The language barrier

Lately I’ve been realizing just how much of a problem the language barrier is when it comes to just about everything. We use language all the time to communicate. Verbal language, written language, body language, computer language, etc. So many of the difficulties we have are caused by the language barrier.

In order for a language to work, everyone communicating must use the same definition. If I say “boat” and you think of what I would call a “horse”, then the language doesn’t work. The whole point is to communicate an idea by evoking in you the same mental image/concept I’m picturing. (Denotation)

But perhaps the most complex and problem causing aspect of language is connotation. Denotation refers to the literal object/concept, but connotation deals with how people interpret/feel about that object/concept. Everyone has their own personal experiences, preferences, and biases. Whenever I write, one of the most difficult tasks is trying to choose words that will convey the same emotions and flavor for a concept that I feel, but to my audience.

So we have two aspects of language that affect how we communicate ideas: denotation and connotation. In order for us to communicate effectively, both must line up. Lately I feel like this is an almost impossible task.

Take politics and religion. Two extremely important topics that impact the lives of billions of people everyday. They are also two of the most emotionally charged topics given how they are fundamental to how many people think about themselves, their identity, the world, their place in it, and how things ought to be. Given the extreme personal nature of these topics, any given concept’s connotation might vary widely from person to person. Same can be said of denotations.

For example, it is almost impossible to have a discussion about religion. In order to have good communication and a rational discussion, both parties must agree on the definition of terms. What is religion? What qualifies as a “religion”, what doesn’t? What is a god? What are the qualities associated with this concept? What is a Christian? What qualities/beliefs are associated with that concept? The answers to all of these will vary from person to person. (This is why I get some much crap when I generalize because what might apply to someone else might not apply to you, and vice versa.) You could spend hours debating these concepts alone before you even got to actually discussing what you wanted to discuss.

Instead, most people skip this phase and go straight into firing off their memorized lines at the other person. Nothing gets conveyed, nobody’s mind gets changed, they might as well be speaking in foreign languages; in fact, they pretty much are.

While I’ve noticed denotation problems seem to populate the realm of religious discussion, problems of connotation are particularly rampant when it comes to political discussion. A perfect example is the term “liberal.” Conservatives are masters of language manipulation. They can take a word, shift its connotation, and thus frame and entire issue in their favor. For decades they did (and still do) this with the word “liberal.” By repeating the word with an ugly connotation, as if it was an epithet, they shifted the flavor and emotions surrounding that concept to something ugly. “Liberal” became something disgusting, something to hide from, something un-American. Today’s hot button word is “socialism.” Conservatives are pushing to shift the connotation of that word to something akin to communism.

So how is a rational discussion of ideas and concepts possible when, at the word “liberal”, you think “un-American, big government, communist, elitist”, and at the word “conservative”, I think “fascist, bigoted, greedy theocratic American Taliban”? Short answer: it isn’t.

The sad fact of life is that rational discussion of the issues is no longer possible. The idea of having a “debate” is a complete farce. In order to actually have these discussions we would need to first agree on the denotations and then connotations, otherwise we’re speaking different languages. Quite simply, we don’t have the attention span for that. Instead, all of our issues are decided by who has more babies, which demographic is dying out, and who gets their voters to the polls. That’s it. Reality be damned.

So you want to have a discussion?

I came across this amazing flowchart on OneFuriousLlama’s blog and then found out about this awesome website Atheistresources. Even though it’s titled “debating a christian” it’s applicable to all discussions. I never cease to be surprised at how many people don’t understand these basic rules for having a rational debate, no matter what the topic is.

(click to enlarge)

Macro arguments vs Micro arguments

I feel a lot of times atheists get bogged down arguing the particulars of a religion. While this can be fun sometimes, it can be extremely aggravating as it gives the religious a lot more room to wiggle out of things, redefine terms, move the goal posts, be vague, etc. The way I see it, all of the arguments tailored to their religion can easily be nullified by attacking the source: the existence of god. If you can shut them down here, then it doesn’t matter what some book says, or what they feel in their gut, or what a friend told them. Every single argument they could make about their religion depends on the assumption that god exists.

