out there–not directed at NP or anyone else on the list:
If I have a belief that I’m SOOOO sensitive about that I can’t stand to have it scrutinized or I become emotionally upset…maybe I shouldnt’ be expressing it publicly?
That’s the view I take when someone expresses a public view. I generally don’t comment on a person’s private beliefs or ask them about them. But if someone shares their beliefs with me, I feel I then have a legitimate opening to respond. And when a person goes public with their views on a topic as diverse as religion–they have to expect some dissent.
Why in the world would I put out my ideas if I was unable to withstand rude mockery of them? I know there are rude mocking people in the world–why would I think I’d never run into one?
I don’t rudely mock people (although this theist I was talking about might disagree). But I know that when I express myself, other people may not respond kindly to me. It would be like walking into a room full of stranger and announcing: “I support abortion rights!”
For goodness sake–what should I expect? Really? I might get some who agree, some who politely disagree, and someone who wants to punch my lights out and is swearing at me at the top of his lungs one inch from my face.
As Austin said–it’s about being adult enough to deal with _other people_ who aren’t always going to disagree with me, aren’t always going to like what I’m saying, and aren’t always going to respond with respect to what I have to say.
That’s reality. That’s the mix that you get with freedom of expression. I personally am OK with it. I don’t get offended (In fact, I challenge anyone here to find any record of any dialogue I’ve ever had with anyone where I said I was offended by anything anyone has ever said to me).
To me, getting offended is a sign of emotional immaturity and codependence. I see it as a character weakness. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize people sometimes attempt to offend. I just haven’t ever seen sufficient reason offered for why I should hand them my emotional controls and agree to be offended by them…?
I think I gave a very good reason why we should be surprised: this is a common and normal type of argument which is not treated the same way by anyone else in any other context.
And I think I gave some very good reasons why this “common and normal type of argument” may sometimes offend the other party and/or fall on deaf ears. The outcome of Tracie’s dialogue is further evidence in support of this. If like her you simply “don’t care” if they get upset or are “not trying to win anyone over”, then I have no problem with that.
That is precisely what you have been doing: suggesting that this type of argument be dropped for tactical reasons. If that wasn’t your intention, then you need to rephrase what you have been arguing.
I have not said that. I have repeatedly stated that it’s up to you to decide how you wish to argue. I have repeatedly suggested that the choice of argument and choice of terms/analogies used in making that argument may impact the result of the overall debate. I have repeatedly suggested that the Tracie’s approach *may* tend to have an unintended negative impact on the course of the debate for *some* (not all) people. I have offered those up as suggestions not absolute fact.
I’ve offerer various supportive reasoning for this including verbal analogies, my own personal experience, numerous online & live debates I have observed, and the outcome of Tracie’s debate which we have been discussing all along. If your experience has been different it’s been different.
First, beliefs do not deserve automatic respect — people do, but beliefs don’t. Second, “respect” is typically treated as a form of deference, and on beliefs deserve deference.
If you wish to parse over semantics, then I would clarify my statement (which you singled out) and agree with you that “beliefs deserve deference.” By the way, one defition I have seen for deference is “courteous respect.” So I fail to see the logic of your point.
Secondly, if you agree that people deserve respect and if you agree that some people can take arguments against the existence god as an affront or attack against them personally due to the nature of religious dogma, then maybe you will understand what I’ve been trying to point out (above).
expecting others to abandon basic standards of arguments…
Again, I don’t “expect others to abandon” anything. I’m not sure where you’re coming up with that. Please see above.
If a person presents themselves, voluntarily, to debate the merits of their beliefs, they cannot expect others to not treat those beliefs like they treat other ideas and opinions. etc…
So as we’ve both said, it can depend on the forum and circumstances. Yes, in a perfect rational world every theist would stand their arguments up against yours based purely on the rationale and logic of those arguments ignoring their emotions and any hint of mocking or ridicule whether intentional or not. But clearly we know that’s not the way it is.
Nobody is tring to defend some sort of right for some theists to be easily offended. There’s no such right. If they are too easily offended or try to demand “special rules”, it seems they lose by default and maybe weren’t worth arguing with in the first place. In any case, one can take a more hardline approach and stick with your own arguments regardless of the response vs. a pragmatic approach where one might adjust or pull back a bit based on the reaction/response of the other party. Those are two somewhat different approaches. Based on Tracie’s response that she “doesn’t care if the other party goes off in a huff” and is “not trying to win anyone over” I would surmise that she (and you) tend to choose the former. Cheers.
No, you didn’t. You pointed out that this is the reaction, but didn’t give any good reasons for it.
And I never suggested that you have tried to take that decision away from anyone. It is, however, your suggestion that the argument in question not be used. You can’t ague against an argument and then deny that you aren’t recommending that it not be used.
No, you fail to see the type-o. The “on” which you skipped over was supposed to be a no: no beliefs deserve deference. No ideas, opinions, or beliefs deserve automatic respect or deference. That has to be earned. This is a point I have argued repeatedly in numerous places all over the site.
Unlike the people in question, I make a distinction between opinions and the people who hold them. People who cannot make that distinction cannot and should not put those opinions out in public and then complain about being offended when those opinions are critiqued in ways that they don’t approve of.
I will. They have every right to be as offended as they want. What they don’t have a right to is to expect others to necessarily modify their behavior (or arguments) as a result. If they could, then I would simply say “that offends me” and we’d be back where we started.
