How to Talk to Believers
November 16th, 2006 by 
soulster
First, I would like to say that drunkentune did a great job with his list, and much of what he said could be applied to conversations with theists [wiki], especially Christians [wiki], as well. I have been a part of several conversations with atheists [wiki], which were rarely if ever heated. Most of my conversation is with nominal believers and agnostics [wiki] who have either lost their faith or never adopted one. Because I’ve been conversing with people who essentially don’t know, but lack a strong conviction for or against, I have had less opportunity for conflict. When conflict has occured, it is most often with other believers who differ in some area of orthodoxy [wiki] or praxis [wiki] (which should raise some believer’s eyebrows if they really think about that).Â
You won’t find any of my websites with strong condemnations of atheists or their actions, and I share drunkentune’s conviction that there is much more to be feared from the current influences of cultural Christianity and fundamentalist religion on politics and life in general than the involvement of atheists in these areas. I am sometimes frustrated by atheists limitation of all truth to things that are mathematically true or materialistically proven, but never enough to call them names or use harsh or belittling language, which I consider to be wrong in relational ethics.
That being said, here are my recommendations when talking with believers:
- Don’t treat us like we’re ignorant (even if you really think we are, or if its actually true). When people feel like you think they are stupid they shut down and go on the defensive, which means the dialogue is over.
- Avoid thinking in or expressing stereotypes and “imposed meta-narratives”. Sometimes atheists assume a certain story for all believers, as if they all have had their faith handed to them (which is of course true of many), or have been brain-washed, or they all have adopted beliefs to relieve their insecurities like a security blanket. It’s better to ask someone what their story is, and ask questions about why they think this or that aspect of the story went the way it did. (Believers are bad about this too. As drunkentune hinted, we often assume all atheists are closet theists who are simply mad at God.)
- Consider listening a lot and not saying much. Agree with what you can agree with. Feed information like articles, books, podcasts, and the like without much fanfair or commentary. Christendom perceives itself as the dominant culture and truth (whether this is true or not), and bursting their bubble so honest communication can happen should be somewhat covert and subversive at the same time while humble and polite. My assumptions have been challenged more in the quite corners of libraries and by gentle friends who embody their truths, than on the debate floor.
- Spend ample time developing an understanding of each other’s vocabulary. Listen deeply, hearing core-values and systemic underpinnings. Much of the conflict and misunderstanding in the world stems from being too quick to speak and failing to listen.
- Most Christians will not be convinced by attacks on the Bible, like bringing up apparent contradictions, ethical delemas, or logical problems in the text. Christians have spent enough time with the Bible (about 2000 yrs.) to come up with tidy answers in these areas (and when they have answers, they can often simply ignore such issues). Also, consider that mystery is a component of faith. You will meet some believers who are comfortable with the “I don’t knows” and who expect to have many of them when it comes to God. Talk to these people. Other believers are not so comfortable with mystery, and they will use circular logic, false dicotomies, etc to defend themselves and cover up for God (as if he needed our defense). You might consider avoiding conversation in such cases and you might even want to reconsider the ethics of trying to dialogue with such an unprepared person.
- Recognize a fundamental difference in worldview [wiki]. Atheists are working with a largely materialistic [wiki] understanding of the universe, with natural scientific method [wiki], observation, and mathematical logic the main informants. That is not true of most believers. While they have adopted certain aspects of materialism and certain ideas from natural science, they explain the world mainly through the narrative of their faith. This means that there is a fundamental difference in how you and a believer think about the nature of reality. Exploring those worldviews in detail will do a great deal to advance the conversation. Chucking one or the other, or setting them up in a sort of worldview war is not helpful.
- Allow experience and interpretation into the conversation, even if do not think it is legitamate evidence (though you might want to think about that too). The epistemology [wiki] of faith and theology rightly belongs in the category of the humanities [wiki] along with art, literature, and components of the social science of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and similar disciplines. As such, the rigors of material sciences (or what are usually called “natural sciences”) should not be indiscriminantly applied. Humanities necessarily are more nebulous and make greater use of narrative, experience, interpretation and are even confortable with levels of symbolic truth like mythology [wiki]. They also make greater use of the conceptual over the concrete and aesthetics rather than logic.  In the social sciences, the scientific method is somewhat different than in material science, so adjustments in argumentation should be made. Pschologists and biologists frequently find themselves describing the same thing, though their perspectives are often different but none-the-less both true.
