Is intellectual argument the best way to challenge Theistic beliefs?

[ynot]

If Theists predominately believe what they do based on emotion rather than intellect, isn’t it doubtful that intellectual argument will encourage them to question or change their beliefs? Perhaps a more “touchy-feely” compassionate and sympathetic approach might work better. Any suggestions?

[TobiasTheViking]

A good hard clue-by-four.

It may not work, but it will feel good :D

[rharbers]

If Theists predominately believe what they do based on emotion rather than intellect, isn’t it doubtful that intellectual argument will encourage them to question or change their beliefs? Perhaps a more “touchy-feely” compassionate and sympathetic approach might work better. Any suggestions?


It takes a miracle.

[Mercutio]

If Theists predominately believe what they do based on emotion rather than intellect, isn’t it doubtful that intellectual argument will encourage them to question or change their beliefs? Perhaps a more “touchy-feely” compassionate and sympathetic approach might work better. Any suggestions?

I don't know that your premise is true, so I don't know that following logically from that is the right approach.

Perhaps one might wish to poll "lapsed believers", to see what sort of things worked in their cases. In my case, it was definitely intellectual argument.

On the other hand, that does not tell us much about what approaches might work better, or what approaches have been tried and failed. But it is a start, and an empirical start, rather than one based on an assumption that may or may not be grounded in reality.

[Melendwyr]

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: you cannot use reason to induce people to reject beliefs whose acceptance wasn't based on reason in the first place.

[ynot]

A good hard clue-by-four.

It may not work, but it will feel good :D

Wasn’t meaning such a severe form of “touchy-feely” But still, a very emotional method.

[ynot]

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: you cannot use reason to induce people to reject beliefs whose acceptance wasn't based on reason in the first place.

"I have nothing to declare but my genius" - Perhaps he was right!

[jjramsey]

On the Ship-of-Fools forums (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/), they have mentioned that some felt embarrassed to say that they were Christians, but not like those Christians (that is, the fundies). I've often thought that if I were an atheist (and in some ways I feel like a crypto-atheist or a "closet atheist"), I'd have to practice my "I'm an atheist, but I'm not like those atheists."

One problem that I see is that there is a somewhat justified perception that atheists are arrogant. Not all atheists are arrogant, by any means, but for various reasons the ones who are really public about their atheism, like Dawkins, Randi, or (especially!) Sam Harris often are. I'm not sure there's an easy way to fix this problem. What I'd really like to see is a public atheist who could never in a million years be confused with a "village atheist," someone who pulls no punches but is fair and accurate, and doesn't come off smug. Tall order.

[Melendwyr]

It would help if hoi polloi didn't equate being more informed, more intelligent, and/or more insightful than they are as being "arrogant".

[Loon]

If Theists predominately believe what they do based on emotion rather than intellect, ...


I think you're being overly specific by limiting this to theists (or to the religious?). This is true for pretty much every paranormal belief, even if the believer in question thinks otherwise (i.e., "medical science could cure my cold, but after a week of homeopathic treatment, it was gone!").

[Huh-What?]

On the Ship-of-Fools forums (http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/), they have mentioned that some felt embarrassed to say that they were Christians, but not like those Christians (that is, the fundies). I've often thought that if I were an atheist (and in some ways I feel like a crypto-atheist or a "closet atheist"), I'd have to practice my "I'm an atheist, but I'm not like those atheists."

One problem that I see is that there is a somewhat justified perception that atheists are arrogant. Not all atheists are arrogant, by any means, but for various reasons the ones who are really public about their atheism, like Dawkins, Randi, or (especially!) Sam Harris often are. I'm not sure there's an easy way to fix this problem. What I'd really like to see is a public atheist who could never in a million years be confused with a "village atheist," someone who pulls no punches but is fair and accurate, and doesn't come off smug. Tall order.

To me it seems being right and arrogance is just a matter of degrees.

The arrogance tag seems to be a last ditch effort of the losing side of an argument.

Of course, the last ditch effort of an atheist in an argument with an unyielding fundy would be the ‘insane’ tag.

I would rather be thought of as arrogant.

[Huh-What?]

Back to the original thread:

I believe logic and reason is the best way. We are logical creatures. After all we created gods and religion to explain the unknown. We constantly ask ‘Why?” and when we do not have an answer we make one up that we feel comfortable with.

So it would seem that if we counter the emotional feel good answers of religion with the hard logic of science eventually it may crack someone’s belief system. After all it only takes little doubt to reexamine your beliefs as we are constantly asking “Why?”

