The validity of arguments from conversion

You might of heard of this before. Basically, when someone uses their story of being on one side and now they're on the other side. The basic idea behind this is that perhaps the same thing which won over the person in question will also win over whomever is still on the original side.

The problem with this is that we can see it all over the place. Oftentimes, the side employing it actually loses more people to the other side than vice versa. There are plenty of anecdotes of Christians who used to be atheists. But there are also atheists who used to be Christians. In the political realm, it's all over the place - with conservatives who used to be progressives, progressives who used to be conservatives, alt righters who used to be libertarians, libertarians who used to be progressives, socialists who used to be conservatives, and people who've been all of these and decided to become centrists.

My two cents on this are that it's not a bad idea to talk about your conversion in certain circumstances but it shouldn't be an argument for why your new ideology is correct as in "I left a certain belief, therefore it's wrong".

Masterhawk said:

You might of heard of this before. Basically, when someone uses their story of being on one side and now they're on the other side. The basic idea behind this is that perhaps the same thing which won over the person in question will also win over whomever is still on the original side.

The problem with this is that we can see it all over the place. Oftentimes, the side employing it actually loses more people to the other side than vice versa. There are plenty of anecdotes of Christians who used to be atheists. But there are also atheists who used to be Christians. In the political realm, it's all over the place - with conservatives who used to be progressives, progressives who used to be conservatives, alt righters who used to be libertarians, libertarians who used to be progressives, socialists who used to be conservatives, and people who've been all of these and decided to become centrists.

My two cents on this are that it's not a bad idea to talk about your conversion in certain circumstances but it shouldn't be an argument for why your new ideology is correct as in "I left a certain belief, therefore it's wrong".

Click to expand...

When it comes to the whole apologist genera of books, the most popular books are from people who claim to have been skeptics, but 'got converted'. Sometimes the stories seem to be a marketing technique more than anything.

Many atheists were once believers in a specific faith and later changed their position through the examination of the said faith's claims and dogma (Matt Dillahunty for example). The more perspicacious of these individuals do not denounce the existence of a god or gods, but promote self examination of one's belief system through reason, which is a far more logical stance, as opposed to merely denouncing the existence of a god ~ for this is simply an example of rejecting one belief system and espousing another. Many argue that atheists do not believe in a god or gods when in actual fact, most atheists do not see any reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods, and that is the fundamental difference when apologists inevitably try to reduce atheism to the status of a belief system.

If one changes one's position on an ideology or belief system, then one should be able to support one's stance with a well developed and reasoned argument for said position, and not merely denounce the 'other side' through specious and fallacious claims.

How you come to change your mind about an issue might be of interest to others in a way that is peculiarly relevant to the discussion. On the other hand, as the OP correctly points out, this phenomenon is pervasive and no single group has a monopoly on converts. It's not obvious either how stories of conversion are going to produce the same kind of response with other people who did not share in this change of mind.


With that being said, we could look into examples and try to see if there is some value added to the discussion by people who recount the story of how their opinions and beliefs evolve. I am perfectly aware that by choosing an example I risk antagonizing some people because we probably have all matters of opinions represented on this forum. However, grounding things in things we experience generally adds a layer or two of depth to a discussion, so I'll try to do my best to do it with a measure of tact.

On Youtube, you can find a video from PagerU showcasing Dave Rubin explaining why "he left the Left." This fits right into what the OP is talking about and it also touches upon complicated social issues that have been raised recently. One of the things that stuck hard with Dave Rubin was that he heavily valued freedom of speech and that he considered discussion to be a good way to handle disagreements. We also all know some more radical groups of people on the left who have recently taken positions that are anathema to this point of view.

If we want to be fair with people who have trouble with some aspects of freedom of speech, it is absolutely true that some groups of people have suffered more than others from certain types of comments. Going in another direction, I have also encountered people who took the position on issues pertaining to the black community, white people shouldn't be heard or that their views should be discounted; likewise for issues pertaining to women and the opinion of men; and, so on. Of course, we probably only get extreme cases reported and someone can make a reasonable case that the hands-on experience of some people might have something to a discussion that cannot be introduced by someone else. That would be an argument to give some weight to first-hand experience, though I don't think we can rely solely on feelings and personal experiences to discriminate across propositions for policy, for example. In other words, if you pause and tune out some of the noise, some of the issues raised by people on the left are worth contemplating. You can always pick someone sufficiently close to either pole of the political spectrum to find ideas that are completely disconnected from reality -- and that is quite the temptation.

Going back to Rubin and his issue with values like freedom of speech, racial integration, etc., he made the point in that video that too many people among those who call themselves liberals eventually adopted ideas that conflicted too much with these values. Back when the video was released, you probably could have chalked that one off to Dave Rubin's peculiar experience and point fo view. On the other hand, Rubin is not alone. We have Bill Maher and Dave Chapelle routinely poking at this same crowd of radical people. A Democratic presidential candidate, of all people, was taped without her knowing it (set aside the ethical conundrum with the choice made by journalists to publish the segment anyway) saying that she thought the right was meaner than the left and that people on the right were those involved in lies and smear campaigns, only to point out she now thinks the exact opposite.

