Posted by Siamang on: 04.13.2006 /
Yesterday afternoon I passed a Christian bookstore. In the window was a small, pocket-sized paperback. I forget the title, but it was something like “Christian Answers to Skeptical Questions.” The store was closed, so I couldn’t go in and look at it, but I wondered, “Who buys this book?” Surely not the skeptic like me. I’ve read reams of apologetics online and in books like that, and I don’t expect to be surprised by the arguments therein. It was such a small book, almost a pamphlet. That’s not going to be weighty enough material to support the Bible if you didn’t already believe in the Bible. If it was targeted to me, what is it doing in a Christian bookstore anyway?
I tried to picture who buys that book. Is it a christian having skeptical thoughts? Maybe, but still, too lightweight to be satisfying. It’s not big enough to have the in-depth discussion of faith that those people crave.
So I hit on who I think buys the book. The christian with the skeptic friend. It’s a turning tool. A cheat-sheet so that the christian can read up on the various parrys his atheist friend will use.
And then I thought a step further. Perhaps the christian doesn’t have an atheist friend. Perhaps he buys it with nobody in mind, in the event that he is called on to use it. “Aha,” he thinks. “Next atheist I meet, I’ll argue rings around him!”
That made sense. I have to admit, it made sense because it’s what I do myself. I’m sure it’s what a lot of people do. They have invisible arguments in their head. “Oh, if I ever met that George Bush, I’d sure give him a piece of my mind!” And then the first person they meet who triggers some of those feelings, BLAMMO! They let them have it!
You folks have read me doing that when someone comes off with a piece of pseudoscience. I try to be nice about it, but to be honest, that’s just what I’m doing. I’ve got an internal war going on in my head, and it’s arguing everything I feel passionate about all the time. Part of that I think is good, because I’m always trying to test what I know. I hope that I’m being skeptical and honest with myself at the same time.
But upon imagining a Christian reading that book, I didn’t feel so good about doing that. I now think that internal arguments are bad. They’re bad because they discount the other person. They’re bad because they cause resentment and anger against an imaginary adversary, and the first person who so much as says “boo” gets all that welled-up, trumped-up and fake anger blown at them.
Anyway, I’m just noticing this, and I’m going to start working on it for myself. I hope maybe other people will notice this stuff. It just doesn’t seem healthy or a particularly reality-based way to deal with other people. If I’m going to argue with someone, I should actually argue with them, and not some internal made-up bad guy.
I think the first step to self-honesty is to decide who you’re really arguing with. Is it yourself, your parents, the world? God?
Siamang
Comment by: TXatheist
1Was it a small green book? Josh McDowell would be my first guess. Read it.
Comment by: Siamang
2No, it wasn’t McDowell. I’m familiar with him. It also wasn’t Strobel.
It was someone I never heard of. If I get a chance, I may buy it and write a review.
Comment by: TXatheist
3My grandma, the fundy, gave me materials and my brother(xian) actually bought me McDowell. He knew I was a skeptic so the title of McDowell’s book was enough. That’s who buys that, the xian trying to convert.
I will continue to argue with anyone who doesn’t accept that atheism is a logical, thought out choice and one that makes me content. You’re a …….. that’s fine.
Comment by: TXatheist
4It’s your money but my instinct is to not support it financially, like Bono said:)
Comment by: Stephan
5I admit to being one of those Christians who has thought about looking at those types of books to prep for an imaginary argument. But I have never actually read one. There are several reasons for this.
I am not skeptical of Christ myself, so I have no personal interest in reading it.
I have not had personal relationships with any skeptics, so I had no one to try to convince.
I have limited time, and I want the books I read to have some value to me.
I saw a couple of these books in my church library on Sunday, and for a moment I was tempted to check one out to give me arguments to use here. I didn’t check them out, mainly because I’m sure you have already heard everything in those books (as you mentioned), but also because I’m tired of arguing.
I too have had many of those internal arguments in my head, and I agree that it’s probably not altogether healthy. I take up your challenge to purge myself of imaginary arguments and try to spend my thoughts on more worthy pursuits.
