This is a very interesting essay. There is a discussion going on right now between several atheists regarding how they should engage theists. As one might imagine, I agree with Mr. Chituc. Two quotes:
“This is all to say that it’s too easy to find a study to support any conclusion you want and any behavioral prescription you want.”
“Here’s what we know works for changing closely held beliefs, at least a little bit: self-affirmation. People’s beliefs don’t just abstractly track what they think is true–they’re functional. Beliefs are integral to who we are and what we stand for, and our identities often depend on them. If our identity and values are threatened, especially by someone loud and rude, we’re not going to reassess our values and identity and say ‘I’m going to join his team.’ We’re going to write that person off as an asshole and get more entrenched in our views, which is exactly what happens… If we’re secure in our identities, if we’re not threatened, if we’re feeling great and competent—only then are we going to be open to potentially threatening information.”
Question to any atheists/agnostics: Are you a Peter Mosley or a Vlad Chituc? Okay, that was a rhetorical question. Putting that aside, of the two, who do you most agree with, in general, and why?
Byzantine Dream 
Hi Darrell
Personally, I have no interest in changing people's religious outlook, at least not in the global terms of whether or not they believe in a God. Were the number of non-believers double tomorrow, or indeed halve, I have no sense of whether or not that would please me.
I would certainly be very pleased if certain attitudes within each of the groups were more closely aligned with mine: I'd like to see more people feeling motivated on issues like poverty and climate change, for instance, and that's where it gets interesting for me.
Here I agree with the essay. A person can, I think, be encouraged to re-examine their narrative, but in my experience they don't often do that when they are being attacked, just because the self-defence mechanism is so powerful. This is certainly how I would experience it day to day within the classroom setting. Hence, finding common ground is the best starting point, although no gurantee in itself of success.
Bernard
LikeLike
Hi Bernard,
Thanks for the in-put.
“Personally, I have no interest in changing people's religious outlook, at least not in the global terms of whether or not they believe in a God.”
Now interestingly enough, whether or not someone believes in God, and what they believe about that God, or gods, and the narrative about that God(s) may influence and inform the way they think and act in regard to the issues of concern to you such as poverty and climate change.
In that sense, do you care about changing a person’s religious outlook? In other words, if you find that it is a person’s belief in God that is causing them to act and think in a way you disagree when it comes to these issues of poverty and climate change (or any issue you care about), wouldn't you then be inclined to change their views in those areas?
LikeLike
Hi Darrell
Yes, religious beliefs are sure to be intertwined with other beliefs, undoubtedly. Narratives are flexible beasts, though, aren't they?
So, if the issue were climate change, say, then I'm not sure changing the religious belief would be the best place to start, in part because it's so fundamental that it's presumably an area where people are likely to be at their most defensive. Might it not be a better idea to accept that belief, and then see if it isn't possible, within their framework of commitment, to open dialogue on the issue of concern? That would be my instinct, at least.
It's a little like the difference between those who see an attitude towards women they don't like within a certain brand of Islam, and say 'let's get rid of Islam, then', and those who observe more liberal attitudes towards women within other Islam communities, and ask instead 'can this Islam community be moved in that direction?'
Bernard
LikeLike
Hi Bernard,
Yes, I agree. I was just interested in the connection. Often atheists (and believers) are trying to change the other’s minds regarding those beliefs because they see the impact of those narratives in every area of life—and some of those impacts we might (depending upon the narrative one inhabits) view as negative impacts.
I see nothing wrong with this. However, like you say, rather than trying to “get rid of” something—wouldn't it make more sense to try and see if the direction we are trying to move in can fit within the other person’s narrative. Unfortunately, we have atheists calling deeply held beliefs ‘fairy-tales’ and theists calling atheists immoral-somehow that doesn't lead to much understanding.
Also, the writer noted how studies and information are important but hardly as powerful as we think when it comes to changing deeply held beliefs—and this goes for atheists and theists. I think this is another piece of the puzzle we need to keep in mind.
LikeLike
This is an area on which we are in broad agreement.
And in that spirit, a happy and holy Easter to you and those you love.
Bernard
LikeLike
Happy Easter to you and yours as well.
LikeLike