Spirited Script

I’ve been following some more debates between people who believe in God and those who don’t lately. And I think I’m starting to pick up on something. It’s rare to see one side moving the debate to the other side’s territory. Religious people tend not to engage atheists in scientific debate, and atheists fail to realize many religious people are going to be more moved by an emotional or subjective argument. It’s the nature of the worldviews held by many people.

I’m a religious person who respects science and thinks it’s important. As such, I try to choose my beliefs in such a way that they won’t interfere with science… or more accurately, so science won’t interfere with them. I view the role of science as dealing with the observable, objective, and physical world, while spirituality and religion deal with the unobservable, subjective, and spiritual world. This makes me pretty unwilling to bend when people say science disproves religion, because what they are really saying is science disproves these common religions and beliefs, and there is no evidence for the other religions out there.

Now, I understand some atheists would respect my stance and leave it at that so long as I respect their stance. There are others who seek to convince religious people of all kinds to abandon their religion and become an atheist. As is their right, so long as it is done respectfully. The vast majority of the time, it is. However, those trying to convince us to abandon our faith are making a mistake. They’re trying to whittle away at all religious beliefs through science.

This won’t work. The reason is simple. Those who respect science are careful to match their beliefs with science to be sure they aren’t in conflict. We freely acknowledge there is nothing scientific about our beliefs, only that we’ve thought about our beliefs and made sure they are not contradictory to scientific understanding. And if science ever does contradict them, we’ll change with the science. On the other hand, those who don’t respect science aren’t going to listen to science anyway. With them, you’re banging your head against a wall.

Instead, the place to engage religious people is in the realm of emotion, subjective experience, and knowledge of their religion and morals. And you need to understand a person’s specific beliefs when engaging them in order to do this properly. Just because someone says they’re a Christian doesn’t mean they have the same beliefs as another person who says they’re a Christian. So, if you want to challenge someone’s beliefs, you need to find out what they are first.

Now, the reason you have to challenge them emotionally and subjectively is because that’s how we live. That’s not to say every decision we make is whimsical and not based on fact. However, we find when we don’t have a clear idea of where to go, relying on intuition and emotion works more often than not, and that shapes us and how we think. The feeling that God exists is there. Our feelings tend to be reliable on some scale, and while the more science oriented of us wouldn’t base decisions effecting other people on this, we would base decisions effecting us and other people who agree to it on this intuition. So, this is what you have to challenge if you want to convince us we’re wrong. Is this unreasonable? From a scientific perspective, sure. From a philosophical perspective, I don’t think so.

On the other hand, religious people need to understand that emotional and subjective arguments don’t really appeal to atheists most of the time. If you feel a need to convince them to join the ranks of the religious, you’re going to have to pull out the science. Which means that right now, you don’t have anything to work with, because there is no positive scientific evidence for religion. Sorry guys, that’s how it is. Just like you’re likely secure in your faith, atheists are secure in their lack of faith. And scientifically speaking, atheists are on more solid ground than us. We may find some solid evidence later on, but for now, we have personal experience, and that means squat in science unless you can replicate it in a manner testable by anyone with appropriate scientific experience. Of course, you may come up with an idea that shows how science could support a religious belief. If you do, check it out first though. We don’t need anymore mangled quantum mechanics floating around. If it does check out as reasonable, awesome, let us know.

So, my main point here? As long as you respect the people you’re debating, even if you don’t respect the ideas, keep on doing what you’re doing. Just consider that you may have better luck trying a different approach if you’ve been hacking away with the approaches I’ve outlined above. Part of persuading people is meeting them on their turf.

Finally, I want to give a special thanks to these sites for inspiring this piece:
Greta Christina’s Blog : Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong for Atheists to Persuade Believers
Ebon Musings : The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists
European Swallow : Reasons to Deconvert to Atheism

Related Posts:

• On Theism and Atheism
• The Relationship Between Science and Religion
• Speak Up
• Science Is Not a Religion
• Evolution Is A Scientific Theory