Of course, it's not because 4 people made similar comments that they are right. However, it is quite something from public figures to stick their neck out and criticize their own side. Part of the point I am trying to convey is that when Ben Shaprio or Denis Prager argues something is going wrong with some groups of people on the left, nobody is surprised. Both of them are very religious, socially conservative and have written books on their political views. Not a lot hangs in the balance for them. With Rubin, you could make the case he didn't risk much. With Bill Maher and Marianna Williamson, they risk alienating some friends, clients, audiences, etc. Moreover, neither of them intends to become conservatives. Part of the potential appeal of some of those conversion stories, or of the milder version that we can call "internal criticism stories" is that people who can be ideologically far apart might agree on a very small subset of points. When that happens, chances are, it gets to something real.

NWO_Spook said:

Many atheists were once believers in a specific faith and later changed their position through the examination of the said faith's claims and dogma (Matt Dillahunty for example). The more perspicacious of these individuals do not denounce the existence of a god or gods, but promote self examination of one's belief system through reason, which is a far more logical stance, as opposed to merely denouncing the existence of a god ~ for this is simply an example of rejecting one belief system and espousing another. Many argue that atheists do not believe in a god or gods when in actual fact, most atheists do not see any reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods, and that is the fundamental difference when apologists inevitably try to reduce atheism to the status of a belief system.

If one changes one's position on an ideology or belief system, then one should be able to support one's stance with a well developed and reasoned argument for said position, and not merely denounce the 'other side' through specious and fallacious claims.

Click to expand...

Everyone has a belief system.
They do not need to articulate it, most people do not.

Concerning the existence of God(s), they may believe there is a god, and that is a part of their belief system. It maybe a very small part.

They may believe there is no God. That is part of their belief system. It may a small part.

They may be undecided about God, believing they lack sufficient knowledge to decide yes or no. That is a part of their belief system.

Many individuals may have little concern on the god issue. It just does not enter into their daily activity. They believe there is no god, that is a relative certainty, conceding the Scientific position that there is no absolute certainty, about anything.
As far as they are certain about anything, they are certain there is no god.
Such a person could hardly be labeled as having an Atheistic belief system, they may prefer to be recognized as having a Scientific belief system. A part of that belief system is atheism.

Someone else may have a self described scientific belief system, with elements of Judaism, Christianity, or any other theistic religion.

There is no conflict.

To say "I find no need to believe there is a god, their is no doubt in my mind that there is none, but atheism is not part of my belief system." is simply denial of the facts.

As you may know, some self described atheists do believe in a higher power, that can only be referred to ad god.

Norml said:

Everyone has a belief system.

Click to expand...

But not all belief systems are based upon nothing more than faith.

They do not need to articulate it, most people do not.

Concerning the existence of God(s), they may believe there is a god, and that is a part of their belief system. It maybe a very small part.

They may believe there is no God. That is part of their belief system. It may a small part.

They may be undecided about God, believing they lack sufficient knowledge to decide yes or no. That is a part of their belief system.

Many individuals may have little concern on the god issue. It just does not enter into their daily activity. They believe there is no god, that is a relative certainty, conceding the Scientific position that there is no absolute certainty, about anything.
As far as they are certain about anything, they are certain there is no god.
Such a person could hardly be labeled as having an Atheistic belief system, they may prefer to be recognized as having a Scientific belief system. A part of that belief system is atheism.

Someone else may have a self described scientific belief system, with elements of Judaism, Christianity, or any other theistic religion.

There is no conflict.

To say "I find no need to believe there is a god, their is no doubt in my mind that there is none, but atheism is not part of my belief system." is simply denial of the facts.

Click to expand...

Is that the subject under discussion?

As you may know, some self described atheists do believe in a higher power, that can only be referred to ad god.

Click to expand...

I've yet to meet one.

NWO_Spook said:

But not all belief systems are based upon nothing more than faith.,

Click to expand...

Ridicules. Of course they are. All of them. Some more than others.
Science starts with three assumptions. You know what an assumption is, a belief without convincing evidence.
You have to have faith in something, to believe anything.

Is that the subject under discussion?

Click to expand...

Well, my post was in reply to your post, so yes, I suppose it is.

I've yet to meet one.

Click to expand...

Just a guess, but I imagine there might be quite a few people you have never met.

Norml said:

Ridicules.

Click to expand...

What?

Of course they are. All of them. Some more than others.
Science starts with three assumptions. You know what an assumption is, a belief without convincing evidence.
You have to have faith in something, to believe anything.

Click to expand...

Some belief systems are based upon evidence and observation, not merely faith, and that is an important distinction.

Well, my post was in reply to your post, so yes, I suppose it is.

Click to expand...

We are discussing the validity of arguments from conversion.

Just a guess, but I imagine there might be quite a few people you have never met.

Click to expand...

