Combating the irrational through rationalism?

Neodymium

Hello, this is my first post in the atheist and agnosticism forum. I am an atheist. What I am here to ask is how does one successfully argue rationally, using logic, science and observable evidence against something which is intrinsically irrational, a.k.a religion.

I suppose I should give a little of my background. I was born into a catholic family like the majority of Irish people. I say catholic but it was what I like to call the 'a la carte' catholic family, I was baptised etc., went to funerals and weddings, but that was the extent of my involvement in religion. For as long as I can remember I have always had an inquisitive mind, from my time as a very young child my parents and their friends described me as 'driving them insane' with my questions, I rarely had a sentence without the words what, why, when, where, how. I am currently 18, many people probably view me as a bit weird, eccentric perhaps. I am rarely enjoying myself unless I am learning something new, much to the demise of those around me. When I learn or discover something new or amazing I immediately take for granted that other people will also be as intrigued as I am, however usually I get the same sarcastic response of people taking pride in their ignorance and regarding me as weird.

I think I officialy became an atheist around the age of 14 or 15 but even before then I thought that "people don't REALLY believe in religion do they". Sadly I discovered that the majority of people would rather demote themselves to the ranks of delusion, be ignorant to reason and dismiss scientific evidence which itself is intrinsically the epitome of humankind's endeavor to explain the universe through rational thought. Every argument I have had on this subject seems futile, when the other person insists on using delusional irrationality to support their claims.

So how do you argue rationally with people who insist on dragging you down to the depths of irrationality? How does one counter people who defy all reason and logic rationally?

Rev Hellfire

Neodymium wrote: »

So how do you argue rationally with people who insist on dragging you down to the depths of irrationality? How does one counter people who defy all reason and logic rationally?

You don't, the best you can do is present your views and allow them to come to their own conclusions.

Zillah

You don't. Logically arguing with an irrational person is like throwing a lifesaver to a person with no limbs; I suppose one in a million might grab it with their teeth but don't expect good results.

Yes...yes, that'll do.

One of my flaws, of which I am all too aware and desperately trying to mitigate, is constantly giving anyone and everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are a rational, reasonable person perfectly capable of understanding simple logic, long past the point where they've demonstrated amply otherwise. I just find it very difficult to grasp how a person can be so self-deceptive, and I keep hoping that by phrasing it in an especially lucid manner I can make them confront their cognitive dissonance and resolve the problem.

But that doesn't happen. It basically never happens. People believe in God and magic and heaven because they want to and because it was drilled into them as children - for most people it's been mixed with the foundation's concrete before it was poured and it is there to stay. Religious people aren't usually stupid, they're more akin to crazy. They might claim to have good reasons, they might state and defend those reasons, but it's a front, a nebulous salve for what intellectual discipline they possess. The fact that this is a front is amply demonstrated by the habit religious people have of leaping from rationalisation to rationalisation - you can knock down each one as it comes up, but it makes no difference to them, once the point is defeated they just move to a different one, and then happily return to the first one again once the dust has settled. It's a front, nothing more.

So I mock religion instead these days. Am I being petty? Yes, a bit. But, I also have a very good reason. Most people, instead of using their own brains, experience and rationality, turn to consensus for their guidance. They sniff at the zeitgeist and toe the line. As we make religion seem more and more ridiculous, as we tear away its shield of piety and offense, we make religion seem less reasonable and respectable generally.

The intellectual in me would favour a healthy public dialogue, but they don't want that game, and when they play it they cheat. We're going to have to be more Machiavellian about it, more goal-oriented. That's what the part of me that would have made a good politician says about it. I don't like him but he's right; I can accept when someone has the better argument.

robindch

^^^ What Zillah said.

Lucidity, politeness, humor, showing up the hypocrisy, the lack of talent, the dishonesty, the lousy, lousy thinking as decently and respectfully as possible? Nah, none of it's worked.

Can't help but think of this (updated) saying:

some person wrote:

Never try to teach a sheep to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the sheep.

Neodymium

Zillah wrote: »

But that doesn't happen. It basically never happens. People believe in God and magic and heaven because they want to and because it was drilled into them as children - for most people it's been mixed with the foundation's concrete before it was poured and it is there to stay. Religious people aren't usually stupid, they're more akin to crazy. They might claim to have good reasons, they might state and defend those reasons, but it's a front, a nebulous salve for what intellectual discipline they possess. The fact that this is a front is amply demonstrated by the habit religious people have of leaping from rationalisation to rationalisation - you can knock down each one as it comes up, but it makes no difference to them, once the point is defeated they just move to a different one, and then happily return to the first one again once the dust has settled. It's a front, nothing more.

