Leading by example
I’ve been thinking about stereotypes lately. There are stereotypical images: “The Angry Atheist”, “The Ignorant Christian”, etc. There are stereotypical arguments, mostly involving God’s existence, or Creationism vs. Evolution, etc. And there are stereotypical approaches — namely butting heads.
The thing is, if Monty Python has shown us anything, it’s that an argument isn’t the automatic gainsaying of the other’s position, it’s “a series of statements intending to establish a compromising position.” (slightly paraphrased) I think that’s what we need more of. We need more AFFIRMATIVE interaction, and less NEGATIVE interaction. We should be emphasizing what we have in common rather than what divides us.
I know I’ve talked a lot about debate strategies on this blog. I’ve talked about angles to take when arguing, which arguments to use, how to debunk theirs, etc. These are all great battle tools when waging a skirmish verbally (or vicariously through your keyboard). But ultimately they do nothing besides divide us. And that division is the very thing that ignorance and fallacious reasoning feed on: The “us vs. them” notion that we are somehow different than them.
But I propose a different solution. I believe we should lead by example by not being hateful to the other side. I know the Rational Response Squad, among others, would wholeheartedly disagree with me; but I can say from experience that being nice about your non-belief to someone who is a believer is a helluva lot more effective than overtly telling them they’re wrong.
We should focus on educating, informing, and being respectful of our opponents. This issue of religion does not have to be something that divides us. The reality of religion, Christianity especially, is that there are an awful lot of Christian groups based on hating that which they are against. Hate is something that eats away at you; it’s not a good feeling. I’ll frequently get a feeling of dread when I get an email notification that my last post has been responded to. I don’t like being mean, and I certainly don’t like waging battle, verbal or otherwise. I think Anne Frank was right — people are generally good at heart. If we can show our opponents that we are not opponents in the first place, and that we are good people, we will win more of them over. If we can melt down the barriers that divide us, then people will gravitate towards that which has the more positive message.
From here on, I vow to be respectful, courteous, and polite when dealing with any Theist. I will be firm in my position of non-belief, but will emphasize why it need not divide us by instead focusing on that which we have in common. I will regard with sympathy and compassion those who are so consumed by their hatred that they refuse to find common ground, and I will refuse to engage them in petty gainsaying that goes nowhere and only wastes time.
I believe that if we can remind our opponents that we are all humans, that we are not just faceless Internet identities, it will bring us together.
6 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I whole-heartedly agree with you. If ever I learned anything, it is to pause briefly and THINK about what my reply should be to whomever I am currently talking to. The more angry or defensive, the more I try to be cautious. I don’t try to piss off anybody intentionally, but religion is a fickle thing.
I’ve known some people professionally for years before they knew anything about my lack of belief in god or many times even my political opinions. Some of these people have responded as well as could be expected while others have suddenly disengaged from me. Still others would rant and rave (and I would never back down unless they were correct on some point) until they tired of me or were sent with their tail wagging.
It is just a professional demeanor to conduct yourself with respect for others; unfortunately, religion tends to exaggerate emotions while feeding on ignorance. It lends itself to close-mindedness which in turn breeds fear, hate and bigotry.
There is a good reason why just a few generations ago it was a social blunder to talk religion and politics. The time has come though to debate these things instead of ignore or hide behind them.
While I will always strive to give respect to even those who are undeserving of it, there is a limit to how many insults and ridiculous things I can tolerate from someone. Atheists have gotten nowhere from quietly and respectfully “debating” religion with fundamentals. We seek compromise while they seek eradication of any opposing viewpoints.
We are not playing the same game by the same rules. At the very least, whether it is rude or arrogant, atheists should call attention to ignorance and ridicule religious absurdities.
How we all go about this will vary in as many ways as there are different kinds of atheists.
George Orwell said it the best:
“We have now sunk to a depth where restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men”.
Very insightful, thanks!
I certainly wouldn’t let any religious individual walk all over me, and the attitude I have is generally “I will respect you until you give me reason not to.” I’ve had many dialogues with people who were respectful to me and I respectful back — and others who started in immediately with the verbal jabs (to which I responded with verbal uppercuts).
I have mixed feelings about Dawkins’ and the RRS’s approach, as much as I respect them and their opinions; By desiring eradication of religion, I am acting no better than the Fundamentalists that I criticize.
I think a better approach is simply to educate other people about what atheism is — if they continue to be intolerant beyond that then let em have it. But it’s important to not turn off people who are tolerant-yet-misinformed by throwing fists out at anything that moves.
“I have mixed feelings about Dawkins’ and the RRS’s approach, as much as I respect them and their opinions; By desiring eradication of religion, I am acting no better than the Fundamentalists that I criticize.”
To desire the eradication of religion is much different than trying to force fundamentalists to obey through force or coercion. You don’t preach in a tax-exempt church in an attempt to change the political landscape to mirror biblical teachings.
There is a big difference between wishing religion would go away, and bombing churches or attacking fundamentalists physically.
Fundamentalists desire the eradication of atheists and actively try to undermine our civil rights.
I’m just saying you shouldn’t feel bad for desiring something you see as predominately corrupt and bad to disappear. I wouldn’t care if all of the religious in the world desired to see atheists go away as long as they didn’t act on it.
That’s why people like us care in the first place because our livelihoods are directly and indirectly affected by fundamentalists in their attempts to legislate god into our lives.
BTW, I suppose fundamentalists do argue that we are encroaching upon their civil rights by not allowing prayer in schools and constantly trying to enforce the separation of church and state, so if you look at it that way, they see us as trying to limit their freedoms.
Of course, if the fundamentalists understood (or stopped pretending they didn’t, perhaps) how all of our civil rights were beneficial to all and how separation of church and state allows all to freely practice whatever they may preach, then perhaps we wouldn’t see some of the social problems we currently have (i.e. stem-cell research).
I think the problem is much more complicated than what I can say in a reply, but I will say without dogma to be so dogmatic about, there would only be people in reality dealing with problems of people in reality.
It’s like a psychiatrist trying to peel away layers of a psyche in an effort to get to the main underlying neurosis.
p.s.
I came across your site as a result of your comment at VJack’s Atheist Revolution.
OH MY GOD! (pun intended.) Have you seen this?
I think this is a masterpiece of pop-cultural brilliance. Especially hilarious if you know the “players.” It’s an animated rap video f/t “dick” dawkins and The New Atheists spoofing the whole “Expelled” sitch. It’s Python meets Enimem meets Atheism… Sure to be a monster viral smash… you heard it here first.
please go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&fmt=18
Enjoy,
Michael Dorian
http://nyc-atheists.org/blog/