Your perspicuity is astounding. It was absurd to state that atheists can believe in 'higher powers' (if that is to be interpreted as a supernatural entity), for if one believes in a 'higher power' then one is not an atheist.

NWO_Spook said:

What?



Some belief systems are based upon evidence and observation, not merely faith, and that is an important distinction.

Click to expand...

There is a group of individuals who believe the moon landing was a hoax. These beliefs are based on evidence and observations. Top 8 Examples Proving the Moon Landing Was a Hoax - EnkiVillage

So this distinction you claim, is meaningless, and has no importance. Evidence and observation is no guarantee of accuracy.

The world view of Science is that there is no absolute proof for anything. There is only varying degrees of probability, some very high, others not, but no absolute proof. Anyone who does not accept this, does not accept the full assumptions of Science.

It was absurd to state that atheists can believe in 'higher powers' (if that is to be interpreted as a supernatural entity), for if one believes in a 'higher power' then one is not an atheist.

Click to expand...

Some self identified atheists say they believe in a higher power. That is what they say about themselves, despite your objections. You are not the undisputed monarch of language.


“I’m an atheist, but I do have faith in a higher power that I insist is greater than all the rest.
The higher power I bow down to goes by a few names: Reality, truth, nature—sometimes mother nature, though its maternal instincts are not to be relied upon.
My higher power is reality. Science is how I pray to it, trying to guess ever better its heartless ways.

Can anyone define reality? Though we’ll debate what reality contains, I think it’s not hard to define. Reality is the set of all things that don’t change, no matter what we believe or do.
We know reality by its consequences. We learn about it from its history. We’re married to it ‘til death do us part—our deaths, not its death. We're married to it. It's not married to us. Reality is in this respect timeless.
Reality makes it possible for me to live, if I play my cards right, and kills me if I don’t.
That is my faith. Faith that, in the end, reality wins all battles and all debates.” An Atheist's Devotion to a Higher Power | Psychology Today


But among the so-called “nones” — a broad category of atheists, agnostics and those who answer “none of the above” on questions about religion — fully 72 percent believe in a higher power of some kind.

Overall, 70 percent of the nones said they believe in a spiritual force. Among agnostics, it was 62 percent. Even among atheists, nearly 1 in 5 (or 18 percent) said they believe in a higher power.
Just why so many agnostics, and even atheists, believe in a higher power is a matter of debate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...power-but-not-always-in-the-god-of-the-bible/


The findings from the Pew Religious Landscape survey demonstrate that “atheist” is still a label that is somewhat in flux. In a society dominated by religion, nonreligious individuals may still struggle to define themselves. How one chooses to identify can also be deeply personal, and what “atheism” means to one individual may be slightly different to another. Do You Believe in Atheists Who Believe in God? - TheHumanist.com


While none of the atheists surveyed said they believe in the God of the Bible, about 18 percent said they believe in another higher power or spiritual force. Cragun said he suspects that this higher power that atheists and many other religiously unaffiliated folks are referring to is not necessarily supernatural and may lack other classic Judeo-Christian characteristics. Many Americans Prefer A 'Higher Power' To The God Of The Bible, Study Finds | HuffPost

As you can see in the above graph, up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers.
Agnostics were more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than atheists across the board. Notice how the graphs have similar patterns but with different point values New report finds many non-believers still believe in the supernatural - Big Think
Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.
These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.
Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer. Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians - The Atlantic


You can play the no true Scottsman fallacy card all you want. Some self described atheists believe in a higher power, and some believe in the supernatural.

Norml said:

There is a group of individuals who believe the moon landing was a hoax. These beliefs are based on evidence and observations. Top 8 Examples Proving the Moon Landing Was a Hoax - EnkiVillage

Click to expand...

Wait, so a bunch of nutcases who cannot interpret evidence render observation and evidence as a sound basis for a belief system immaterial? Utter bilge.

So this distinction you claim, is meaningless, and has no importance. Evidence and observation is no guarantee of accuracy.

Click to expand...

Did I say it was? No. Do you understand the scientific method?

The world view of Science is that there is no absolute proof for anything. There is only varying degrees of probability, some very high, others not, but no absolute proof. Anyone who does not accept this, does not accept the full assumptions of Science.

Click to expand...

A given. Relevance?

Some self identified atheists say they believe in a higher power. That is what they say about themselves, despite your objections.

Click to expand...

So, some individuals believe in a higher power and they claim to be atheists. Obviously they aren't if this higher power is a supernatural deity.

So, You are not the undisputed monarch of language.

Click to expand...

Did I say I was? No. I suggest you look into the etymology of the term.

You can play the no true Scottsman fallacy card all you want. Some self described atheists believe in a higher power, and some believe in the supernatural.

Click to expand...

You can misrepresent my position in order to create a fallacy, but that is hardly honest now is it? You have separated 'higher power' from the 'supernatural' when I qualified my statement accurately : a supernatural higher power (i.e. a god). Atheists don't believe in god or gods and the etymology is a dead giveaway.

You can play your little games all you like, but that won't change. Furthermore, this is off topic.

