The Inevitable Impasse (for Atheists)

[Slightly Perfect]

Hi, everyone. I'm new here. I'm a "debateanything" refugee. I originally posted this thread over there, and it received minimal responses. I'm hoping some people here could help me out with this. Thanks!

Atheists, agnostics, and secular people who debate:

When debating with theists, there will always be what I call "The Inevitable Impasse," a "hump" that we atheists cannot seem to get over quickly enough to chase after the fleeing theist.

I admit we are asking a lot from theists when we force them to look at their beliefs and the logical fallacies within them, especially because these beliefs are their core beliefs which comprise their identities, but my question is this:

We are advocating for identity deconstruction when we debate. Inevitably, there will be an impasse where the deconstruction just cannot go on, which leads to the complete psychological defense of flight for most theists. When you've reached this impasse, what have you done to try to overcome it? Has it worked?

Sam Harris, for example, recently debated Rick Warren (PM me for the link; this site says I cannot link yet until I have 15 posts), and I have to admit I was not impressed with his handling of it (of course, editing of the transcript was probably a factor, but I don't think Harris brought up some points that were essential to others understanding him). They too ended at The Inevitable Impasse. The same thing happened over at beliefnet with Harris and Andrew Sullivan (again, PM for link).

Does anyone have suggestions on how one can get over this debate hump?

 

[Kungfuzed]

It is a theist philosophy to always put God in the best possible light no matter what. No matter what argument you use or how logical or how much evidence you may have, they will come up with every excuse they can to defend Him. They can do this because God only exists in the imagination. As an imaginary being God has all the properties of a cartoon character. If you have an empirical wall of evidence, they will have God throw up a cartoon hole and jump through it. God is misterious. He is unknowable. He trancends all things, including science, logic, and empiracle evidence. There is no limit to the number of excuses you can make for Him. There is no overcomming the impass. They have to find reality on their own.

 

[Slightly Perfect]

It is a theist philosophy to always put God in the best possible light no matter what. No matter what argument you use or how logical or how much evidence you may have, they will come up with every excuse they can to defend Him. They can do this because God only exists in the imagination. As an imaginary being God has all the properties of a cartoon character. If you have an empirical wall of evidence, they will have God throw up a cartoon hole and jump through it. God is misterious. He is unknowable. He trancends all things, including science, logic, and empiracle evidence. There is no limit to the number of excuses you can make for Him. There is no overcomming the impass. They have to find reality on their own.

I couldn't agree more. I often say, "We know human nature, but we don't know God's, so we can make God whatever we want, and change Him/Her/It/Them when it suits us."

Except that I do think we need to overcome this impasse. Otherwise, the religious debates become jaded. I have no doubt that identity deconstruction for any theist is terrifying (it was for me!), but that initial existential anxiety has to be overcome, and I don't see many people willing to go through it. This is why I think the debates stop.

 

[sojourner]

I couldn't agree more. I often say, "We know human nature, but we don't know God's, so we can make God whatever we want, and change Him/Her/It/Them when it suits us."

Except that I do think we need to overcome this impasse. Otherwise, the religious debates become jaded. I have no doubt that identity deconstruction for any theist is terrifying (it was for me!), but that initial existential anxiety has to be overcome, and I don't see many people willing to go through it. This is why I think the debates stop.

I think you're off base here. I have gone through quite a bit of deconstruction, and I know what it feels like. although you're right about many not wanting to face that particular dynamic in their growth, I don't think that's particularly the reason for more people coming to a "disbelief" in the Divine.

I have come to grips with the fact that the Bible is not particularly factual. I can deal with the fact that many quotations of Jesus are not quotations of Jesus. I can even deal with the fact that some scholars question the factual veracity of the resurrection, suggesting that Jesus' body was dumped into a common grave, or fed to the dogs.

What haunts me is not that the "facts of the case" are missing. What haunts me is the truth that I find in the stories, regardless of the veracity of the facts. While facts (or the lack thereof) can certainly be compelling, they are not the be-all-end-all of human experience. For me to use theology and to use the mythos of Christianity to help me understand the ineffability of the human spirit, and how that relates to some Divine mystery, is helpful as I learn more about who I am and what I "mean," both to myself and to the world.

I am more than the molecules and chemical reactions that "make me up." There is a person within all that biology, and theology helps me to understand that person better, as I relate, not only to other human beings, but to the concept of Divinity itself.

 

[Mister Emu]

When debating with theists, there will always be what I call "The Inevitable Impasse," a "hump" that we atheists cannot seem to get over quickly enough to chase after the fleeing theist.

Not all theists flee...

There is no overcomming the impass. They have to find reality on their own.

Some of us all ready have, we are just waiting for the rest of you to catch up

 

[PureX]

Hi, everyone. I'm new here. I'm a "debateanything" refugee. I originally posted this thread over there, and it received minimal responses. I'm hoping some people here could help me out with this. Thanks!

Atheists, agnostics, and secular people who debate:

When debating with theists, there will always be what I call "The Inevitable Impasse," a "hump" that we atheists cannot seem to get over quickly enough to chase after the fleeing theist.

