"Who you gonna believe? Your facts? Or my ‘worldview’?"

[Htom Sirveaux]

Peter Enns looks at the latest depressing study showing that facts are not persuasive when people’s religious or ideological preconceptions are at stake. Those contradictory facts are often known, just not accepted. They’re not rebutted, simply rejected outright as incompatible with the person’s preferred anti-factual – i.e., false — worldview.

(SNIP)

The facts are known. The facts are known to be the facts. But those facts are simply rejected when they cannot be accommodated by a pre-existing “worldview” that is dependent on rejecting them.

Therefore, Douglass concluded, “it is not light that is needed, but fire”:

Scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

Ridicule? Reproach? Sarcasm? Emotion? How terribly uncivil of him.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/08/13/who-you-gonna-believe-your-facts-or-my-worldview/

Frederick Douglass endorsed incivility to combat bad beliefs, and a liberal Christian (Fred Clark) cites him approvingly for this sentiment. But at the same time, Douglass showed an ability to distinguish between different kinds of Christianity:

In an appendix to his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of an American Slave, published in 1845, Douglass clarified that he was not opposed to all religion, but only the Christianity of a slaveholding America: "I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels…"

http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/frederick_douglass.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "Scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed." nt.

[rug]

8. Too bad few people are any good at it.

[intaglio]

19. Spider Robinson

"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."

[ZombieHorde]

2. If this is true, then it is sad news.

I know people will reject facts in favor of previously held beliefs, but I would like to think proper argumentation, as opposed to ridicule, is enough over time. Sigh. The OP does explain a lot of what we see in society though.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Actually it is true, or at least current studies seem to suggest it is highly likely.

That is why political messaging is about tugging at emotional memes, not about making rational arguments. Irrational works. Rational has the opposite of intended effect. It is sad. But knowledge is strength.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Sigh.

Logic is for academia, I guess.

[Htom Sirveaux]

5. This creates a paradox for those who would use this strategy

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 10:22 PM - Edit history (3)

against religion, particularly by tying even the most reasonable forms and aspects of religion to its most anti-rational expressions. While that might be politically convenient, it is also itself irrational, and thus confusing to those who expect people marching under the banner of reason to use reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. You're overthinking the problem.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. How so? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

10. think about it

[Brettongarcia]

18. To sell rationality to people, you have to sex it up a bit: throw in low appeal and raw emotion.

Last edited Fri Aug 15, 2014, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Mix in the low drama of agonistic contest, ego, and "heroic" animal emotions and fights.

Sometimes.

Example? Think of the wonderful bathos of Socrates being forced to take the hemlock. Or Plato's poor folks lost in the cave.

In the meantime though? Rationality and logic are ... rationality and logic. And they are better found in academe as a matter of fact. But "that's academic" for most folks.

I vividly remember the moment that preacher's "shout radio" started to take over the airwaves, even in civilized venues like Joe Pyne's c. 1960 Boston. Then came Rush Limbaugh and TV's "shout TV" McLaughlin group.

The idea was that the contest of ideas is just not dramatic enough, low enough to sell; you need to recast it as a shouting contest between people, and their raw will to personal power. Your have to present it as an emotional shouting match; a verbal combat; an immediate precursor to perhaps, actual combat. (Joe Pyne was an ex Marine.)

But for some of these, there was some actual Reason underneath it all. I met McLaughlin overseas; he was reasonable enough.

Actually, it's a contest between Reason and low emotion, as a matter of fact. So? Reason must address emotion. Even on its own terms at times. Reason is best expressed in calm intelligent arguments. But when those fall on deaf ears? Then at times ironically, it must shout to be heard. On the street.

Jazz it up; sex it up. Throw in some pretty girls showing lots of leg. And larger-than-life, comic WWF, Thor-like heroes" chopping off heads with swords.

This is not to say that the materialistic life or "world" however, is unimportant or ENTIRELY silly.