[brettDbass]

In my experience you are unlikely to deconvert *coins new word* any passionate christian by any means.
Logical argument is a very good way of getting them to have a nervous breakdown though, if you're persistent enough.
Not that I would advocate such deliberate maliciousness; it's just an observation.

[Mercutio]

In my experience you are unlikely to deconvert *coins new word* any passionate christian by any means.
Logical argument is a very good way of getting them to have a nervous breakdown though, if you're persistent enough.
I was certainly a passionate christian. It did not take a nervous breakdown. It did take some time, and exposure to quite a few different areas of information--sociological explanations of organized religion, religious-studies classes on the characteristics in common and not in common among different religions, social cognitive explanations of belief formation and perseverance, behavioral explanations of learning, psychophysiological explanations of nerve and brain function, logic and philosophy courses...

For a passionate christian, or passionate believer in anything, including science, that belief encompasses huge swaths of their life. Whether attacking one pole is enough to bring down the ramparts is an open question.

Loon--I would argue that you are still being overly specific. I would argue that virtually all of our belief systems are formed in a similar way, through interaction with our social and physical environments. That we see some as more rational than others is hindsight. Studies of medical students, for instance, show remarkable stability of their Lamarkian views of evolutionary principles, in people who by most standards would be seen as rational critical thinkers. I think that any attempt to dichotomize paranormal belief systems from rational ones is likely to shoehorn people into one or the other camp, but miss a tremendous amount of useful information in the process.

[Dogdoctor]

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: you cannot use reason to induce people to reject beliefs whose acceptance wasn't based on reason in the first place.
Damn that Oscar Wilde , he did say some smart things. I agree with this one. I think the idea of touchy feely is right. You won't impress a Christian by acting in an unchristian manner.

[slingblade]

It would help if hoi polloi didn't equate being more informed, more intelligent, and/or more insightful than they are as being "arrogant".

I am in love with you because you use hoi polloi properly, without the redundant "the."

(and because you make a good point, too.)

[Beleth]

I think that everyone, deep down, bases their beliefs on intellect. The trick is to find out just how far down it goes.

I think a good place to start is with the "Why?" game that five-year-olds are so good at. Ask "Why do you believe in what you believe in?", get an answer, and then keep asking why. "Why did that convince you?" "Why do you consider that important?" And so on.

Eventually you will get an answer of "I don't know, I just do."

Then you start working on changing the answer right before that one.

[slingblade]

If you don't use intellect to refute emotional beliefs, I can see but two alternatives:

Use emotions to refute emotion. Don't see that being effective.

Don't bother to refute at all. Logically safe, but leaves no one to jam a finger in the dam and keep the flood of idiocy from swamping us all.

Someone has to fight the good fight for clarity, logic, and healthy, reasonable skepticism, don't they?

[Dogdoctor]

emotions and intellect are not mutually exclusive the questions are do you let your emotions show and do you let your emotions rule your intellect?

[cyborg]

I am in love with you because you use hoi polloi properly, without the redundant "the."

Hoi is the definite article in which langauge again?

Clue: it's not Greek.

[slingblade]

Hoi is the definite article in which langauge again?

Clue: it's not Greek.

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/05/30.html

Hoi polloi is Greek for "the many."

Usage: Some argue that the definite article ("the") should not be used in front of "hoi polloi," as hoi means "the" in Greek. However, "the hoi polloi" has been used since the earliest recorded instances of the term in English, and it is considered correct by most authorities.

And strictly as a matter of taste, I don't like "the hoi polloi." So I'm a snob.

[Dogdoctor]

Ultimately I suppose it depends on your goal. If what you want is to alarm religious folk or punish them for their beliefs then perhaps you need to be an a$$ to them. If you want to hold a debate with them and want them to take what you say seriously then you can't treat them like they are lower than the scum on the belly of a gnat on the belly of a snake.

[jjramsey]

To me it seems being right and arrogance is just a matter of degrees.

I usually associate arrogance with being wrong. More to the point, I see arrogance when I see someone who combines brashness with sloppiness or shallowness.

[Meadmaker]

It was intellectual argument that won me over to atheism.

What you have to understand is that the religions that have survived for so long didn't survive by being stupid or illogical. They may look that way from the outside, but from the inside, they all make sense. To get to real, true, contradictions, you have to probe deep into them.

Furthermore, a lot of intellectual arguments I hear directed at Christians and other theists sound a lot like "I'm intellectual and you aren't. Don't you see that, you idiot?" You aren't going to win an argument that way.

