A Question About the Most Effective Way to Reach Believers and My Response

I was emailed the following question and I responded to it. See what you think:
I just read your book and, like others, really think your "Outsider Test Of Faith" is one of the best recent contributions to the literature. The best thing about it is that it is non-coercive and honest. As such, it is a challenge that is far less threatening than perhaps might be posed by other atheists/agnostics/skeptics. I have one quick question:

To me, the OTF makes perfect sense. I don't really see how one cannot deny the validity without blatantly exposing their own bias. But as you know, religious believers are dealing with an entirely different set of biases, issues, and concerns. Have you had much success in getting them to at least consider it? If so, what approach have you seen as most fruitful? In other words, how the heck do you get through to people that it matters? :)

Here is an example. I have a friend that is Mormon. We had a chance to discuss her faith and she said that, given a hypothetical choice between knowing that Joseph Smith lied about the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or just living on as she is, she would rather live on. She said she just had too much comfort. Of course, she backtracked by saying she already knew it was true anyways. But what is the best way to show someone like this that there is more at stake than just comfort? It's quite interesting because in this specific case (and with many other intelligent Mormons I know) there is an amazing display of compartmentalizing going on. But when it comes to their religious beliefs the mind turns off.

I have always felt that the skeptic is at a disadvantage in these discussions because, to the believer, they seem to be offering nothing but the loss of their dear, comforting, beliefs. How would you go about presenting the case so that it is more clear what is at stake, what they have to gain (or what they have to lose by devoting their life to a lie)? I have always felt that getting a person to honestly and critically examine their beliefs is THE key. Once they are ready to be honest and objective the rest of the arguments can't really be stopped. But bridging that gap can be tough.
I responded as follows:
Thanks for writing. In my opinion it is extremely difficult to argue Christians out of their faith because they were not argued into it in the first place. We swim in a Christian culture. And as you say, we have nothing to offer believers when compared to the hope for God's help and heaven in the afterlife.

That's why I wrote my book. It takes a cumulative case like I offer in it to make them see that they are wrong. If you cannot get them to read it then all you have is an argument here or there, and they can usually escape the force of any one argument by punting to other background factors not on the chopping block at the moment. We either present a whole cumulative case or it will be extremely difficult. It's even difficult when we do that, like I did in my book. We must provoke enough doubt that a Christian will want to read a skeptical book like mine. So the goal would be to do that, I think. Make enough headway such that they will want to read it. That's a big enough chore in and of itself! But again it is very difficult to argue Christians out of their faith because they were not argued into it in the first place.

In my next book there are four chapters that hammer home the OTF. Don't miss it. All you can do is argue for it.

Since you mentioned a Mormon see this post of mine. I used this post in my next book.

Cheers

6 comments:

Fracture said...

Dumbo found his magic feather really comforting as well, but could still fly after he gave it up.

I always find it disappointing when someone accomplishes something beyond what they felt they were capable and then passes the credit to some mythical entity. It's often more than just platitudes... they are honestly unaware that they did it themselves through their own strength and perseverance. How sad.

Dan DeMura said...

Ironic that you post a question of how to reach out to someone still in the church...

I'm still on email newsletter from Crosswalk... this was an article in the issue I received today. by John Piper What to Say to the Depressed, Doubting, Skeptical, Confused & Angry

Points that struck me were that a believer is being encouraged that they have the truth.. they are encouraged to persevere with the person doubting faith and are encouraged to trust that "moving from not seeing and feeling the reality of Christ to seeing and feeling the reality of Christ..." will happen in God's power...

Key though, the emphasis is on the feeling not the knowledge... so I would say if you're trying to reach someone and get them to think... it's not about debating the points... first get them to feel.

Having said this... for me one of the biggest things that struck my mind and keep gnawing at my heart over and over.. and finally got me to think... was HELL. The doctrine of Hell was 'one' (not exclusive mind you) but one of the first blocks that came tumbling down for me.

Anonymous said...

John, you seem to be implying that it would be easier to persuade a theist who was 'argued' into his faith that theism is false than it would be to persuade a theist who accepted his faith for reasons unconnected with arguments. Is this accurate? If so, it would follow that it would be easier to persuade, say, Professor Ed Feser, who has said that it was his study of philosophy that moved him from atheism to theism, than your average believing churchgoer. But this doesn't strike me as true. In fact, it seems to me that it's precisely the rational ground of the faith of a Feser that would make 'deconverting' him all the more difficult (since he would most likely have already have considered in great detail the sorts of objections you could raise).

Also, do you think it's the case that it's easier to persuade an atheist who was 'argued' into his position than an atheist who lacks belief for reasons unconnected with arguments? (In this latter case I'm thinking about an ardent atheist whose atheism is an important part of his life, but not in any serious intellectual sense. I've certainly met atheists of this 'type.')

