Biweekly Discussion - Persuasion for Skeptics & Atheists

Name: Biweekly Discussion - Persuasion for Skeptics & Atheists
Start: 2021-12-05T13:00:00-05:00
End: 2021-12-05T15:00:00-05:00

Hosted by Brian B.

Super Organizer

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85893663744?pwd=SGhzUlcxYjBVa0IxNUpvYVZZZjE4Zz09

Meeting ID: 858 9366 3744
Passcode: 540889

----------------------------------------------
THE ART & SCIENCE OF PERSUASION FOR SKEPTICS & ATHEISTS:

CAN WE DEBUNK IRRATIONAL BELIEFS WITHOUT TRIGGERING THE BACKFIRE EFFECT - OR SHOULD WE JUST TRY TO BUILD RAPPORT?

INTRODUCTION:

Right before the holidays, you'll often see articles suggesting tactics for navigating potentially heated political discussions with the extended family & in-laws around the dinner table. Sometimes these articles suggest trying to persuade people to change their views, whereas other articles suggest that we merely try to keep things civil and try to moderate people's views a bit. I figured this would be a good time for us to discuss similar efforts within the skeptic & atheist communities to persuade people to give up some of their pseudoscientific or religious beliefs, as well as some movements that merely try to build more trust & rapport between scientists & atheists and the general public.

As we'll see, persuasion is both an art & a science. We need to understand the science of persuasion first - i.e. psychology studies on persuasion can give us a general idea of what works in most cases. Only once we understand what normally works can we get proficient at the "art" - i.e. there's a skillset we need to master in order to persuade individuals in specific conversations, and a lot depends on our ability to quickly adapt to the flow of the conversation and think on our feet, as well as paying attention to our tone of voice & non-verbal communication so we don't come across as aggressive or contemptuous.

In the first section, we'll look at the rhetorical advice that John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky give in their short 6-page manual called the "Debunking Handbook" released in 2011 on the website Skeptical Science, a site dedicated to debunking climate change denial. Cook & Lewandowsky's book made it a point to craft rhetorical techniques that minimized the chances for a "backfire effect", but as we'll see recent research has suggested that the backfire effect's power may have been overstated.

In the second section, we'll look at some recent efforts to increase the general public's trust in scientists and dispel some common stereotypes about scientists, as well as to create a sense of rapport between individual scientists & lay audiences by facilitating one-on-one discussions. One of these recent efforts was detailed in the 2017 documentary film "Science Moms" which showcased several female scientists who used their combination of scientific training & experience as mothers to try to build rapport with other mothers who might be conned into the anti-vaccine & anti-GMO views and alternative medicine quackery often found on daytime TV shows like Dr. Oz and blogs like "Food Babe" and "Natural News".

In the third section, we'll look at the rhetorical advice that Peter Boghossian gives for challenging people's religious beliefs in his "Manual for Creating Atheists" released in 2013. Boghossian coined the term "street epistemology" for these rhetorical tactics, as it revolves around question how people ground their religious beliefs, which is different than "counter-apologetics" - i.e. logical counterarguments to common defenses of religion that come up in formal debates. "Street epistemology" thus resembles a mix of the Socratic method and therapeutic counseling methods that rely on asking the patient lots of questions to encourage self-reflection. Boghossian's advice was picked up by several atheist YouTubers like Anthony Magnabosco, Reid Nicewonder & Tyrone Wells who filmed themselves conducting short street interviews with religious people where they politely questioned their beliefs. We'll compare "street epistemology" with cult deprogrammer Steven Hassan's "Strategic Integrative Approach" for staging interventions for people who'd joined abusive religious movements.

In the fourth section, we'll look at the arguments that atheist activist Chris Stedman made in his 2012 book, "Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious" for why atheists should get involved in interfaith dialogues. As we'll see, Stedman's arguments met opposition from some prominent atheists like Steven Pinker & Jerry Coyne, who both believe that this "accommodationist approach" where atheists & theists "agree to disagree" is problematic for various reasons.

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

Back in February of 2018, we discussed science activism & science policy, and in particular we discussed whether political advocacy by scientists causes a "backfire effect" and harms public trust in science. A small focus group study by GMU's John Kotcher & Emily Vraga found that participants didn't downgrade the credibility of hypothetical scientists for specifically advocating for action on climate change. However, in a more real-world context, Yale's Daniel Kahan observed that the fast-track roll-out of Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) caused a backlash effect among socially conservative parents who didn't want immunization to signal an endorsement of premarital sex. Kahan argued this backlash could've been avoided if parents found out about the HPV vaccine in private from their doctor instead of via GSK's ad campaign.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/246835989/