To put it in a less emotional framework, even if you happen to be correct, that doesn't mean your arguments are valid. An invalid argument is not sound, and not likely to be persuasive, even if its premises and conclusions happen to both be true. I hear an awful lot of arguments against religious belief that are not valid.

[LawnOven]

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: you cannot use reason to induce people to reject beliefs whose acceptance wasn't based on reason in the first place.

That's who said it.

Thank you

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps one might wish to poll "lapsed believers", to see what sort of things worked in their cases. In my case, it was definitely intellectual argument.
Yep. Worked for me.

[Mercutio]

Interesting...in this thread, we have assertions that emotion-based approaches are best, supported by appeal to Oscar Wilde. The only (admittedly anecdotal) data points we have are three "lapsed believers" (PixyMisa, Meadmaker, and me) who each say that intellectual argument is what worked.

One wonders less and less whether all people, not merely believers, persevere in their opinions for reasons other than intellectual argument.

[cyborg]

One wonders less and less whether all people, not merely believers, persevere in their opinions for reasons other than intellectual argument.

That would certainly be true of most people because lets face facts here: most people just ain't that bright.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is worth noting that most people--not just atheists, agnostics, skeptics and what have you--tend to believe that they (and those who agree with them) arrive at their beliefs through logic and reason, while believing those that disagree are driven by emotion.*

For every atheist who asserts that believers are driven by fear, the need for a crutch or a sense of belonging, there is a theist to assert that atheists disbelieve because they don't like God, want to be able to do their own thing, or are just naturally rebellious.

This leads me to two conclusions. First, that hubris is ubiquitous in our species and we could all learn to be a bit more charitable in evaluating others. Second, since most people seem to hold that they are reasonable beings, reason and intellect are the weapons of choice.

Also, you can add me to Merc's list of theists who deconverted largely on account of intelletual arguments.


*Shermer writes about this to some extent in one oh his books. How We Believe or something, pardon my memory.

[Melendwyr]

One wonders less and less whether all people, not merely believers, persevere in their opinions for reasons other than intellectual argument. I would hardly say Wilde is the definitive expert on such matter.

Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that we're dealing with a special population. Atheists (which are really quite uncommon) are primarily those who could be dissuaded by logical argument. Considering the utter lack of logical support for theism, and the vast numbers of Believers of various kinds (not necessarily theistic), it's clear that appeal to logical argument is not in general an effective way to convince people.

This board attracts those individuals who are most susceptible to logical arguments, regardless of whether they're Believers or not. So any atheists that respond are even more likely to be responsive to reason.

For the above reasons, I challenge the notion that self-reports on this forum can give us insight into the effectiveness of using reason to persuade.

[cyborg]

a sense of belonging,

We all (apart from the odd case) need that. We're a social animal.

because they don't like God, want to be able to do their own thing, or are just naturally rebellious.

Only applies to certain theisms.

Second, since most people seem to hold that they are reasonable beings, reason and intellect are the weapons of choice.

I think most people can recognise why being unreasonable is undesirable even if they can't see why they're being unreasonable.

[Piscivore]

Add me to that list. And I was once such a fervent, believing Christian I was studying to be a minister. I still vividly remember the last time I "accepted Jesus into my heart" and the warm and joyous feeling that it gave me. But that feeling didn't compensate for the intellectual deficiencies of the church's basic premises.

[Dr Adequate]

It would help if hoi polloi didn't equate being more informed, more intelligent, and/or more insightful than they are as being "arrogant".
* cough * Brights. * cough *

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think most people can recognise why being unreasonable is undesirable even if they can't see why they're being unreasonable.
And the only way to show them why they are being unreasonable is with better reason. You can't emote someone into noticing their unreasonableness.

[Chris O.]

I was a believer for emotional reasons, not fear, or need, but out of Love. I became 'born-again' because I was surrounded by those sort of people. I "knew" God existed and loved me in my heart. The way I felt in those groups was confirmation that we were right.

That's how it started, then I sought to satisfy my intellect. Q:"If God hears your prayers, why doesn't he answer them?" A: "If a child asked for a pet cobra, what parent would get it for him?" And other such 'wisdom.' But I always gave God the benifit of the doubt. I even battled Atheists and agnostics in internet chat rooms. I wasn't someone who sat and preached, but I engaged in debate. (Usually more successfully than those I was debating, but that's the nature of the internet.) So as time went on, I became more and more assured that my belief was the reasonable, logical one. A belief that began as an emotional one. But I was always seeking answers to questions, and I did doubt what i'd heard. When science and religion clashed in my mind, I attempted to reconcile them. I was a huge fan of 'The Science of God' by Schroeder. I thought I was being skeptical in my faith. It just never dawned on me to doubt the ultimate source of 'Truth.'