I admit we are asking a lot from theists when we force them to look at their beliefs and the logical fallacies within them, especially because these beliefs are their core beliefs which comprise their identities, but my question is this:

We are advocating for identity deconstruction when we debate. Inevitably, there will be an impasse where the deconstruction just cannot go on, which leads to the complete psychological defense of flight for most theists. When you've reached this impasse, what have you done to try to overcome it? Has it worked?

Sam Harris, for example, recently debated Rick Warren (PM me for the link; this site says I cannot link yet until I have 15 posts), and I have to admit I was not impressed with his handling of it (of course, editing of the transcript was probably a factor, but I don't think Harris brought up some points that were essential to others understanding him). They too ended at The Inevitable Impasse. The same thing happened over at beliefnet with Harris and Andrew Sullivan (again, PM for link).

Does anyone have suggestions on how one can get over this debate hump?

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but I'm puzzled about why you would want to overcome this "impasse"? Why would you want to force someone to go into a place where their essential paradigms no longer are viable, just for the sake of a debate? And if it's not just for the sake of the debate, what reason could you have that would justify such a desire?

I have been to such a place, in my life, where everything I knew and believed to be right and true was ripped from under me, and I can tell you that it's really NOT a fun place to be. In my case it had to happen and it was not anyone's argument or debate that caused it, but the circumstances of my own life. Yet I certainly would never have gone "there" if I could have helped it.

In the years since, I have known other people who, because I am as I am, had to turn away from me to avoid being brought to that place, themselves. And although I was sad and even a little angry that they were willing to sacrifice me over their own world views, I certainly could understand it. And I never tried to push them to do otherwise. At least I hope I didn't.

I have met many a theist who was not willing to think past a certain point and see the irrationality lurking there, and I not only accept that, I respect it. I have no reason nor interest in pushing people around, spiritually or intellectually, or in getting them to see things as I see them. In fact, as I get older, I'm finding that I'm really appreciating those folks who are so different from me, all the more BECAUSE they're so different. The less I understand them, the better I like 'em. *smile*

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is a theist philosophy to always put God in the best possible light no matter what. No matter what argument you use or how logical or how much evidence you may have, they will come up with every excuse they can to defend Him. They can do this because God only exists in the imagination. As an imaginary being God has all the properties of a cartoon character. If you have an empirical wall of evidence, they will have God throw up a cartoon hole and jump through it. God is misterious. He is unknowable. He trancends all things, including science, logic, and empiracle evidence. There is no limit to the number of excuses you can make for Him. There is no overcomming the impass. They have to find reality on their own.

Yeah, Yeah..... What you said.....

 

[lilithu]

We are advocating for identity deconstruction when we debate.

Why?

I'm not trying to convert you. Why would you try to convert me?

 

[sojourner]

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but I'm puzzled about why you would want to overcome this "impasse"? Why would you want to force someone to go into a place where their essential paradigms no longer are viable, just for the sake of a debate? And if it's not just for the sake of the debate, what reason could you have that would justify such a desire?

I have been to such a place, in my life, where everything I knew and believed to be right and true was ripped from under me, and I can tell you that it's really NOT a fun place to be. In my case it had to happen and it was not anyone's argument or debate that caused it, but the circumstances of my own life. Yet I certainly would never have gone "there" if I could have helped it.

In the years since, I have known other people who, because I am as I am, had to turn away from me to avoid being brought to that place, themselves. And although I was sad and even a little angry that they were willing to sacrifice me over their own world views, I certainly could understand it. And I never tried to push them to do otherwise. At least I hope I didn't.

I have met many a theist who was not willing to think past a certain point and see the irrationality lurking there, and I not only accept that, I respect it. I have no reason nor interest in pushing people around, spiritually or intellectually, or in getting them to see things as I see them. In fact, as I get older, I'm finding that I'm really appreciating those folks who are so different from me, all the more BECAUSE they're so different. The less I understand them, the better I like 'em. *smile*

I agree with you (and I agree with you so little...this is a celebration!). I feel that all people who really think about themselves and who they are/who they define themselves to be, go through a "dark night of the soul," wherein their props are knocked out from under them and they have to reevaluate and redefine what truth is for them. if it doesn't happen as a cathartic event, then it's a long, downhill slide of a journey. But, sooner or later, we all "hit bottom."

And I certainly disagree with forcing someone's props out from under them. That's no different than the religious fanatic who insists on someone breaking down at the altar and having a cathartic event in order to be "saved."

 

[PureX]

I agree with you (and I agree with you so little...this is a celebration!).

LOL! *smile*

 

[Guitar's Cry]

have no doubt that identity deconstruction for any theist is terrifying (it was for me!), but that initial existential anxiety has to be overcome, and I don't see many people willing to go through it. This is why I think the debates stop.

I'm actually rather glad an atheist forced me past this impasse. It allowed me to look beyond the wall that blocked my view. It forced me to tear down my previous faith, and rebuild a new one using the same philosophical tools. It was a positive experience for my personal spirituality. (Though, I remain an agnostic theist.)

