I have been an atheist since I learned the definition of the word. But I question two of the arguments Michael presents here.
First the study by Gregory Paul is correct as far as it goes, but any further extrapolation risks confusing correlation with causation. Furthermore, the US is different from those other 16 countries in many ways that certainly relate to social dysfunctions. The right question (and experiment) is whether the US would be worse if it was LESS religious.
Second, the list of horrors attributed to religion probably overlooks how many of these were motivated by other issues. And claiming they were justified by religion might be correct, but in a former time EVERYTHING was justified with religious arguments. Of course, as others have done before, we can also list regional and even global atrocities committed by anti-religious groups.
In fact, declaring classic religions moot does not protect human thinking from doctrine and behavior from criminal.
I watched sections of the video, and I am not totally surprised that your team changed more minds than your opponents. You are clearly doing something right in your Oxford-style debates.
I have always wondered if there might be an additional technique for challenging the religious and changing their minds, namely, demonstrating to them how they might have gone wrong. Let me explain with two analogies.
1, If someone gets the incorrect answer to a math problem and you can demonstrate to them where they went wrong in their calculations, they should be more receptive to the accepting the correct answer.
2, If someone's eyes are fooled by an optical illusion and you can demonstrate how their senses are being tricked, they should be more receptive to accepting that their eyes (well, actually, their eyes and their brain) are not perceiving reality correctly.
All we need are demonstrations of how someone's thinking about God is a miscalculation and how their senses and feelings are tricking them into believing in the existence of something that does not exist. Obviously, this will not be easy because numerous factors lead people down the garden path to theism, and one would want to cover all of the possible wrongheaded reasons why people become theists. Still, such an effort might be worthwhile.
I have been an atheist since I learned the definition of the word. But I question two of the arguments Michael presents here.
First the study by Gregory Paul is correct as far as it goes, but any further extrapolation risks confusing correlation with causation. Furthermore, the US is different from those other 16 countries in many ways that certainly relate to social dysfunctions. The right question (and experiment) is whether the US would be worse if it was LESS religious.
Second, the list of horrors attributed to religion probably overlooks how many of these were motivated by other issues. And claiming they were justified by religion might be correct, but in a former time EVERYTHING was justified with religious arguments. Of course, as others have done before, we can also list regional and even global atrocities committed by anti-religious groups.
In fact, declaring classic religions moot does not protect human thinking from doctrine and behavior from criminal.
As usual, all excellent points.
I watched sections of the video, and I am not totally surprised that your team changed more minds than your opponents. You are clearly doing something right in your Oxford-style debates.
I have always wondered if there might be an additional technique for challenging the religious and changing their minds, namely, demonstrating to them how they might have gone wrong. Let me explain with two analogies.
1, If someone gets the incorrect answer to a math problem and you can demonstrate to them where they went wrong in their calculations, they should be more receptive to the accepting the correct answer.
2, If someone's eyes are fooled by an optical illusion and you can demonstrate how their senses are being tricked, they should be more receptive to accepting that their eyes (well, actually, their eyes and their brain) are not perceiving reality correctly.
All we need are demonstrations of how someone's thinking about God is a miscalculation and how their senses and feelings are tricking them into believing in the existence of something that does not exist. Obviously, this will not be easy because numerous factors lead people down the garden path to theism, and one would want to cover all of the possible wrongheaded reasons why people become theists. Still, such an effort might be worthwhile.
I liked the topic but found the discussion disappointing.
I would have preferred to see an answer from Mahatma Ghandhi or Sister Joan Chittister rather than these guys.
Reading this is like seeing an article titled “Are Motorcars Needed” then reading about the features and drawbacks of a Buick Skylark.
Congratulations, Michael! We lost a few atheists who started having second thoughts over the past couple of years.
The West could use a religious enema to flush all the religious influence away.