Comments on: Rights and wrongs of evangelism

By: Know your atheists - Eshu « Right To Think

Know your atheists - Eshu « Right To Think — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:37:24 +0000

[...] make people angry, they won’t listen to you – emotion can get in the way of clear thinking as the chaplain pointed out. I think your suggestion of the Socratic method is an excellent guideline that I’m trying to [...]

By: the chaplain

the chaplain — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:58:05 +0000

Good post. As a former evangelical Christian minister, I have watch myself for tendencies to evangelize in the other direction now. I think engaging in dialog, when invited to do so, is the way to go. I also think respecting that people need time to think through issues is important. The evangelical Christian approach is to demand an instant response: now is the time for salvation…. It is based on inciting emotion and disengaging intellect. The atheist approach should be the opposite. I do not want to see atheists replacing street corner preachers, pushing our views in their faces regardless of whether they are ready to think about the matter, whether they have the time to deal with it right then and so on. We need to be polite rather than pushy, courteous rather than condescending and always, always respectful of their rights to refuse to listen to us and to refuse to see things our way.

By: John Morales

John Morales — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:49:40 +0000

Well, two factors I consider paramount are intellectual honesty and a willingness to engage. Surprisingly, I find it quite difficult to generalise about this, because so many subjective factors (e.g. personality clashes) can apply.

By: Eshu

Eshu — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:17:55 +0000

yunshui – thanks for pointing out the socratic method, which I’ve been attempting a half-arsed version of for some time. It seems similar to what Matt M was getting at too.

John Morales said:

…reasonable is when it’s invited…

Yes, that’s a pretty good rule of thumb. I have a lot less problem with evangelists of all stripes if they only spoke about their beliefs when invited to do so. But I guess then their beliefs wouldn’t have got very far, so they’re unlikely to be willing to accept that.

DAM10N said:

Just a little nudge in either case…At every step, people can allow just a bit more critical thinking into their worldview.

Yes, it’s often a case of moving people in the right direction and will probably take more than a single influence. There are some who have sudden startling revelations, but I think they’re in the minority.

John Morales said:

it may not show up for a generation or so, but I fancy I already see etiolation of the atheist stereotype in culture at large (e.g. House).

I think you may be on to something there, with each passing generation, opinions can change a bit. It seems to be easier for someone to reject their parents beliefs than to change their own beliefs (no matter what the evidence). I sometimes wonder if humans were immortal and didn’t have children, whether anything would ever change.

Thanks for all the responses, however I was particularly interested in what rules you think all evangelists (whether atheist or religious) should follow. Perhaps the right question should have been – What would make an evangelist with differing opinions to yours less offensive to you?

By: John Morales

John Morales — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:09:23 +0000

Thanks Enshu.

Then I think the atheist presence on the internet has certainly made a difference; it may not show up for a generation or so, but I fancy I already see etiolation of the atheist stereotype in culture at large (e.g. House).

I try to be careful – it’s not far from evangelising to proselytising. :)

By: DAM10N

DAM10N — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:53:52 +0000

Allow me to expand on that just a bit more. I want fundamentalist Christians to become more open-minded non-literalist evangelical Christians; evangelical Christians to become liberal Christians; liberal Christians to become deists, deists to become soft agnostics, soft agnostics to become hard agnostics, and so forth. At every step, people can allow just a bit more critical thinking into their worldview.

I’ve never seen anyone make the leap all at once. Kudos to those who can, but pushing an ordinary mortal towards a chasm is more likely to result in pushback than heroic leaps forward.

By: DAM10N

DAM10N — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:14:04 +0000

I agree with yunshui as to using an interrogative approach. I try to ask a lot of questions – firstly to get a sense of where people are and then to try to open their minds just a bit more. If I sense my interlocutor is a literalist fundy, I would try to get them to overcome their literalism by pointing to places in their holy writ where they themselves resort to an unambiguously metaphorical approach, e.g. “Take and eat, this is my body.” If someone is a deist, I try to get them to tell me why they think there is some sort of cosmic mind superintending the universe, and open their mind to the possibility that only our self-oriented anthropic thinking which allows us to presume that the universe has a mind (something very like one’s own subjective sense of self) as its ultimate foundation. Just a little nudge in either case.

By: Eshu

Eshu — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:00:36 +0000

First, the quibble: For the record, I do think atheists should evangelise, although in a passive and respectful way.
Should, or could, or may?

I think “may” is probably the best answer. It’s not easy, sensible or safe for everyone to do so.

Well I think evangelism is aimed at changing someone’s mind. Getting them to understand you and raise their consciousness are prerequisites for that – so only partially effective?

By: John Morales

John Morales — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:47:45 +0000

First, the quibble: For the record, I do think atheists should evangelise, although in a passive and respectful way.

Should, or could, or may?

Second, the answer: For me, reasonable is when it’s invited in my best judgement, whether implicitly or explicitly; as for effective, define it please. I suspect you mean mainly in the sense of consciousness-raising, but I’m not sure.

By: yunshui

yunshui — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:43:52 +0000

Socratic method. Just ask them questions about their faith, very politely, and lead them to use their own reasoning to point out the flaws in what they believe.

Try not to get accused of corrupting youth and sentenced to death, though.

As we all know, telling someone outright that they’re just wrong is a guaranteed way to strengthen their grip. Hell, I’m guilty myself – more than once I’ve adopted an untenable position in debate because I didn’t think it through, then stubbornly clung to it because my opponent insisted I was wrong. Just ask my wife…