How Not To Persuade An Atheist #1 - "Bypassing the Intellect"
This is the first installment of a series of posts in which I will attempt to show theists how not to go about persuading an atheist. So, if you're a theist, pay close attention! When trying to convert an atheist, do not employ any of the following informal fallacies, persuasive techniques, or coercive forces. We're on to you!
I would like all you theists out there to know that "bypassing the intellect" is not an effective technique, especially if what you're trying to do is persuade an atheist. And I'm not just talking about you're frequent appeals to faith. There's a lot more to it than that. I say "bypassing the intellect" because those are the exact words Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort use when describing one of their particularly manipulative routines, which I first encountered while watching TBN. It's much, much worse than their argumentum ad banana, although there's a good chance they could very well top themselves in the near future.
The set-up goes something like this. Kirk Cameron eventually changes the subject by asking a series of questions he thinks will finally corner the atheist. Let's assume that our hapless atheist answers in the affirmative to each of the following:
KC: I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to bypass you're intellect, and instead go straight for your conscience. I think you'll find it helpful. I know I did. So tell me, would you consider yourself to be a good person?
Atheist: Yes.
KC: Do you think you've kept the 10 Commandments.
Atheist: Well, some of them.
KC: Okay. Let's go over a few of them and see how many. Have you ever lied?
Atheist: A few times, but I don't make a habit of it.
KC: You do realize that makes you a liar, don't you?
Atheist: I suppose, but...
KC: Have you ever stolen something, regardless of its value or when you stole it? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Atheist: Once or twice.
KC: So, you're a thief then, aren't you?
Atheist: I guess, but...
KC: Have you ever taken God's name in vain, and used it as a curse word?
Atheist: I lost count a long, long time ago.
KC: And that makes you a blasphemer, doesn't it?
Atheist: It most certainly does.
KC: So, if God were to judge you by the standard of the 10 Commandments, do you think you would be innocent or guilty?
Atheist: By those standards, guilty, but...
KC: So, would you go to Heaven or to Hell?
Atheist: Hell, but it doesn't...
KC: Gottcha!
The sole purpose of this line of questioning is to shame the non-believer into believing. I recently learned that, of all people, an exceptionally friendly atheist was once subjected to this treatment by Kirk Cameron himself. Just listen to his pathetic attempt to break an atheist down. It's practically impossible to abide by the 10 Commandments over the course of one's entire life. Yet, that's precisely what Cameron is counting on. Believer or not, anyone unfortunate enough to have to suffer through this absurd process of elimination is bound to answer "yes" at least once, and then they've got you! Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron would have you believe that the atheist is a sinner for life and left with no alternative other than salvation through Christ, in which case they're just preaching to the choir, aren't they?
The reason this technique is so ineffective when applied to atheists is that we reject religion as a basis for morality. We don't feel guilty because we have broken one of your precious 10 Commandments. We feel guilt when we have done something genuinely wrong. This is what we mean when we say that morality precedes religion. If you so desperately cling to your religion because you would go on a murderous rampage were it not for a mere list of proscriptions handed down from some invisible man in the sky, then please, by all means, don't ever stop believing. As for myself, I live by a different set of rules, one of them being:
Thou shalt not bypass the intellect.
I would like all you theists out there to know that "bypassing the intellect" is not an effective technique, especially if what you're trying to do is persuade an atheist. And I'm not just talking about you're frequent appeals to faith. There's a lot more to it than that. I say "bypassing the intellect" because those are the exact words Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort use when describing one of their particularly manipulative routines, which I first encountered while watching TBN. It's much, much worse than their argumentum ad banana, although there's a good chance they could very well top themselves in the near future.
The set-up goes something like this. Kirk Cameron eventually changes the subject by asking a series of questions he thinks will finally corner the atheist. Let's assume that our hapless atheist answers in the affirmative to each of the following:
KC: I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to bypass you're intellect, and instead go straight for your conscience. I think you'll find it helpful. I know I did. So tell me, would you consider yourself to be a good person?
Atheist: Yes.
KC: Do you think you've kept the 10 Commandments.
Atheist: Well, some of them.
KC: Okay. Let's go over a few of them and see how many. Have you ever lied?
Atheist: A few times, but I don't make a habit of it.
KC: You do realize that makes you a liar, don't you?
Atheist: I suppose, but...
KC: Have you ever stolen something, regardless of its value or when you stole it? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Atheist: Once or twice.
KC: So, you're a thief then, aren't you?
Atheist: I guess, but...
KC: Have you ever taken God's name in vain, and used it as a curse word?
Atheist: I lost count a long, long time ago.
KC: And that makes you a blasphemer, doesn't it?
Atheist: It most certainly does.