I began seriously digging into the Bible when Fred Phelps's group started to become more vocal, and quoting scripture. I knew what they were doing was wrong, but they were citing their refrences, and i could look them up and see where they'd gotten them. That's when I realised I'd been picking and choosing which parts of the Bible I liked, based on the specific church and family I'd been raised in, that my religion was actually based on nothing other than my environment. And I had no honest claim to the 'Truth.' It wasn't a big step to ask myself, 'What if none of it's true?' So I learned about the sources of 'the source.' The history of the stories before they became part of the 'Bible,' and of those that didn't make the cut. The stories of the other saviours performing many of the same miracles, the lack of physical evidence for the flood, for the escape of the Jews from Egypt, etc. I found that the only support for the Bible was the Church and the only support for the Church was the Bible. When I pulled one support away, it all came crashing down.

Though I became a believer through emotion, I solidified my faith through logic. And, through logic, gave it up again.

[Mercutio]

I would hardly say Wilde is the definitive expert on such matter.

Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that we're dealing with a special population. Atheists (which are really quite uncommon) are primarily those who could be dissuaded by logical argument. Considering the utter lack of logical support for theism, and the vast numbers of Believers of various kinds (not necessarily theistic), it's clear that appeal to logical argument is not in general an effective way to convince people.

This board attracts those individuals who are most susceptible to logical arguments, regardless of whether they're Believers or not. So any atheists that respond are even more likely to be responsive to reason.

For the above reasons, I challenge the notion that self-reports on this forum can give us insight into the effectiveness of using reason to persuade.
Thus the "admittedly anecdotal" (which, on this forum, is the equivalent of saying "you may ignore this").

On the other hand, the same special population problem applies to the common (on this forum) assertion that there is no logical support for theism. Remember, logic is a garbage-in-garbage-out process. As Chris O. has just testified, one can strengthen one's faith through logic, if one attends to the right information. And while an environment rich in that information is not the common experience of posters here, it certainly can be the experience of others.

The good Marquis alluded to a form of the Fundamental Attribution Error; we tend to think of our own position as attained rationally, and others' positions to be attained emotionally. It works for both groups.

So I will agree with you; self-reports on this forum are relatively useless for answering this question. That includes, though, the self-reports inherent in the assumptions behind the question itself. Opinions about "why believers believe", when they come from our special population, really ought to be backed up with data. I know that surveys have been done, but the ones I am familiar with are on paranormal belief rather than religious belief.

(A quick EBSCOHOST search reveals a special issue of the Journal of Cognition and Culture, on "Psychological and Cognitive Foundations of Religiosity". Sadly, our library does not carry it...)

[Chris O.]

In "How We Believe," Michael Shermer refers to a poll where Most people attributed the religious (rather than paranormal) beliefs of others to emotional reasons, while attributing their own religious beliefs to logic, and reason.

From the notes in the back of "How we Believe," this error of attribution is discussed in "On Cognitive Busyness: When Person Perceivers Meet Persons Perceived," in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

However, I suggest that this error of attribution works in our favor. As most people will tend to attribute intellectual reasons to their own beliefs, a logical argument therefore would likely be more successful than an emotional one. Anyone who claims to have logical reasons for his beliefs should be open to logical discussion. And I believe the attribution of emotional reasons to others' beliefs is less accurate than the attribution of logic to one's own beliefs. (If you say you came by it logically, that's probably more accurate than my accusing you of being emotionally driven.)

On the other hand, someone who claims emotion for their own belief, I think, would be much less receptive to an intellectual argument. (My mom for instance, is a comfort Christian. 'Faith like a child' is how she percieves her faith. I would never try to debate with her.) An emotional believer is a lost cause, I feel. Any emotional argument you make would easily be trumped by their own personal experiences of God.

So I think it is as much an issue of knowing your audience. An intellectual argument may well be the only way to challenge theistic beliefs, since the emotional believers are likely to shrug and say, 'I just believe.' The intellectual believers will feel the need to justify their beliefs, until they reach the point where they resort to 'God works in mysterious ways', or 'God's logic is above man's understanding,' or 'Who can know the mind of God.' And if he's an honest man, he'll have to admit that's a bogus argument.

And if he's honest with himself, he'll go home and think about it after you've left him alone. It's those quiet times alone when you really start to figure yourself out.