(snicker)

A candy bar i have always enjoyed and recommend to all of my friends and acquaintances.

Now there's an example of an invalid argument. :lol:

Norml said:

There is a group of individuals who believe the moon landing was a hoax. These beliefs are based on evidence and observations. Top 8 Examples Proving the Moon Landing Was a Hoax - EnkiVillage

So this distinction you claim, is meaningless, and has no importance. Evidence and observation is no guarantee of accuracy.

The world view of Science is that there is no absolute proof for anything. There is only varying degrees of probability, some very high, others not, but no absolute proof. Anyone who does not accept this, does not accept the full assumptions of Science.




Some self identified atheists say they believe in a higher power. That is what they say about themselves, despite your objections. You are not the undisputed monarch of language.


“I’m an atheist, but I do have faith in a higher power that I insist is greater than all the rest.
The higher power I bow down to goes by a few names: Reality, truth, nature—sometimes mother nature, though its maternal instincts are not to be relied upon.
My higher power is reality. Science is how I pray to it, trying to guess ever better its heartless ways.

Can anyone define reality? Though we’ll debate what reality contains, I think it’s not hard to define. Reality is the set of all things that don’t change, no matter what we believe or do.
We know reality by its consequences. We learn about it from its history. We’re married to it ‘til death do us part—our deaths, not its death. We're married to it. It's not married to us. Reality is in this respect timeless.
Reality makes it possible for me to live, if I play my cards right, and kills me if I don’t.
That is my faith. Faith that, in the end, reality wins all battles and all debates.” An Atheist's Devotion to a Higher Power | Psychology Today


But among the so-called “nones” — a broad category of atheists, agnostics and those who answer “none of the above” on questions about religion — fully 72 percent believe in a higher power of some kind.

Overall, 70 percent of the nones said they believe in a spiritual force. Among agnostics, it was 62 percent. Even among atheists, nearly 1 in 5 (or 18 percent) said they believe in a higher power.
Just why so many agnostics, and even atheists, believe in a higher power is a matter of debate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...power-but-not-always-in-the-god-of-the-bible/


The findings from the Pew Religious Landscape survey demonstrate that “atheist” is still a label that is somewhat in flux. In a society dominated by religion, nonreligious individuals may still struggle to define themselves. How one chooses to identify can also be deeply personal, and what “atheism” means to one individual may be slightly different to another. Do You Believe in Atheists Who Believe in God? - TheHumanist.com


While none of the atheists surveyed said they believe in the God of the Bible, about 18 percent said they believe in another higher power or spiritual force. Cragun said he suspects that this higher power that atheists and many other religiously unaffiliated folks are referring to is not necessarily supernatural and may lack other classic Judeo-Christian characteristics. Many Americans Prefer A 'Higher Power' To The God Of The Bible, Study Finds | HuffPost

Click to expand...

I'm an atheist. I believe in reality/nature. I wouldn't call it a "higher power."

Damascene Conversion syndrome.

Cure is to take one pinch of salt and apply liberally to he claims.

Me, I like the Evangelical approach of, if you are an atheist now then you were never a real Christian. Vice versa.

NWO_Spook said:

Many atheists were once believers in a specific faith and later changed their position through the examination of the said faith's claims and dogma (Matt Dillahunty for example). The more perspicacious of these individuals do not denounce the existence of a god or gods, but promote self examination of one's belief system through reason, which is a far more logical stance, as opposed to merely denouncing the existence of a god ~ for this is simply an example of rejecting one belief system and espousing another. Many argue that atheists do not believe in a god or gods when in actual fact, most atheists do not see any reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods, and that is the fundamental difference when apologists inevitably try to reduce atheism to the status of a belief system.

If one changes one's position on an ideology or belief system, then one should be able to support one's stance with a well developed and reasoned argument for said position, and not merely denounce the 'other side' through specious and fallacious claims.

Click to expand...

I read and listened to my share of debates on this issue and what theists argue is that the definition of atheism the modern atheist uses is more a form of agnosticism. Here is a definition:

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." (Emphasis mine.)

Theists will assert that the classical sense of the definition of atheism is positive assertion that there is no God. Here is a form of that:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

There is a fair degree of semantics in this as far as I'm concerned.

Cynical said:

I read and listened to my share of debates on this issue and what theists argue is that the definition of atheism the modern atheist uses is more a form of agnosticism. Here is a definition:

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." (Emphasis mine.)

Theists will assert that the classical sense of the definition of atheism is positive assertion that there is no God. Here is a form of that:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

There is a fair degree of semantics in this as far as I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

There is no semantics except in the minds of theists and frankly, they can assert what they like and categorise how they feel it suits their argument but, it changes nothing.

Atheist addresses belief in the existence of gods.

Agnostic addresses belief about what we can know about the existence of gods, either way.

As an atheist, I 'lack belief in the existence of gods' which is a response to the positive assertion that gods exist. To keep it brief and avoid tortuous explanations, I am not obliged to have a belief about every concept that someone can pull out of their backsides on a whim and, I am not obliged to accept the existence of that concept beyond it's imaginary conception.

