A Manual for Creating Atheists
Page 13
Researcher: Could He have failed, or was He destined?
Subject 6: He could have failed. He had a choice.
Researcher: So then He might have needed cleverness to increase the likelihood of success.
Subject 6: Go back and read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Researcher: That doesn’t answer the question.
Some Socratic conversations feel unsatisfying and even frustrating. This was one such example. I’ve found that when people are coming out of lows—for example, recently incarcerated prison inmates or drug addicts in the very early stage of recovery—it’s very difficult to dislodge the faith virus. I’ve also found that many people have a type of fundamentalism in their actions and thoughts in the early stages of faith adoption (and addiction recovery), particularly if faith is adopted because of a personal tragedy.
Intervention 4: Immediate Success
The following intervention took place with a security guard (SG) at a university where I taught night classes. SG and I had made small talk a few times, but we never had a substantive conversation. He was a softspoken and kind young man. I liked him.
One day I overheard SG telling someone about training for his upcoming missionary work. He was a Mormon and evidently he was learning how to convert others.
PB: So what’s your best line? I mean, what’s the line you’re gonna use that will convince them? You can try it on me if you want. Maybe you’ll convince me.
(Self-conscious laughter)
SG: Okay. So look around you. How did this get here? This had to have a cause, right? All of this.
The question, “How did this get here?” is a statement of wonder (stage 1). The answer he gave to his own question was, “It had to have a cause.” This is his hypothesis. In this example he supplied both wonder and a hypothesis. I moved straight to the elenchus and gave him a counterexample.
PB: Well, what if it was always here?
SG: What do you mean?
PB: Well, you assume that nothing is the default. What if the default was something. In other words, what if there was always something stretching back into infinity.
SG: What do you mean?
I wasn’t sure if his question was a genuine glimpse of doxastic openness, or if he couldn’t comprehend a universe that stretched back into infinity. Accordingly, at this point I rephrased the question to convey openness and to reinforce the safe environment for our discussion.
PB: What do you mean what do I mean? You assume the universe had to have a beginning. What if there was no beginning?
(Pause)
SG: I never thought of that.
I was extremely surprised by this comment. He was about to try to convert others and yet he had not even thought of the most basic objection to his worldview? I was also shocked this point of doxastic openness came so early in the conversation. At this juncture I wanted to make sure he didn’t feel stupid, and I also wanted to make sure I drove home stage 5 (act accordingly). My goal was not just to help him to question his faith, but also ultimately to detach him from the structure supporting and sustaining his faulty epistemology—the Mormon Church.
PB: Well, I think about this stuff a lot, so don’t feel bad. Plus this is what I do for a living. So if it’s possible that the universe always existed, what would that mean to you?
I reset the conversation to wonder. I also wanted him to draw his own conclusion, and perhaps even impose the method upon himself. In other words, SG would use the same method of questioning upon himself that I’d been using on him, so I waited for him to see the opportunity to talk himself out of his beliefs. The obvious conclusion was that if the universe always existed then God didn’t create it. It’s a short intellectual step from God not creating the universe to God not existing—but SG didn’t see that yet. I continued.
SG: I’m not sure.
PB: Well, let’s think through it together.
(Pause)
PB: So the main argument for God was, “Look around you. How did this get here?” But we know there’s another possible explanation for what there is. So if the universe always existed, what would that mean?
Here I use the word “we” to confer upon the subject the feeling that he is not alone, that we are equals, and that we as humans are all facing the same ultimate questions.
(Pause)
SG: I’m not sure.
I would have normally taken more time with this process, but I was already running late for class. Still, I had to seize the opportunity.
In my rush, I made a mistake by leading the subject too much. It would have been better to give him more cognitive space to come to his own conclusions and thus increase the likelihood of a successful transition to stage 5 (act accordingly). This is because he would have been more likely to accept the conclusion if he arrived at it of his own accord, as discussed earlier.
PB: Well, if the universe always existed then it wasn’t created. If it wasn’t caused what would that mean?
(Pause)
SG: That there’s no God?
I tried to hide my joy, show my approval, and acknowledge our success.
PB: Yup. That’s what it would mean.
He looked horrified and scared. Even though late for class, I proceeded to provide him with the resources he needed to escape from the Mormon Church. Specifically, I furnished him with contacts and resources he could use for support. I made sure to let him know he wasn’t alone. I also specifically explained why it’s crucial to not succumb to the “just pray about it” line that I was certain he’d be subject to once he started voicing doubts. (Asking people to “just pray about it” pushes them into a form of confirmation bias where the very act of prayer means they’ve already bought back into the system they just escaped.)
