In my experience, few people directly answer the question about how they know they’re not delusional. (In the case of faith-based beliefs, I’m not sure there is an answer because they’re actually suffering from a delusion.) Instead they’ll reply, rarely with anger, more often with sincerity, “Well how do you know that your beliefs aren’t delusions? How do you know you’re not wrong?” To which I respond, “I could very well be wrong about any of my beliefs. I could also misconstrue reality. The difference between misconstruing reality and being delusional is the willingness to revise a belief. If I’m genuinely willing to revise my belief I’m much less likely to think it’s a delusion. Are you willing to revise your belief that [insert belief here]”?16 Posing this as a question is helpful because it gently reinforces the idea that they’re harboring a delusion without telling them they’re delusional.
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING
There’s an extensive corpus of literature documenting effective treatment modalities across a wide spectrum of psychological and health-related issues—diabetes, alcohol and drug addiction, gambling, etc. The purpose of these approaches is to help counselors to elicit change behavior in their clients.
One of the most effective approaches is Motivational Interviewing (MI) (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). It’s beyond the scope of this book to detail the nuances of MI, but there are some core lessons that can help the Street Epistemologist in dialectical interventions:
Develop nonadversarial relationships
Help clients think differently and understand what could be gained through change
“Meet clients where they are”17 and don’t force a change
Express empathy
Go with resistance
Tap into internal change behavior
MI is designed to get around a social problem involved in treating alcoholics and other substance abusers. A problem may occur, for example, when a councilor or physician adopts a moralistic, judgmental attitude toward an individual who is in a state of despair and needs help. This kind of unhelpful posturing is almost always counterproductive and very often results in a complete lack of collaboration between councilor and patient.
The bullet points above help people to avoid this interactive problem. They also hint at much larger and more thematic treatment principles. I strongly encourage Street Epistemologists to read Motivational Interviewing and the surrounding literature with an eye toward faith interventions.
AVOID SHOWING FRUSTRATION
For the unseasoned Street Epistemologist, there’s often a tendency toward impatience resulting in frustration, “Why can’t he just see his beliefs are ridiculous?” (Szimhart, 2009). Understand from the outset that it’s unrealistic to expect a subject will stop pretending to know things she doesn’t know on, during, or immediately after her first treatment. Have patience. The fruits of the intervention may come weeks, months, or even years later.
Countless people have either not responded—or responded negatively to—my initial inter-vention, only to e-mail me, or bump into me on the streets years later and thank me. During some interventions I’ve been called “Satan” or “The Mouth of the Devil,” or told, “You’re an evil, sick fuck and I hate you.” These same people have later thanked me and even sent me gifts. Their strong reactions weren’t really directed at me personally; rather, they came about as a consequence of the treatment. When people begin to genuinely question their faith, or when their pathogenic hypothesis is frustrated, they may be unhappy with their interlocutor. Street Epistemologists should prepare for anger, tears, and hostility. You should also strive to deal with struggling and frustrated individuals with composure, compassion, grace, and dignity.
There is a certain degree of cognitive blamelessness and legitimate epistemic victimization in falling prey to an unreliable epistemology. Like children born into an epistemological community, adults in isolated communities are often not presented with options.
Model the behavior you want to emulate. Don’t become frustrated. Helping people to stop pretending to know things they don’t know takes time, usually occurs over multiple treatments, and involves months and months of practice before you become a full-fledged Street Epistemologist.
NOT DENIAL, PRECONTEMPLATION
The Transtheoretical Model of Change is a theoretical model of behavioral change that’s been used to inform and to guide interventions (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998; Grimley, Prochaska, Velicer, Blais, & DiClemente, 1994). For the Street Epistemologist, the stages of change and some basic terminology may be helpful.
The Transtheoretical Model of change states that behavioral change occurs in a series of stages.
Precontemplation (not ready to change)
Contemplation (getting ready to change)
Preparation (ready to change)
Action (changing)
Maintenance (sustaining change)
Termination (change completed)
The first stage, prechange, is called “precontemplation.” Precontemplation is somewhat similar to a state of doxastic closure—the faithful don’t even imagine that they need to change because they don’t understand that they have a problem.18 Precontemplative means that one is at the stage before contemplation even begins and thus does not mean denial.
In my experience, many people who consider themselves to be “moderate” in their faith are in the precontemplation stage. I’ve found that fundamentalists, on the other hand, have given considerable thought to their faith and to their beliefs, and this change model sometimes does not directly apply to them; rather, they’re often suffering from an as yet unclassified cognitive disorder.
Contemplative means that people see a need to change their behavior but don’t think it can be done, or they’re wondering if they should change but they’re not really sure. The other stages are less important for the Street Epistemologist, as work will often focus on helping subjects transition from precontemplation to contemplation, or from contemplation to preparation.
In your interventions, one of the first things you should do is make a diagnosis by ascertaining the change stage of your subject. There’s no formula for how to do this, but you’ll likely have an idea within the first minutes of conversation. You can then, to borrow from the literature on addiction and health, “meet the patient where they are” (Blume, Schmaling, & Marlatt, 2000, pp. 379–384). Are they Precontemplative or are they Contemplative, or are they determined to do something? With experience, you’ll be able to make more accurate diagnoses and consequently tailor your treatments to the subject’s stage of change.
