Peaceful non-cooperation

Posted by Jason on: 10.06.2008 /

This anecdote might spur some thought on the “to fight or not to fight” debate.

I was visited at the weekend by a Jehovah’s Witness, a pleasant lady called Sue. I’ve had lots of encounters with JWs and similar (I’m sure we all have). It made me feel clever to cut through their foundationless beliefs with my twin swords of rationalism and scientific evidence. It also achieved nothing. Away they would go leaving me with the obligatory copy of Watchtower that I would never read.

I thought I might try something different with Sue so I invited her into my home after telling her that I am an atheist. At first, she came on strong with the Jesus/Bible stuff. I gave her unbridled airspace, just acknowledging what she was saying without offering comment on it.

After about 20 minutes on the soapbox, she said, “I get a lot of rejection and I expected the same from you as a non-believer. Yet all you’ve done is listen to me. You’ve been courteous and friendly and I’m not used to that.”

We then went “off message” to talk about our jobs, families etc. I noticed that she put her magazines back in her bag as we talked. At length, she asked me, “What has made you reject God?” I don’t like to prattle on about evolution any more as I’ve found it’s largely a waste of time to try to persuade someone verbally on the truth of it. Instead, Sue left with a copy of The Selfish Gene (that’s about the 7th copy I’ve given out over the years). I suggested she look at the contents and dip into any part that might be of interest. “Tell me what you think,” were my parting words to her.

Now, where’s the value in that encounter? Is Sue going to read a paragraph of Dawkins and the blinkers fall off? No. Will she read any of it? I don’t know. The real value is that we are now connected as people. As well as mutual respect, there is warmth and friendliness and probably the beginnings of trust. I am confident that Sue will at least return my book which will allow for another conversation.

What result would I have got by “fighting” her? Another Watchtower thrust into my hands probably and entrenchment on both sides. Would she have admired my intellectual prowess? Be swayed by my incisive polemic? Not a chance.

Fighting, in my opinion, will simply increase the divide. We need to find a cause for unity as a first objective. The common ground is our humanity. I believe we should start there. A successful strategy from history that is close to this view was Gandhi’s “peaceful non-cooperation” that freed India in the last century.

We as naturalist Brights have many more things in common with the most fundamentalist religious extremist than we have differences from them. Perhaps that is our real goal, to highlight and celebrate the positive qualities common to all people. Perhaps that could help relegate contrived belief systems and hypocrisies to the league of the unimportant.

I’m off to order my eighth copy of The Selfish Gene.

There are a number of reasons that I enjoyed reading this.  It reminds me of my friend Pete, a Jehovah’s witness for the past three years, who must go through the rejection and negativity every week.  I might well say that any ill feelings he receives are only those that he’s invited on himself.  On the other hand there’s still some sort of determination in him to persist in facing people week after week who just slam the door in his face.  I wouldn’t do it.

 

 

I’m reminded that the “twin swords of rationalism and scientific evidence” are excellent tools for cutting down arguments but almost totally useless in getting people to change their views.  A well crafted argument backed by strong evidence will only sway someone who is willing to be listen and keep an open mind.  The act of destroying someone’s point in a discussion will not achieve that, it will simply cause them to entrench in their position.

I’ve spoken before about forming a connection with people, I’ve called it spirituality.  Grant put this into practice in his anecdote.  I don’t doubt that he learnt something about the belief system of JWs and Sue learnt something about the mindset of one particular free thinker.  What I don’t see is anyone being offended or annoyed.  In fact Sue is surprised.  The conversion attempt is now fixed in her memory as a positive experience.  Not because she got another convert, she didn’t, but because it was different and enjoyable.  Grant also gained from the exchange as you can see from the anecdote.

He mentions Gandhi, a man in history who I have an enormous of respect for and the chief argument against a literal hell.  Gandhi, of course, wasn’t perfect but he was a wonderful example of resisting a system that you want to change in a peaceful and productive manner.  There are things about the system of religion that I want to change, mainly dogmatic things and often things that are changing anyway.

He mentions The Selfish Gene and Richard Dawkins, not as an example of a leading atheist scientist but as a book and author that might be of interest.  A source of ideas that will certainly challenge, as good ideas should, but will also entertain.  Dawkins isn’t held up as a challenger to religious faith, as the only alternative to belief.  Instead he’s simply a source of ideas that are free to be dipped into at leisure.  The fear that he wants to convert Sue or strip away her faith is removed.

Finally Grant points out a very simple truth.  Rather than focus on the differences that JWs and atheists have, our beliefs and lack of them, he unites two people by the one thing that all people have in common, our shared humanity.  Something that is so blindingly obvious that we all need to be reminded of it from time to time.

Oh, as a postscript he also promotes book sharing which is something that I’ve recently started looking into.

Copyright 2010 Off The Map | Terms of Service | Contact Webmaster | Powered by Wordpress | Admin