![So a few weeks back, I saw John Loftus speak at CFI Amherst. Loftus is the author of Why I Became an Atheist and the blog Debunking Christianity, editor of The Christian Delusion, was once a preacher, and is also a former student of William Lane Craig, who’s one of the most prominent Christian apologists alive today (you’ve probably already heard about Craig’s recent debate with Sam Harris — and according to his blog, Loftus was in the audience for that debate and spoke with Craig afterwards).
Anyways, so I saw Loftus give a talk at CFI headquarters in Amherst a few weeks back. I’ll be honest — the talk was kind of lackluster overall, but Loftus did make a few good points which I hadn’t necessarily thought of before, or at least not in the way that he framed them.
He mentioned Plato’s allegory of the cave, and the fact that he references it when people ask him why he writes and speaks about atheism. In the allegory, philosophers are likened to prisoners who escape from a cave where people only know of reality through shadows cast on the cave’s wall. Loftus uses the same metaphor for atheists — that is, people who’ve come to see the true nature of reality, he pointed out that it’s only natural for someone to want to go back inside the cave and attempt to free the other prisoners, and to let them know that their thinking about the nature of reality is very much mistaken. [Although, reading about the allegory just now, I think it’s all too fitting that Plato said this about the prisoner’s return: Wouldn’t it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it’s not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn’t they kill him?]
Continuing this train of thought, Loftus said, “I share what I’ve learned because I care about others.” That’s an admirable sentiment, if you ask me. He went on to apply this to martyrs who sacrifice their lives on account of their religious beliefs, saying: ”They’ll never know they’re wrong because they’ll never wake up from death.”
For some reason, that really resonated with me. In my experience, it seems that a lot of atheists approach conversations with believers with the mindset that they’re going to try and school the ignorant believer on all the flaws in the Bible, all the errors in their thinking, and so on. A lot of times, the underlying motivation boils down to selfish goals like proving that you’re right or demonstrating your superior understanding. All of which are going to have a profound impact on the way you interact with the religious person, increasing the chances of them getting defensive. But if atheists could really see that changing people’s minds is something that we should strive to do because it’s what’s best for the well-being of the religious people we interact with, because we may be saving them from grave mistakes, and we stand to improve their overall health and happiness (as well as the overall well-being of our community, nation, etc.), then I think that it would have an impact on the tone of the conversation, and the likelihood of each party actually listening to the other.
Loftus also talked about his “outsider test for faith” — a debate tactic that asks religious people to evaluate their own religion’s claims as if they were truly an outsider to their own religion. I think it makes a lot of sense, and could certainly change some people’s minds, but I also realize that it isn’t a silver bullet by any means (and no one thing is, in these matters).
But like I said, Loftus’ talk overall was kind of lackluster. He came off as a little unprepared, and he mentioned some things (e.g., cognitive science), which he clearly didn’t have a very deep understanding of, since he couldn’t elaborate on them much, or explain them any differently to people who asked about them during the Q&A session.
And the Q&A session was, somewhat unexpectedly, especially painful. He got some tough questions from the crowd — like one young woman who criticized a video that had been posted to his blog (something about Christians who were also white supremacists, IIRC) as being a poor argument against Christianity. I was a little dumbfounded by his response — instead of giving an explanation for it, or debating about whether or not it was in good taste, he simply said he didn’t know what she was talking about. It wasn’t clear, but he made it sound like other people sometimes posted things on his blog, although a quick glance at its front page makes it seem like all of the content is by him (or at least attributed to him). The back-and-forth about that issue was a little bit uncomfortable to sit through.
Nonetheless, I picked up a copy of The Christian Delusion. I’ve been meaning to get a copy of it for a while, and it was pretty convenient, being able to pick up a copy there, for about the same price as it’s currently going for on Amazon. It’s got chapters from a lot of different contributing authors, and I’ve enjoyed the parts of it that I’ve had time to read so far.