Yes, this is especially clearly evident in televised debates etc. between distinguished atheists and theists. For example the theist will make the case that 'morality stems from religion', and the atheist (in this case Richard Dawkins) succinctly refutes the statement through clear logic that morality is a product of evolution. Then the theist moves on to his/her next argument for example that Stalin was an atheist and therefore 'atheism is responsible for evil because morality is inherent to christianity/islam/judaism'. Their statement is completely contradictory to what is already established, ie. morality is a product of evolution not religion. In all of these 'debates' it is predominantly the theist representative which steers the conversation and answers the questions when surely it should be the other way round. Religion is a peculiar topic of discussion, in every other facet of life non-belief is the default position and it is left to the person proposing the subject to describe his/her reasoning, apparently this is not the case for religion.
Another tactic I frequently see abused by the theist side is the arguing of semantics. The religious side will attack and latch onto a particular word or phrase used by the other side and pettily try to argue semantics. Really? Even if they had the most infantile sense of rationality they would realise that they are delusional.

Zillah wrote: »

Most people, instead of using their own brains, experience and rationality, turn to consensus for their guidance. They sniff at the zeitgeist and toe the line. As we make religion seem more and more ridiculous, as we tear away its shield of piety and offense, we make religion seem less reasonable and respectable generally.

I think the following of the 'status quo' or the zeitgeist is particularly prevailent in Ireland, I am not quite sure of the rest of the world though. The word atheist has an ominous tone to it in Ireland and is immediately met with horror followed by feelings of abnormality that atheists don't fit into the societal mould created by the religous. I think that many religious people believe that atheist's are social heretics determined to be different for the sake of being different. Yes atheism is an 'abnormality' in the sense that we are not as delusional as the majority of the rest of society. I see the following of the zeitgeist in the terms of religion in my younger sisters. They ask me how is it that I don't believe in god when almost everyone else around them including their friends and their school advocates and believes in god. All I can do is try to teach them to analyse ideas critically through reason, but how do I get that through to a 12 and 15 year old who just want to fit in with the rest of their friends?

robindch

Neodymium wrote: »

Another tactic I frequently see abused by the theist side is the arguing of semantics.

Another thing you'll notice is the extreme imprecision of the language used, and clear irritation -- accusations of narrow-mindedness etc -- when words, concepts and stories are reduced from the level of flightly nebulousness in which they're held, to the level of the merely objectively meaningful.

Sly language games, and the concomitant abuse of honest discourse, are integral parts of religious belief.

sbsquarepants

Neodymium wrote: »

Yes, this is especially clearly evident in televised debates etc. between distinguished atheists and theists. For example the theist will make the case that 'morality stems from religion', and the atheist (in this case Richard Dawkins) succinctly refutes the statement through clear logic that morality is a product of evolution. Then the theist moves on to his/her next argument for example that Stalin was an atheist and therefore 'atheism is responsible for evil because morality is inherent to christianity/islam/judaism'. Their statement is completely contradictory to what is already established, ie. morality is a product of evolution not religion. In all of these 'debates' it is predominantly the theist representative which steers the conversation and answers the questions when surely it should be the other way round. Religion is a peculiar topic of discussion, in every other facet of life non-belief is the default position and it is left to the person proposing the subject to describe his/her reasoning, apparently this is not the case for religion.
Another tactic I frequently see abused by the theist side is the arguing of semantics. The religious side will attack and latch onto a particular word or phrase used by the other side and pettily try to argue semantics. Really? Even if they had the most infantile sense of rationality they would realise that they are delusional.?

In other words, the holys be crazy.
Yea, i noticed that myself!

Neodymium wrote: »

They ask me how is it that I don't believe in god when almost everyone else around them including their friends and their school advocates and believes in god. All I can do is try to teach them to analyse ideas critically through reason, but how do I get that through to a 12 and 15 year old who just want to fit in with the rest of their friends?

Good luck with that!
I have a seventeen year old daughter, who's very much in turbo charged follow the crowd mode at the moment. On occasion she asks why i don't believe in god, i'll have a little ponder and give her several reasons that seem quite watertight to me and ask her why she does? "Cos i just do". What can be said to that!
People have an innate ability to believe whatever the hell they want to. If my daughters friends or better still, jay from the wanted, announce they are buddhists, atheists, or fúcking voodoo witch doctors, she'll be one a week later. Hopefully one of them will announce they love studying for their leaving cert in the near future!:D

PS: I love that sheep quote - i'm gonna rob that!