Comment by: David S
6I’ve said in the past that discussion is how humanity learns and grows. We want to sort out which ideas to improve on and which to discard. However it’s easy to get burned out and feel like you’re beating your head against the wall when having religious discussions regardless which side you’re on because (as I’ve said repeatedly) religion is not rational, it is faith-based. I think Siamang’s conclusions here are useful in application to religious discussion but not applicable in general. In general, when you’re having a discussion about something with a naturalistic rational basis, debate is a good thing and that’s how we learn and grow.
Religion is a different animal. It replaces rational discussion with supernatural mysticism. That rational discussion and debate isn’t particularly fruitful with religion is just a property of religion, not a problem with rational discussion and debate.
Comment by: Ir
7Very profound comment. Thanks, Siamang.
It didn’t take much reading IIDB to realize that the rebuttals to the little green books tend to run rings around them. Christians unfortunately don’t seem to have realized they need to write medium-size green books to rebut the rebuttals if they want to convince atheists who have read the rebuttals.
I think many Christians are trying to pretend the rebuttals don’t exist by not linking to them. I can see why they won’t link to them (”we wouldn’t want to ‘lead anyone astray’!”, but it’s not as the rebuttals are hard to find with Google. You type in a book name and they all come up alongside all the sites which sell or have reviewed the book. Often the rebuttals are listed right there on page 1 of the Google search results.
Comment by: Julie Marie
8How true! I’ve also found, increasingly today in the “culture wars” that:
It never occurs to anyone anymore that those on “the other side” of the aisle, or of the question of the moment, are merely wrong, they must be either evil, or stupid, or both. (Cf. Krauthammer’s observation.)
When we can approach each other
a) not all fired up and ready to swing
and
b) with the assumption that the other person is, at worst, wrong (as opposed to stupid and evil)
then even those of opposing sides can find some common ground. That is what we usually achieve here, and I, for one, find great satisfaction and, even, at times, valuable correction here.
Comment by: Julie Marie
9could be ;) no one likes to hear their arguements don’t convince.
I’ve got a veritable stack of apologetics that I haven’t read yet. One of the valuable lessons from this experiment is that I don’t have to bother. I’ve peeked at some of them, and they are grindingly cumbersome. thats why I put them away; if the don’t even convince me, a believer, what hope is there for me to use them effectively?
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
10Like Ir, I appreciate this thought of Siamang’s:
Often in life we accidently lean against someones ignition button and all hell breaks loose. It’s good to remember that they may be facing off an internal conflict, and not to take it personally. We are all better off to ask ourselves who we are arguing with.
Comment by: Julie Marie
11please no! no medium sized green books!
Comment by: Ir
12Good point, Lisa! :)
Comment by: Jayson B.
13Siamang, it was well put, but I have to disagree with you in regards to it being unhealthy. And the reason I disagree is because that process is at the heart of us being human.
We are presented with a problem, a dilemma. We put together a strategy, and then run a simulation in our heads to see if it can work. Depending on our intelligence, we will develop strategies upon the strategies in order to insure against failure. It’s a game of chess.
Problem solving is at the core of who we are! Without it, we wouldn’t be here. Asking ourselves, “hmm, if I were presented with an atheist, how would I react? How would I prove myself against their stance,” is legitimate, and the drama that plays in our head is completely natural.
Are the explosions of passion that you describe an unfortunate side effect? yes, they can be. It’s exactly how i started out on this board: an atheist alone in his thoughts, given the chance to finally voice himself.
But is it unhealthy? No. We shouldn’t try to hold back the very thing that makes us so successful: our ability to solve problems.
Comment by: TXatheist
14Ir, the guess I had at McDowell was because of the title but yes it is a little green book.
Comment by: Julie Marie
15great analogy! the last time someone leaned against my ignition button, I fired off for 3 days. 3 days. Thats a long time! I’m still trying to figure out who I’m mad at. I’m thinking at this point its more than one who.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
16Siamang
This is why I respect and read you. You make sense - pure and simple. You are more realist than rationalist - which is what it will take to MTWABP.