The simple fact is, if we stop using an argument every time anyone says “that offends me,” then there is no reason to ever argue anything. When someone does use that response, they are admitting that they never had a serious argument or idea to offer in the first place.
[This response is addressed to nal’s and traceih’s most recent response above]
nal wrote:
Seeing evidence increases the probability of a hypothesis; failure to observe evidence decreases the probability of the same hypothesis.
As the link you posted also clearly explains, probability and proof are two very different arguments or methods of argument. If you’re talking about probability, I’ve got no issue with that.
If you’re talking about proof or “knowing” something absolutely you’ll find that I and a great many philosophers would not be so willing to concede the point. Nonetheless, I was addressing statements made earlier which implied proof, e.g. Tracieh stating “That absolutely IS a bowl of pee” or “I’m right unless the theist can produce “something.”” How can she know absolutely? How can she know she’s “right”? She may believe that she’s right or think there’s a very low probability that she’s wrong.
Furthermore, what do you mean when you say “seeing evidence”? Do you mean you have to see it with your own eyes? If so, you would have a hard time not rejecting outright certain scientific hypotheses for which there is or was at one time little or no visible or even invisible evidence: Eletromagnetic theory, dark matter, black holes, string theory, etc. Study enough quantum physics, and you’ll start to get pretty freaked about about what it supposedly means to “see evidence.”
By “failure to observe evidence” are you suggesting that one must personally study every bit of evidence that has ever been postulated or presented, or are you taking someone else’s word for it? Have you personally seen the evidence for dark matter? Black holes?
By “absence of evidence” are you suggesting that no theist in history has ever presented or postulated any evidence for the existence of god? Every theist out there just rolls over for you and says, “You’re right, there’s no evidence”? I think what you mean to say is you’ve heard most of the “evidence” and arguments and you reject them because to you they are weak or unconvincing, or that what has been presented to you does not qualify as evidence. However merely assuming there’s “no evidence” is a very strong assumption akin to circular reasoning, and sad to say not every theist will roll over for you on that.
I think the more you analyze the phrase “seeing evidence” you’ll find that it is a loaded phrase which implies a great many challenges, most of which do not lead to the result of absolute knowledge. But we’re digressing into the realm of gnosticism here, so I apologize if this is dragging on too much.
traceih The term “exist” encompases all things that manifest and are there. How can it possibly encompass things that do not manifest and are there and still retain any useful/practical meaning?
I hope I’ve clarified things a bit in my response to nal, however as far as I know I haven’t tried to argue that existence should include things that “do not manifest”. Are you only talking about objects with matter? Can we get into Bell’s Theorem? At the quantum level, whether something “manifests” and whether “is there” are arguably not one and that same, but I’ll admit that kind of thinking is way beyond me.
I also don’t think manifestation and confirmation are necessarily one and the same. I don’t know whether you want to discuss the meaning of the term “exist” or whether observable evidence is required to have absolute knowledge of something’s existence. From your earlier statements, I assumed the latter.
So, what you’re actually arguing is that existence must be assumed to include all things–even those that do not exist.
Okay I’m not sure where you go that from, but suffice to say I’m inclined to avoid getting into these kinds of arguments. “Does anything exist?” and all that banality etc, reminds me of my undergrad years… I certainly have a hard time believing that existence should include things that don’t exist, so please don’t get me wrong. Are you a materialist? existentialist? follower of Hume? Nietzsche? I always liked Hume, but frankly I’m a bit tired to really remember. We’re delving deeper into an all-out discussion of gnosticism and scientific philosophy. This comments section is kind of a tedious means of discussion. Maybe there’s a forum somewhere we should continue this instead….
Austin ClineNo, you didn’t. You pointed out that this is the reaction, but didn’t give any good reasons for it.
So thus you either didn’t read any of my prior comments, or you think the various reasons I mentioned are not good.
It is, however, your suggestion that the argument in question not be used. You can’t ague against an argument and then deny that you aren’t recommending that it not be used.
Maybe if I repeat myself 10 more times, we’ll get somewhere. I have no problem with anyone using that argument. I believe it may in some cases (as with Tracie) elicit a poor outcome for the debate, but as I said *before* there may be circumstances in which that argument is very convincing or eliciting an emotional or offensive response is the right way to go. Maybe I just didn’t clarify that earlier enough because we were having too much fun talking about pee and soup.
No, you fail to see the type-o. The “on” which you skipped over was supposed to be a no: no beliefs deserve deference. No ideas, opinions, or beliefs deserve automatic respect or deference. That has to be earned. This is a point I have argued repeatedly in numerous places all over the site.
Actually I thought your typo was meant to be “only”. I clarify that I meant in the first place “earned deference or respect”, not “automatic deference”. More semantics. I won’t give deference to some kook who believes in pixies.
The simple fact is, if we stop using an argument every time anyone says “that offends me,” then there is no reason to ever argue anything. When someone does use that response, they are admitting that they never had a serious argument or idea to offer in the first place.
That may be true, however the end result still seems to me to be an unfortunate one. Hopefully, an offended individual will reflect on it and prepare themselves mentally to eventually continue the discussion. Should we be satisfied when they say “I’m offended” and quit? Should we *assume* they just expected us to “roll over”? Of course one can easily say, it’s waste of time to argue with those kinds of people. I’ve have had face to face discussions which became extremely heated despite the best reasoning and intentions. With “faceless” internet/email debates, polite discourse is often even more challenging.