And none of the above says anything about what we can know, it simply states that no compelling evidence has been produced thus far that gives me reason to believe; I have addressed my belief but, said nothing about what we can know about gods. There is a strain of 'agnostics extremists' who I believe are probably religious agnostics and that object to this stance because it sets them adrift and leaves them with nothing to argue against. In my case, this was always a position I held but, I became more forthright about it when theists, and some 'agnostic extremists' started to assert that, 'atheism is just a religion' and, 'you're just as bad as them'.

William Rea said:

There is no semantics except in the minds of theists and frankly, they can assert what they like and categorise how they feel it suits their argument but, it changes nothing.

Click to expand...

I agree that the issue of semantics here isn't exactly problematic as an honest discussion between people should focus on what the people involve actually say they believe. What is the point of having a discussion where you cram your own views down the throat of someone else? You might as well talk to yourself if you're going to do that.

On the other hand, I don't think it's completely fair to dismiss the point about semantics. Atheism should be to theism what amoral is to moral: the prefix "a" is meant to refer to the absence of something, not to the presence of its opposite. The dispute here is very subtle and abstract because the difference between "not believing" there is a God and "believing there is no" God exists only under some, though not all systems of logic. I've never seen this kind of dispute erupt outside of a mathematics department, except when it comes specifically to Atheism. It seems to me, at least at an intuitive level, that "not believing" there is a God demands a smaller ontological commitment -- something like the argument you make below that you haven't come across sufficiently compelling reasons to believe. So, as you point out, Theists will often want to pin Atheists with the stronger view that there can be no God. They might do it as a rhetorical ploy or as an honest mistake. It's not like Atheism isn't tainted by culture: I'm sure Joe Average would tell you an Atheist is someone who believes there is no God.

William Rea said:

In my case, this was always a position I held but, I became more forthright about it when theists, and some 'agnostic extremists' started to assert that, 'atheism is just a religion' and, 'you're just as bad as them'.

Click to expand...

Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." And if we ask sociologists and anthropologists, most of them would point out that defining features of religion also include a set of core dogmas and rituals. Atheists share one view with regards to supernatural beings -- that they have not seen compelling reasons to believe in their existence. That's hardly a complete theology, let alone a religion. And they do not have special holidays, symbols, chants, etc.

Some people think you can compare science and religion, but that is a pretty thin comparison. Science comes with a set of presumptions (some obvious such as the intelligibility of facts, some less obvious such as the adoption of a logical semantic for judging what are valid reasoning), but that's not like a set of dogmas. In fact, the whole point of science is that it is a method, a way to approach problems. Religion is a determined set of ideas, generally focusing on how to live your life rather than on how the world works. For example, we can scan your brain as you see pictures, read words or answer questions. If we do that for political or ethical problems, we'll learn that your first reaction is affective -- your moral intuitions strike first and areas associated with conscious reasoning are activated later. Someone might one day find weird examples where this doesn't work; or they might be able to even more subtly map the activated areas to brain functions and come up with clearer picture. Who knows? That's science: see something, get curious about why, gather information that can potentially help reject some explanations, but not others and see what you're left with.

Religion is different.*I'd say that biblical scripture is meant to offer a phenomenological account of human life. Denis Prager (a religious Jew) studied the Old Testament extensively in the original Hewbrew and he once said that Genesis and Exodus teach us extensive lessons about the human condition. Seen as a piece of litterature, those two books offer a certain degree of theatrical realism that I do not see very often nowadays. They are not naive accounts of how humans behave where heros are flawless and vilians are entirely evil. They also show relationships that are difficult to work through, with people manipulating each other and hurting each other and having to deal with damaged relationships thereafter. Life is a mess in those books -- and life really can be a mess.


You don't have this attempt built into Atheism to come up with guidelines on how to live a "good life." It's not obvious how you move from "I don't see why I should believe in God" to "here's how you should handle this dispute with your brother in law." In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the link is very obvious because it's built around the stories.

William Rea said:

Me, I like the Evangelical approach of, if you are an atheist now then you were never a real Christian. Vice versa.

Click to expand...

Jonathan Haidt says that a large part of what it means to be partisan is that you have acquired the right set of rapid and intuitive reactions to the right set of words and images. For example, you list your own views as "socialist" and your avatar suggests to me that you are politicized. You probably feel short, affective flashes of disgust when you see pictures of Donald Trump, of your recently elected Prime minister, or when you read things such as "free markets," "property rights" or corporations.

I'd say the conversion story can be perfectly real, though I suspect it would not happen over a single day. We could potentially confirm this with cleverly designed questions before and after a conversion, though we'll probably have to wait for some social or moral psychologist to run those studies before we get back a conclusion. However, the gist of the idea is that you should show signs of partisanships toward a different group before and after. This can happen if you change your social circles, or if opinions among some people in your in-group shift away from yours.