But I don't think this is the best route for everyone. For some, their faith is what sustains them. Removing it could be devastating beyond repair. I know of too many people who could not survive existential malaise.

When an atheist and a theist debate, there needs to be an understanding of the purpose. If this defensive impasse comes up, is it always the wise thing to force the issue? Or is it best to walk away...?

It should also be said that there is a point that atheists also reach that gets in the way of debate. I feel it is the same point as theists. The same intellectual deconstruction.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't think of debate as "backing someone into a wall." I can't make anyone change their mind about anything, they have to do it themselves.

I think of myself as, in the words of Dane Cook, a Mind Ninja. I try to just drop little things here and there. I can't bulldoze someone's mindset, but I can chip away at it.

I was "deconverted" in this way. A seed of skepticism took root in my mind and then continued to grow stronger and stronger until my belief system was destroyed from the inside out. I went from being a Mormon to a Christian; then from a Christian to a Theist; then to an Agnostic Theist and now to an Agnostic Atheist.

The slower the progression of an idea, the stronger it will inevitably become.

 

[lilithu]

I'm actually rather glad an atheist forced me past this impasse. It allowed me to look beyond the wall that blocked my view. It forced me to tear down my previous faith, and rebuild a new one using the same philosophical tools. It was a positive experience for my personal spirituality. (Though, I remain an agnostic theist.)

But I don't think this is the best route for everyone. For some, their faith is what sustains them. Removing it could be devastating beyond repair. I know of too many people who could not survive existential malaise.

When an atheist and a theist debate, there needs to be an understanding of the purpose. If this defensive impasse comes up, is it always the wise thing to force the issue? Or is it best to walk away...?

It should also be said that there is a point that atheists also reach that gets in the way of debate. I feel it is the same point as theists. The same intellectual deconstruction.

I loved your entire post. The last bit in bold is what I thought as well when reading the OP.

We all have our identities and viewpoints. We all have a lot invested in our identities and viewpoints. The OP assumes that his is somehow privileged and therefore those who differ from him need to have their identities deconstructed in order to fall more in line with his. Fine, but the people he's debating assume that they're right as well. So both sides can easily accuse the other of being intractable.

 

[gnomon]

Does anyone have suggestions on how one can get over this debate hump?

Remove yourself from the issue and only focus on the facts at hand. If there are no facts at hand, then the debate is usually nothing more than egoistic grandstanding.

I wish I could do this more often.

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe it's just me, but I think debate is largely useless way as a way to change people's minds.

 

[Mister Emu]

Maybe it's just me, but I think debate is largely useless way as a way to change people's minds.

I agree... though in some cases(mine in some instances ) it is a great thing

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Maybe it's just me, but I think debate is largely useless way as a way to change people's minds.

Maybe for a lot of people...

I use it as a way of personal mental growth. When debating, I am being confronted with new ideas that I may have never considered, and my ideas are being challenged.

Discussion may be better as a medium for mental growth for most people, though, as it tends to be more lucrative in terms of voices being heard.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I loved your entire post. The last bit in bold is what I thought as well when reading the OP.

We all have our identities and viewpoints. We all have a lot invested in our identities and viewpoints. The OP assumes that his is somehow privileged and therefore those who differ from him need to have their identities deconstructed in order to fall more in line with his. Fine, but the people he's debating assume that they're right as well. So both sides can easily accuse the other of being intractable.

Thanks! And that's exactly what I meant.

My own personal viewpoint is that many atheists argue from a scientific, logical stance only. But not everyone sees the world through a logical lens. Some have eyes that are more attuned to emotion and imagination. Both are important influences in shaping our worldviews; claiming one has superiority over another is simply egocentric.

 

[PureX]

Maybe it's just me, but I think debate is largely useless way as a way to change people's minds.

I don't even think that's what debates are for. I think we debate because we want to share our thoughts and experiences with others, and because we want others to show them back to us through their eyes. Almost all human interaction, I think, is basically an attempt at peeking through each other's existential aloneness.

I have no doubt that sometimes, maybe often, our egos get involved and it becomes a intellectual competition, with the prize supposedly being the "conversion" of the opponent's position to the victor's. But that very rarely happens. And even when it does, I suspect the results are mostly insignificant.

I had a sponsor tell me once that no matter how eloquently I present a truth, if one is determined to miss it, they will still miss it. And no matter how poorly I articulate a truth to someone, if they're really looking for it, they'll get it regardless. His point was that it's never up to us when someone else sees a truth. It's always up to them ... but that's why we should keep offering it (as best we are able).

 

[PureX]

Thanks! And that's exactly what I meant.

My own personal viewpoint is that many atheists argue from a scientific, logical stance only. But not everyone sees the world through a logical lens. Some have eyes that are more attuned to emotion and imagination. Both are important influences in shaping our worldviews; claiming one has superiority over another is simply egocentric.

I don't know ... emotionalism without logic would be a pretty good definition of emotional illness, wouldn't it? We need logic and skepticism to keep us aligned with reality, and appropriately 'proportioned'. A good example might be to imagine someone driving an automobile 'emotionally' rather than logically.

"How DARE you tell ME to stop!!" *smile*