18AD

Zillah wrote: »

As we make religion seem more and more ridiculous, as we tear away its shield of piety and offense, we make religion seem less reasonable and respectable generally.

I totally agree with this. But in a an effort to be controversial (and to put off doing my actual work) I think you're wrong about this.

Mocking things and having a laugh at ideologies is the sign of utmost respect. Things that lack humour have become devoid of any humane element that may have lingered within it. To make things funny is to make things human again. That's mostly why I could never believe in God, because he's inhuman. (Loki instantly has bonus points). God is in the laughter, if you're so inclined. Any conversation about "reality" or "necessary existence" is like watching the same muted episode of How It's Made on repeat with *insert trite song*. With good humour and light-heartedness is the way any self-respecting person should choose to be engaged with.

sbsquarepants wrote:

In other words, the holys be crazy.

It's not that they're crazy, they're not crazy enough. Einstein was crazy, Dali was crazy, and they were probably some of the most existentially functional and interesting people alive. Eccentric vs. Insane.(?)

To paraphrase Nietzsche: there are no Christian artists.

In an effort to be normal and functional, metaphysics makes you disfunctional and bland. The wallpaper of heaven. The unyielding mind will simply snap.

Oscar Wilde on Chuang Tzu. "...trying to make others good is as silly an occupation as 'beating a drum in a forest in order to find a fugitive.'

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain Maybe?

I've mostly quit trying to discuss how things "really" are and would rather just take the piss.

[Back to work ]

sbsquarepants

18AD wrote: »

It's not that they're crazy, they're not crazy enough. Einstein was crazy, Dali was crazy, and they were probably some of the most existentially functional and interesting people alive. Eccentric vs. Insane.(?)

You live and learn. I always thought the difference between crazy and eccentric was entirely financial!:D

equivariant

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Good luck with that!
I have a seventeen year old daughter, who's very much in turbo charged follow the crowd mode at the moment. On occasion she asks why i don't believe in god, i'll have a little ponder and give her several reasons that seem quite watertight to me and ask her why she does? "Cos i just do". What can be said to that!

Trying to reason with a religious person is bad enough, but a teenager as well ... jebus wept. You're a real sucker for punishment!

(PS I've been there myself)

18AD

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You live and learn. I always thought the difference between crazy and eccentric was entirely financial!:D

Maybe so. What about Tesla? He was smrt and died broke. (Maybe absolutely insane as well.)

sbsquarepants

He should have put the hammer on edison for that million dollars he was promised!

sbsquarepants

equivariant wrote: »

Trying to reason with a religious person is bad enough, but a teenager as well ... jebus wept. You're a real sucker for punishment!

(PS I've been there myself)

That's the funny part, she's about as religious as i am! I've never once known her to go to mass. Teenage girls - even if there was a god, he couldn't understand them!

RamesesII

I'm not entirely sure of this point is relevant but... I think that part of the problem is that religion fills a basic human need for wonder, imagination and a sense of awe that is necessary to balance the human psyche (or soul if you prefer). There are a lot of unpleasant side orders that come with that: fear, superstition, xenophobia and so on.

One of the things that finally helped me make the jump away from Catholicism was (don't laugh) programs about astrophysics on the Discovery channel etc. String theory and Quantum Mechanics made the world exciting and mysterious again, there was something to marvel at again in a rational way (if that makes sense?).

Now I know that the ultimate aim is to explain the workings of the universe in a structured orderly fashion but it's given me back the sense of wonder that I think religious organisations have twisted and corrupted over the past few centuries.

I aplologise if I've rambled off topic.

FullBeard

Neodymium wrote: »

Hello, this is my first post in the atheist and agnosticism forum. I am an atheist. What I am here to ask is how does one successfully argue rationally, using logic, science and observable evidence against something which is intrinsically irrational, a.k.a religion.

I suppose I should give a little of my background. I was born into a catholic family like the majority of Irish people. I say catholic but it was what I like to call the 'a la carte' catholic family, I was baptised etc., went to funerals and weddings, but that was the extent of my involvement in religion. For as long as I can remember I have always had an inquisitive mind, from my time as a very young child my parents and their friends described me as 'driving them insane' with my questions, I rarely had a sentence without the words what, why, when, where, how. I am currently 18, many people probably view me as a bit weird, eccentric perhaps. I am rarely enjoying myself unless I am learning something new, much to the demise of those around me. When I learn or discover something new or amazing I immediately take for granted that other people will also be as intrigued as I am, however usually I get the same sarcastic response of people taking pride in their ignorance and regarding me as weird.