[By the way? At times I like to frame the problems with religion, in biblical terms; to reach the important audience that needs to hear this. And for that matter, I rather like the popular biblical model ... that warned that the more popular ideas of "Christ," are actually following the devil himself, and a "false Christ." I will largely defend the "low" notion in fact, that the Christ Jesus that most Christians follow is precisely, the foretold "False Christ. Or more intellectually, a false idea of him. And for that matter, in corroboration of this, I am serious enough in suggesting that surprisingly, deeper down, structurally, what most people have thought of as real Christianity, the religion of "love" and "life," actually contains under the surface, a dark religion of "hate" (see this word in the Bible). And love of death. Which we see in 1) Fundamentalist religious wars and executions. But also in 2) "higher," "spiritual," "modern" Christianity. Which, follows mere misleading parts of the bible: which expressed a priestly, ascetic "hate" for our "life" in the material "world." Which also as well evidences hate for "riches," "possessions," and our biological/material family: "hate" for our brothers and sisters. In favor of a "spirit." A spirit which however, I try to show is a false "dream," or "illusion," or "delusion"; to use the language and framework of the Bible itself as a common reference point. In short, I am serious enough, and rational enough, when I suggest that conventional Christianity is dead wrong; and is based deeper down, on a surprisingly dark love of ... Death. On "hate" for the material "world," the "flesh." In favor of an immaterial and false spirit. And a false spiritual "heaven" that is itself fated for destruction (Isa. 34.4, 51.6; 2 Peter 3.7-12; Rev. 21; etc.)]

[cbayer]

11. I agree with you, as do some of our leading scientists.

There are ways of educating people without threatening their belief systems, and the way to change this is to develop and implement those ways.

Getting in people's faces and telling them they are stupid just pushes them further into their corners.

While there are some things that are so critical that screaming may be the best alternative, it is very often the least effective tactic.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Only laughter can blow a colossal humbug to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of

laughter nothing can stand.

-Samuel Clemens

Douglass was a badass. I would love to have met him.

[trotsky]

12. Bottom line is, both methods (and others) are needed.

Some folks may be amenable to reason. Some may not. There should never be a universal condemnation of a tactic, like ridicule. There should never be a universal condemnation of so-called "anti-theists." Yet that even happens right here by self-appointed civility police.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. What is a so-called anti-theist, as the term is used around here? nt

[trotsky]

16. Ask cbayer - she's the decider. n/t

[Jim__]

13. Peter Enns, of course, is not calling for mockery.

He is calling for alternative narratives that can be accepted by the opposition:

Education doesn’t correct bad thinking if one’s narrative relies on that bad thinking. One also has to offer an alternate coherent and attractive structure whereby people can handle these new ways of thinking without feeling as if their entire faith and life hang in the balance.

Fred Clark claims that the opposition refuses to hear the alternative stories. He calls for mockery; but offers absolutely no evidence that there is any reason to expect mockery to change anything. To me, it only makes it less likely that the other side will listen at all.

As to Frederick Douglass, he is addressing a desperate situation, slavery. His claim is that the arguments against it are already accepted; it is action that is needed:

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

Is climate change as desperate a situation as slavery? Maybe. But action is largely not possible as long as many people reject any action - they can block most potentially beneficial action. Are there possible narratives to win people over? I think so. Addressing climate change need not drastically change our way of life. People who are currently in denial may be won over if they can be made to understand that.

[edhopper]

14. I think mocking, satire and sarcasm

may work before a belief or idea takes hold.
For instance, when a Republican comes up with another regressive, idiotic idea, showing it's stupidity would help stop the general public from taking it seriously.

[cbayer]

17. This is an interesting idea and seems to enter into an areas in between

overt mocking and education.

Mocking and ridiculing an idea in order to show those who are undecided or not firmly in one camp that a certain idea is must scientifically wrong is not a bad approach.

Mocking and ridiculing those that hold that belief in the hopes that they will abandon it is a bad approach, imo.

[intaglio]

20. Faith is not a problem

But belief can be. You can have the faith to follow a religion but believing it to be inerrant leads to problems. A small majority of those in the sciences have a faith but are open new ideas; they can question their beliefs about their faith without loosing that faith.

Belief leads to the ability to discard evidence. To Muslims dogs are ritually unclean which (under certain circumstances) can lead to massive cruelty. To the Papacy of the 16th and 17th Century the idea that the Earth was in orbit round the Sun was contrary to belief in the word of God, hence the persecution of certain early scientists.

[cbayer]

21. While there are significant differences in the numbers of scientists having religious

beliefs as compared to the general public, it is by no means a significant minority.

A survey of AAAS members in 2009 showed that 51% believed in a deity or higher power. There are some other interesting statistics in this report:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

I agree with your statement about inerrancy being a problem, but what is the percentage of believers who take that position?

I think most believers are open to new evidence, but there is a significant number who are not. As the article suggests, I suspect there is really no way to reach them.

[intaglio]

22. Thanks for that, somewhere I heard diferently

post edited

[Starboard Tack]

23. Mockery of hypocrisy is always good.

Mockery of an individual for his beliefs is unlikely to change those beliefs.