Through a Mirror Reflectively

I don't read self-help books, though I have perused some. As far as I could tell from my brief survey, much of the material appears to comprise regurgitated advice, reassembled in the latest book that purports to offer new insights. This sales strategy, of course, employs a fallacious appeal to novelty. Perhaps some of the insights are novel and I simply have not examined enough books to determine this, but how many psychological wisdoms could be discoverable?

The books often illustrate their "pearls of wisdom" by way of anecdotal tales about the follies and triumphs of individuals struggling with a range of problems. It strikes me that self-help books provide mirrors. The reader is able to identify with particular elements of these tales and to benefit from self-critique, or more helpfully, from inspiration. Because the stories could not possibly be personally directed at the reader, the person seeking help is safe to identify with anecdotal mistakes without feeling personally criticized and demoralized, or becoming defensive and resorting to self-justification.

What does any of this have to do with atheism?

Many who attack the tactics of the New Atheists say that nobody changes their mind because they have been directly called a fool. I'd agree with this – to say, "you are an idiot to believe that, so you must change your mind!" is scarcely a convincing argument for the truth value of the alternative belief advocated.

In fact, to do so would be very much like the tactics that theists too often use to try to convince atheists to convert to theism:

a) "You can't be a good moral person if you don't acknowledge His existence and let God into your heart."
b) "You are merely spitefully / fearfully / stubbornly / rebelliously / selfishly denying the God who you really believe really exists."
c) "You do not want to believe in God because you selfishly don't want to submit to God's will."
d) "You cannot not believe in God – the fact that so many believe in God proves that they must be right."
e) "You are being arrogant if you claim that your scientific understanding is valid and deny that the Bible version is the Truth."

However, theists have also heard until recently – almost unopposed – believer-targetted versions of these messages:

a) "You can't be a good moral person if you don't acknowledge His existence and let God into your heart."
b) "Those who refuse to believe in Our Savior are merely spitefully / fearfully / stubbornly / rebelliously / selfishly denying the God who we must believe really exists."
c) "Those who do not want to believe in God do do because they selfishly don't want to submit to God's will."
d) "You must believe in God – the fact that so many believe in God proves that we must be right."
e) "Atheists are being arrogant when they claim that scientific understanding is valid and deny that the Bible version is the Truth."

I did not even need to alter a) and merely rephrased b) - d). There are many more examples, all fallacious, most of which include appeals to emotion.

Many theists know little of the actual dogma that they ascribe to, little of the arguments that purport to "prove" God's existence, and much less of the history of their religion. All that many Christians "know" is that they have been told that the Bible is literally true and that abundant evidence and proofs exist. Most such people are not looking for empirical information so as to rationally reevaluate their beliefs. They will seek only information that confirms what they wish to believe, and will deride any dissonant information. Some will stubbornly entrench deeper into comforting ignorance.

Until the upsurge of vocal atheism, few believers doubted for a minute that their version of reality was the dominant one. Many resist reevaluating the veridicality of their views.

When theists read that some theists display less than stellar intellects in remaining deluded, like the readers of self-help books they probably assume that the speaker is referring to theists other than themselves. When the science-ignorance of creationism is mentioned, creationists resort to saying that scientists have made errors in the past, so scientists must be mistaken again. When the bigotry and small-minded hatreds of some fundamentalists are exposed, fundamentalists protest that they personally are actually "Evangelical Christians" and not fundamentalists.

Some theists even pretend that religious critics are referring to different dogma and different apologetics than that which they espouse. When core Christian beliefs are called deluded, many Christians say that the critic should not categorize all Christians together, or they resort to the ever-popular accusation that the critic is just not sufficiently well acquainted with doctrine. Similarly, when atheists say that they do not accept the evidence that is claimed to "prove" the existence of supernatural agents, many theists make the category error of claiming that the atheist is not sufficiently well acquainted with religious dogma.

So, despite the fact that it is nonproductive to personally call a theist a fool – for holding religious beliefs to represent literal truth or to be the only route to morality or happiness – any irrrational basis of such claims must be challenged. Unless indoctrinated individuals repeatedly read that the intelligent position does not include adherence to deluded mythologies, inculcated dogma will maintain its anti-rational grip on the minds of those herded into sanctuary from reality. Like the lessons in self-help books, doubts raised by indirect, impersonal messages are more easily considered in private, enabling the more rational amongst the indoctrinated to reconsider the evidence.




apologetics, atheism, Christianity, creationism, fundamentalism, religion, theism,