I think I officialy became an atheist around the age of 14 or 15 but even before then I thought that "people don't REALLY believe in religion do they". Sadly I discovered that the majority of people would rather demote themselves to the ranks of delusion, be ignorant to reason and dismiss scientific evidence which itself is intrinsically the epitome of humankind's endeavor to explain the universe through rational thought. Every argument I have had on this subject seems futile, when the other person insists on using delusional irrationality to support their claims.

So how do you argue rationally with people who insist on dragging you down to the depths of irrationality? How does one counter people who defy all reason and logic rationally?

You simply ask them why they believe what they believe. And when they answer with their nonsense, you question the basis of their answer, too, and continue all the way back to their starting point.

If you were to watch a few choice clips from Feynman, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens on YouTube -- especially Harris and Dawkins -- you will be able to deal intelligently with whatever irrational nonsense you encounter.

But the trick is to stay calm. Very calm.

Some things to bear in mind:

• The burden of proof is not on you
• Always identify the wish-thinking that plays a role in religious belief
• Be comparative: ask them why Zeus is less plausible than the Trinity
• You don't have to know how the universe got here or what the meaning of life is (hint, there probably isn't any and it's a silly question)
• Whenever god is mentioned in a sentence, replace the word with invisible elves

Gbear

FullBeard wrote: »

But the trick is to stay calm. Very calm.

Some things to bear in mind:

• The burden of proof is not on you
• Always identify the wish-thinking that plays a role in religious belief
• Be comparative: ask them why Zeus is less plausible than the Trinity
• You don't have to know how the universe got here or what the meaning of life is (hint, there probably isn't any and it's a silly question)
• Whenever god is mentioned in a sentence, replace the word with invisible elves

What i'd add to that is that if you're debating in front of an audience (friends for example, needn't be a lecture theater) you're unlikely to persuade those debating against you. Those who are remaining silent are maybe the ones you might give pause to think and take in what you're saying.

In a similar vein, debating 1 on 1 might be engaging but don't expect them to change their minds about anything. That probably applies to most things.

RamesesII wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure of this point is relevant but... I think that part of the problem is that religion fills a basic human need for wonder, imagination and a sense of awe that is necessary to balance the human psyche (or soul if you prefer). There are a lot of unpleasant side orders that come with that: fear, superstition, xenophobia and so on.

One of the things that finally helped me make the jump away from Catholicism was (don't laugh) programs about astrophysics on the Discovery channel etc. String theory and Quantum Mechanics made the world exciting and mysterious again, there was something to marvel at again in a rational way (if that makes sense?).

Now I know that the ultimate aim is to explain the workings of the universe in a structured orderly fashion but it's given me back the sense of wonder that I think religious organisations have twisted and corrupted over the past few centuries.

I aplologise if I've rambled off topic.

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it applies to the majority of people.
Most people are religious because they've been brainwashed from birth to be that way by their parents.

The years and years of reinforcement, especially before the person had a chance to critically appraise the nonsense being foisted upon them, is incredibly difficult to overturn.
If somebody is deeply religious they're not going to abandon their faith overnight. There's such a huge body of irrationality and a reverence given to illogic by decades of overlapping and self-reinforcing bull**** that not only do they have to be persuaded of new information - they have to fundamentally change how they think. That's hard.

joseph brand

My wife used to believe in psychics. (Psychic Sally, John Edward et al)

I could have talked myself blue in the face, laying out the reasons why I know they are chancers, looking to make a quick buck.

Two videos on YouTube put her straight. I still need to find some good videos on how ghost hunters are bullsh*t merchants.

Neodymium
When I learn or discover something new or amazing I immediately take for granted that other people will also be as intrigued as I am, however usually I get the same sarcastic response of people taking pride in their ignorance and regarding me as weird.

Calibos

joseph brand wrote: »

My wife used to believe in psychics. (Psychic Sally, John Edward et al)

I could have talked myself blue in the face, laying out the reasons why I know they are chancers, looking to make a quick buck.

Two videos on YouTube put her straight. I still need to find some good videos on how ghost hunters are bullsh*t merchants.

Unfortunately the corollory is also true. Crazy Mother fcukers sound like Smart Mother cukers to dumb Mother fcukers