Episode 26 with T-Jump: How to produce better conversations

The typical debate between believers and unbelievers are where good conversations go to die. We have all had those conversations and we are all somewhat aware of what the other side does to defeat attempts at better conversation. We tend to be less aware of our own conversation killers. Both sides come armed for a fight. And that is usually what they get.

Further feeding the frenzy is a rabid following that is largely in it for the entertainment value. Anonymous denizens of the internet choose a champion and egg them on to ever greater heights of gory, gladiatorial word wars.

Both sides are likely to weaponize words when they are stuck and don’t want to admit it. That happens a lot. Live conversation doesn’t afford one time to think. So they have to react. If one does not have a good response on hand, they reach for one of their conversational IEDs. Having been a Christian for longer than I have been an atheist, I have guilt on both sides of the fence and am much more familiar with Christian conversational killers. But in the interest of fairness, I will go over some of the ones I have noticed atheists using, including myself. Here we go:

Appeals to the Bible

I am going to start with one of the toughest ones because I don’t know a way around it. Every argument the Christian makes is ultimately tied to the Bible as a sacred text that is above reproach or criticism. It stands as read. That is the final court of arbitration for them.

Regardless of the argument, it can be pushed all the way back to the only authority that really matters to the Christian. All of the apologetic arguments have a biblical component to them. The greatest conceivable being has all the omni traits because bible. The cosmological argument has to be true because god created everything. We know that because bible. Why couldn’t it be some other god? Because bible. Why couldn’t it be self creating? Because bible. Why are we sure that everything was intelligently designed? Ultimately, because bible.

But we skeptics don’t give a tinker’s damn what the Bible says anymore than we care about pronouncements from the Quran. It is not authoritative for us. We don’t care that David thought he was a sinner while still in his mother’s womb. We don’t care that Paul believes that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. Somehow, Christians are going to have to find better ways of making their case without reference to a magic book. We don’t accept the magic. Perhaps the first conversations should attempt to establish the Bible as authoritative before moving on to other things.

Sin

Stop calling me a sinner. By sin, Christians tend to mean a behavior or disposition that runs counter to god’s will. The problem is we don’t believe in your god. So we don’t and can’t believe in sin. Ask a Christian if sin would exist if there was no god. The answer would be no every time. If we could have sin without god, we could also have righteousness without god. No Christian would give that ground.

Accusing a person of being a sinner is to say that they are guilty of being in a state of offense to the universe and its creator. They are worthy of either omission from heaven or inclusion in some version of hell or annihilation. I don’t really care if I stand in offense to your imaginary higher power. That does not give you the right to regard me as if I was a bad human.

The problem is that the Christian believes it is their duty to call sinners to repentance and turn them to faith in their god. So they can’t stop doing it. That is a real problem for conversation.

Hell

Stop trying to threaten me with hell. The fact that I don’t believe in any form of hell is all it should take. But Christians are completely neutered if they have no stick with which to threaten. They need us to care about their god claims. So there has to be a consequence for the skeptic who doesn’t care about any god claims. No matter how hell is defined, I turn rather cold when a Christian implies that I am going there.

Scientism

Christians use this word to imply that skeptics a closed to other forms of knowledge and proof that fall outside the natural. But that is not true. Christians have simply failed to show that there is another form of inquiry into reality outside of nature. I have begged Christians to tell me how I can test claims that are based in the spiritual realm. They have no coherent responses. So instead, they accuse us of scientism as a way of covering for the fact that there are no other options for examination.

Appeals to authority

Skeptics don’t bow to religious authorities. We don’t care about the Bible and do not believe in god. We are also not impressed by Christian academics. A degree in theology is no more impressive than a degree in unicorns. No one can be an expert on a god that doesn’t exist except in a purely literary sense. So citing authorities is a waste of our time.

Christians also try to appeal to atheist authorities to trap the skeptic. This is just annoying. We don’t have prophets or bishops or creeds or bibles that we are obliged to respect. Christians do, and are sick and tired of having those authorities used against them. So they try to paint us in the same corner by pretending we have to care what some famous atheist once said that stands opposed to our position. I don’t even need to address it in a debate. It is a naked attempt to turn the tables. Not on my watch!

Magic

We atheists have a handful of IEDs we are prepared to use when needed. I will pull from my own arsenal.

I know very well that regarding the subject of miracles or works of their god, Christians have a visceral reaction to hearing those mighty works reduced to mere magic. They either don’t believe in magic or define it as unnatural powers from demonic entities. Referring to miracles as magic is like referring to Jesus as a demon. A small part of their brain explodes and they can never fully recover from it in a conversation.

That said, I honestly don’t see the difference in a god miracle and magic. But I could stop using the word if I had the proper incentive. Perhaps we could collectively come up with a word that doesn’t invoke a god or unsavory powers. Perhaps both sides can just refer to supernatural acts as supernatural acts and leave it at that.

Christians believe…

Many skeptics who have been in the trenches for a while often talk about what Christians believe. But we have to be more careful with our language. Christianity is not a singular enterprise. Different people have different believes. Some of those differences are quite radical. We can only address what some Christians believe and see if our interlocutor is one of those people who holds that belief. We cannot just assume they are all the same. They aren’t. You have to reset with each new conversation.

Imaginary friend

I am as guilty as anyone for using the imaginary friend trope. For me, claims of a personal god is no different from a child’s claim of an imaginary friend. They have all the same sensory confirmation as a god-believing adult. Also, they are both incapable of validating their claim to someone else.

That said, I know that mention of an imaginary friend get’s their back up in the same way talk of praying to a milk jug gets their back up. Should we stop making comparisons? I don’t think that is the answer. But I also can’t think of a comparison that isn’t equally a poison pill to conversation.

I don’t know

Now that we have considered a few of the most common poison pills, let us consider some antidotes to the poison. The first one is that both sides need to get a lot more comfortable with saying “I don’t know”. We don’t know how the universe began. So what? The Christian doesn’t know that their god created the universe. There is nothing wrong with saying that.

The problem is that while atheists have nothing to lose by acknowledging ignorance, Christians do have a lot to lose. They make truth claims that would be undercut by admitting too much ignorance. We have to find ways to admit what we don’t know and stop trying to defend hills that might not be defensible.

Give me a chance to think about that a little more

When we are stuck, it might not be that we don’t know as much as we need a moment to formulate a reasonable response. We need to start asking for that space to think. We can put a pin in it and come back later. This is easy for everyone as long as we are conversing in good faith.

Empathy

Each side needs to practice saying that they can see how the other person believes what they do. No one loses anything for that. I can actually see how believers can come to believe things that I don’t. It doesn’t make them crazy or haters of truth. At the same time, we don’t have to give any credit to their position. It is more about empathizing with the person rather than with their position. A little empathy goes a long way.

Conclusion: Really listen

We tend to listen to the extent that we are formulating a sharp reply. We give our interlocutors enough rope with which to hang themselves. Then we hang them. We can do better than that.

In my two appearances on the Unbelievable show with Justin Brierley, I learned that the one who steals the most talk time wins. In a better conversation, the more noble goal is to be the one putting in the most listen time. We can and must do better.

David Johnson