I think that conversions and 'deconversions' do frequently come about *by way* of argument, but not *during* discussions (reading, etc.) in which these arguments are addressed. That is, while it's not the case that you're likely to hear, "Wow, you're right! I'm going to accept/reject [ ] now," it is the case that the arguments we make 'plant seeds' in the minds of others, and may often play (whether one knows it or not) crucial roles in with respect to conversion/deconversion. I don't expect to persuade anyone *during a discussion* that my position is true, but I do hope to get them to think in ways that will allow them to see its truth (or tenability, or whatever) for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Eric, you raise some interesting and even complex issues. When it comes to faith questions is anyone really argued into believing, or away from it? I do not think human beings are logical machines. Our passions get in the way all of the time. The evidential weight of believing one way or another is judged by our experiences. We live in a Christian culture so it stands to reason that given these experiences we have a strong tendency to judge the evidence in favor of Christian theism. Furthermore, if a person was raised by snake handlers then he will become a snake handler, while if he’s raised in Massachusetts by a Catholic family will become a Catholic. Why is that? And don’t you agree that it would be hard to argue these people out of what they believe?

The issue of education as in the case of Professor Feser is interesting as well. Human beings have a strong tendency to find confirming evidence for what they believe, so just because he’s educated doesn’t mean he didn’t do this. I doubt very much that he changed his mind purely for epistemic reasons. Why is it that when confronted with this sociological, cultural and psychological data nearly everyone agrees that people adopt the faith of their culture but then to a man they all say, but that’s not what happened in my case? In other words, they will all agree that, say, 95% of people adopt the faith of their culture but then at the same time they will also say, but that’s not me? How can 95% of the people say this, when they are part of the 95%? It becomes crystal clear that 95% of the people who say this are in denial. So no, I don’t think any theist is ever truly argued into his faith.

I think less indoctrinated, less educated, and disenfranchised believers would be easier to deconvert. And I think that it’s difficult, very difficult, to argue anyone out of their faith, because it’s faith. So the reason it would be harder to argue Feser out of his faith is not only because he was not truly argued into it, but also because he has sought to confirm it at the highest levels, just as a Muslim or a Mormon scholar would be harder to be argued out of his faith. Remember, in my book it was a crisis, plus new information, minus a lack of a loving Christian community that were the three factors in my life that led me away from what I believed. I suspect that in most cases those same factors are required for others.

So yes, all we can do is present the arguments and make each other think. Whether the other factors are there to help facilitate this conversion are not up to us to provide.

Bruce said...

I'm a former believer who was an active leader in an evangelical Lutheran church. It took over three years for me to move away from the faith - partly because of my changing beliefs and partly because of the hypocritical and harmful actions of clergy and lay leadership within my church. But since leaving the church and the faith I haven't quite "come out of the closet." I'm one of those non-believers who has shared with my wife and a close friend, but not the rest of the world. I haven't had any real conversations with believers about I feel, much less how to "reach them" and move them down the path away from faith. But I have played out in my mind on several occasions what how I'd want to approach them once I finally get the courage. Here's what I've come up with so far:

I would ask them if they want the 5 second version, the 30 second version, the 5 minute version or the 1 hour version. The 5 second version is, "I am no longer a believer in Christian faith because it makes no sense." The 30-second version would identify the four things that are at the heart of my disbelief: original sin, atonement, theodicy and validity of scripture. The remaining versions would simply expound on the 30-second version and give a little more background on how I got to this place and what I think now about the existence of God and the place evolution seems to play in explaining how we got here.

But most important, I would want to share, with honesty, humility and sensitivity, my journey from faith to unbelief. I would want to approach it in a very personal way, saying this is what I felt, this is what I read, this is what made sense, this is what didn't. I would not try to persuade someone away from the faith or win an argument. I'd only say that I used to be where you are, and for these reasons I no longer can be. And I'd leave it at that and take my hits. I certainly wouldn't offer to replace their comfort, joy and security in the faith with something else. Because what I feel now is none of those things. Sometimes I feel a little sad that my former comfort is gone, but mostly I feel alive and free and unburdened. I can articulate those feelings to my believer friends, but I sense that until they have struggled as I have and followed the questions and doubts to this point, they won't relate to my intellectual or emotional state of mind.

That's what I'd like to think I'd do to "reach" believers, most of whom are my close family and friends. What I will actually do remains to be seen.

Mike said...

I found the idea of atheists witnessing to Christians interesting and read up on your OTF.

I wrote a blog entry on it, essentially agreeing that all people should be willing to test positions that they hold, though the idea of having no presuppositions seems impossible to me.

http://awaitingawhiterobe.blogspot.com/2009/10/examining-outsiders-test-of-faith.html

Thanks!