This was a successful intervention. It was successful because the conversation was brief and because he came to the conclusion on his own with minimal prodding. When I left him that night he told me he was “freaked out.” I don’t know if SG ever completed stage 5 and left the church. I never saw him after that.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Socratic interventions are easy to administer, no-cost treatments that can engender doxastic openness and even separate faith from its host. The main way this happens is by helping expose contradictions and inconsistencies in subjects’ reasoning processes.
When administering Socratic treatments, keep the following in mind:
Be aware of the stages of the method. Don’t transition from one stage to another stage until you’ve exhausted everything you need to do in that particular stage. Don’t rush.
When appropriate, incorporate strategies noted in chapter 4: be attentive to context, don’t develop adversarial relationships or negative tones, “roll with it,” divorce belief from morality, focus on epistemology and not metaphysics, target faith not religion, and model the behavior you want the subject to emulate. Develop a safe space for discussion, almost a camaraderie.
At the conclusion of some interventions, subjects will be confused or even scared. In chapter 6, I’ll discuss how to deal with this and what goes in faith’s place.
DIG DEEPER
Articles
Peter Boghossian, “How Socratic Pedagogy Works” (Boghossian, 2003)
Peter Boghossian, “Socratic pedagogy: Perplexity, Humiliation, Shame and a Broken Egg” (Boghossian, 2011b)
Books
Guy P. Harrison, 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian (Harrison, 2013)
Platonic Dialogues
Plato, Euthyphro
Plato, Meno (focus on the discussion with Meno’s slave)
Plato, Republic (particularly Books I, II, and III)
NOTES
Socrates was the protagonist in Plato’s dialogues. The majority of scholars think he never wrote anything. Socrates also never referred to his teaching method as “the Socratic method.” Subsequent scholars termed his method of teaching—by asking questions instead of telling—the Socratic method.
In the context of a
Socratic intervention, and only in the context of a Socratic intervention, do I use the words “hypothesis” and “belief” interchangeably.
Virtually everyone has wondered whether or not there’s intelligent life in the universe. Why haven’t extraterrestrials made contact with us? One way to conceptualize this question is with the Drake Equation. The Drake Equation estimates the number of intelligent, technologically capable civilizations in the universe: N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L Where,
N = The number of communicating civilizations in the Milky Way
R*= The number and rate of star formation
fp = The fraction of those stars with planets
ne= The number of planets per star with an environment suitable for life
fl = The fraction of planets on which life develops
fi = The fraction of planets on which intelligent life develops
fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop technology (that release detectable signs of their existence into space)
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space
By plugging in best estimates for the variables, one can guestimate the number of intelligent, technology-producing life forms in the Milky Way. Even by conservative estimates the number is larger than 1.
Why then have we not witnessed evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life? (This question is made even more curious when one factors in American inventor Ray Kurzweil’s idea of exponential technological growth, with mere centuries translating into unimaginable technological differences among civilizations.)
One answer to this is that there’s something wrong with our model of the universe. There’s something we don’t understand, or something we’ve considered to be a remote possibility that’s an actuality. For example, we could be brains in a vat (à la The Matrix), or as Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom has posited, we could be living in a holographic simulation (Bostrom, 2003). Alternatively, there could be some kind of “Great Filter,” that is, a kind of “probability barrier” that life must pass through (Hanson, 1998).
Hanson (1998) provides a “best-guess evolutionary path to an explosion which leads to visible colonization of most of the visible universe.” He writes:
The right star system (including organics)
Reproductive something (e.g., RNA)
Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life
Complex (archaeatic & eukaryotic) single-cell life
Sexual reproduction
Multicell life
Tool-using animals with big brains
Where we are now
Colonization explosion
The Great Filter hypothesis states that one or more of these steps must be “very improbable” (Hanson, 1998). If it wasn’t improbable, then humanity would have already witnessed evidence of intelligent, extraterrestrial life, perhaps in the form of von Neumann probes (self-replicating spacecraft that draw raw material from stars, planets, gas giants, etc.) or spaceships or even signals.
Fortunately, as Bostrom argues, failure of contact is actually good news for humanity, as this means that the Great Filter likely lies behind and not in front of us (Bostrom, 2008). That is, if it’s more difficult for life to arise in the initial stages, then it may be easier for life to become spacefaring in the latter stages. No news of intelligent life is good news—it bodes well for our future.
There’s a glaring problem with knowing that the strategy of using the Socratic method to help people overcome faith works: there are no studies to support the effectiveness of this approach. In fact, there are no studies at all documenting the use of the Socratic method as an intervention to alleviate people from their faith. Here’s why: in order to conduct a study that uses human subjects (people), the researcher must submit approval through an IRB. IRBs are independent ethics review boards, usually associated with universities, that grant approval for studies that use humans as subjects in experiments. Their purpose is to protect research subjects from abuses.
It would be impossible to receive approval for a study that would help people overcome faith.
