The Hard Sell

[tongodeon]

I've heard - often, from lots of different people - that atheists like Dawkins or Hitchens or the other atheist horsemen are rude, shrill, belittling, dickish, abrasive, and generally offensive. Fine, they're awful. Who's good? If they're negative examples, who in present or past history can serve as a positive example of what to do

Comments

[xiphias]

What possible GOOD does arguing against a belief in a god or gods do?

I can see arguing against the damage that religions do, but on a case-by-case basis. Religion doesn't generally do much more damage than any other abstract concept that people rally behind -- better than some, worse than some, but religion is a different phenomenon than theism. They're related, but not identical, and, in fact, either can exist without the other.

The question that I wonder is, "assuming that there does NOT exist any god or gods, what benefit is there to attempting to convince people that DO believe in them that they are wrong?"

(For that matter, "assuming that there DOES exist a god or gods, what benefit is there to attempting to convince people that DO NOT believe in them that they are wrong?" There exist theologies that provide an answer for that question; I don't hold one of them, personally.)

If there exists no benefit to people NOT believing in a god or gods, and the belief in a god or gods brings people meaning and comfort, then all that dissuading people from their belief does is to remove a source of comfort without providing any benefit.

Causing people's lives to be worse is a dick move inherently.

[zadcat]

Comfort is hollow if it is founded on null premises. Richard Dawkins clearly thinks that a fair number of folks are atheist and either can't admit it to others or to themselves (yet), and that possibly by setting out reasoned arguments he can help them sort out their ideas on the subject. When he's really on, he can convey a sense of joy at being part of the natural world that's practically transcendent. He makes it quite clear that the choice is not between God and some kind of blank nihilism.

People can make bad or silly decisions because they hold religious beliefs or, worse, are under peer pressure to pretend they do. Freeing these people from this burden is a worthwhile thing to do.

My favourite public atheist is Jonathan Miller. His three-part BBC thing Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief is worth watching. He says he doesn't even like saying he's an atheist not because he's ashamed or afraid, but that he feels that there isn't even anything to reject, in some sense. (We would say "he doesn't feel theism is the default" but he's probably too old to put it that way.)

[xiphias]

Many of us theists are theistic by an act of will. That's no secret -- that's what "faith" is. That's what the term MEANS.

Whether a god or gods exist or no, comfort based on belief in them exists, and, taking away that belief takes away that comfort. You say it's hollow -- but it's COMFORT. Dawkins is trying to take comfort away from people who are using it for comfort.

The joy of being part of the natural world isn't restricted to either atheists or theists. But theists have one more bulwark against the crushing nausea of the awareness of mortality.

When I'm in a non-theistic phase, I spend many hours a night in cold stark terror, gripped by nausea as I ponder the concepts of my own non-existence. It seems to me that there are a lot of atheists who just don't experience that, and don't understand that people DO.

When, as an act of will, and of faith, I DO believe in something larger than myself in which I will, in some manner, have a continuity as self, then I DON'T experience that nausea.

Someone better have a damn good reason for wanting to consign me and millions of other people to hours of bleak nausea every night before they go ahead and do that. It's like proselytizing atheists don't see the COST of winning the argument -- they think that there would be no cost to people losing their faith. It's like they don't understand what the VALUE of theistic belief is in the first place.

And that's an entirely separate issue from making dumb or dangerous decisions based on religion -- religion and theism are separable phenomena.

[mmcirvin]

Someone better have a damn good reason for wanting to consign me and millions of other people to hours of bleak nausea every night before they go ahead and do that.

You don't think there are people losing sleep over the possibility of eternal punishment in Hell for the doubts they're having about the existence of God? A lot of religions don't have this feature, but for the ones that do, it's a nausea-inducer in its own right. You might argue that it would be better to lead these people to a gentler form of theism, but if atheism is the direction they're heading in and atheism doesn't torture them, I don't see why.

[zadcat]

Before you were born, what did you experience? That's what will happen after you die. It is no more to be feared than going to sleep.

Theistic belief offers help that does not come. I can't see founding a life on that, but if you must, go to.

[xiphias]

It is no more to be feared than going to sleep.

And that's where the insomnia comes in.

[mmcirvin]

I can see several reasons to do it.

First, some believers are genuinely curious as to why atheists don't believe in God. It's possible to satisfy their curiosity with an argument even if one doesn't convince them.

Second, religion is often not comforting. There are nascent atheists out there, mostly young people, who are really being served badly by their religion, but are trying to hang onto the beliefs or going through the motions out of fear: fear of Hell, fear of the loss of moral structure, fear of social or parental disapproval. Atheists who can demonstrate that it's possible to be an atheist, be good and enjoy life are doing a service for these people.

[tongodeon]

What possible GOOD does arguing against a belief in a god or gods do?

I apparently forgot to bookmark a really good post that did a good job laying otu and explaining several different distinct benefits of arguing against delusion generally and religion particularly, even if the person you're arguing against isn't receptive and never changes their mind. I'm hoping I can find it again. My google is weak today.