- Don’t rant about how religion has ruined everything. Sure, Christendom (and other faiths) through the ages has done some pretty despicable things. But the recent history of atheism, especially when mixed with certain brands of politics, has yielded similar results: war, genocide, persecution, etc. It is always a worldview + something else that produces this kind of evil, like Christianity + feudalism [wiki], or Christianity + imperialism, or atheism + Maoist Communism [wiki] that has been responsible for such evils. Conversely, both faith and atheism have produced some brilliant minds and even brighter goods. Instead of fatalism or historical blaming, explain your concerns about current trends in politics and faith that concern you. And when you must use historical examples, make sure you equally blame the political and social impulses that used religion for a justification, shield, or mask as you blame religion for allowing it to be so used.
- Christianity makes broad claims about its power to change people and situations. The single largest disproof of our faith lives in its failure to do so, especially in the West. If our faith is proven by experience, then there in lies the realm of disproof. But please take into account the affects of nominalism in all truth-systems and the universal warnings against it in all wisdom traditions. At their heart, no faith endorses such living. There are even atheists that refuse to live by what they know to be true and good to the peril of us all. Nominalism, wherever it exists, is just a fancy name for cowardice, apathy, complacentcy, and laziness which are always contemptable and tradmarked by no system of thought.
That being said, I think that this type of dialogue is desparately needed, and that Christians need conversational partners like atheists to keep them honest. Paul said that either Christ’s resurrection from the dead was real or our faith was worthless and even pathetic. If this is true, Christianity is indeed the most pathetic way of life if it is not true.  If untrue, we are deluded, chasing shadows, and entering into needless suffering and dissatisfaction.  The right thing is to constant engage in the quest of truth, in the testing of our faith as we claim God tests it, and in the honest appraisal of what we believe and how we live.
I would also like to echo drunkentune’s commitment to conversation over debate and understanding over self-confirmation. I would like to also pledge myself to making this a safe place for all involved, be they atheist, theist, or agnostic. Please comment vigorously with this same commitment in mind.
Posted in belief, how to dialogue | 
November 19th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Bear with me, but I’d like to make a point of this misconception. In one study, 90% of Americans said they believed in a personal god and the afterlife, while only 10% of “eminent†scientists said so [(September, 1999). Scientific American]; in another, 517 members of the USNAS expressed “personal disbelief†in a personal God, 20.8% expressed “doubt or agnosticism†and 7% expressed “personal belief†[(1998). Nature. 394 (6691), 313.]. Some studies even claim that atheists are generally more intelligent than believers.
Even so, intelligence has nothing to do with atheism or materialism, and atheism or materialism have nothing to do with intelligence. It is skepticism that is tied to intelligence, and skepticism in many cases leads to atheism or materialism. It’s a game of “Six degrees of separation.†For example, some atheists believe in astrology, astral projection, ESP, ghosts, souls, the afterlife, [fill in the blank with pseudoscientific claim]. None of these are materialistic or follow the scientific method. They’re not even logical. They are not intelligent.
Not all atheists are smart, or well informed, or follow materialism, naturalism, the scientific method, observation, or logic. We are not all the Sportin’ Life, the Homais, the Thersites. Some of us are very, very stupid. Atheism is unbelief in God, materialism is the claim that the natural world is all there is, and neither atheism or materialism is skepticism, logical, scientific, or do rely on observation. Many atheists do rely on such, but other atheists do not.
For example, there are
disproof atheists, that seek to give evidence for God’s nonexistence,
methodological atheists that claim that the burden of proof rests on believers,
ignorant atheists, that accept atheism on a personal level, and
faith atheists that believe that there is no support either for atheism or theism, but follow atheism as a “basic belief.”
Just clarifying.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Good point drunkentune. I did make a generalization there that may or may not describe atheists in general. I think you might have to make some generalization towards theists as well, since there is also great variety there.
So then, as much as an atheist constructs a worldview from materialism, scienctific method, and various other epistemological components, they would need to recognize a difference in worldview. If they happen to believe in the supernatural, they may not.
I have known atheists who confess making the decision becuase God refused to heal their dying mother, atheists who are afraid to throw out a Bible in fear of divine retribution, and atheists who are skeptics who demand evidence that meets the criteria of a materialistic/scientific worldview. Thanks for reflecting that diversity in your comment, and I think it would be good to have a full post on this at some point, just so people can get the scope of atheism from your viewpoint.