Finally, I find the terms “precontemplative” and “contemplative” politically correct but helpful ways of avoiding the negative term “denial,” which sounds more permanent and unhelpable. Street Epistemologists are agents of hope. Those who pretend to know things they don’t know are not hopeless cases—they are prehope cases.19
AVOID POLITICS
It’s all too easy to let political issues creep into interventions. At this particular point in U.S. history, many people who self-identify as atheists tend to be Democrats, while the faithful tend to be Republicans (Coffey, 2009; CNN, 2008; Miller, 2006). Don’t let this fact impinge upon your interventions. Avoid politics whenever possible.
Street Epistemology is best left uncorrupted by baggage that tends to accompany political issues. Bringing up politics when conducting interventions sidetracks the discussion—which should be about faith.
I’ve also found that many subjects think attacks on faith are politically motivated. For example, attacks on abortion are attacks on faith by proxy, and subjects adopt a defensive posture that undermines the effectiveness of the treatment. Don’t engage topics like abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, stem cell research, pornography, contraception, etc. Often, conclusions one comes to on these issues are consequences of a failed epistemology: faith. Undermine faith and all faith-based conclusions are simultaneously undermined.
MISCELLANEOUS
The following
are some miscellaneous tips and suggestions beginning Street Epistemologists may be able to use:
Just as evangelizing is relationship based (called “Relationship Evangelism”), so too is Street Epistemology (Anderson, 2010; Chambers, 2009). Always be mindful that your relationship with the subject will make or break the treatment.
When appropriate, relate to your subject by bringing in shared personal experiences. For example, if you were the same religion as your subject, tell them that you too used to hold those beliefs.
Be mindful of your goals throughout the intervention. Don’t get sidetracked by politics or metaphysics; keep the treatment focused on epistemology.
FINALLY
You’ll need to tailor these strategies to your personality and to your subject’s unique circumstances. Learning to effectively weave these skills into your interventions will take time. Relax. Street Epistemology isn’t a race. Over time you’ll learn what works for you and what doesn’t.
Finally, never forget that subjects don’t owe you anything for helping to liberate them of their faith. The Street Epistemologist seeks no gratitude for her efforts.
INTERVENTIONS
Intervention 1: Belief in Belief
I had the following conversation with prison inmates in 2004. This intervention demonstrates Dennett’s idea of “belief in belief” (Boghossian, 2004). I like this dialogue because it’s brief and because it causes people to adopt the idea that they should “believe in the right stuff.”
Researcher [Peter Boghossian]: What is justice?
Inmate 6: Standing up for what you believe in.
Researcher: What if you believe weird stuff? Like one of those lunatics who wants to kill Americans? Or what if you’re a pedophile?s
(A twenty-second silence)
Inmate 6: I think if you can stand on your own two feet and not care what anyone else thinks about you, and you’re willing to fight for it and die for it or whatever, that makes you a man. Whether it’s right or not.
Researcher: So being a man would mean to be resolute in your beliefs no matter what? What if you’re in the military, like in Rwanda, and you’re told to butcher all these people, and you have this skewed idea of loyalty. And you stand up for what you believe, for your country or tribe or whatever, and you just start butchering civilians? Hutus or Tutsis or whoever. Is that just? Does that make you a man?
Inmate 5: Yeah, good point. It happened in Nam [Vietnam].
Inmate 4: What are you saying? That justice isn’t standing up for what you believe in?
Researcher: I’m not saying; I’m asking. What is justice? [Inmate 6] said it’s standing up for what you believe in. But is it really standing up for what you believe in? Don’t you have to believe the right stuff, then stand up for that? No?
Inmate 6: Yeah, maybe. Maybe.
Intervention 2: Kill All Left-handed People
I had to pick up my friend’s daughter from choir practice. While I almost never frequent places of worship, I arrived early to use this as an opportunity to deliver interventions to the faithful on their home turf. After a few failed attempts to engage people, I finally found the perfect subject: a well-groomed (WG) young man in his early twenties. He’d been attending this church for the past decade. The conversation begins in medias res.
PB: So just to help me understand, you believe in the Christian God, and the Resurrection, and Redemption, and Original Sin, but you don’t believe that there was a physical Adam and Eve or that the Earth is 4,000 years old. And you also don’t exactly believe in predestination, but you do believe that your actions here [on Earth] are a good indicator of whether you’ll go to heaven or hell, which you believe are real, physical places. You also believe that God answers prayers and that God can communicate with people. And you know this because of a deep, heartfelt “feeling,” for lack of a better word. Yeah? Is that about right?
(Chuckling)
WG: Yup, pegged it.
(A brief clarification about what it means that heaven and hell are “physical places.”)
PB: So, may I ask you what kind or good things have you done?
WG: Of course.
(He relates a story of an elderly neighbor. He mows his lawn and frequently checks in on him, occasionally picking up needed items.)
