Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Where the Conversation Goes Wrong


Don Johnson is a Christian apologetic, talk show host, and author of the book How to Talk to a Skeptic: An Easy to Follow Guide for Natural Conversations and Effective Apologetics.  He has posted an article in his blog called The Most Common Mistake when Talking with Skeptics.  In this article, he makes a case for engaging the skeptic by first asking questions about his background and about the positions he holds, and then listening carefully to the answers.  That's very reasonable.  This approach is far superior to the typical conversational style we see, where the Christian takes an adversarial stance against the non-believer before the conversation even begins.  If more of them would follow Johnson's approach, I have no doubt that these conversations would tend to be more fruitful.  But Johnson himself commits the single most common mistake that leads to the ultimate derailment of the conversation.

Johnson starts out with good reasoning about his approach to conversation.  He discusses how it defuses animosity, how it prevents both sides from addressing positions that don't exist, and how it offers an opportunity to present the views of the Christian without being too "preachy".  So far, so good.  But then he says this:
Fourth, it helps bring to light some of the underlying non-intellectual reasons that people reject Christianity. Many skeptics do not base their unbelief on a hard examination of the facts or a deep analysis of the various philosophical arguments. Rather, a variety of other factors are at play, including painful experiences with Christians, anger at God over a heartbreaking loss, and the desire to rationalize immoral behavior. By asking a few questions, the Christian can become more aware of what is going on under the surface.
So now we see the presumptions that lie beneath the surface of virtually every Christian, even if they are hidden by a seemingly friendly facade.  The Christian regards the skeptic as being irrational, illogical, uninformed, and defiant.  And no matter how reasonable the skeptic tries to be, he can never dispel those firmly-fixed presumptions.  When they come to the surface, as they inevitably do, the conversation has almost zero chance of moving forward.  How can you argue logically with someone who presumes from the outset that you are irrational?  How can you make the case to a Christian that your position is based on consideration of the evidence and the arguments when he is convinced beforehand that your position is just unreasonable defiance of God?

Johnson links to another article of his where he explains the irrational or self-serving nature of skeptics' non-belief.
1: Christians Behaving Badly ... If your conversation partner seems more resistant to Christians than Jesus or Christianity, it may be because he has been hurt by believers in the past.
Yes, many Christians are jerks.  You can say the same of atheists.  But what Christian would ever claim that his reason for belief is the bad behavior of non-believers?  Yet Johnson would have us believe that this is what motivates non-belief.
2: Heartbreak ... If atheists and agnostics are angry at God, what does that say about their skepticism? It seems to suggest that the intellectual label they wear is motivated by their hurt more than rational analysis of the evidence.
Right.  I don't believe in God because I'm angry at the thing that I don't believe exists.  It all makes perfect sense now.  If only I could overcome my hatred of unicorns.
3: Fatherlessness ... the absence of a father, or presence of a defective father (one who is abusive or weak or cowardly, for example) can play a major role in young men becoming atheists.
Seriously?  This is the theory of Paul Vitz, who wrote a book about it which has now become gospel for gullible Christians like Johnson.  But it is not based on evidence, as discussed here by Hermant Mehta.  What?  Christians believe something without evidence?  Perish the thought.
4: Social Pressures ... Again, they are not evaluating evidence and making reasoned decisions. They are becoming unbelievers because they like how it makes them feel to be accepted into the “in” group.
Of course.  I live in a country that is still predominantly Christian.  So naturally, I want to blend in and be part of the crowd by becoming an atheist who will be scorned, ridiculed, and insulted by the majority of people around me.
5: The Cost of Discipleship ... In cases like this, skepticism is simply the rationalization of a desire to stay comfortable. People don’t want to take on the commitment that becoming a Christian requires, so they claim that it must be false.
It's obviously much harder to stick to the beliefs you grew up with - all those things that were drilled into you as a young child, that will always be part of you - than to step outside that framework of beliefs and examine them objectively for the first time in your life.  Being a believer is so hard.  That's why there are so few of them, right?
6: Immorality ... The easiest way to justify sin is to deny that there is a creator to provide reality with a nature, thereby denying that there is any inherent order and purpose in the universe.
The best is saved for last.  Now, if I didn't know better, I'd think that Johnson is being a wee bit insulting here.  I'd think that he is woefully uninformed about the correlation between morality and God-belief.  I'd think he is playing the game of We Are Better Than You.  But of course that couldn't be true.  After all, he's the rational and reasonable one in the room.

So Don Johnson preaches about how to have a conversation with a skeptic.  It seems reasonable enough at first glance, but the friendly conversational demeanor is only a cover for the attitude of smug arrogance that lurks beneath the surface.  And that attitude is the single most prevalent thing that leads to the derailment of so many conversations between Christians and skeptics.  Here's something I think is conspicuously absent from his approach that might actually bring more positive results: humility.

14 comments:

  1. To be fair to Don Johnson, he didn't make a blanket statement against skeptics, but rather he said MANY skeptics base their non belief on the things he mentioned. On that interpretation he isn't then making blanket statements about why non believers are non believers. For all we know he might not even mean to say that MOST non believers base their non belief on the things he mentioned.

