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:

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)!

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with you 100% that the tone should be adjusted for the audience. But when you have several personality types in the comment section, its hard to stick to one tone.

Especially when people say things similar to "you're arguments are discredited because you are arrogant".

and other similar non-sequiturs.

zilch said...

Ken- nice post. This is indeed a good question, one I have asked myself numerous times. My style has also varied, from soft-pedaling to take-no-prisoners satire. As you and Lee say, there's no one style to suit all occasions, so I don't think there's any simple answer to your title question.

Lately, though, my tendency has been to heed the maxim "you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar", and although I sometimes revert to being sardonic, especially when dealing with assholes, I try to be polite, make no personal attacks, and let the facts speak for themselves. After all, this is how I would like to be treated. Didn't some wise man once say something like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Anonymous said...

One can argue that adjusting the strength of the message for the user is a good idea because we don't want to estrange the recipient of the message. Makes us less effective. But we must not shy away from letting believers know that their belief threatens us all. As Harris pointed out, it is the 90% of believers that are moderate that provide the platform of validity on which the religious extremists stand. In this way, you can argue that all believers are an equal threat. Why then, should some get a moderate rebuke?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

I'm definitely in the flies with honey camp, but it's not always easy. Talking to some believers can be like talking to a brick wall with a recorded message that plays over and over again. I've been told I can't understand because I'm not a believer, and of course that I never really was a believer, and I only left the faith because I wanted to lead a life of sin. Sometimes it is difficult to not lash out in return. Fortunately I get none of that from my friends and family. They are all still loving and supportive.

C. Andiron said...

I’ve seen very few screeds that approach the level of ridicule employed by the scriptural authors themselves:

If you believe that, you need to check out 'Bondage of the Will'! Enjoy.

Jeffrey Amos said...

>If we’re addressing those who are already struggling, a strong push may be what does the trick.

I won't comment on what is true in general, but the reverse was true for me. When I was a struggling Christian, Dawkins actually helped prop me up. The primary way that I was able to ignore skeptical arguments was through the belief that they are based on either a misunderstanding of the Bible or naturalistic presuppositions. Dawkins plays right into this.

What pushed me over the edge was calm, reasoned, Biblical arguments. Arguments that gave me nothing to be angry at, because Christians were not being insulted. Arguments loaded with the attitude of "you're not retarded - just wrong." It was Babinski's articles in particular that did the trick.

I don't try to vary my style, but consistently go with honey. Some Christians' faith won't be dented by me, and I'm okay with that.

(Btw, as xkcd noted, you can actually catch a lot more fruit flies with balsamic vinegar than with honey. The little guys love that stuff.)

zilch said...

Thanks for the heads-up about fruit flies and balsamic vinegar, jeffrey: I'll remember that. It's always good to have a real-world counterexample to accepted wisdom.

Ken Daniels said...

Thank you all for the comments. It's good to have your perspective, jeffrey, as a counter-example to my own experience. In my case, I had been sheltered from skeptical literature all my life until shortly before my deconversion. It's probably safe to say I would have been swayed by either a hard-line or a soft-line approach, as long as the underlying arguments were good. On the other hand, if I hadn't already had doubts of my own, I probably would not have been receptive to the approach of a Dawkins or a Harris.

Andiron, I assume you're referring to Luther's The Bondage of the Will, a book I read maybe 15 years ago. I do recall thinking of him as quite the firebrand (who did not hold Erasmus in high regard), so yes, you're probably right. It's difficult to top Paul's recommendation of castration as far as tirades go, though.

Monado said...

Level 1: "I'm not religious."

Level 2: "There's more evidence for Santa Claus than there is for God."

Level 3: "I don't have a tooth-fairy-shaped hole in my heart."