PB: And so you do that why? You do that because … ?
WG: I do that because Christ died for my sins. Think about what that means. He gave his life so that we could have the possibility of redemption.
PB: So you do that because you’re a Christian?
WG: Absolutely.
PB: Okay, great. Thanks. Now I’m curious, you said before that you think God speaks to people. Not just way back when, but even today. Still. Yeah?
WG: There’s no question about it—
PB: Okay, cool, sorry to interrupt, but I’m really curious about something. Let’s say that God told you to kill all left-handed people and—
WG: God would never ask me to do that.
PB: Okay, but this is just a thought experiment. Just run with me here for a sec. Just to help me understand. I really am trying to figure out where you’re coming from. Would you please just run with this just for a minute or two?
WG: Alright, sure. Why not.
PB: Okay, so God tells you to kill all left-handed people. And you’re sure, I mean you’re absolutely freakin’ positive it’s God. You just feel it in your heart. Would you do so? Would you kill all left-handed people?
WG: Again, God would never tell anyone to do that. Now you—
PB: Okay, but you did tell me you’d just run with this. Just what would you do? I mean I’m not a biblical scholar, but I think in Genesis God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, right?
WB: Yeah, that’s right he did. But God stopped him. So I’m sure that it’s God? Absolutely sure, as you say? Positive?
PB: Yup, no doubt about it. You feel it in your heart. You know it in your mind. It infuses every fiber of your being. Just like your belief in Christ. God tells you to kill all left-handed people. What do you do? Do you carry out the will of God?
WB: Well, if I’m sure, I mean if I’m absolutely positive, then yes. I would.
PB: Interesting. Thanks for running with me on that. Okay, does it bother you that you’d do that? I mean does it disturb you that you’d be the kind of person that would do something you know is wrong just because God told you to do so?
WB: No. You said I knew it was God. If I knew it was God it wouldn’t bother me.
PB: Okay, let’s run through this so I get it. Let’s say that kid over there [gesturing to a late-teen who walked by] is left-handed. Let’s say we both saw him sign his name with his left hand. So we follow him into the restroom. And let’s say I go along with you because you seem sincere and I too want to carry out God’s will. So we follow him into the bathroom. I smash him over the head with that thing [gesturing to a music stand]. He falls down. I give you a knife and tell you to slit his throat while he’s down and I run to the door to be a lookout. You cut him open because you’re following God’s will. Now you really mean to tell me while he bleeds out you wouldn’t even feel a little bit bothered by that?
(Pause)
WB: Well if you phrase it like that then sure. But you were talking on a theoretical level. I mean I’ve obviously never killed anyone before. I don’t know what I’d feel. And this is a different circumstance.
PB: I think you do. I think you’d feel like shit. I think you’d regret it. I think you’d feel terrible. But neither here nor there. What if God then said, “Good job, WB. Well done. Now don’t stop there, keep it up. You need to kill two more lefties before the sun rises.”
WB: What’s your point?
PB: I don’t really have a point. I’m just trying to figure out the limits of your faith. It seems to me that your faith is limitless. You’d do anything you think that God wanted you to do, including murder innocents. Right? Or am I mischaracterizing your faith commitment?
(Pause)
&n
bsp; PB: You’re a Christian. You want to go to heaven. To do so it seems that an absolutely minimum requirement is to discharge the will of God. So, would you then kill another left-handed person?
WB: Yes, I would. Again, if I’m sure it’s God.
PB: Okay, so if there’s a conflict between your conscience and what you believe is God’s will, your belief that you’re doing God’s will trumps your conscience?
(Pause)
WB: Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. Yeah. That’s right.
PB: Okay. And at any point would you ever question your certainty? Would you ever wonder if you’re delusional? Maybe mistaken, or drugged?
WB: No, no. Now you just went back on me. You said I knew it was God. Now you’re changing your story. That’s not what you said.
PB: But don’t delusional people think they’re not delusional? Isn’t that the definition of a delusion? You don’t know it’s a delusion.
WB: Your point being?
PB: Again, I’m not sure I have a point. I’m really just thinking through your beliefs. An admittedly odd question, but what do you think my point is?
WB: I dunno. I’m not sure. Maybe it’s that conscience is the most important thing? Or maybe it’s some point about God. You know, about God.
PB: Yeah. I’m not sure how you or anyone else could ever be certain that God is talking to you. Just because someone is positive that God speaks to them doesn’t mean that God actually spoke to them. They could be mistaken. And just because you feel that Jesus is the Son of God, I’m not sure that you could ever be certain about that either. You could always be mistaken, maybe even delusional. Maybe it’s an idea that’s germinated and developed in you because of our culture and the way our brains work. I mean lots of people have had feelings that their holy books were true and they can’t all be correct. Right?
(Silence)
Intervention 3: Two Churches
The following conversation took place at a fast-food restaurant in Portland, Oregon. An older man had just spoken to two younger women (around eighteen years of age) in what appeared as an intense conversation. I couldn’t hear what was said, but being curious, I asked the women what they talked about:
A Manual for Creating Atheists Page 9