Spades or honey?
One of my ongoing struggles in relating to the believers in my life is to know how hard to press my convictions on others. All of us here at DC no doubt face this question over and over. Some tend toward the “attracting flies with honey” approach of Carl Sagan, while others tend toward the “calling-a-spade-a-spade” approach of Harris and Dawkins. I generally aim to be courteous, but I have been known to shift from one end of the spectrum to another depending on the encounter.
The “new atheists” have taken a lot of flack from every corner for their unapologetic use of ridicule and sharp wit. I guess it’s a natural action; no one likes to get verbal lashings. Yet in my case it was the forceful, in-your-face tirades of Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Bob Price that helped push me over the edge. I’m sure, though, that if I hadn’t already experienced internal doubts, I would have responded far more defensively and indignantly. My gut feeling is that the correct approach depends on the target audience: If we’re addressing those who have few or no doubts about their faith, a hard-line tack will be met with a defensive counter-attack and will yield more heat than light. If we’re addressing those who are already struggling, a strong push may be what does the trick. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, and is based admittedly on a small sampling (i.e., my own experience), but I wonder whether others have made similar observations.
As I’m part of a firmly believing family, I feel it’s in my best interest to stick with a soft-line approach so as not to alienate those I hold dear, but apparently Dawkins and Harris have no such commitments. Furthermore, I suspect they have swayed few committed fundamentalists but that they have had influence on the half-hearted middle-of-the road believers. I don’t believe there’s an either-or, one-size fits all solution to this question: it all depends on the target audience and on one’s social commitments.
Interestingly, for all the complaints about the style of the “new atheists,” I’ve seen very few screeds that approach the level of ridicule employed by the scriptural authors themselves:
The “new atheists” have taken a lot of flack from every corner for their unapologetic use of ridicule and sharp wit. I guess it’s a natural action; no one likes to get verbal lashings. Yet in my case it was the forceful, in-your-face tirades of Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Bob Price that helped push me over the edge. I’m sure, though, that if I hadn’t already experienced internal doubts, I would have responded far more defensively and indignantly. My gut feeling is that the correct approach depends on the target audience: If we’re addressing those who have few or no doubts about their faith, a hard-line tack will be met with a defensive counter-attack and will yield more heat than light. If we’re addressing those who are already struggling, a strong push may be what does the trick. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, and is based admittedly on a small sampling (i.e., my own experience), but I wonder whether others have made similar observations.
As I’m part of a firmly believing family, I feel it’s in my best interest to stick with a soft-line approach so as not to alienate those I hold dear, but apparently Dawkins and Harris have no such commitments. Furthermore, I suspect they have swayed few committed fundamentalists but that they have had influence on the half-hearted middle-of-the road believers. I don’t believe there’s an either-or, one-size fits all solution to this question: it all depends on the target audience and on one’s social commitments.
Interestingly, for all the complaints about the style of the “new atheists,” I’ve seen very few screeds that approach the level of ridicule employed by the scriptural authors themselves:
He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is man’s fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, “Save me; you are my god.” They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, “Half of it I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and I ate. Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left? Shall I bow down to a block of wood?” He feeds on ashes, a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, “Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?” (Isaiah 44: 14-20)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned (Galatians 1:8-9)!
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate [i.e., castrate] themselves (Galatians 5:12)!