No queston but that the book was wrtten for Cs prepping for for an Atheist. It is a stupid but marketable idea (not unlike many atheist related writings/prodcutions (see Dawkins)
We are relational beings so how we think about/feel about and talk about each other matters greatly.
Our work at OTM is largely centered around this reality - Helping Cs think about/talk about and feel differently towards those groups we typically dismiss or name call behinds their backs.
From the discussions on this blog thus far - Other than you or Ir - it appears that Atheists don’t suffer from this malady and are amazingly open minded and receptive toward difference which I salute(even if I retain my skepticism)
But I do know that Cs suffer from this and more and more I find them , like you , tired of the name calling, tired of the demonizing and tired of us/them.
We started this blog as a way to expose Cs to the thinking of a group of people they typically dismiss. It has been wildly successful in helping Cs reframe Atheists as normal human beings who simply “look at the same evidence and come to different set of conclusions”
I think that is progress and also think it is as good as it’s going to get this side of heaven( sorry I’m still anticipating that(fairytale for some but not all)
This life sucks in many uncontrollable ways but people like you Siamang give me hope to heep going.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
17Amen
Comment by: Rick
18I occasionally had similar thoughts about the Chick tracts. They expect to convert people by using some cartoons scripts with a crappy storyline!?!? And I concur with Siamang about how such articles/books tend to be devisive and none of them has any convincing answers. Their entire purpose is to have more talking points in the debate, not valid conlusions.
Comment by: 2e
19I try to refrain from being the guy who buys those books. I actually don’t feel like apologetics and good arguments will do much to convert anyone. Facts don’t change people’s minds very often. Either way, that is.
But, I do appreciate your point about creating a straw man to shadow box with, only to let loose when someone with flesh-and-bone comes along. That is just about being honest, healthy in arguing, and valuing people as individuals. I think Jesus did that.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
20I’m inclined to agree with Jayson here. I think it is characteristic of who we are, especially if we’re one of those with an analytical bent. I simply cannot avoid thinking through approaches to problems.
But, of course, that doesn’t mean that we then dump some “canned”, pre-thought response on the first poor schmuck who gives us an excuse. If we are serious, thoughtful people we will listen hard and carefully to questions and the pre-thinking will not be dumped as so much pre-packaged philosophy.
For Julie Marie, and others to whom the same or opposite situation may apply, I would encourage the reading of “the little green books” whether they may provide Christian or atheistic perspectives. The reason is that I think it is always helpful to know what other thinkers have thought on any given subject.
If you are a newbie, some book may appear to have the perfect response for every question. But if you are a serious student, as time goes by you will come to recognize some short-comings there. Doesn’t mean that first book was wrong. It may just be elementary, incomplete, or otherwise insuficiently sophisticated. (Of course, it may be wrong, too. ;-) ) So read the apologetics. Learn all you can. Just understand that they will only take you so far, and then you have to continue on your way thinking for yourself.
Comment by: Marty
21One of the things that I have learned as that we (I) read/listen to only those things that I am predisposed to agree with - which only reinforces that what I thought was right. For instance - I had never picked up a book or searched the Internet to find out what Atheists think/believe and the basis for that. I have learned much and have a dramatically different opinion now that I have had the opporunity to learn from some of the Atheists on this blog.
I am also keenly aware that my willingness to listen and learn is heavily driven by what I think of someone and how they come across to me. That started with learning from Ir and Siamang and being very drawn to how they think/reason, how the communicate and that they come from an introspective point of view. I have now learned that I have at least two friends (probably way more) that I didn’t know were Atheists. From that, I realize that if I want to have any influence on someone, I need to follow the examples of Siamang and Ir. But I have become aware that I give a greater gift by just listening to others - and I learn more that way.