Again, circumstances. Tact in some, hardline approach in others. I can certainly say to them, well you got offended and gave up. Too bad, you lose. Or I can find a way walk the minefield, choose my terms carefully, and move the discussion forward. That’s my approach, and your arguments have not convinced me that some other approach is the right or only approach. That’s the only reason I responded to your article in the first place. It was essentially everyone patting each other on the back for an outcome which to me was an unfortunate and *possibly* avoidable outcome.
And with this I’ll sign off. Maybe it will give you all some satisfaction. Maybe it will give you all a bit of relief. Maybe we’ll continue this elsewhere. Cheers.
[oops, I messed up the formatting on that last one….]
Austin Cline:
No, you didn’t. You pointed out that this is the reaction, but didn’t give any good reasons for it.
So thus you either didn’t read any of my prior comments, or you think the various reasons I mentioned are not good.
It is, however, your suggestion that the argument in question not be used. You can’t ague against an argument and then deny that you aren’t recommending that it not be used.
Maybe if I repeat myself 10 more times, we’ll get somewhere. I have no problem with anyone using that argument. I believe it may in some cases (as with Tracie) elicit a poor outcome for the debate, but as I said *before* there may be circumstances in which that argument is very convincing or eliciting an emotional or offensive response is the right way to go. Maybe I just didn’t clarify that earlier enough because we were having too much fun talking about pee and soup.
No, you fail to see the type-o. The “on” which you skipped over was supposed to be a no: no beliefs deserve deference. No ideas, opinions, or beliefs deserve automatic respect or deference. That has to be earned. This is a point I have argued repeatedly in numerous places all over the site.
Actually I thought your typo was meant to be “only”. I clarify that I meant in the first place “earned deference or respect”, not “automatic deference”. More semantics. I won’t give deference to some kook who believes in pixies.
The simple fact is, if we stop using an argument every time anyone says “that offends me,” then there is no reason to ever argue anything. When someone does use that response, they are admitting that they never had a serious argument or idea to offer in the first place.
That may be true, however the end result still seems to me to be an unfortunate one. Hopefully, an offended individual will reflect on it and prepare themselves mentally to eventually continue the discussion. Should we be satisfied when they say “I’m offended” and quit? Should we *assume* they just expected us to “roll over”? Of course one can easily say, it’s waste of time to argue with those kinds of people. I’ve have had face to face discussions which became extremely heated despite the best reasoning and intentions. With “faceless” internet/email debates, polite discourse is often even more challenging.
Again, circumstances. Tact in some, hardline approach in others. I can certainly say to them, well you got offended and gave up. Too bad, you lose. Or I can find a way walk the minefield, choose my terms carefully, and move the discussion forward. That’s my approach, and your arguments have not convinced me that some other approach is the right or only approach. That’s the only reason I responded to your article in the first place. It was essentially everyone patting each other on the back for an outcome which to me was an unfortunate and *possibly* avoidable outcome.
And with this I’ll sign off. Maybe it will give you all some satisfaction. Maybe it will give you all a bit of relief. Maybe we’ll continue this elsewhere. Cheers.
okay, now i really failz at formatting. sorry….
Austin Cline:
No, you didn’t. You pointed out that this is the reaction, but didn’t give any good reasons for it.
So thus you either didn’t read any of my prior comments, or you think the various reasons I mentioned are not good.
It is, however, your suggestion that the argument in question not be used. You can’t ague against an argument and then deny that you aren’t recommending that it not be used.
Maybe if I repeat myself 10 more times, we’ll get somewhere. I have no problem with anyone using that argument. I believe it may in some cases (as with Tracie) elicit a poor outcome for the debate, but as I said *before* there may be circumstances in which that argument is very convincing or eliciting an emotional or offensive response is the right way to go. Maybe I just didn’t clarify that earlier enough because we were having too much fun talking about pee and soup.
No, you fail to see the type-o. The “on” which you skipped over was supposed to be a no: no beliefs deserve deference. No ideas, opinions, or beliefs deserve automatic respect or deference. That has to be earned. This is a point I have argued repeatedly in numerous places all over the site.
Actually I thought your typo was meant to be “only”. I clarify that I meant in the first place “earned deference or respect”, not “automatic deference”. More semantics. I won’t give deference to some kook who believes in pixies.
The simple fact is, if we stop using an argument every time anyone says “that offends me,” then there is no reason to ever argue anything. When someone does use that response, they are admitting that they never had a serious argument or idea to offer in the first place.
That may be true, however the end result still seems to me to be an unfortunate one. Hopefully, an offended individual will reflect on it and prepare themselves mentally to eventually continue the discussion. Should we be satisfied when they say “I’m offended” and quit? Should we *assume* they just expected us to “roll over”? Of course one can easily say, it’s waste of time to argue with those kinds of people. I’ve have had face to face discussions which became extremely heated despite the best reasoning and intentions. With “faceless” internet/email debates, polite discourse is often even more challenging.
Again, circumstances. Tact in some, hardline approach in others. I can certainly say to them, well you got offended and gave up. Too bad, you lose. Or I can find a way walk the minefield, choose my terms carefully, and move the discussion forward. That’s my approach, and your arguments have not convinced me that some other approach is the right or only approach. That’s the only reason I responded to your article in the first place. It was essentially everyone patting each other on the back for an outcome which to me was an unfortunate and *possibly* avoidable outcome.
And with this I’ll sign off. Maybe it will give you all some satisfaction. Maybe it will give you all a bit of relief. Maybe we’ll continue this elsewhere. Cheers.
