Why bother?

[Floppit]

I get why (but didn't always agree with the how) Richard Dawkins would argue the point - hell it was his job to do so, and I get why those with fame and influence go readily into battle, someone has to, but for Joe (or Josephine) Bloggs, why bother with the debates about ghosts, god, ET, or food fads?

I arrived here because as motherhood plunged me into a minority kicking against relying solely on 'mother knows best' 'there's no right or wrong answer' etc. I felt like redressing the balance. I'm also interested in the psychology and sociology of religion, myth, and fad, how it works (or doesn't) for people and what fills the gap it may leave for those who stick to at least attempting critical thought.

I don't know what I did expect but I definately didn't expect the effort that goes in to counter argument to the cerebal fluff of society - it's made me feel quite lazy!

So why do you bother? If your famous or highly influential I get it, but to ordinary bods like me, what makes it worth the effort?

[Tony Williams]

Because some people enjoy a good debate, especially about beliefs?

After all, if we didn't, we would by definition not be on this forum...

[Tim the Mage]

...not sure I'm bothering in the manner you describe. But I always learn things as a result of the debates on here. And in my line of business we only have pretend debate.

[Floppit]

I do enjoy debate but not really with people who use a faith based perspective, whether that be in faith in amber teething necklaces, psychics or god. I certainly like it here well enough but I'm puzzled and definately feeling a bit lazy.

Learning is definately a good outcome and I've learned here too but from comments made by fellow skeptics rather than by debating with 'believers'.

[newatheist]

To me the mind of 'believers' is a sort of enigma machine, especially considering I myself used to be one. I also like to talk to them from a skeptical point of view because I could possibly be the first 'non-believer' they have ever spoken with and that if I had not been introduced to skepticism I would have been just like them.









And to laugh at some of the incredibly obvious errors in their arguments.

[Pebble]

I do enjoy debate but not really with people who use a faith based perspective, whether that be in faith in amber teething necklaces, psychics or god. I certainly like it here well enough but I'm puzzled and definately feeling a bit lazy.
.

I like to think of believers as skeptical of skepticism. While discussions may be tedious and circular, the arguments do evolve over time and one is continually forced to refine the arguments put in favor of an evidence based approach.

So I bother for two reasons, first because no position I hold can be true for all time, and being challanged is the only way to ensure I reconsider whether the evidence (on balance) still supports my bias. Second, because exposing believers to contrary opinion is the only way to ensure that they do not have their more extreme views continually re-enforced, thus becoming more and more extreme in their views. Agreed that the real nutters never even join the debate, but it is essential to keep that minority marginalised.

[Mulder]

I like to think of believers as skeptical of skepticism. While discussions may be tedious and circular, the arguments do evolve over time and one is continually forced to refine the arguments put in favor of an evidence based approach.

More like a hydra! Explain orbs and someone will find a 'special' variety (colour, shape, whatever) and say that one's paranormal. When that's explained, another 'exception' will emerge. The final state is when a 'medium' says it's paranormal! How do you argue with that?

[chaggle]

There are two reasons I can think of why skeptics bother to debate with believers.

The first is that some skeptics (and I would include myself) take it as some kind of personal insult that people have unreasoned and unsupportable beliefs and, worse than that, talk to me about them as if I ought to believe them as well. If a conversation starts up about homeopathy, the latest conspiracy theory, new age energy stuff or whatever else it might be - I just can't help myself - I have to get stuck in.

The second is a practical reason - that the skeptic sees that real harm (in the case of sCAM) or disadvantage of some other kind (financial or emotional maybe in the case of spritualism) might be the result. When I encounter this, perversely, I usually shut up or at least tread very carefully. The friend of mine who only gives her 9 year old daughter homeopathic vaccines is too damn dangerous for me. I won't run the risk of backing her into an ideological corner and maybe make things worse.

[Admin]

I no longer debate with ‘believers’ on anything. At least not in any major way.

I used to think that some people just didn’t think too rationally about things and that all you had to do was explain things in a reasoned way and show them how to evaluate the evidence etc. and they would simply see things more clearly. How naïve was I? Deluded even!!!

I quickly realised that you can’t really make much impact, if any, on what people believe or how they think simply through reasoned and rational argument. So I think the quest to ‘enlighten’ or ‘educate’ others through debate is a futile one. Many skeptics do adhere to this idea (as I used to) but it really doesn’t work to any meaningful extent.

Yes there are cases where people who were once ‘believers’ lost their belief (in whatever) and joined the ranks of skeptics, but I would hazard a guess that many of them actually had questioned or lost their belief before they became skeptics rather than them losing their belief because of skepticism.

So, I changed from wanting to change what people think to understanding what and why people think the way they do.

Why bother?

Well, having said that above, one thing I certainly did gain from debating believers is a good insight into how they think about things and also the argumentative tactics they use. I think it’s quite important that skeptics learn about ‘critical thinking’, the use of bad arguments, logical fallacies, etc., and believers’ arguments are usually very rich source material.

Of course, people might just like arguing as well! So for personal reasons debating or arguing with believers can teach you a lot. It’s only futile when you think that you’re going to change anyone else’s mind when arguing with them (or the mind of anyone watching) that you run in to problems and disillusionment.

So, as a personal quest to learn more about others it’s probably worthwhile doing; but as a ‘skeptical mission to educate others’ it’s a complete and utter waste of time.

[Pebble]

So, as a personal quest to learn more about others it’s probably worthwhile doing; but as a ‘skeptical mission to educate others’ it’s a complete and utter waste of time.

Certainly agree in respect of personal education. However, I wonder if there is more to arguing with believers than changing their mind on any given subject. I suspect that the simple act of engaging in a non threatening fashion reduces fear and loathing of ones opponents. I worry that closed communities that lack contact with others that think differently is the primary breeding ground for intolerance.

[Mulder]

I don't agree that education is pointless. The crucial point, in my experience, is to proved an explanation which better explains a phenomemon than 'weird stuff'. It has to be a specific and testable explanation. Any vague, general theory or criticism will simply be seen as an attempt to 'explain away' something.

[Admin]

I don't agree that education is pointless.

Neither do I.

[Admin]

Certainly agree in respect of personal education. However, I wonder if there is more to arguing with believers than changing their mind on any given subject. I suspect that the simple act of engaging in a non threatening fashion reduces fear and loathing of ones opponents. I worry that closed communities that lack contact with others that think differently is the primary breeding ground for intolerance.

I think that skeptics' societies have a tendency to become closed communities. And I think a major reason for that is because they try to 'educate' people from their own perspective - i.e. by arguing rationally with 'believers'. They get nowhere quickly and turn in on themselves and become insular groups - they change from preaching to the damned to preaching to the converted. If you do a search of skeptical societies from around the world it's quite surprising how many have sprung up with good intentions only to run out of steam very quickly.

Although confrontation can have an effect on others' thinking and opinions, it's really not a generally good method to apply if you want to be persuasive.

We need to start thinking differently, taking a new approach and working as a team. But I think I've been saying this for years now.......

[Pebble]

I think that skeptics' societies have a tendency to become closed communities.

Ouch!

[Tony Williams]

I think that skeptics' societies have a tendency to become closed communities.

As do religions - but they seem to find it worthwhile to do missionary work.

The alternative to engaging in debate with those who propound irrational ideas is to keep silent and leave the floor to them. Let us not forget that for every couple of people debating, there are probably many others listening in, some of whom may be undecided.