The simple fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of god; all they have are logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, and “god of the gaps” arguments. With the null hypothesis, burden of proof, and Occam’s razor all in your favor, their claims fall to the floor. Just keep asking for evidence at every turn. For example: “Well who made god?” “Oh, he’s eternal and outside time and space, the law of cause and effect doesn’t apply to him.” “Oh, that’s a convenient ad hoc fallacy. What evidence do you have that god, if he/she/it hypothetically existed, contains those traits of being eternal and outside time and space?” At this point they probably will come at you asking “well who made the universe”, which assumes several things, but you can point out that the way the universe operates, it would be able to create itself without the need of a god. The idea that it’s ok to say “I don’t know” really baffles believers. Uncertainty scares them, hence why they cling to the false certainty and security of faith. Point out that we don’t have all the answers right now, but that you’re willing to work to discover them rather than throw up your hands and declare “god did it!”

If you can master these macro arguments and keep asking for evidence every time they claim god has X,Y,Z attributes, all the micro arguments about the bible’s validity, or Jesus’ divinity, etc, don’t matter at all.

(Note: this isn’t as well worded as I would like, so I’m probably going to edit this, but I just wanted to get this out there before I went to sleep. I’ll fix it when I’m no longer exhausted)

The atheist dilemma:To be a dick or not to be a dick.

One of the issues the atheist community is currently internally debating is the issue of strategy: How to go about achieving our goals; namely a world where religion does not interfere in politics or science (in the classroom or by restricting what science examines), and where non-believers are not demonized or penalized for their disbelief. Basically: How to get us from the current position of religious saturation in all aspects of life to post-atheism where religion isn’t an issue.  There are many aspects to this process including how we organize ourselves, what do we call ourselves, how do we best allocate our resources, what court battles do we pick to fight and when, etc… The issue I wanted to talk about today was how should we go about helping the religious to see things our way,  thus weakening the power religion has over society and our lives. What I am discussing falls under the umbrella debate on accommodationism/reconciliation (whether science and religion can be compatible. I don’t think they can, but that’s not what I want to focus on).  Instead, I would like to discuss how we interact with religious people, the tactics we use, the tone of voice, etc.

The other day I read this post on Rule Hibernia titled “Richard Dawkins doesn’t get it”. Here’s a little excerpt that kinda encompasses the point of the post:

“This is what Dawkins and other don’t get: Some people you just can’t reach. Simple as that. People believe in god and religion for a whole bunch of reasons but the fundamental point is that they are all thinking in a human way, and humans it seems have a natural propensity to believe in rubbish that isn’t true. This applies to pretty much everything, not just religion. Every single atheist on the planet has blind spots, religion just happens to be off their blind spot list. We all believe certain rubbish that’s not true.The biggest mistake atheists make is to try and reason with the religious. I get so bored when I hear religious argument nowadays. I used to engage in it myself but I stopped when I finally got it. You’re not going to convert people to atheism if that is your intention. And if you want to debate for the sake of it then what’s the fucking point in that? You’re just wasting your time. The best way to deal with religious people is humour and ridicule. Slag the shit out of them. Show how retarded they are in a funny way. It makes you feel better and makes a religious person feel worse, but best of all, there is no comeback for ridicule. When you can get others to laugh at a person’s stupidity it’s very difficult for them to come back from it. And let’s face it, making fun of religions is as easy as a Catholic priest raping a 9 year old altar boy with loads of lube.”

Rule Hibernia’s sentiment was reiterated in part by The Good Atheist podcast (episode 107) at the Atheist Alliance International conference in Montreal, QC. Jacob Fortin gave a short speech entitled “Be a dick” (around the 25 minute mark in the podcast) where he highlighted the why it’s sometimes necessary to be a dick. He argues that occasionally it’s best to shame the average believer by showing them how little they know. Yes they will hate you and get defensive, but it might lead them to examine their beliefs later on in an attempt to better defend themselves next time. Secondly, it is important to shatter the notion that anything can be sacred, that something can be beyond questioning and ridicule. Lastly, Jacob said the most important thing being a dick does is that it provides relief for other atheists. He points out, and rightly so, that a lot of atheists are isolated in extremely religious communities and are forced to keep silent day in and day out. It’s like a boiler about to explode. Listening to other atheists ridicule religion provides a refreshing dose of relief.