Again, very sorry about the reposts. I swear I fixed all the tags, but that’s what still came out. This is obviously not the easiest place to have a discussion. Cheers and signing off.
n.p.
NP:
Not quite. The term used was “scientific analysis”, not proof. Scientific evidence is not absolute. Never has been, never will be.
James C. Maxwell:
When dealing with incomplete and/or uncertain knowledge, as is the case in science, probability theory is an alternative to pure logic when one wants to reason rationally. Probability theory is the logic of science. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is in the scientific sense of the word.
NP:
Credible scientific evidence, yes that’s what I’m saying. Now is your chance. Present, don’t postulate, to me credible scientific evidence that unambiguously indicates the existence of god, and I’ll renounce my atheism on the spot.
Appears I’m having tag problems too.
I’ll throw in a few extra tags here, maybe that will fix it…
nal: Not quite. The term used was “scientific analysis”, not proof.
Another phrase used was “absolutely IS” and “I’m right unless…” I wish I was always right unless someone proved me wrong.
All we needed was some clarification.
nal: Credible scientific evidence, yes that’s what I’m saying. Now is your chance. Present, don’t postulate, to me credible scientific evidence that unambiguously indicates the existence of god, and I’ll renounce my atheism on the spot.
I’ve heard of “preaching to the choir” before, but that one takes the cake.
Shall I give you that evidence along with the “unambiguous” evidence that I also have supporting string theory, wormholes, and dark matter? I wouldn’t want you to have to renounce those theories on the spot as well. I think I’ve got it all here in my basement along with the classified Kennedy assassination files and the Ark of the Covenant.
Anyways, Nice job of isolating out two snippets and disregarding the rest of what I said. Here, I’ll save you the trouble of continuing this on ad nauseum….
I wrote: As the link you posted also clearly explains, probability and proof are two very different arguments or methods of argument. If you’re talking about probability, I’ve got no issue with that.
You know I went back and re-read some of the responses, and I think I figured out why this argument has dragged on and why my statements may have been grossly misinterpreted. I think there are at least a couple possible scenarios:
A) Theist is agressively trying to convince Atheist (you) of the rationality of their belief in god. Maybe they are trying to undermine your position of non-belief. As an atheist, maybe you are *less* interested in “winning them over” and more interested in either wrapping up the debate quickly or at least defending your stance of non-belief and moving on.
B) Atheist is trying to convince a theist of the irrationality of their belief in god. Atheist hopes to knock down some of the tenets of their belief. As an atheist, maybe you are *more* interested in “winning them over” and less interested in allowing the debate to get too emotional/heated.
Or there could be some combination of these two. In any case, my statements were all made from the standpoint of the *B* Scenario. I tend to see any debate with a believer as an opportunity to win someone over to the side of Reason. Thus, whenever I said “unfortunate outcome” or “negative outcome” etc. regarding the debate, I was not talking about the atheist’s defense of their own arguments. I was talking about the possibility of “de-converting” a believer, or at least starting the process. That’s why I repeatedly brought up the issue of tact and sensitivity because it’s hard to win people over if you’ve offended them. Even if they’re offended, you still have the right to stick with your arguments. Or you can be pragmatic and try a different approach. If you re-read my past comments with this in mind, I think they will make much more sense.
Tracie seems to have been more in the A Scenario. This was not completely clear to me until she posted more information later in these comments. In this case, I can agree that her argument was successful and maybe had the desired effect. As Tracie writes, “I did reply in hopes of making my point more clear. In fact, I equated his god to fairies in every instance.” I’ll say it again that I am not suggesting that the “fairy” or “vinegar” approach should be completely dropped by atheists. It has its time and place for use. I would only suggest that in *my* experience it *may* be less successful in Scenario *B*, because practically speaking many people are easily offended if you equate their god to something silly and childish like fairies. Although the argument itself may be logically sound, not everyone may think as rationally as you do.
To bring back now infamous the pee/soup analogy, in Scenario A the patrons try to push their soup on you, and you don’t want to drink it. You make an effort to convince the patrons it’s actually not soup and it’s possibly poisonous. You point out that it’s just the same as pee. Some of them believe you and leave. But many of the patrons fail to see the logic of your arguments, and some are even offended that you would mock their longtime beloved soup. You decide you’re not interested in winning them over anyways. It’s their fault that they feel offended. You shouldn’t be expected to modify your arguments or your approach, and you go along your merry way.
In Scenario B your logical arguments still fall on many deaf ears and some are still offended. You get kicked out of the restaurant many times, but you keep coming back. So you wonder if “pee” is too strong a word and instead you mention the “strange salty” smell. You’re still having trouble convincing them it’s not soup since to them *psychologically* it still looks, smells, and tastes like soup. They’ve been drinking it for too long. So you go back and mention a “potential health concern” and that a scientific analysis of it needs to be done on it immediately by the Dept. of Health. You show them articles of people all over the world being duped into drinking poisonous soup. etc. etc. Like the other approach, your efforts work on some but unfortunately not everyone.
For those like me who believe the “soup” is really a “poison” then I’m not resigned to just sticking with the A approach. I’ll use the A approach, the B approach, and any other approach out there or in between.
And with that, I promise this time I’m signing off. As I said before, maybe that’s a relief to us all. I look forward to any responses/rebuttals, but the back and forth Q&A is wearing me out. I apologize if any of my arguments came across the wrong way. Peace.
