Effectiveness of Ridicule and New Atheism

[Guy_Coe]

Nope, just your favored application of it.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

Why do you reject the application of it to Trump’s rhetoric? How would you apply it?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Guy_Coe

There are reasonable and compassionate choices other than merely completely open borders and completely closed ones, for example.

But I’m not seeing any significant number of evangelicals disagreeing with Trump on this.

@Guy_Coe

So, I apparently apply Matthew differently than you do.

How so? Did I advocate for open borders? I’m simply asking how you apply Matthew to Trump and how you apply it to yourself.

I’ve done sanctuary duty. Would you do that?

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Mercer @Guy_Coe Please start a new thread if you want to keep discussing politics…

[Guy_Coe]

Sure I would. I also have volunteered to serve at overnight homeless shelters.
I am not trying to politicize the thread, just disagree with why some evangelicals voted as they did as not being out of admiration for policies or shaming tactics. That’s responsive to the OP.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

As is pointing out the very, very high tolerance for ridicule.

And it was a typo asking if you would, I’m interested in if you have already done so.

I just don’t get why poetry in Genesis is so much more important than Matthew.

[Guy_Coe]

Christians are used to ridicule. That doesn’t mean they admire it.
Though we might sometimes resort to it, because of the hidden ironies involved.
Like dismissing early Genesis as “so much poetry” resulting from some really poor appreciation of literary genre.
As a Christian, I have equal regard for all that is contained in Scripture. I don’t grade it into parts I like, and parts I can ignore. I hope that’s not what’s being advocated here. Glad to know you’ve rendered sanctuary service. My friend from high school was tapped to lead the U.S. team that investigated the Rwandan genocide. You might enjoy the ministry that resulted, at www.ijm.org.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen

As such, I would also fall into the category that @Faizal_Ali claims rarely exists. One who comes to understand how a theist can embrace evolution in a way that is compatible with Christian faith.

I didn’t know about this. Can you tell us more?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Michael_Callen

The kind and patient explanations that came from both theists and atheists alike are what allowed me to consider the evidence and to adopt a new paradigm.

And, to be clear, I have nothing against that. I just don’t think it’s the only approach needed. We also need to try ensure that the many, many creationists who will not accept science no matter how kindly and patiently it is explained to them do not have the power to spread their ignorance to others. And one way of accomplishing that is subjecting them to negative consequences whenever they try.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

And, to be clear, I have nothing against that. I just don’t think it’s the only approach needed. We also need to try ensure that the many, many creationists who will not accept science no matter how kindly and patiently it is explained to them do not have the power to spread their ignorance to others. And one way of accomplishing that is subjecting them to negative consequences whenever they try.

The real science or the popular presses version of it?

[Faizal_Ali]

You’re the perfect illustration of what I am discussing, Bill. People have been patient and polite with you for I don’t know how many years. Look what it has accomplished.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

You’re the perfect illustration of what I am discussing, Bill. People have been patient and polite with you for I don’t know how many years. Look what it has accomplished.

People who practice scientism?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@terrellclemmons

Would you say that all of the reasons for your faith are personal and personally compelling? By that I mean, would you say that all of your reasons would be considered subjective and only accessible to you personally and non-accessible to someone who doesn’t share your faith?

I would say that I understand more now that those aspects that compel me toward faith are more personal and more subjective than I thought previously. Participating here has given me a greater appreciation of the fact that what is compelling to one may have no effect whatsoever on another. So that which is significant for me has not lost its significance, but I realize more that everyone has a somewhat different threshold for faith. But, to answer your question more completely, no, I do not feel that what is compelling to me is necessarily not so for a non-believer. But I feel that I would now be more understanding if this aspect were not compelling to one individual or another. I hope that answers your question.

[Ashwin_s]

@Faizal_Ali

You’re the perfect illustration of what I am discussing, Bill.

You didn’t answer my question. Ridicule is a kind of social coercion… It’s a threat that says, if you don’t agree with us or atleast keep silent, we will publicly humiliate you and take away your dignity.