So, those are all of my thoughts from Loftus’ talk. Like I mentioned the other day, I saw skepchick’s Rebecca Watson speak at CFI just this past Friday. When I get a chance, I’ll post my thoughts and reactions to that talk (which was pretty educational and entertaining, overall).](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljtk7yeuSf1qb5wjko1_250.jpg)
So a few weeks back, I saw John Loftus speak at CFI Amherst. Loftus is the author of Why I Became an Atheist and the blog Debunking Christianity, editor of The Christian Delusion, was once a preacher, and is also a former student of William Lane Craig, who’s one of the most prominent Christian apologists alive today (you’ve probably already heard about Craig’s recent debate with Sam Harris — and according to his blog, Loftus was in the audience for that debate and spoke with Craig afterwards).
Anyways, so I saw Loftus give a talk at CFI headquarters in Amherst a few weeks back. I’ll be honest — the talk was kind of lackluster overall, but Loftus did make a few good points which I hadn’t necessarily thought of before, or at least not in the way that he framed them.
He mentioned Plato’s allegory of the cave, and the fact that he references it when people ask him why he writes and speaks about atheism. In the allegory, philosophers are likened to prisoners who escape from a cave where people only know of reality through shadows cast on the cave’s wall. Loftus uses the same metaphor for atheists — that is, people who’ve come to see the true nature of reality, he pointed out that it’s only natural for someone to want to go back inside the cave and attempt to free the other prisoners, and to let them know that their thinking about the nature of reality is very much mistaken. [Although, reading about the allegory just now, I think it’s all too fitting that Plato said this about the prisoner’s return: Wouldn’t it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it’s not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn’t they kill him?]
Continuing this train of thought, Loftus said, “I share what I’ve learned because I care about others.” That’s an admirable sentiment, if you ask me. He went on to apply this to martyrs who sacrifice their lives on account of their religious beliefs, saying: ”They’ll never know they’re wrong because they’ll never wake up from death.”
For some reason, that really resonated with me. In my experience, it seems that a lot of atheists approach conversations with believers with the mindset that they’re going to try and school the ignorant believer on all the flaws in the Bible, all the errors in their thinking, and so on. A lot of times, the underlying motivation boils down to selfish goals like proving that you’re right or demonstrating your superior understanding. All of which are going to have a profound impact on the way you interact with the religious person, increasing the chances of them getting defensive. But if atheists could really see that changing people’s minds is something that we should strive to do because it’s what’s best for the well-being of the religious people we interact with, because we may be saving them from grave mistakes, and we stand to improve their overall health and happiness (as well as the overall well-being of our community, nation, etc.), then I think that it would have an impact on the tone of the conversation, and the likelihood of each party actually listening to the other.
Loftus also talked about his “outsider test for faith” — a debate tactic that asks religious people to evaluate their own religion’s claims as if they were truly an outsider to their own religion. I think it makes a lot of sense, and could certainly change some people’s minds, but I also realize that it isn’t a silver bullet by any means (and no one thing is, in these matters).
But like I said, Loftus’ talk overall was kind of lackluster. He came off as a little unprepared, and he mentioned some things (e.g., cognitive science), which he clearly didn’t have a very deep understanding of, since he couldn’t elaborate on them much, or explain them any differently to people who asked about them during the Q&A session.
And the Q&A session was, somewhat unexpectedly, especially painful. He got some tough questions from the crowd — like one young woman who criticized a video that had been posted to his blog (something about Christians who were also white supremacists, IIRC) as being a poor argument against Christianity. I was a little dumbfounded by his response — instead of giving an explanation for it, or debating about whether or not it was in good taste, he simply said he didn’t know what she was talking about. It wasn’t clear, but he made it sound like other people sometimes posted things on his blog, although a quick glance at its front page makes it seem like all of the content is by him (or at least attributed to him). The back-and-forth about that issue was a little bit uncomfortable to sit through.
Nonetheless, I picked up a copy of The Christian Delusion. I’ve been meaning to get a copy of it for a while, and it was pretty convenient, being able to pick up a copy there, for about the same price as it’s currently going for on Amazon. It’s got chapters from a lot of different contributing authors, and I’ve enjoyed the parts of it that I’ve had time to read so far.
So, those are all of my thoughts from Loftus’ talk. Like I mentioned the other day, I saw skepchick’s Rebecca Watson speak at CFI just this past Friday. When I get a chance, I’ll post my thoughts and reactions to that talk (which was pretty educational and entertaining, overall).