You cannot reason a person out of a position they never really reasoned their way in to. If, as you say, they have a heavy emotional investment in their beliefs such they can become easily offended, then the chances that their position is based on reason are almost nil. In such cases, you will not get them to change their minds by showing them how their position fails to meet the basic standards of reason and logic.
In such cases, a sharp psychological shaking — like through a strong dose of cognitive dissonance — can do a lot and even create the conditions necessary for the eventual application of reason. Finding ways to get around the filters and have a person see their un-reasoned assumptions from a new angle may be the only path to a re-evaluation of beliefs.
Simply expecting people to apply reason and logic won’t get you anywhere when: people don’t use reason and logic here, people don’t understand how to use reason and logic, and even worse people think that they do very well with using reason and logic generally when in reality they don’t have the slightest clue as to what they are doing.
Speaking as a person with extensive experience studying and using reason and logic: they are overrated when trying to convince people to change their minds. They are, in fact, utterly useless unless you’re speaking with a person who understands them and agrees with you on using them. Both conditions are rare.
>“I’m right unless the theist can produce “something.”” How can she know absolutely? How can she know she’s “right”? She may believe that she’s right or think there’s a very low probability that she’s wrong.
I’d be right by definition—not in some ethereal “knowledge” sense of the word. “Nothing” is the word used when there is no manifestation to observe. If there is no manifestation, it is “wrong” in very useful, meaningful, practical sense of the word (unreasonable, without basis or support—defying what is observable and verifiable) to say “there is something there.” When the child says “The Emperor is Naked”—he’s “right” because there are no clothes manifesting on the Emperor’s body. That’s what _naked_ is.
>… as far as I know I haven’t tried to argue that existence should include things that “do not manifest”. Are you only talking about objects with matter?
You are right that I am not talking about ideas (such as “freedom” exists), but material existence. When most Xians put forward that “god exists”—they mean “exists” in external reality not simply as an idea in their minds. So, the existence of the external reality is the realm _they_ have chosen to defend.
>At the quantum level, whether something “manifests” and whether “is there” are arguably not one and that same, but I’ll admit that kind of thinking is way beyond me.
Good because I’m arguing for the standard use of the term “exist.” Generally “that which manifests.”
When a person puts forward that we cannot say things that do not manifest are not existent (which is what you did in defending the theist position), then existence cannot be said to exclude things that do not manifest. Item X either exists or does not exist. And if we cannot say it does not exist simply because it doesn’t manifest to us, then we have lost our only means to differentiate between existence and nonexistence. Both words are rendered meaningless in that case.
>I also don’t think manifestation and confirmation are necessarily one and the same. I don’t know whether you want to discuss the meaning of the term “exist” or whether observable evidence is required to have absolute knowledge of something’s existence. From your earlier statements, I assumed the latter.
I reject claims of “absolute knowledge” concerning material existence. “Know” is simply common shorthand for “as sure as I can be.”
1.Without a confirmed manifestation—it is unreasonable to claim “X exists” for nonmundane items, even in a case where we are fairly sure our senses are working normally. In other words, if I “see” a pink elephant in my backyard, I should consider whether I could be hallucinating.
2.And without any manifestation to confirm, it _is_ reasonable to claim “X does not exist.” And it is also _definitionally_ correct, that is, it is “right.”
If you take away either of those options you eliminate any useful way in which to use “existence” or “nonexistence”—for the reasons above. And this is what the theist is attempting to do by creating all sorts of special categories of what “exists” to force his god’s “existence.”
The definition of “exist” is all that matters here, because theists are claiming “god exists.” God has no common source of reference, but existence absolutely does. If the claim “god exists” is to carry any weight whatsoever, theists _must_ show a manifestation—and a manifestation that can be externally confirmed independently—in the same way every other common “existent” material item is expected to manifest before we say “This item exists.”
>“Does anything exist?” and all that banality etc, reminds me of my undergrad years…
That is _not_ where I’m going. I’m saying “How do you tell a nonexistent item from an existent one?” YOU, NP—how do YOU tell one from the other? And what happens when you say, “Well, what if X exists, but we just can’t perceive the manifestation of it yet because it’s hidden in the 10th dimension…?” Then saying “it exists” would be unreasonable stupidity. My point is not to go off into an existential fantasy at all—it’s to keep “existence” grounded in very basic perspectives that we all can use and relate to on a common level. WHAT do people mean when they say “My coffee mug _exists_”? They mean it _manifests_–and in a way anyone can be sure of. Until X manifests, only someone with a delusional mindset would claim X is “something” rather than “nothing”—again, definitionally. Read Sagan’s Dragon in my Garage chapter from Demon Haunted World for a very understandable, and fun, analogy of why this must be so in order for existence to be a term that carries any practical weight.
>You cannot reason a person out of a position they never really reasoned their way in to.
I could not agree more. When a person uses emotional defenses, it’s a sure sign they will not back down no matter what they’re faced with. If “defending” their beliefs is more important to them than holding beliefs that are most likely to be true, the dream of getting that person to see a reasonable reality will remain only a dream.
>…As an atheist, maybe you are *less* interested in “winning them over” and more interested in either wrapping up the debate quickly or at least defending your stance of non-belief and moving on.
I wouldn’t state it this way. I’m not interested in “defending my stance” and moving on. I’m interested in whether or not the theist can defend THEIR stance, and if they can’t, I’d like _them_ to move on. I don’t have a stance to “defend.” I’m open to whatever ideas are most reasonable and most likely to be true. If my “stance” is less likely to be true than what the theist can present me, I’m not going to “defend” any stance. I’m going to listen and learn. I’m not committed to atheism. I’m an atheist because I deem it to be most reasonable based on all I know. But I have no cause to defend it in the way you’re describing. I don’t have a mental preset to prove a theist wrong and myself right. The best idea should win out–even if it’s not my idea.