Do you think this can be considered a valid method of “persuasion”… if so, why not go all the way and use thumb screws…

Second question was, is this method applicable to all people who disagree with your position including scientists. If not, how do you decide which segment of those who disagree need to be “persuaded” more strongly.

[John_Dalton]

Bill seems like a man who’s firm in his convictions. I highly doubt either years of ridicule or years of patience and politeness would cause him to change his convictions–if anything will, it will be new ideas.

It seems to me an atmosphere of polite discourse is a preferable medium for an exchange of ideas. Don’t forget it’s not just about Bill (to keep using him as an example here.) It’s about all the people who read posts on this forum and have to decide if they want to continue reading or eventually participate–and what the character of their participation will be. There’s a far greater chance one of those people might change their minds (and yes this goes either way!) than the single person you’re talking to.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

It seems to me an atmosphere of polite discourse is a preferable medium for an exchange of ideas. Don’t forget it’s not just about Bill (to keep using him as an example here.) It’s about all the people who read posts on this forum and have to decide if they want to continue reading or eventually participate–and what the character of their participation will be. There’s a far greater chance one of those people might change their minds (and yes this goes either way!) than the single person you’re talking to.

I think the bigger question is whether modes of persuasion should only be evaluated based on their effectiveness.
If that’s the only criterion, then re-education classes like those done in Stalinist Russia or China would be the way to go…

[John_Dalton]

That’s getting kind of deep I accept that you, for example, are arguing on a good-faith basis, and I hope you feel the same about me, for example. That’s the best we can hope for I’d say. Those not arguing in good faith will have a much harder time surviving in a polite environment.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@swamidass

I didn’t know about this. Can you tell us more?

I will say that it is in process… I certainly don’t understand or know enough about evolution and I’m still awaiting for D. Futuyma’s book to arrive. But that said, I’m becoming very comfortable with the explanatory power that evolution possesses. I’ve come, personally, to a conclusion that really helps me to align my faith with what’s been learned in the lab. I think that I articulated it best here:

Effectiveness of Ridicule and New Atheism

Good and fair question. What it means, to me, is to understand that biological evolution may be the way in which God created, and the best explanation for what we observe, this in comparison to special creation, wherein God, in some way, caused species to appear ex nihilo. In theology (as Christians) we see a Jesus Christ who must be accepted by faith. We are asked to be prepared to give the reasons for our faith, and those reasons are personal and personally compelling. That said, all people have experiences, and eventually make decisions regarding their own faith. There seems, to those of us who have faith, an indication (stepping stones or breadcrumbs) that have led us to where we are. That said, we cannot impute our faith upon others. God seems (to me) to have created enough indication that He exists to allow me to be comfortable with my own decision of faith. In cosmology, there seems to be many just so consequences that, once again, indicate, but do not prove, that God h…

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@terrellclemmons

Maybe this is the case for some, but I’ve never detected in any ID circles people of faith who think ID is the only option for maintaining their faith. What you said about ID is much more likely to be true of YEC because YEC - at least the AiG version for sure, but I think the ICR version as well - is predicated on theism.

OK, it could be that it is not that simple for the case of ID. But from the complaints regarding TE/EC from people who are sympathetic for ID (and I’m not talking primarily about the advocates, but laypeople), it seems that a motivation for rejecting TE/EC is that mainstream science alone (without ID trappings) is too atheistic and naturalistic for a Christian to hold. Not to mention that part of the early growth of ID was that many old school YECs and other creationists initially saw it as favorable and supported it.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@Faizal_Ali

And, to be clear, I have nothing against that. I just don’t think it’s the only approach needed.

What I understood you to say is that you’ve given up on being nice because it has no effect. I’m telling you that I’m evidence that this is simply not so.

@Faizal_Ali

We also need to try ensure that the many, many creationists who will not accept science no matter how kindly and patiently it is explained to them do not have the power to spread their ignorance to others. And one way of accomplishing that is subjecting them to negative consequences whenever they try.

Sadly, what’s done is that you fail to help those who could be helped, to instead properly punish those who cannot or will not be helped. You’ve tossed the baby out with the bathwater.

Some people are deeply entrenched in their own philosophies. So what? It’s not like you can’t tell who they are. Disengage with them and engage with others.