Perhaps I should edit number 6 to read: Consider you may have a fundamental difference in worldview [wiki] with a believer. Some atheists are working with a largely materialistic [wiki] understanding of the universe, with natural scientific method [wiki], observation, and mathematical logic the main informants. That is not true of some believers. While they have adopted certain aspects of materialism and certain ideas from natural science, they often explain the world mainly through the narrative of their faith. This means that there could be a fundamental difference in how you and a believer think about the nature of reality. Exploring those worldviews in detail will do a great deal to advance the conversation. Chucking one or the other, or setting them up in a sort of worldview war is not helpful.
If I get no complaints, I’ll likely edit the post to reflect the changed language.
I also think you are right that skepticism is a mark of intelligence. I would question whether you can love and seek the truth without it. Skepticism, both inward and outward, has been a great ally, teacher, and protector.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I think that’s OK. I’m just nitpicking, but the edit sounds fine with me. If there’s any misconceptions in my “How to…” just tell me.
I think this is a very interesting idea. Many theologians in the past have advocated for faith alone, and renounced reason. For example,
I’d love to hear what other modern Christians have to say about searching for truth through reason or skepticism, but otherwise I certainly agree with you.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
I have to disagree with point 5. Orthodox Christians are putting all bets on the Bible being true - the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God. If there are clear inconsistencies within the text, then Christianity falls a part. When atheists point out apparent contradictions within the text, it is the responsibility of the Christian to explain how the apparent contradiction does not cause orthodox Christianity to fall a part.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:22 pm
In regards to reason, I would disagree with Luther’s statement, though I would like to see it in context. It’s true that reason makes a poor god. But, at the same time, how can we have a God who says “come, let us reason together” [Isaiah 1:18], if reason is inherently evil or fallen. Rather, it would seem that the God of the Bible is comfortable with the respectful skepticism that asks for signs [Genesis 15:7-11; Judges 6:17] or proof [John 20:24-29], though not in disrespect or manipulation [Matthew 12:39, 16:4] (although trust is so highly value relationally, it supercedes skepticism). Â
Luther, Calvin, and many in his day had a strong sense of the depravity [wiki] of humanity and the need to emphasize God’s efforts to transform us above anything man can do (including reason), and so they made many harsh statements. But as far as practice, reason has always been a part of faith as evidenced by Paul’s letters, Calvin’s [wiki] authorship of a systematic theology (Institutes [wiki], an which focuses on a coherent system of belief), and Luther’s [wiki] many papers including his teachings against indulgences and certain doctrines of Roman Catholicism [wiki: 95 Theses], all heavily using reason to argue theological points and biblical principles.
I would question any theology that makes no room for skepticism and reason. Such a theology presents a bully god who simply wants us to give in to him. While surrender is part of faith, it is supposed to be willing surrender. Otherwise, faith is not worth having. It is only domination. Instead, it seems to me that God is infinitely interested in participation, which requires our assent after our persuasion, making the universe a dialogue, rather than a rant we must simply accept. What would be our purpose for existence in the latter? Why create us, just to force himself on us? If God is love [1 John 4:8], the only such statement in the Bible, than we are romananced into relationship with him. And all healthy romance requires skepticism, at least initially, so we may won over by something real. Otherwise, we are easy and our walk with God becomes prostitution — some kind of us using God or him using us, not marriage.
Pope John Paul II states in a letter, ”Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth” [here]. The new pope (Benedict XVI) got in trouble when he used an old quote criticizing Muslims for not using reason in conversion in a speach about reason as an essential component of faith [here]. Once of my favorite theologians and a professor of Philosophy, Dallas Willard, speaks a great deal about Christians using reason and partipating in the formation of tools that promote it [see Redemption of Reason lecture notes here PDF]. There is even a movement of people asking Christians to be more skeptical, though admittedly with varied results:Â
http://www.skepticalchristian.com/
http://users.netstarcomm.net/crawford/skeptic.htm
http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/christianskeptic.htm.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:45 pm
CE: Thanks for you thoughts on point 5. I also look at the Bible as my primary truth source. My comment was not intended to say that we do not stand or fall based on the Bible, but just a general hint for atheists talking to Christians. We Christians, as a broad group, can usually either 1) defend scripture to our own satisfaction (perhaps your & my position), 2) evade the issue (the habit of some less adept believers), or 3) be a butt about it (the occassional reaction by a minority of believers to unfortunate atheists). All I’m saying is that, starting out, the contridiction agrument might not be productive, though it might need to be addressed at the right time.