    Outside of the fatherless hypothesis (Since I think it is wrong that being fatherless causes non believing in anyone), I don't think he would be wrong in his assessment for any hypothetical skeptic that bases their non belief in any of those reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Christian regards the skeptic as being irrational, illogical, uninformed, and defiant. It has nothing to do with "regards". The so-called skeptic is irrational, illogical, and uninformed. And no matter how reasonable the skeptic tries to be, he can never dispel those firmly-fixed presumptions. The problem is, the so-called skeptic never even tries. When they come to the surface, as they inevitably do, the conversation has almost zero chance of moving forward. How can you argue logically with someone who presumes from the outset that you are irrational? Look in the mirror, Skep. How often have atheists accused believers of being irrational, deluded, brainwashed, etc.? How can you make the case to a Christian that your position is based on consideration of the evidence which it's not, else you'd take seriously the New Testament and the arguments when he is convinced beforehand that your position is just unreasonable defiance of God? which it is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose you're advocating the following:

      Proposition 1 - [Every skeptic is irrational, illogical and uninformed].

      Proposition 2 - [No skeptic ever tries to have rational dialogues with non skeptics].

      Proposition 3 - [No skeptic bases their position on evidence].

      Proposition 4 - [Every skeptic is unreasonably defying God].

      I think those are fair interpretations of your bolded additions given the context and previous comments you have made. If those really are propositions you're advocating then you ought to drop them.

      Proposition 1 has obvious counter-examples. Graham Oppy, Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, John Schellenberg and Jordan Sobel are prima facie counter examples. Sobel was also a logician so thinking he did not think with logic would be rather silly.

      Proposition 2 also has obvious counter-examples. To only cite internet dialogues, the people on this site do seem to want genuine dialogue at least some of the time. If Skep and co are too close to home then we can cite Jeff Lowder and his conversations with Randal Rauser. Rauser, the non skeptic, would fully agree that Lowder wants and engages in genuine rational dialogue with theists.

      Proposition 3, like the previous 2 propositions, seems to have obvious counter examples. It seems only reasonable to conclude the naturalism of Graham Oppy and the atheism of John Schellenberg are entirely rational, even if false, and rational beliefs cannot be made without evidence so their beliefs are grounded in evidence.

      Proposition 4, as I have intimated to you before, is simply false. A necessary condition for defying God- whether it be rational or not- is that the denier must believe theism is true. Probably, close to every self-proclaimed skeptic does not actually believe in God, so probably close to every self-proclaimed skeptic does not hold a position which is unreasonable defiance of God.

      It would be wise for you to familiarize yourself with contemporary atheists in philosophy, specifically ones with a background in the philosophy of religion, and it would be wise for you to read introductory books on logic, epistemology, and probably metaphysics.

      Delete
    2. I suppose it is pointless to expect that planks will give any reasoned defense of what he claims. He likes to come here, take a potshot or two, and then leave without bothering to justify what he says, either by example or by argument.

      Delete
    3. " He likes to come here, take a potshot or two, and then leave without bothering to justify what he says, either by example or by argument."
      Well, I certainly hope I have thoroughly demonstrated I am not of that ilk :-)

      Delete
    4. You are obviously more willing to argue the point at hand. I have no complaint about that, but when the discussion isn't going anywhere, it's time to move on.

      Delete
    5. If by "isn't going anywhere" you mean that you have exhausted your reservoir of unsound arguments against my irrefutable positions, well, yes, I suppose one option is to simply end the conversation.

      But, that's OK, perhaps I at least planted a small seed of doubt that might one day bear fruit...another day then, my friend.

      Delete
  3. Ryan, you are correct that he doesn't make a blanket statement. However, his belief that this is the typical situation is plain to see. This is his guidance on conducting conversations with skeptics.

    planks, you exemplify the attitude that I am describing. You are not alone. I find that most Christians I converse with (on topics of this sort) have a similar attitude toward non-believers.

    You ask me to look in the mirror. It's true that the attitude of a skeptic might be no better, and I made no claims to that effect. I'm saying that this is what stops the conversation. But at the same time, I can relate my own experience, and what I observe.

    I don't know if you were around when I first started commenting at Victor's. I was polite and deferential. But merely stating what I believe in the course of discussion was enough to ignite the rage of numerous small-minded individuals, and initiate a barrage of ad hominem attacks. It was only after going through that for some time that my attitude began to change.

    As it stands now, I am, and I always have been willing to carry on a civil discussion with those who care to participate in a civil manner. But if that isn't what you want to do, then I ask: what the hell are you doing here?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just wanted to set the record straight (which I did in the bold print). I thought it best to not let your libels stand unchallenged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please enlighten me. What did I say that was libelous? You agreed with most of what I said about Christians.

      Delete
    2. "Please enlighten me. What did I say that was libelous?"
      Your arguments rebutting propositions 1 through 4 are all liable to be sound rational demonstrations of the falsity of those propositions so that that makes pretty much every word of yours libelous, right?

      Delete
    3. I do think it's curious. I made a statement: "The Christian regards the skeptic as being irrational, illogical, uninformed, and defiant." Planks, confirmed that that is indeed what Christians (at least this one) think, and then he claimed it was libelous for me to say it. I guess this is an example of Christian logic that I just don't understand.

      Delete
  5. Here is a conjecture: the multiverse is real and the different universes have different physical and logical rules; however, they are all interconnected via the internet. Planks is then from an alternate universe where his observations are true but, to us in our universe, they are just pure piffle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's another possibility: planks is an automaton - triggered by certain keywords. "Atheist ... (processing) ... irrational!! ... ack ack."

      Delete