Proposing this sort of study would be considered not just far too controversial, but also abusive and damaging to subjects. No researcher could ever receive IRB approval for such a study.
This means that one can attempt to use the Socratic method to help others to abandon their faith and then blog about it, or tell one’s friends about their failures and successes, or use it in the classroom as a pedagogical intervention. (I’ve helped countless people abandon their faith and acquire reliable paths to knowledge.) Without IRB approval, no peer-reviewed journals would accept such a study and no university would allow faculty to conduct research on human subjects. Consequently, the effectiveness of Socratic techniques in helping people abandon their faith is not, at this present time, documented.
Fortunately, there is solid evidence that Socratic techniques can elicit behavioral changes outside the realm of faith. Much of my previous research focused on using the Socratic method to help prison inmates desist from criminal behavior (Boghossian, 2004; Boghossian, 2006a; Boghossian, 2010) and explained the mechanics of the Socratic method (Boghossian, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2012). My current research focuses on using the Socratic method to help diabetics in the Diabetes Clinic at Oregon Health Science University improve treatment compliance by generating counterexamples to clarify their thought process and reach their health-related goals. Others have also conducted studies on the effectiveness of using the Socratic method to change cognitions (Froján-Parga, Calero-Elvira, & Montaño-Fidalgo, 2011) and improve critical thinking and reasoning (Boghossian, 2004). Furthermore, somewhat similar cognitive behavioral interventions have an extensive basis in the corrections, addiction, and psychological literature, though again not for the purpose of liberating people of their faith.
The current body of literature is highly suggestive, though not conclusive, that the Socratic method can be used as a self-imposed corrective mechanism that helps people fix flaws in their reasoning. We know what the Socratic method does, how it works, its preliminary successes, etc. What’s not been documented in the peer-reviewed literature is the Socratic method’s use as a treatment for faith. Based upon a related body of literature in regard to the effectiveness of the Socratic method, and based upon literature detailing the success of questioning to deprogram members of religious cults (Dubrow-Eichel, 1989, pp. 43–49, 195), it’s reasonable to infer that Socratic interventions are a reliable treatment for faith. However, because of popular perceptions of faith as a virtue, concerns over threats to religious liberties (Robbins & Anthony, 1982, p. 292), and the ethics (IRB) involved in conducting studies with the explicit aim of helping people abandon their faith, there is no research on the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.
CHAPTER 6
AFTER THE FALL
On Oct 14, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Katie Z. wrote:
I just stopped believing in God. It’s an unbelievable feeling. Are there any books you can recommend? I’m not ready for anything sarcastic or ribbing. Not yet. But I do need some direction. I just feel lost. Anything you can suggest will help. Thank you.
On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Peter Boghossian
I’ve always thought that what’s important is to be a person who values reason and rationality, and not to be an atheist. Atheism is a conclusion one comes to after a sincere, honest evaluation of the evidence. Here’s the evidence for the existence of God: Nothing. There is no evidence for God’s existence.
This may not be the advice you want to hear, but in my opinion the most important thing is to be comfortable with ignorance. I still struggle with this. Religion offers answers. When you embrace reason and make the decision to be rational, reasonable, thoughtful, and honest when examining your life, you will quickly come to the conclusion that you don’t have all of the answers. How do we teach people to be comfortable with uncertainty? I don’t have an answer that will satisfy everyone. I
do know that the *attitude* of being comfortable with uncertainty is key, but as to the road to get to this place in your life, well, I’m still thinking about it. I don’t know. I don’t have the answers. As long as you maintain a sincerity with regard to belief, and an honesty with yourself, and truly examine your own life, then this alone may help you to be comfortable with not knowing. But I doubt it. I only know that I know nothing. That is my only certainty.
The Muslims will tell you to repeat the name of Allah until you come to believe. The Christians will tell you to open your heart to Jesus to find true belief. These are easy answers that bend you in the direction of your initial starting point. This isn’t the case with reason. When you form beliefs on the basis of evidence, no conclusion will be guaranteed. Everything will be up for grabs. There’s no book that can teach you how to do this; it is not just a skill set, it is an attitude.
So, my suggestions: Be genuine and sincere with yourself and with others. Everything else will take care of itself. I’m sorry I can’t offer you more than this.
I’m free to chat. Anytime.
pete
This chapter is brief because of a lack of peer-reviewed literature on the subject, and because my primary focus is to help people abandon their faith and not to offer them a “plan of recovery.” Those who have come to terms with doubt have most often spent years in recovery—intellect was their guide, honesty and a hunger to know their motivation, and the discovery of new courage their therapy. Unlike God’s spokespersons—the rabbi, the priest, the imam—I would never presume to tell someone which path is best for them. That kind of paternalism and arrogance are the behaviors that contribute to people turning their backs on religion.1