KC: So, if God were to judge you by the standard of the 10 Commandments, do you think you would be innocent or guilty?
Atheist: By those standards, guilty, but...
KC: So, would you go to Heaven or to Hell?
Atheist: Hell, but it doesn't...
KC: Gottcha!
The sole purpose of this line of questioning is to shame the non-believer into believing. I recently learned that, of all people, an exceptionally friendly atheist was once subjected to this treatment by Kirk Cameron himself. Just listen to his pathetic attempt to break an atheist down. It's practically impossible to abide by the 10 Commandments over the course of one's entire life. Yet, that's precisely what Cameron is counting on. Believer or not, anyone unfortunate enough to have to suffer through this absurd process of elimination is bound to answer "yes" at least once, and then they've got you! Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron would have you believe that the atheist is a sinner for life and left with no alternative other than salvation through Christ, in which case they're just preaching to the choir, aren't they?
The reason this technique is so ineffective when applied to atheists is that we reject religion as a basis for morality. We don't feel guilty because we have broken one of your precious 10 Commandments. We feel guilt when we have done something genuinely wrong. This is what we mean when we say that morality precedes religion. If you so desperately cling to your religion because you would go on a murderous rampage were it not for a mere list of proscriptions handed down from some invisible man in the sky, then please, by all means, don't ever stop believing. As for myself, I live by a different set of rules, one of them being:
Thou shalt not bypass the intellect.
15 comments:
To summarize, it's not a virtue to think that morality depends on religion. Just take a look at one psychopath we've dealt with.
Above link edited in for good measure. Got any doggerel you'd like inserted?
#63 comes to mind.
I was thinking of something more like your thoughts on the myriad moralities of God, but I'm not sure where to work in either link. Maybe some other time. I'm sure there will be more opportunities to link to doggerel in the future, at least as long as I keep this series going. There's plenty of doggerel to go around.
That line of questioning might work on someone who's rather unsure of what their beliefs are or someone seeking spirituality or anyone else who is emotionally vulnerable, easily led or seeking a leader. I am an atheist because of many years of testing my beliefs with reason, and figuring out which ones make sense, which don't, and figuring out WHY I believe something or not. I am pretty well-armed against this kind of "attack". It wouldn't phase me.
I'm waiting to hear the debate, but I'm not expecting anything new.
I've not only seen the episode you're talkign about, but I also wrote a minute-by-minute rebuttal over at the Iron Chariots counter-apologetics wiki.
Ray was on the Hellbound Alleee show and I laughed my ass off when they asked him:
"Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you..."
Ray's already lost the debate. He's promised to provide scientific proof of God - a promise which could only be made by someone who doesn't understand science (and has a questionable understanding of what might qualify as a god). He expanded that promise by explaining that he could do provide this scientific proof without relying on the Bible or faith...as if those qualifiers needed to be mentioned once the word science was uttered.
Mark my words - you'll hear nothing original in the debate.
-Matt
Duly noted. I'm not holding my breath either.
There's an even stronger answer than that.
The First Commandment boils down to "Believe in the Bible's God." So by asking you to accept the Ten Commandments, the argument starts by expecting you to assume its conclusion. This is known as the fallacy of begging the question.
True. But Kirk Cameron tries to avoid that charge by not bringing up the First Commandment. My reply to his strategy is an attempt to show that, even when he tries to bypass the intellect and go straight for our conscience, he can't win. He will not succeed in making us feel guilty because our basis of morality is anything but the 10 Commandments.
Even though he doesn't single out the First Commandment, the argument relies on it, not to mention that threatening an atheist with Hell in order to get him to believe Hell exists is silly.
Some people occasionally show up in Harvard Square with little pamphlets titled "Are you good?" They follow the same argument. One of them (she was nice-looking, so I let her talk to me) asked if I followed the Ten Commandments without exception. I explained that as an atheist, I considered several of the Ten Commandments to have no validity. From there on, I was in control of the debate; she turned to standard arguments, which I answered in ways you'd know about.
You're point about taking control of the debate is well taken, and something I should include in future posts. I'll also consider expanding this post to include the circularities he's trying to cover up.
-Bob (formerly known as the Austin Atheist)
Kirk cameron is a complete dick. This harrassment of people on the street is just sick. I have to watch some porn to get the image of Kirk camerons stupid christian smirk out of my mind.
That's right! I deleted Bruce's comment, and my responses to his comment. Permanently! All three can serve no further purpose remaining here, so down the memory hole they go. I really should write up a comment policy.
I have inserted a link to the Iron Chariot's entry on "Moving from intellect to conscience. I hope that will be sufficient, at least for now.
The Cameron circular reasoning has been turned into a website. PZ got a spam message and I was just to curious not to check it out. I even wrote post about it.
By the way, terrific post.
Post a Comment