The example of politics is probably going to be more controversial, but I'd really like to have your input on this as this is another realm where people claim conversions happened to them. You seem to be a reasonable person, genuinely interested in discussion and I stand to benefit from hearing the opinions of people with whom I am likely to have disagreements. I see that you are from the UK, but I am more familiar with US politics. I don't know how well these observations apply oversea, but it seems to me that not so long ago the attitude toward freedom of speech not so long ago was something along the lines of claiming your right to be a huge d*ck, for lack of a better word, and it seems to me like that the correction has thus far extremely severe in the opposite direction. Let me just cover two examples to make things specific. Even a reasonable person, perfectly willing to hear counterarguments and taking a nuanced position can be put in serious troubles over seemingly innocuous statements. I recall an incident involving Cumberbatch using a phrase that apparently was common in the UK back then (I think it was colored people) as opposed to some other preferred phrase that was more commonly used in the US. He was harassed for days over it. Things are way more problematic if you do more than use the wrong lingo. There was an incident a few years ago at Harvard over a comment the wife of the dean made with regards to Halloween custumes -- that you should be allowed to wear whatever costumes you want. We have ample videos of the incident on youtube showing the dean trying to talk through the problem with a group of protestors and the protestors explicitly telling the dean they don't want to talk. He and his wife eventually both resigned.

Now, the conversion story. Dave Rubin has a show on youtube where he likes to have lengthy interviews with public figures on topics ranging from politics, ethics, philosophy, science, current affairs, etc. He explained in a PragerU video that he didn't feel like he left the Left, so much as the left Left him and his core complaint was the whole issue of freedom of speech. He also said numerous times publicly he felt that, nowadays, it was easier to talk with conservatives because too many people on the left (in the US, at least) were unwilling to have a discussion about political issues. He's not alone here, by any means. He doesn't feel like he changed much of his views, except I suspect his personal experience building a business and the selection bias involved in picking interviewees (if it's easier to get conservatives than liberals, you have a biased exposure) might have moved some of his positions more towards a conservative point of view on economic policy.


This brings me to talk about another point made by Jonathan Haidt, namely that we only listen to people we perceive as our friends. I suppose that if you moved to a more conservative area and that, by chance, the friendly people in town are mostly conservatives, you might find yourself changing your views -- even if only slightly. We don't want to be intellectually hostile to people we like. That's also one reason why Dale Carnegie advised his readers to not confront people heads on, but to begin with a smile, to be chritable with their ideas and to make a genuine effort to understand them. The slight feeling of "I like that guy" is a more potent force a well crafted argument.

TheEconomist said:

Jonathan Haidt says that a large part of what it means to be partisan is that you have acquired the right set of rapid and intuitive reactions to the right set of words and images. For example, you list your own views as "socialist" and your avatar suggests to me that you are politicized. You probably feel short, affective flashes of disgust when you see pictures of Donald Trump, of your recently elected Prime minister, or when you read things such as "free markets," "property rights" or corporations.

I'd say the conversion story can be perfectly real, though I suspect it would not happen over a single day. We could potentially confirm this with cleverly designed questions before and after a conversion, though we'll probably have to wait for some social or moral psychologist to run those studies before we get back a conclusion. However, the gist of the idea is that you should show signs of partisanships toward a different group before and after. This can happen if you change your social circles, or if opinions among some people in your in-group shift away from yours.


The example of politics is probably going to be more controversial, but I'd really like to have your input on this as this is another realm where people claim conversions happened to them. You seem to be a reasonable person, genuinely interested in discussion and I stand to benefit from hearing the opinions of people with whom I am likely to have disagreements. I see that you are from the UK, but I am more familiar with US politics. ...snipped for brevity... I recall an incident involving Cumberbatch using a phrase that apparently was common in the UK back then (I think it was colored people) as opposed to some other preferred phrase that was more commonly used in the US. He was harassed for days over it. Things are way more problematic if you do more than use the wrong lingo. There was an incident a few years ago at Harvard over a comment the wife of the dean made with regards to Halloween custumes -- that you should be allowed to wear whatever costumes you want. We have ample videos of the incident on youtube showing the dean trying to talk through the problem with a group of protestors and the protestors explicitly telling the dean they don't want to talk. He and his wife eventually both resigned.

Now, the conversion story. Dave Rubin has a show on youtube where he likes to have lengthy interviews with public figures on topics ranging from politics, ethics, philosophy, science, current affairs, etc. He explained in a PragerU video that he didn't feel like he left the Left, so much as the left Left him and his core complaint was the whole issue of freedom of speech. He also said numerous times publicly he felt that, nowadays, it was easier to talk with conservatives because too many people on the left (in the US, at least) were unwilling to have a discussion about political issues. He's not alone here, by any means. He doesn't feel like he changed much of his views, except I suspect his personal experience building a business and the selection bias involved in picking interviewees (if it's easier to get conservatives than liberals, you have a biased exposure) might have moved some of his positions more towards a conservative point of view on economic policy.