The counterargument, or “Don’t be a dick” side, was presented at The Amazing Meeting 8 by Phil Plait who gave a speech aptly titled “Don’t be a dick.” In the speech he made the following points:  How many people have changed their mind because somebody made them feel awful? How do you tell someone they’re not thinking clearly when they’re not thinking clearly? Our brains are wired for faith; when you debunk a position, you end up reinforcing it. Skepticism is a tough sell: no magic, no afterlife, no higher moral authoritative father figure, no security, no happy ever after. On top of this, our reputation with the rest of society isn’t that great. In many cases people will prefer magic over science and prefer fantasy over reality. People’s sense of identity is wrapped up in their beliefs. With all the odds stacked against us, why the hell would we want to make it harder by insulting people? What is our goal every time we engage somebody? Are we trying to score personal points and make oursevles feel good, or are we trying to win the game?

This issue was also brought up on the podcast Reasonable Doubts. On that episode their guest was accommodationalist  Chris Mooney who made the following points: People like Dawkins and PZ Myers are really hostile sometimes; it’s not going to persuade anyone who is not on the fence. If you can’t be calm and rational when talking to another person, you’re not a very good practitioner of reason, but this doesn’t mean we have to be nicey nicey. Mooney and the hosts of Reasonable Doubts brought up a recent study on Science and Religion Today by Geoffrey Munro, professor of psychology at Towson University. The study found the following: people are more receptive to science that might disprove their beliefs if their worth and value as a person are affirmed before they go into it. People don’t make up their mind simply on facts. When people are presented with scientific information that contradicts their beliefs, they tend to devalue science and it’s ability to answer such questions. Basically, shouting at someone and tearing them down does not win them to your side, it only makes them despise you and hold onto their beliefs that much stronger…go figure. (This conclusion is backed up by several other studies, google “backfire effect”)

After the interview with Mooney ended, the hosts continued on to ask these questions: Do we alienate people who could be our allies on some things? What if we were back in the 60’s and you’re trying to get civil rights passed? Do you try and treat racist people with respect, affirming their self-worth, even though they hold such horrible and wrong positions? How do you act differently when you’re debating a factual issue (like the world being 4 billion years old) as opposed to a moral issue (like the catholic church systematically hiding and protecting thousands of child rapists, deterring condom use in AIDs infected Africa, or excommunicating rape victims for having abortions) Should you coddle people when presenting science and ridicule when talking about morality?

The Chariots of Iron podcast has also talked about this a bit. In episode 29, titled “Counter-evangelism” (starts around 1:11:00) they suggest the following approach: Don’t be a dick, avoid arguing with them, instead use the Socratic method till they hang themselves. Play stupid and get them to say out loud the ridiculous stuff they believe. Hopefully then ridicule won’t be overly necessary. The whole point is to plant the seed of doubt, not to deconvert them outright. Once the doubt is there, it will start them on the path to deconversion.

So how do I feel about all this? Well it’s a mixed bag. It’s undeniable that the science points to the fact that blasting someone out right for their beliefs will not change their mind. I think it’s obvious that when trying to plant the seed in someone’s head you must do so gently and respectfully. Try not to let them know what you’re actually doing. There is an old Buddhist proverb where Buddha comes across a burning house with children inside. The children do not know the house is on fire, and they won’t understand if he shouts to them to run because of the fire. Instead he calls to them that he has toys outside. The children run out of the house and only after that is he able to explain that the house was on fire. I feel that most of the time we have to act in a similar way. This is not to say we must compromise on the facts, but we must take baby steps. If you can get someone to accept the fact of evolution then that’s a step. After they’re comfortable with that, then you can start slowly working on pushing them further, one step at a time. If you push to hard and too fast, they’ll close up and you’ll never get through to them.

What about ridicule? Is it completely useless and counterproductive? Not entirely. Thomas Jefferson once said “Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions.” Here is where I think Rule Hibernia has a point: There are some people out there that are absolutely impervious to reason and evidence. Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, and Bill Donahue come to mind. Trying to use reason against people who deny that reason is a means of arriving at truth is pure insanity.  For these people the goal is different. The goal is not to change their minds, that’s impossible; the goal is to publicly destroy their credibility and integrity. This is where ridicule works best. As the hosts on Reasonable Doubts discussed, I believe the nature of what you’re ridiculing determines how you ridicule. People like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort make fools of themselves with their factually ridiculous claims about the physical world. Here you can just satirize them without much venom. People like the pope, however, are much more sinister in their transgressions. Despite the fact that the pope and his confederates are guilty of actual crimes, they are also guilty of a great many moral ones. (Like the ones I pointed out earlier) In these cases vicious ridicule would be applicable.