Comment by: Cully
22I read this book, or something very like it at least, back when I was “doubting.” I guess it was my hope that something there would shore up my own personal beliefs. In the end the arguments contained inside were not very convincing. I still occasionally look up topics like this on the net, especially when I am in a discussion about it here, so that I can try and foresee what the other side of the argument might be. Not because I am arguing, but because I am trying to understand. I do the same thing with my secular interests. I read bad reviews of movies I loved to see why someone else found fault with it. I read about Japanese culture to try and understand why manga and cosplay are so popular there, but not here. I read Republican commentary to try and understand their reasoning behind their stances. I don’t see any of that as arguing with the world or myself, I see it as examining the tapestry a little closer, attempting understand why a weaver would place a blue thread there when I personally would have made it yellow.
I will admit that there are times when I can only take so much of it. When I yell at some Rush Limbaugh wanna-be on the radio, or close a book in disgust at how blind some one is. I don’t however, feel like I’ve ever transferred that disgust to someone who wasn’t involved in the source of the original emotion.
Comment by: Ir
23I’m not questioning what you said - this is more of a thought that your words triggered than a disagreement:
When someone changes our mood we probably go into the next encounter with an altered mood, which will have at least subtle effects on how we treat that person, even if we are self-aware enough not to directly transfer our anger at one person onto another.
Comment by: Eliza
24I read a bunch of ‘apologist’ literature over the past year. I was really hoping to find some key explanation or argument that would hang together for me. Unfortunately, the arguments all seemed tortured (imo) and actually kind of pathetic from a skeptic’s point of view, and all ended up something like, “voila!!” (said as apologist pulls rabbit out of hat, ie points to the Bible as ultimate authority to answer questions about the Bible, um that’s circular).
However, good news, I can suggest a way to shorten the thin green book substantially. It all comes down to this: “Have faith! Believe!” and the argument ends (from the apologist author’s point of view).
(BTW, anyone have a better term than ‘apologist’? It just seems kinda rude…)
Comment by: skikid
25I love it when something I have learned so many times hits me again. I guess it resonates with me and politics especially. I have very strongly held views, and I am surrounded with media and people who constantly support those views. I have that mental argument going on in my head (why the other side is wrong). So I wonder what would happen if I really just listen the next time I meet someone who does not share my political persuasions? Thanks for the light bulb moment folks!
Comment by: Stephan
26Eliza, I think you hit it right on the head. As I have spent time here and have heard what some apologists have said, I can refute them almost by rote, even though I agree with them. I realize how thin our logical arguments for God and Christianity can be. “Have faith! Believe!” I honestly think it boils down to that.
Not that I don’t have reasons to believe, but in the end the reasons aren’t the things that get you there.
Comment by: Ir
27Eliza wrote:
I think that’s the technical term, actually.
Comment by: Ir
28I think that’s the technical term, actually.
Comment by: Siamang
29Yes, the field is called “apologetics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics
Comment by: Tom E
30A more generic term applicalbe to both sides might be polemicist.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
31Siamang- I would be interested in your observations about how the repsonses to this topic went in your opinion.
Did we grow much as a group?
Did we fall into old habits?
Did you feel energized by our responses or did you feel that we stayed away from the harder issues?
Did we learn anything new or interesting about ourselves or others?
What is your take on the process?
Comment by: Esther
32I agree on this point, too.
However, as some of you pointed out, believe in God is an irrational thing. I don’t argue that I need “faith” to believe in God. But, when the “fundy Cs” yelled, “Have faith, believe”. I’ll ask,- “believe what?”
Unfortunitely, they are asking us to believe in a set of men-made doctrine and human’s interpretation of the Bible.
I would respond: That does not need “faith” to believe. That just requires logical thinking to dis-believe!
Comment by: Mike C
33There are three assumptions that you make here that I’m not sure I can agree with:
1) That “Naturalistic” based topics (e.g. science?) are entirely rational. (There is certainly a fair amount of “faith” involved in any scientific/naturalistic pursuit, cf. any postmodern philosopher - Rorty, Foucault, Derrida, etc.)