>B) Atheist is trying to convince a theist of the irrationality of their belief in god. Atheist hopes to knock down some of the tenets of their belief. As an atheist, maybe you are *more* interested in “winning them over” and less interested in allowing the debate to get too emotional/heated.
I don’t make it my business to try to get people to adopt my personal views. I resent it when others proselytize to me, and I don’t go around doing it to other people. If I’m out to “win” by getting people to change their minds, I’m as bad as a theist. In fact, with regard to ID, I’ve actually told theists that “You know, even if you get me to agree with you that the world seems like it was designed–we still haven’t substantiated the claim at all. You seem more intent on trying to get me to simply agree with your view than on trying to show your view is most likely true.”
Theists confuse convincing people with substantiating their claims. And they sub convincing for substantiating most of the time. I don’t feel a need to follow suit. I think it’s a mistake. To me, if I hold views that are valid–even if I’m the only one–that’s fine with me. I don’t need the rest of the world to validate my perspectives.
What I _do_ need is the rest of the world to leave me alone and let me hold whatever views I like so long as I’m not harming anyone. And this is the ONLY point where I will proactively initiate butting heads with a theist.
NP:
I didn’t disregard your other points, sometimes (at work) I’m under a time constraint and can’t respond to every point. Sometimes I agree with the others points. Sometimes I don’t understand the other points you’re trying to make. I just can’t seem to write those long posts like you and Tracie can do.
nal wrote:
I didn’t disregard your other points, sometimes (at work) I’m under a time constraint and can’t respond to every point. Sometimes I agree with the others points. Sometimes I don’t understand the other points you’re trying to make.
Work, oh yeah I keep forgetting about that…
You’ve hit on a fundamental challenge which I alluded to earlier, which is carrying on these kinds of arguments over the internet. We all know the limits to this mode of communication which is why I’ve attempted to bow out politely and maybe help us wrap us this discussion in an amicable manner. Plus I’m a bit worn out from this apparent 3-on-1 scenario, and my notion (whether or not it’s true) that nobody here generally agrees with me on anything.
However, in my response to your last post I brought up a rebuttal to your demand for “unambiguous credible scientific evidence”. It was a sarcastic rebuttal, and maybe you either it didn’t make sense or you haven’t had time to respond. Either way, shall I infer from your lack of response that you don’t even *have* a serious response? Shall I infer that maybe you were offended and went off in a huff? Shall I infer that you just expected me to “roll over” and give up?
Maybe the guy Tracie was arguing with felt mocked by “equating his god to fairies”. Maybe he really wasn’t offended, but he realized there was no chance of convincing her. Maybe the “cognitive dissonance” effect (as Austin talked about) also worked and was too much for his psyche. Maybe he was just under a time constraint and lacked the courtesy to say so. Who really knows for sure. Maybe few people out there really care. Either way, I personally feel that to me any sudden cutting off of discussion is an unfortunate outcome, even if it somehow suggests that I may have “won” the debate by default. Maybe I’m just okay with losing a battle in the slight hopes of winning a war.
I forgot I wasn’t talking to a theist.
nal wrote:
I forgot I wasn’t talking to a theist.
I have to say I suspected that notion from all three of you several times during the course of this discussion. In the context of what we were discussing it really shouldn’t matter. How ironic. Cheers.
tracieh wrote:
I wouldn’t state it this way. I’m not interested in “defending my stance” and moving on.
That and the rest of what you said is a helpful clarification, and I didn’t meant to presume otherwise. You can strike that part from my “Scenario A” and I believe the comparison is still a valid one.
I don’t make it my business to try to get people to adopt my personal views. I resent it when others proselytize to me, and I don’t go around doing it to other people.
That’s a helpful clarification and I respect your view. I never meant to imply that all atheists *should* pursue the “B Approach” over A, i.e. “win over” theists. “Win over” is probably a poor choice of words for this discussion anyways. In any case, I probably don’t fall into one camp or the other. To me it all depends on the circumstances.
If somebody presents themself to me for a debate, I might size up the situation and elude whether it is an opportunity to also convince them of my views using the *full* range of tools including rationality, appeal to emotion, personal experience, empathy, etc. But in other cases it’s ineffective or outright inappropriate. I don’t go into churches or religious internet forums looking to pick fights with people, and I don’t mean to suggest you would do that either.
What I _do_ need is the rest of the world to leave me alone and let me hold whatever views I like so long as I’m not harming anyone.
Again, I respect that view and it’s a view held by many (most?) atheists including myself for the most part. However, if you *as you suggested* you’re certain that the “soup” IS “pee” or “poisonous” that still leaves you with a choice. See my last analogy. Do you stick with Approach A? Or do you also try out Approach B or some other approach on those willing to talk to you, in the hopes that it might reach a few more ears and save them from the poison? Again I’m not saying that all of us need to always use Approach A OR B, but there may be times when one approach is more appropriate or effective than the other.
I had promised to sign off, but I wanted to thank you for those helpful clarifications.
NP: I can honestly note that I never forgot I wasn’t talking to a theist. And it doesn’t matter to me.