Chris Mooney pointed out that combative authors like Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Hitchens don’t win over converts and I’m inclined to agree.  This does not mean that such authors don’t have a role to play. Combative authors are most effective when targeting people sitting on the fence and rallying other atheists to action.  Their books, along with podcasts, youtube videos, and local meetup groups are often the only bubble of relief that many atheists can retreat to. When you’re an underpowered and maligned minority, it’s vitally important that you have a minority space. Combative authors and satire play a role in this minority space. Outside, however, ridicule has no place in discussion with another person who’s heart and mind you’re trying to win over. It only alienates and deemns them and reflects poorly on you if your positions can’t stand on their merits alone.

The atheist knows your faith better than you do

Let me start off with a disclaimer: This is not true for every atheist and every theist. There are a handful of theists who really know their faith, and there are a handful of atheists that just don’t give a shit about religion enough to know.

It has been my experience, associating with other atheists, that as a general trend most atheists know  the average believer’s faith better than the believer. What do I mean by that? Well it seems to me that atheists, on the whole, are more familiar with the doctrines, dogma, and scripture than the average person. How can this be?

Simple. Many atheists grew up in a religious household. They were taught the scripture, they went to worship, they experienced the whole thing. Religion and the truth were important enough to them that they paid attention. They’ve taken the time to seriously examine their faith, and that of others. Over the course of their own personal journey they realized that it was all bunk.

On top of that, just trying being an open atheist for one day. You’d constantly be under attack from other “loving” believers. It helps to know their religion in order to run circles around them. You get good at and remember something you constantly do. If you’re constantly having to defend yourself from the religious, you learn those religions in and out. I’m an atheist. I’ve read the bible, cover to cover, not just the “good bits”. I know plenty of other atheists that have also read the bible cover to cover.

It is my experience from interacting with believers (of which I was one until about 4 years ago), that most people just grow up, go to church a couple of times a year, and never give anything much though. It’s just a motion one does within society in order to be viewed as a good person. Some people may go more often, say every week, but even they don’t always seriously examine what they’re swallowing. When these people meet an atheist, they’re surprised by the oddity. “What do you mean you don’t believe in god? Everyone believes in god!” I can’t tell you how many times a believer tries to lecture me on religion, as if I were ignorant of it, as if I was an atheist just because I had never heard the gospel story before. I get the feeling a lot of believers look at atheists this way. “Oh, they just don’t know, they’ve never thought about it, they’re just ignorant.”

I love to see the look on their faces when they’re shocked to find that this is the exact opposite of what’s going on. The jarring shock when they find out that the atheist HAS heard it all before, that the atheist DOES know that bible verse, along with it’s context, the book it’s in, and even a handful of other bible verses that contradict it. What a surprise! The intimidation then mounts as they see the atheist can navigate easily through the dogma and bible, make connections, build a case, compare with other faiths, point out logical fallacies, explain scientific fact, highlight contradictions, atrocities, provide alternative natural explanations, understands history, can name names, dates, events, the list goes on.

You see, in order to be an open atheist and engage other people on the subject, you must have at the very least a cursory understanding of Christianity, it’s various sects, the differences between those sects, the bible, biblical contradictions, other religions, world history, where religion fits into that history, politics, law and legal documents, ethics, philosophy, logic, reasoning, and a little science never hurts. In order to be successful, you must know at least the basic pillars of somebody’s faith, and the next guy’s. The bar is so much higher for an atheist. Most theists just know what they believe, their label, and perhaps a small handful of worthless platitudes. They just don’t bother to learn anything else. On several occasions I’ve had to explain to somebody that they are not what they label themselves as because what they believe does not fit the doctrine of the label they think they belong to. They don’t even know the official tenants of their own faith. >.<

Having to know all this information may seem daunting, but at least the arguments for god are finite. Yes, there are only so many arguments for believing in an invisible man in the sky who magically created everything with a wave of his hand. A lot of the arguments are just rewording other arguments. After a short period of time you will have heard them all, and every single one of them has been debunked over and over again. (Just google any argument) It’s a little maddening sometimes. Theists start to sounds like broken records, spouting the same failed argument over and over again. You soon learn all these arguments along with their strengths and weaknesses. Another thing that really shocks theists is when you can quickly name the argument they just postulated. In my experience, most of them memorize an argument they heard, don’t really think about it or where it came from, and just spit it out at you thinking it’ll work like a silver bullet. They always fail and are surprised when I show them that I’ve heard that before, name it, and point out why it fails. “Oh, that’s called Pascal’s wager”, “That’s called an argument from ignorance”, “That’s called god of the gaps”, etc…

So next time you think you can easily prove to an atheist that a god exists, and further that your specific religion is true, think twice; chances are that atheist knows your faith better than you.