By the way, I just wanted to point people to your blog http://meditationsofdan.blogspot.com/ where you seem to discuss some issues that overlap with this blog, but where your answers would likely differ from mine on some issues. Just a good example of the spectrum of Christianity.
November 26th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
soulster,
Perhaps we need to clarify what we mean when we say “faith.†From what you’ve said, faith seems to mean a form of trust that is founded in part by reason. However, from what I understand faith to mean, faith is believing something to be true despite the absence of evidence, or in spite of the evidence, instead of a optimistic definition, such as the common quotation:
Dictionary.com’s first two definitions show this divide between us:
Three such real life examples illustrate the second definition:
1. Many flat-earthers have faith that the earth is flat, and no matter the evidence, will not change their position.
2. Young-earth Creationists have faith that the earth is less than ten thousand years old, even when all the evidence contradicts this.
3. Geocentric Creationists and anti-evolutionists believe that the earth is the center of the universe, and that evolution does not occur, respectively, even when nothing supports these notions, and all the evidence points to a different conclusion.
That is my understanding of faith.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Should non-believers remember that many believers think they are engaged in spiritual warfare, and that if you know more about the Bible than they do, they will often say that even Satan can quote scripture?
November 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I think you commit one of the errors you warn against, namely assuming that all believers are the same. This struck me when you said not to criticize the Bible. Sure, Christians have spent 2,000 years trying to resolve the difficulties. However, many modern people who’ve left Christianity will tell you that they did so because they heard the harmonizations, the justifications, and these things didn’t make a bit of sense to them.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
drunkentune:
Good idea about getting some working definitions of faith. It’s really hard because so many people us it so many different ways. I would add a defintion to the two you quote: “3. a system or tadition of rites and practices (a faith)”. This is what is meant in the Catholic sense of the “faithful” — those who participate in the ritual (also perhaps closer to the core definition in Islam).
There is currently several different working definitions of faith out there in Christendom. Two major groups are discussing the defintion of faith based on whether truth is propositional or relational. I would belong to the second camp, influenced by post-modernism.
The definition of faith in Hebrews 11 changes somewhat based on your assumption about truth. In context (all of chapter 11, what people sometimes call the “Hall of Faith”), the author relates figures from Jewish history who demonstrated faith in God. If viewed with propositional eyes — as if all of faith is accepting a concept as true without evidence or with evidence to the contrary — the rest of the chapter reads very awkwardly. If, however, you read faith as relational trust, then the chapter makes perfect sense. It is about people trusting God and seeing what they hoped for become a reality. Even the first bit about the creation becomes more of a relational “this is the God who created, verses these other gods who want your alliegence”. I doubt very much that the author in per-scientific Palestine meant it as belief in a counter-narrative against clear evidence about the earth’s origins. There was no evidence in that day to refute with faith.
Personally, I would not subscribe to a faith that was about blind acceptance of concepts or dogmas. I once thought that’s what it was all about. Unless faith is relational, what good is it?
But faith does have a sense of not yet having all the information. For example, I have faith in my wife even though I do not know whether she will in return be faithful. The majority of the evidence I’ve seen so far in our marriage and most of our dating seems to indicate so. But the real knowledge will come after the fact since no one knows the future. In the same way, I trust certain scienctists and doctors, etc. and their information based on my social relationship with their endorsing institutions. I have never learned many of the concepts or information they employ, so I trust them based on relational truth. On the other hand, many of the addicts and margin people I work with do not share that trust becuase of their broken relationship with such institutions.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Steven Carr:
Good point. Many believers do believe in spiritual warfare and would see atheism as connected to the Satanic side of things. While I believe in spiritual warfare in a way, I would not include my conversations with atheists in that category. My experience of “spiritual warfare” in nothing like conversations with people how have legitmate questions.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Chris Hallquist:
Maybe I do generalize too much. It is very difficult to talk about anything since you must walk the knife-edge between ambiguity and narrowness. Notice on number 5 that I say “most Chirstians” not “all Christians.” Perhaps I should say “some”, but I think “most” is more aqccurate given the statics on Bible-belief (77% of ‘born agains’ here), the frequency that the Bibles’s authority makes it into faith statments (such as creeds), and the amount of believers I’ve talked to who say this is one of the things they like least about talking to atheists.
You are free, of course, to discuss this if you want, but just as atheists don’t like comparisons to genocidal political figures, many Christians find it the antithesis of good conversation.
