Change is slow and subtle
How do you change people's minds? Activists often give the impression they are looking for some kind of momentous event or revelation to bring everyone over to their cause. In reality, change is much slower and it's much less easy to pin down a precise cause.
Take, for instance, the reason why I became an atheist. There are a multitude of reasons, of course, but it largely stems from the kind of environment I grew up in. An environment where science is lauded, and where superstition is largely considered silly. Critical thinking is encouraged. Ridicule of religion is an important point. Ridicule of religion is both indicative of an environment of religious skepticism and a reinforcer of it. This is why I object to people who say ridicule and mockery is counter-productive.
Every time you watch a TV program or read an article or listen to somebody you are incorporating ideas into your models and beliefs, reinforcing some and reducing others. For instance Sam Harris' book The End of Faith has not convinced me that an aggressive approach to terrorism is the way forward, but it has certainly softened my attitude to such an approach. The books I read and the people I listened to all helped to construct my current set of beliefs. Now, I try to make sure they are justifiable, but most people don't feel the need for that.
And why do I live in a society which allows mockery and ridicule of religion and has quite liberal and progressive social ideology? Because in centuries past, people wrote books that encouraged such an attitude, and these ideas disseminated steadily into society. It's not like everyone who read The Age of Reason just suddenly converted from dogmatic Christianity to deism in a stroke. They won't even have needed to have read it, just to have grown up around people who have.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be disappointed that we can't convert people to our way of thinking one person at a time just by making good arguments. The struggle each of us makes contributes to an ethos that contributes to the environment in which people formulate their beliefs. Just by writing this blog, I'm helping to increase the likelihood of a curious child finding information on the web that helps solidify their beliefs.
I feel like my efforts on the anti-religion front over the past few years have been neither futile, nor merely a purely egoistic recreation. On Martin's Debate Unlimited forum, for instance, I believe I have already seen people's ideas and beliefs change. I've even, gratifyingly, seen some of my own arguments return to the board through somebody else's keyboard. So, even if I never manage to write these amazing books I've always wanted to write and to change the world like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris can, I've still done my fair share.
Take, for instance, the reason why I became an atheist. There are a multitude of reasons, of course, but it largely stems from the kind of environment I grew up in. An environment where science is lauded, and where superstition is largely considered silly. Critical thinking is encouraged. Ridicule of religion is an important point. Ridicule of religion is both indicative of an environment of religious skepticism and a reinforcer of it. This is why I object to people who say ridicule and mockery is counter-productive.
Every time you watch a TV program or read an article or listen to somebody you are incorporating ideas into your models and beliefs, reinforcing some and reducing others. For instance Sam Harris' book The End of Faith has not convinced me that an aggressive approach to terrorism is the way forward, but it has certainly softened my attitude to such an approach. The books I read and the people I listened to all helped to construct my current set of beliefs. Now, I try to make sure they are justifiable, but most people don't feel the need for that.
And why do I live in a society which allows mockery and ridicule of religion and has quite liberal and progressive social ideology? Because in centuries past, people wrote books that encouraged such an attitude, and these ideas disseminated steadily into society. It's not like everyone who read The Age of Reason just suddenly converted from dogmatic Christianity to deism in a stroke. They won't even have needed to have read it, just to have grown up around people who have.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be disappointed that we can't convert people to our way of thinking one person at a time just by making good arguments. The struggle each of us makes contributes to an ethos that contributes to the environment in which people formulate their beliefs. Just by writing this blog, I'm helping to increase the likelihood of a curious child finding information on the web that helps solidify their beliefs.
I feel like my efforts on the anti-religion front over the past few years have been neither futile, nor merely a purely egoistic recreation. On Martin's Debate Unlimited forum, for instance, I believe I have already seen people's ideas and beliefs change. I've even, gratifyingly, seen some of my own arguments return to the board through somebody else's keyboard. So, even if I never manage to write these amazing books I've always wanted to write and to change the world like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris can, I've still done my fair share.
posted by extabgrad at 1:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home