This brings me to talk about another point made by Jonathan Haidt, namely that we only listen to people we perceive as our friends. I suppose that if you moved to a more conservative area and that, by chance, the friendly people in town are mostly conservatives, you might find yourself changing your views -- even if only slightly. We don't want to be intellectually hostile to people we like. That's also one reason why Dale Carnegie advised his readers to not confront people heads on, but to begin with a smile, to be chritable with their ideas and to make a genuine effort to understand them. The slight feeling of "I like that guy" is a more potent force a well crafted argument.

Click to expand...

Just wait until the antisemitism smear really hits town over there, perhaps the US left will wake up and the Optics left will stop trying to appease the far right and actually defend Bernie Sanders. It's toxic and you are in for a real sh*t storm with the upcoming presidential elections. If you are inclined left, I'd focus on that right now.

More specifically, the right wing is not interested in freedom of speech, it genuinely isn't and, that is the faulty premise; they are bad faith actors and if you take them at face value on this then you are a fool because they are not looking to debate issues they are looking to crush you. Freedom of speech is not being able to say what the hell you like whenever you like without consequences, which is exactly what the right wing are advocating, even if they don't tell the 'centrists' that but then, 'centrists' are born to be fascism facilitators.

Masterhawk said:

You might of heard of this before. Basically, when someone uses their story of being on one side and now they're on the other side. The basic idea behind this is that perhaps the same thing which won over the person in question will also win over whomever is still on the original side.

The problem with this is that we can see it all over the place. Oftentimes, the side employing it actually loses more people to the other side than vice versa. There are plenty of anecdotes of Christians who used to be atheists. But there are also atheists who used to be Christians. In the political realm, it's all over the place - with conservatives who used to be progressives, progressives who used to be conservatives, alt righters who used to be libertarians, libertarians who used to be progressives, socialists who used to be conservatives, and people who've been all of these and decided to become centrists.

My two cents on this are that it's not a bad idea to talk about your conversion in certain circumstances but it shouldn't be an argument for why your new ideology is correct as in "I left a certain belief, therefore it's wrong".

Click to expand...

People change.

Life has a habit of swaying people through reading, learning, travel, and influences brought on by interesting people.

I think Jimmy did a good job of summing it all up......

As a dreamer of dreams and a travelin' man

I have chalked up many a mile

Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks

And I learned much from both of their styles

William Rea said:

More specifically, the right wing is not interested in freedom of speech, it genuinely isn't and, that is the faulty premise.

Click to expand...

You should take a minute to ponder the diversity of opinions on the left and think about whether this applies on the right. Although religious people tend to be conservatives, some people on the left are religious and consider that their theology and religoious ethics inform their views on policy. Others are outspoken atheists who disagree among themselves about the role religion should play in public life: some of them appreciate the input from a litterary perspective, others do not care and others still find it intrinsically repulsive. Feminism today shares with the LGBT movement some concerns over traditional values and social norms, but it should be clear that transactivists and feminists hold views that will not be easily reconciled. And as far as I know, it is somewhat curious that homosexual men and women (the L and the G) are lumped under a common denomination as if these two groups of people really get along just fine all the time... They don't. And this covers only a small subset of social issues. If we turn to economics, you can find people all over the place: some are closer to a form of libertarianism, others embrace the welfare state, etc.

If you never bothered taking people on the right seriously, you probably never noticed that they are a diverse crowd too. Some of them are deeply libertarians, while others are socially conservative even in matters of public policy. Some of them support a strong military, while others do not like to think of the US as a world policing force and would prefer a more limited role of the US. Some of them like Trump, others are indifferent and others still think Trump's attitudes and comments are bad for the country. The right isn't a coherent body of people all pushing the same ideas, the same way and getting along in perfect harmony.

William Rea said:

[People on the right] are bad faith actors and if you take them at face value on this then you are a fool because they are not looking to debate issues they are looking to crush you.

Click to expand...

There is some truth to this comment.

Humans being are highly skilled hypocrites that can rapidly find so convenient a way to resolve conceptual tensions that they fool even themselves. We concurrently remain convinced of our own virtue and of the moral and intellectual ineptitude of others. The catch however is that this is true of everyone, both left and right. What would be truly naive, my friend, is convincing yourself that everyone on the right is dishonest and that everyone who agree with you, including yourself is exempt of the same faults. It's easy to catch others put a uncharitable spin on what you say, or produce convoluted arguments to excuse their personal bent. It's a lot harder to catch your own side do it. Remove the log from your own eye.

By the way, I did not argue to take conservative at face value because they're honest.

I don't think most people are honest in the truest sense of the term. In fact, left to my own device I am quite sure I would form and defend ludicrous opinions and I don't think it would be easy to tell when they're good and when they're bad. That's precisely why I don't trust myself and I try to seek out dissenting views: I ask people who really disagree with me where I might be wrong and why. They'll do a far better job than I could ever do at attacking my arguments. That's also the number one reason why I think protecting unpopular speech is important: I trust exactly no one to control speech because exactly everyone is hypocritcal.

