Should skeptics convert believers?

[Mulder]

There are many good arguments put forward on this forum against all sort of strange and irrational beliefs. I personally feel they are sometimes couched in a way that might put off existing believers and maybe alienate them. I suppose on a forum for skeptics that doesn't matter too much.

But it might, if skeptics were aiming to 'convert ' believers away from erroneous beliefs. So, that's my question really, is skepticism trying to convert believers? If not, should it be?

[NorthernSoul]

I think it depends on the pseudoscience or paranormal claim being made and the circumstances around the believer.

I recently had a...discussion...with my uncle about a psychic reading he had, he believed in it completely and became quite...annoyed that I was trying to show him how I could perform a very similar trick (from this he derived I must be psychic) anyway, by the end I felt guilty, as though I had taken something away from him, I can reconcile this however, I now know that he will at least be reminded of my words or warning should he ever consider having another reading.

On the other hand, my girlfriend is a Christian, though she can't decide what sort. We discuss the bible occasionally and I am given a forum to give my point of view...needless to say, she very rarely agrees, but I would never push the issue and try to convince her she was wrong.

Perhaps I'm a hypocrite of sorts.

I think the skeptical community should put its efforts in to getting factually accurate information in to the public domain and allow people to come to their own conclusions, it's going to be a long haul, there's no quick fix. Educating kids is really the key I feel, I see no point in telling the 79 year old woman in poor health that there is no god.

[Trinoc]

The role of skeptics is to remain true to the evidence, and to present that evidence and the conclusions that follow from it wherever appropriate. If a believer is amenable to changing their views on the basis of that evidence then that is good, but if they persist in their beliefs regardless of the evidence then we have no business employing any sort of underhand tactics - of the sort they would doubtless use to convert us - to try to change them.

Fundamentalists "lie for Jesus" and homeopaths "lie for woo-woo medicine" because they are so certain they are correct that they believe they are justified in deceiving others into following. Skepticism had no such certainty: we must never "lie for science".

[Sarama]

In the words of Dawkins...
"It's time to stop being polite"

That said I'm not quite prepared to go canvassing door to door quite yet
and am prone to agree with Trinoc.

[Pebble]

Fundamentalists "lie for Jesus" and homeopaths "lie for woo-woo medicine" because they are so certain they are correct that they believe they are justified in deceiving others into following. Skepticism had no such certainty: we must never "lie for science".

The real question is whether we should 'spin for science'

Skepticism is boring and hard work. Most people do not want to go back to the provable evidence and work from first principles, most indeed would not know what the principles are.

But there is strength in numbers, and the more people who expouse the 'belief' that science should form the basis of all argument, the more one can keep the woos and the religious on the run - so to speak.

So what propaganda/PR tools could one employ to ensure our message has a change to compete in the market place. That is I believe where Dawkins and others are coming from.

[Tony Williams]

I agree with Trinoc and sympathise with Northern Soul.

But there is strength in numbers, and the more people who expouse the 'belief' that science should form the basis of all argument, the more one can keep the woos and the religious on the run - so to speak.

After taking part in many debates, I prefer to avoid the "science vs religion (etc)" position. That just reinforces the view in the minds of the opposition that science is just another belief system on the same level as theirs. It also provides them with a line of attack concerning those scientists who take a different view from the majority, or make mistakes, or cheat. Instead, I prefer to use phrases like "evidence-based logical thinking" or "evidence-based rational argument". Not as snappy, but it emphasises the point that we're not talking about a belief system or a profession but about a structured way of thinking.

[newatheist]

i think where possible we should provide the slightest of suggestions. but as another person said we must never lie for science. and being an atheist i feel that what my family and many around me believe is totally and utterly wrong, not because i am arrogant and think everything i say is right but simply because of the things i see in their holy books.

there may or may not be a god but for certain there is no god like that of the bible or the quran.

and i kind of feel guilty "to leave them in the dark" so to speak. i feel if my position is correct theirs is not therefore two conflicting views.

i want to tell them as civily as possible to rethink their position on such things i just don't know how.

[Pebble]

After taking part in many debates, I prefer to avoid the "science vs religion (etc)" position. That just reinforces the view in the minds of the opposition that science is just another belief system on the same level as theirs. It also provides them with a line of attack concerning those scientists who take a different view from the majority, or make mistakes, or cheat. Instead, I prefer to use phrases like "evidence-based logical thinking" or "evidence-based rational argument". Not as snappy, but it emphasizes the point that we're not talking about a belief system or a profession but about a structured way of thinking.