However, I’m not sure what your point is. I’m talking about how to have a conversation with a believer, but it seems your saying that convincing them not to be Christians is possible. Sure, the same is true of some modern atheists being converted to Christianity. So I wonder if the point of conversation, according to you, would be a sort of conversion? Since, according to drunkentune (Metaoffenses, rule 1), it isn’t good for conversation to be trying to convert atheists, I invoke the same rule here in reverse. Just for the sake of promoting dialogue, of course. If the dialogue progress to the point that both sides would be in favor of an exploration into the reliablity of Scripture, then, by all means, proceed.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
soulster,
I’ll stay out of the way of the conversation with Chris, but I’d like to give you props for your handling of the direction it’s going.
I have to agree with you. Perhaps an evangelical Christian and an atheist could both accomplish their goals set forward in both “How To…”s? I could conceive of such a dialogue progressing far enough that the Christian can get his message across and the atheist would be comfortable with this development. Both sides would be content with the process, if not the results. I hope we eventually reach this stage! I do think that is a fundamental premise that we rely on: it is the process that matters the most, however, the results do matter in their own light.
I’m sorry it’s a bit belated, but I’d like to talk a bit on comment #10.
I think I’m beginning to understand the Christian worldview on matters of faith (I hope!). If the analogy of your marriage and your faith is true, is it that you do believe that there is evidence for the existence of God, yet it’s still logically up to debate, just as you believe that your wife would never cheat, even though it is always logically possible that she could?
You, like many believers, seem to use the word ‘faith’ as in a form of trust after reviewing the available information. I hope it makes sense that to an atheist, faith seems to run counter to the evidence.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:54 am
Whether atheist or religious, I’m not sure I understand the argument that would make it unethical to debate a “unprepared person.” Can you explain?
November 28th, 2006 at 11:24 am
drunkentune:
I don’t know if anyone could grasp what faith means for all believers, but you seem to be catching on to what it means for me.
I have what I think is some evidence for the existence of God in the form of certain experiences, encounters, reationships, things that have worked, thelogically beautiful ideas, etc. All these have led me to trust God relationally. I am still on a quest for evidence, and I humbly admit that I may be wrong, I have doubts about certain things, but what I have is enough for me to walk forward. It is a relational choice based on relational truth.
I understand that to an atheist, faith runs counter to the evidence. I think I will be using some of my space on this blog to show how I see the evidence, including much of what science has to say. I am glad that you have already begun to say why you think the evidence leans away from faith. It seems we are developing the understanding that was the high ideal of our original intents in opening this blog.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Joe Decker said:
Thanks for the question. Not everyone would agree with me here. I guess I envision this in two ways. First, it’s like two sword fighters. One’s sword breaks during the fight. The other one stops the fight in order for the first to get another sword. He does this because, ethically, he is interested in the truth of who will win given an equal playing field. If he continued, it could be said that he won not because his method, skill, or will was better, but because the other’s sword was defective — a fault of the smithy, not the fighter. Likewise, if we are really interested in the truth of our ideas and beliefs, we will choose well-matched opponents to test them upon. Otherwise, we will simply flatter ourselves into delusion and error by beating down weak opponents.
Secondly, I have been a party to unethical religious behavior that I am ashamed of. When I have found a person ignorant of religion, I have used that to my advatage. Rather than educate them and leave them to choose, I have used the principle of vaccuum — when nothing is their, it’s easier to get your idea in. Occasionally, I have preyed upon the generally uneducated because they are easy to covert to any idea, having little in the way of critical thinking. These are crimes. Thoughts can be chains as much as any steel, so we must be careful to always preseve the freedom of choice based on knowledge. I see it as my ethical responsibility not to coerce or manipulate another human being with superior vocabulary, scientific knowledge, or the smuggness of intelligence. I can educate them to my position gently, but it is only ethical to give them time and power to do their own research and to develop their own response in thier own context so they may make an educated and informed choice that they themselves will own.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Indeed.
When I have found a person ignorant of religion, I have used that to my advantage…
And indeed, agreed as well.
Thanks for providing some thoughts on this, there are times where I discuss with people who aren’t as educated. Usually my ostensible intention is not so much “convincing them” but planting a seed of doubt that will cause them to think more deeply about a subject, but it might be worth examining my intentions, as well as the results of my actions a little more often.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
[…] I like is that the Christian wrote something on How to Talk to Believers, while the atheist wrote something on How to talk to Atheists. I also enjoyed the post On Debate […]
June 5th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
[…] Erring on the Side of Truth: A Mistake June 5th, 2007 by drunkentune […]