Just to add, though, to anyone, not just to NP. My point boils down to intellectual honesty. If we are looking at a table in a room, and I say, “Will you get my glass off the table?” And you look at the table, and see no glass, will you reply, “You’re glass isn’t on the table–there’s _nothing_ on the table.” Or would you wonder if there really might be a glass there, but you just aren’t seeing its manifestation?
If I insisted a glass was there, would you wave your hand over the table and explain to me there’s “nothing” there–or would you doubt the lack of manifestation indicates there’s nothing there?
I would think the person asking for the glass was on medication or something.
I would equate the lack of manifestation of the glass as evidence that there was “nothing,” “no glass” on the table. And I know precious few (read: no) people who would not react the same way.
But put god to that same test, and suddenly it’s “but…but…but…god is different…somehow…”
God either manifests or it doesn’t. Bring on the manifestation, or quit trying to tell me you’re holding up something when I can see you’ve got nothing in your hand. Don’t treat me like I’m too stupid to recognize “nothing” when there’s “nothing” there.
That’s my point to the idea that “god exists.”
Theists need to define what it means to “exist” and explain why existence isn’t the consensus reality we’re all used to working within. That’s a tall order, but that’s the burden of proof the put upon themselves when they start calling “nothing,” “something.”
>using the *full* range of tools including rationality, appeal to emotion, personal experience, empathy, etc. But in other cases it’s ineffective or outright inappropriate.
[BTW, I don’t mind you not signing off at all. But I’m not sure how much longer I’ll hang in since this is now in archives…?]
Just to say you and I differ greatly as well on the comment above. I would not use emotional appeal or empathy to sway another person. I don’t consider them “tools.” I consider them blatant attempts at manipulation and, depending on the situation, emotional blackmail.
Either I have a good reason for what I believe or I do not.
If I do, then I can appeal to reason in others to make my case. If I don’t, then I should discard my belief.
Some people, you’re right, aren’t swayed by reason. There surely are unreasonable people.
It’s my personal value base that all things should flow from what is reasonable and not from strong emotional drives, mainly because dysfunctions are known to cause strong emotional drives and attachments. So, emotion alone, without reasonable justification, is suspect. There are surely things I personally “feel” that I understand conflict with what is reasonable. But if I can’t support my feelings with reason, then I see them as a potential malfunction that requires examination and, possibly, correction. Certainly, though, they are nothing that should be followed until they have been better understood and sufficiently justified.
If there’s no reason for me to be angry at X, but I feel angry, that’s a personal problem that needs to be addressed. And I should not act on that anger, as it is unjustified.
People who operate by disregarding reason for emotion are an unfortunate lot (editorial opinion admitted) that can’t be reasoned with. And if I recognize they are easily led because they either can’t or don’t think critically, I view it as incorrect for me to lead them by the nose via their emotions, simply because I am clever enough to recognize they operate from a dysfunctional (codependent) mindset.
I see politicians use this sort of manipulation frequently. And it frustrates me to see how many people are so uncritical in their examination of their own motivations. When I see a politician speaking to a roaring, supportive crowd that cheers every time he/she drops a “feel good” motivational buzz phrase—it is disturbing to me.
I find it unfortunate that there are so many in the world who are blown every which way by emotional winds, and who never stop to actually _consider_ what they’re doing or thinking. But I find it even more unfortunate when people knowingly take advantage of such people by plugging them into a cause by riling up their emotions and making them emotional supporters/unthinking slaves to an ideology.
Even if I can’t reason with such people. I am not going to be the one who takes it upon myself to manipulate their emotions and/or use that to then manipulate their actions. That’s what the churches do, and I don’t respect it at all. I believe that far more people can be taught to critically think than currently do, and I’d rather see more efforts put toward that effort.
Codependency is an unfortunate dysfunction in my book, that steals a person’s self-reliance and independence. And, because they are so prone to use others for things they should be providing for themselves in their own lives and heads, I don’t engage with codependent people any more than is necessary. They need therapy, not a discussion with me. I don’t ask anyone to be responsible for my emotions, and I refuse, outright, to be held accountable for someone else’s emotions. How someone feels is their own affair. I make no attempts to manipulate that, and I don’t accept responsibility for it when codependent people try to lay that sort of responsibility upon me.
In the same way you would not use an analogy that could be misconstrued, I would not use attempts at manipulating an emotionally malfunctioning person in order to gain his/her support.
Just to clarify, I did see your caveat, “But in other cases it’s ineffective or outright inappropriate.”
I just have yet to actually encounter a real-life situation where I’ve felt this was not inappropriate…?
tracieh wrote:
When the child says “The Emperor is Naked”—he’s “right” because there are no clothes manifesting on the Emperor’s body. That’s what _naked_ is.
That’s a loaded/circular argument. How about something that we don’t really know? The child may also believe there is no dark matter or no wormholes because she has never seen them or seen evidence of them. That doesn’t change the fact of whether or not there are black holes or wormholes out there somewhere. If someone conceives of something, perhaps you might argue that it doesn’t really “exist” until we can confirm manifestation of that thing. I’m not so sure of that.
String theory is an even more challenging an issue, as cosmologists have the not only the current problem of lack of evidence; many are not even sure as to what that that evidence would “look like” if it were out there. Many past theories in science have been in this predicament until the evidence was eventually “manifest.” So whether or not the emperor’s clothes or you or strings or dark matter, etc. really “exist” maybe comes down to which school of existential thought you subscribe to.
When a person puts forward that we cannot say things that do not manifest are not existent (which is what you did in defending the theist position)
I said no such thing and have zero interest in defending theist positions. And I agree with you that some theists twist these kinds of arguments to somehow make their “god” exist by default. I think you’ll find that like nal you are simply preaching to the choir.