William Rea said:

Freedom of speech is not being able to say what the hell you like whenever you like without consequences (...).

Click to expand...

There is some truth to that point as not all speech is necessarily congruent with a fruitful debate. We both agree that if someone calls a group of people monstruous, it's hard to see that as constructive. But objecting to a comment being said doesn't tell us much about how to best handle some of our shared objections because there are many ways to impose a cost on people who are not being respectful when they talk in public.

With regards to free speech, a very important point to make is that popular speech (speech to which vast swaths of the pupolation agree) does not need protection. The only use of freedom of speech is to protect speech most people do not like. I don't have any expectations that no one will abuse their legal protection to spew hatred, but I know human beings: they absolutely will silence dissent if given the choice. It's just too easy to paint things you dislike as "hateful," "unamerican," treacherous," etc. and give yourself a "I don't need to argue against the crazies" pass. I don't trust anyone with that kind of power and I don't trust anyone to form sound opinions in isolation of dissenting views.

Now, if you want to reply to people you think are being too insulting, you should have the chance to do it. Expressing views need not be costless, even if it is not legally prohibited. See? We don't disagree that some speech is harmful in many ways and we agree that at least some of it need to come at a cost. I just don't think the cost should be the full power of the government comming down on you.

William Rea said:

[That] is exactly what the right wing are advocating, even if they don't tell the 'centrists' that but then, 'centrists' are born to be fascism facilitators.

Click to expand...

In the movie "Foot Loose," there is a scene showing villagers burn some books after the Pastor delivered a sermon about how the community needed to protect its youth from degrading material. He meant music and dancing, in response to Kevin Bacon's character request to have a homecoming dance, and he was shocked to see everyone took it on their own to decide what everyone should be allowed to read.

Now, to conservatives here, I do not mean to use a movie to attack a caricature of conservativism. I simply want to point out that there was a time not so long ago where this might have been seen as either fair portrait or a sort of slightly hyperbolic portrait of at least some socially conservative movements in the United States. The point is that it captured some relevant aspect of religious, social conservatives in America. They bring up objections to some behavior that are rooted in what Shweder called the "Ethics of Divinity," and it's not something that is easy to understand, especially for educated westerners. Regardless, we see this idea that some things and some gestures sort of make the town "dirty" and that this justifies trying to "clense" the town by banning music, dancing and, yes, burning books.

The point I want to raise here is an intriguing social curiosity. I know in advance that you will not agree to that point, William, but this kind of behavior has been adopted by people on the far left nowadays. They organize and protest to have certain types of speakers de-platformed, both online and on college campuses; they protest to have some historical monuments removed; they protest to edit some old advertisement and comments out of history books.

TheEconomist said:

You should take a minute to ponder the diversity of opinions on the left and think about whether this applies on the right. Although religious people tend to be conservatives, some people on the left are religious and consider that their theology and religoious ethics inform their views on policy. Others are outspoken atheists who disagree among themselves about the role religion should play in public life: some of them appreciate the input from a litterary perspective, others do not care and others still find it intrinsically repulsive. Feminism today shares with the LGBT movement some concerns over traditional values and social norms, but it should be clear that transactivists and feminists hold views that will not be easily reconciled. And as far as I know, it is somewhat curious that homosexual men and women (the L and the G) are lumped under a common denomination as if these two groups of people really get along just fine all the time... They don't. And this covers only a small subset of social issues. If we turn to economics, you can find people all over the place: some are closer to a form of libertarianism, others embrace the welfare state, etc.

If you never bothered taking people on the right seriously, you probably never noticed that they are a diverse crowd too. Some of them are deeply libertarians, while others are socially conservative even in matters of public policy. Some of them support a strong military, while others do not like to think of the US as a world policing force and would prefer a more limited role of the US. Some of them like Trump, others are indifferent and others still think Trump's attitudes and comments are bad for the country. The right isn't a coherent body of people all pushing the same ideas, the same way and getting along in perfect harmony.

Click to expand...

I do take notice and, as best I can I try to understand the variety of positions that they adopt politically but, whether through democratic means or not, their tactic is to close down other people's right to challenge what they say. Sure, the rhetoric doesn't sound like that but, that is what they aspire to. In the context of where the UK and USA are right now, the right was confident that it had won the fiscal argument and that laissez-faire capitalism was the agreed direction of travel; this has been challenged in the UK and but for some exceptional circumstances and some disgusting politics from our right wing a genuinely left leaning government would be in place. It scared the life out of the establishment and they threw everything at us to stop it including fiscal stimulus and healthcare promises that they will not carry out. The current far right government party in the UK has now absorbed smaller far right and fascist factions and we are already in the embryonic stages of a fascistic state and these are the very people that were most vocal about the 'free speech' crisis, that doesn't exist.

I think that the right wing in the UK were surprised that they were having to defend fiscal policies as they believed that was sorted and it was just a cultural war that was required against the left, to shut it down. Don't believe me? Watch over the next 5 years how the government will gerrymander our constitution and academic institutions to eradicate anything considered liberal.