I think this misses the central tenant of my argument. One can be a purist and reserve the skeptical position for the intelligentsia, or make the position accessible. If the latter path is chosen, then it is necessary to accept that there will be many who support your view that cannot themselves defend their position in a sophisticated fashion.

It is not required that the central approach be diluted or reduced to the level of belief, merely that a two pronged attack is used - concept generation (evidence based) and propaganda (concept selling).

[Floppit]

I can't say that I've ever felt any need to convert people on a personal level, I have a 'whatever makes them happy' approach.

I am concerned with what might be 'sold' from a position of power though. Teachers, doctors, police, social workers etc all hold positions of power and trust with many believing what 'they' say is true because of the authority their position gives them.

So, long before I worry about converting anyone on a personal level I think removing institutionalised false belief needs work, then re-evaluate.

The power families have over children is another issue. My hunch would be that there's enough institutionalised codswallop to keep us busy anyway so putting home grown codswallop on the back burner just makes sense. We are social beasts and happiness does count, where beliefs hold families together there can be adverse consequences from forcing an issue rather than letting it happen wherever it will.

[NorthernSoul]

Is there the potential for their belief to hurt them, or anybody around them?

I think before I start to talk about pseudoscience and skepticism this is the question I will ask myself.

If I saw somebody in a Chinese Medicine shop (with the Chinese guy claiming to be a Doctor in a white coat) I think I'd somehow feel obliged to intervene and make sure people realise what they're paying for is unproven and unregulated. Just because if I ask the said question the answer I would come to is a resounding yes.

So I think if the belief meets the criteria of potential harm, we should try to convert, though I don't like that word, them, after all, they're always trying to convert us.

[Pebble]

I can't say that I've ever felt any need to convert people on a personal level, I have a 'whatever makes them happy' approach.

I am concerned with what might be 'sold' from a position of power though. Teachers, doctors, police, social workers etc all hold positions of power and trust with many believing what 'they' say is true because of the authority their position gives them.

So, long before I worry about converting anyone on a personal level I think removing institutionalised false belief needs work, then re-evaluate.

The power families have over children is another issue. My hunch would be that there's enough institutionalised codswallop to keep us busy anyway so putting home grown codswallop on the back burner just makes sense. We are social beasts and happiness does count, where beliefs hold families together there can be adverse consequences from forcing an issue rather than letting it happen wherever it will.

Agreed, direct evangelising at the level of the individual would send all the wrong signals, and probably be corrupting.

Oddly for all its faults the Blair Government has done much to expand 'evidence based' approaches to delivery of services and information - perhaps what we need is more skeptical politicians!

[Sarama]

I agree with Trinoc and sympathise with Northern Soul.



After taking part in many debates, I prefer to avoid the "science vs religion (etc)" position. That just reinforces the view in the minds of the opposition that science is just another belief system on the same level as theirs.

Agreed. I think it unwise to be 'religious' about anything, including science, at least in my own argument and debate, I will leave that up to Dawkins. He does a fine job of offering the fundamentally religious an equally fundamental opposition which I personally think is necessary.

[Tony Williams]

I can't say that I've ever felt any need to convert people on a personal level, I have a 'whatever makes them happy' approach.

I agree with that. I have worked closely with religious people and got on well with them - they haven't tried to convert me so I haven't challenged their beliefs.

The closest I get to unprovoked conversion attempts would be in my blog posts when I review and praise books like 'Bad Science' or 'How We Know What Isn't So'.

Of course, if religious people (or woo enthusiasts) try to convince me that they're right - either in person or by posting on a public forum which I visit - then they are fair game and I buckle on my armour, sharpen my sword, couch my lance and chaaarge!

[newatheist]

I agree with that. I have worked closely with religious people and got on well with them - they haven't tried to convert me so I haven't challenged their beliefs.

The closest I get to unprovoked conversion attempts would be in my blog posts when I review and praise books like 'Bad Science' or 'How We Know What Isn't So'.

Of course, if religious people (or woo enthusiasts) try to convince me that they're right - either in person or by posting on a public forum which I visit - then they are fair game and I buckle on my armour, sharpen my sword, couch my lance and chaaarge!

yea me too, but it always nags me that people hold such dangers views, especially thanks to sam harris and fitna.

[Pebble]

yea me too, but it always nags me that people hold such dangers views, especially thanks to sam harris and fitna.

Which dangerous views? Attempting to convert the religious? Goaded into this by Sam Harris? If so how?