That is _not_ where I’m going. I’m saying “How do you tell a nonexistent item from an existent one?” YOU, NP—how do YOU tell one from the other?
There’s no need for the caps, I know you’re addressing me. Again, I think we would both agree that there is good reason to believe that “existence” should apply only to things which “are there” and “manifest.” I would merely point out however that at the quantum level where causality goes out the window, there is evidence of things that “are there” but are “not manifest” or vice versa. That’s not meant to undermine your definitions, only to state that I don’t think it’s a black & white, right & wrong debate, and that kind of thinking is beyond my mental capacity.
The definition of “exist” is all that matters here…. theists _must_ show a manifestation—and a manifestation that can be externally confirmed independently
Exactly, as I said earlier these discussions always boil down to semantics and arguments over the meaning of “exist” and “manifest”. Sure we can both plagiarize/quote different definitions and hash those out, but it’s really time consuming and I’m getting done.
And it’s not only the definition of “exist” that matters here. The definition of “god” is also of extremely great importance. Believe it or not, not all theists have the same definition or concept of god. There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of concepts of god. Some are much sillier than others, some more or less “provable” or “justifiable” than others. Natural vs. supernatural. Personal vs. impersonal. Exclusive vs. plularistic. Omnipotent vs. potent. etc. If you want to be ready to have a debate with a theist, it helps to be ready for many kinds of definition of god they might put forward. Of course you don’t have to buy into any particular definition. Some folks might tell me Eddie van Halen is a god, so perhaps to them by their definition god exists. That’s just a silly example. Some people seriously believe that mathematics or the laws of physics is “god”, and they may not subscribe to the typical theistic notion of god held by most fundamental believers. I’m not defending any view, but you are right that definitions are important.
At the heart, this is still really an argument over the question: “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?” Some believe there’s no sound if nobody is there to perceive it. Some believe that there if the falling of the tree caused air molecules to move, it still qualifies as a sound regardless of whether or not anybody heard it. So what do you think tracie? Does the tree make a sound? That’s just an age-old unsettled debate.
I’m not presuming one or the other. Frankly, to me it’s not really an exciting topic. We’re covering ground that has been covered exhaustively before by minds much greater than ours. Hume, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Kant, Maxwell, etc. and I haven’t recently studied up. We’re getting into questions of definitions, materiality, existentialism. Questions still not fully settled such as whether existential commitments should be included in treatment of categorical propositions. Questions which come down to Traditional/Classical vs. Modern Logic. I’ve enjoyed the dialogue and would love to continue the dialogue further with you, but as I said before this Comments section is tedious, typing takes forever, the formatting and interface is a hassle, verbal/visual dialogue would be much more enlightening, and I’ve got other stuff to do.
I’ll again promise to sign off for the last time (after I briefly respond to Austin for the last time), unless you guys keep trying to drag me back into this with more questions. I need to get some work done!!!
Off topic:
I would like to see an improved Comments section. One that allows editing or at least deletion.
This must come from About.com.
Maybe AC could get his own place. Then the bulk of ad revenue would go to him.
Maybe AC could write a book. Hint, hint.
traceih wrote:
Just to clarify, I did see your caveat, “But in other cases it’s ineffective or outright inappropriate.”
I just have yet to actually encounter a real-life situation where I’ve felt this was not inappropriate…?
Then I should clarify that by “other cases” I meant picking fights with people who clearly have no wish to discuss their personal religious beliefs. Going uninvited to church groups to argue with people there about there god exists or not, etc.
I should also add that as we all know, there are clearly ways we can be inappropriate during the course of argument. I might offer up several terms one *could* use rather than “fairy” which although *logically equivalent* could be construed as highly offensive. This would include use of highly offensive or personal or disturbing or racist or crude/vulgar terms in the course of proving one’s point. I’m not suggesting you did that. I would also suggest that there are a multitude of potentially less offensive terms one could choose in constructing one’s argument. Lastly, I would suggest that “fairy” is a term which falls in the middle gray-area, maybe offensive or “mocking” to *some* due to the childish/silly nature of the word, and maybe not offensive to others. What’s the ratio? I don’t know. But the guy from your email dialogue was probably in the former. If you still prefer to use that term, I won’t tell you that you shouldn’t.
tracieh wrote:
I would not use emotional appeal or empathy to sway another person. I don’t consider them “tools.” I consider them blatant attempts at manipulation and, depending on the situation, emotional blackmail.
By “emotional appeal” I was actually referring to Austin Cline’s suggestion that the “vinegar” approach may have an emotional effect, or as he said a “sharp psychological shaking — like through a strong dose of cognitive dissonance - can do a lot and even create the conditions necessary for the eventual application of reason”. I was pleased to see that he basically agrees with my point that logical/rational arguments by themselves may not always convince those who think less logically or rationally, i.e. probably most people the majority of which have had no schooling in logic or reason. I believe your dialogue with the theist further proved that point.
By “tools” I do not mean tricks or playing the same underhanded tactics or games that churches play. I should clarify that I meant fundamental reason, but tempered with some emotion, sincerity, deference, empathy, i.e. “honey”. That’s not an approach for everyone or every situation. But through that process I’ve experienced the satisfaction of getting some to eventually question their longheld views to the point that they eventually changed their views and consider themselves now much happier and better off. They spit out the soup. It was not a quick and easy process.<