2) That religion is entirely irrational. While you’re right to say that it is based on faith, I would say that in religion, as in science and pretty much any other human pursuit, faith is the starting point for reason.
3) That “faith” and “reason” are mutually exclusive categories. Instead I would claim that faith is what makes reason possible in the first place. One cannot successfully use the tools of reason unless one first accepts on faith that such tools are actually valid and present us with a relatively accurate representation of reality.
Just my perspective… hope you don’t mind me going all philosophical on you for a second. :)
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
34An illustration of Mike’s point and a comments on Eliza’s in #24: Much of the “evidence” in the world for anything is sufficiently ambiguous that it will support whateveer a priori suppositions and assumptions we bring TO the evidence.
Last Spring I was asked to present a discussion of the evidence for a naturalistic basis for religion. Short version: There is some interesting research in this area. It revolves around the fact that the prefrontal cortex lights up like a Christmas tree (or holiday bush, if you prefer ;-) ) whenever a subject engages in religious activity — Bhuddists chanting, nuns praying the rosary, for examples.
There are two equally logical possibilities to explain this, depending on one’s presuppositions.
A naturalistic assumption would recognize that religious activities such as meditation are good for you — lowers BP, for example — and so it has survival benefit and, thus, man evolved a prefrontal cortex.
A relgious assumption would recognize that a God who is spirit and who wants to communicate with creatures who are physical must have some common point of interaction, and, thus, God created the prefrontal cortex to serve as the “antenna” for spiritual interactions.
You may find one or the other explanation more appealing, but both address the facts of the evidence. It is the a priori assumptions that push us one way or the other. Not the evidence.
Comment by: Siamang
35Jim Henderson wrote:
Siamang- I would be interested in your observations about how the repsonses to this topic went in your opinion.
My take on the process was really to provoke a discussion. I gauge my success by the number of posters. I think this was a popular topic.
I’m not really looking for an answer from people on this one, just hoping to light up a lightbulb for people. A few people expressed that in this thread, so I’m pretty happy with that.
I think that some folks are going around on the question of evidence and a priori assumptions. Kind of off-topic, but still really what a lot of discussions are about around here.
I thought about blogging a discussion of “evidence” but I didn’t want to post a debatey topic, and I couldn’t figure out a way to turn it into a personal point, which I was trying to do.
What I learned from the process of blogging is what I thought I’d learn: That it’s HARD to come up with good stuff that keeps people talking. I was afraid I had said a lot already, and didn’t have enough to add.
That people posted with thoughtful conversations on the subjects made me feel like “cool!”
I enjoyed my three days as guest blogger, but I’m also glad to pass the pressure on to someone else!
Very enjoyable, folks.
Comment by: David S
36Amen.
Though I understand how belief brings some comfort or otherwise feels like the right thing.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
37Thanks Siamang
Comment by: Eliza
38“That’s why religion thrives in an age of reason. You can’t simply think God out of existence, because religious feelings rise more from experience than from thought. They are born in a moment of spiritual connection, as real to the brain as any perception of ‘ordinary’ physical reality.”
- Andrew Newberg, neurotheologist (!), co-author of “Why God Won’t Go Away”
as quoted in “Inside the Mind of God: Images and Words of Inner Space” by Michael Reagan
Thanks, Siamang - and Jim!
Comment by: Mike
39Unfortunately, Christian folks have forgotten that the most effective apologetics are the personal testimonies. While academic defense of Christianity is certainly appreciative, it is not so effective especially in this post-modernist era where you can argue every side of a particular issue and yet still reach no conclusion. It’s more of a “who has the loudest voice”.
Jesus Christ put it bluntly: “YOU will be my witnesses”. The past and the future can be questioned, but the evidence from people’s life can hardly be rejected. So as a Christian, I would like to apologize to people like you for providing you minimal evidence of God’s work in our lives. May you come in contact with a person that is indeed full of God. I am sure such evidence would impress you more than Lee Strobel’s and McDowell’s books.
God bless you, sir.