(As a side treat, here are two lists, of common arguments debunked. List 1, List 2)

The bible does not matter

One of the most annoying things non-christians have to deal with is christians throwing bible verses at them. Look, we all know you think that book has some kind of magical power, and that it is the key to absolute truth, etc, etc, but we don’t.

Injecting bible verses into a debate, or onto an object do not help your argument. No one has ever seen a bible verse and gone “Oh my gosh! I’ve been wrong this entire time! Reality and evidence don’t matter after all! The magical power radiating from this righteous verse has shown me the way!”

In fact, using bible verses actual hurts your argument. To thinking people it shows that you do not have enough support for your claims, and so you must fall back on a book that you, and you alone, hold as absolute truth. Well guess what, sorry, but that doesn’t prove shit. (Not that you’d care)

When I was a christian, I used to think the bible had some kind of magical power. When I accidentally knocked mine off the desk, I would freak out, dust it off, and pray for forgiveness having possibly damaged it. It was sacred. I thought that I could use it, combined with a cross, to hold back evil spirits. Now that I’ve grown up, I realize that the bible is just a book, just like any other book. It is simply ink printed on paper. It has to magical powers, and is mass produced like all the other books.

It’s funny when people bring it up in a debate. “Well in verse X god says ABC”! I always want to reply: “Oh really? Well in Harry Potter, book 3, Dumbledore says XYZ!” I’m pretty sure I’d get a dumbfounded look on their face. “Bu…bu..but THAT’s not the BIBLE!” Look buddy, you can scream it as loud as you want, or say it with as much reverence as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that it is still just a book that you personally believe to be the word of god, and sorry, no matter how deeply you believe in something, that faith doesn’t make it true.

What if your truth doesn’t match reality?

Theists, if there was a clear discrepancy between what your “absolute truth” says and what reality shows you, would you admit that your “absolute truth” is wrong, and thus not absolute?

I feel most theists would admit they don’t have all the answers, but what about those who would still hold onto ideas that can clearly be shown not to fit with reality? How do you argue with them? I figure you can’t really argue with them. If you play by the rules of “reality is impartial and final” like the rest of the world, and they don’t, then there is no point.

How do you deal with these people? Usually you just walk away and ignore them, but what do you do when people like this rise to positions of power? How do you combat them when they don’t care if reality says they’re nuts, and killing them only makes them martyrs?

So who wins? Religion or Atheism?

So in the great debate who wins? Religion or Atheism? Which makes a stronger case? Well obviously I side with Atheism, but why, when many more people side with religion.

Religion has no evidence to back up its claim that god(s) exist. The religious argue that surely we must have come from somewhere (see Unmoved Mover), but then make a completely unwarranted exception for god when someone asks where he/she/it came from, thus making the logic ad hoc. (The above link has a list of just about every argument for the existence of god(s) and rebuttals)

The religious also argue that things look designed, and therefore they are designed, presumably by their choice god who then takes a keen interest in his creation’s daily lives. Yet science has consistently debunked this idea:

(The “Made Easy” series has a LOT of really great educational videos that explain all types of scientific things on youtube.com, just search for them)

Religion also relies on its position of authority. Many of the religious were raised by religious parents, who in turn were raised by their religious parents. To them belief in god(s) is just natural, something they were raised with, and few ever think to question it. This position of authority is reinforced with elaborate costumes and large, imposing structures:

The whole point of these structures is to overwhelm the visitor with their grandeur, to make them think “Surely, the people who reside in this place cannot be wrong!” Yet they can be, for they are exactly that, people. The believers are also comforted in their belief by the existence of a great many like believers. (See ad populum fallacy)

So, what about Atheism? Well personally, I feel Atheism is strengthened through the weakness of the religious arguments, their total lack of evidence. The thing that really does it for me is the fact that science has a steady track record of discoveries and breakthroughs, religion has a steady track record of being proved wrong. Science has consistently provided natural explanations that are testable, repeatable, and thus proveable, whereas religion just makes claims based off of authority.

For some people, religion’s weak arguments and heavy reliance on arbitrary authority are enough, but for me and a growing number of people they aren’t.