In August of 2017, we looked at research on how exposure to new information can change people's minds to see if the "marketplace of ideas" concept can be empirically verified, both in terms of getting people to adopt new scientific theories & getting people to develop more empathy for their out-groups. In the 1st section of the outline, we discussed how cognitive dissonance can lead to a backfire effect in some cases, but research by the political scientists Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifer suggest that in most cases people "heed factual information, even when such information challenges their partisan & ideological commitments". In the 2nd section, we discussed research into how different forms of activism can create more empathy for minority groups, particularly in terms of shifting people's views on same-sex marriage. In general, the research appears to indicate that in-person canvassing that uses rapport-building can work, but shaming people for their beliefs is liable to backfire.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/240812126/

In November of 2017, the Philly Political Agnostics held a meetup on climate change, and the 1st section of the discussion outline looked at how "cultural cognition" tends to lead liberals & conservatives to become MORE polarized in their beliefs about climate change the more they learned about the issue. This suggests that once scientific issues like climate change take on partisan meanings, merely providing the public with more information is unlikely to lead to wider belief.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywnbmc/

Those who are familiar with Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) may notice that the techniques of "Street Epistemology" are similar to NLP's "Meta Model" which uses a series of questions to elicit a person's values and force them to examine their own mental processes. Back in February, we had a meetup entitled "The Science of Hypnosis" and in Part 2 we discussed why most psychologists are skeptical about the efficacy of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). We also covered "brainwashing" and "deprogramming" in Part 4, and discussed why most psychologists doubt that either are possible. This is relevant to the 3rd section of this discussion where we'll talk about intervention strategies for getting people to leave a religious cult.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/ffkqkqyzdbfb/

In July of 2018, we hosted a meetup entitled "Is 'New Atheism' Declining or Evolving?" We addressed the common arguments that "atheism is just another religion" and "the New Atheists are fundamentalists" and we looked at how atheist advocacy & the public perception of atheism might tie into broader trends in religious belief in the American populace, particularly the rise of the "Nones". We discussed how the rise of the religiously unaffiliated may be linked not so much to atheist advocacy as to broader socio-economic & demographic trends, such as increases in education & economic security, rising religious diversity, a political & cultural backlash against right-wing evangelicals, and perhaps even the rise of the internet.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/252679767/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the science of persuasion & the backfire effect, particularly as it relates to the debunking efforts of skeptics & atheists. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 45 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them, as well as whatever other questions our members raise. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. JOHN COOK & STEPHEN LEWANDOWSKY'S "THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK" & AVOIDING THE BACKFIRE EFFECT:

SHOULD RATIONALITY TRAINING PRECEDE SKEPTICAL ADVOCACY - I.E. IF DEBUNKING OTHER'S FALSE BELIEFS IS HARDER THAN DEBUNKING YOUR OWN FALSE BELEFS, SHOULD WOULD-BE DEBUNKERS START BY WORKING ON THEIR OWN RATIONALITY?
IN DEBUNKING, IS IT IMPORTANT TO START WITH THE FACTS INSTEAD OF THE MYTH SO WE AVOID PRIMING PEOPLE TO REMEMBER THE MYTH? OR IS THE "CONTINUED INFLUENCE EFFECT" OVERBLOWN, SO THAT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO TALK ABOUT A MYTH IN-DEPTH TO DEBUNK IT?
DOES PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC BELIEFS OFTEN FUNCTION AS "GOD-OF-THE-GAPS" EXPLANATIONS? IF SO, CAN FILLING IN THE GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE WITH ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS HELP?
DO STATISTICS & VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF DATA (CHARTS & GRAPHS) HELP PERSUADE PEOPLE, OR IS IT BETTER TO FOCUS ON PERSONAL TESTIMONIES & NARRATIVES?
DOES PROVIDING EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS A PERSON'S EXISTING BELIEFS CAUSE "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE", OR DO MOST PEOPLE NOT NOTICE BECAUSE THEIR BELIEFS ARE VAGUE OR COMPARTMENTALIZED? WHEN PEOPLE DO NOTICE THE CONTRADICTION, DOES THIS ALWAYS CAUSE NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, OR CAN IT BE EXPERIENCED AS A PLEASANT SURPRISE IF IT'S PRESENTED IN THE RIGHT WAY?
IF THE STRONG VERSION OF THE "BACKFIRE EFFECT" IS RARE - I.E. PEOPLE DON'T GENERALLY BECOME MORE EXTREME IN THEIR VIEWS WHEN PRESENTED WITH CONTRADICTORY FACTS - IS THIS MERELY BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T REACT & KEEP THEIR VIEWS THE SAME, OR BECAUSE THEY UPDATE THEIR BELIEFS BASED ON THE FACTS? IN THE LATTER CASE, HOW PERMANENT IS THIS UPDATED VIEW - DOES IT FADE OUT AFTER A FEW DAYS OR WEEKS?
EVEN THOUGH COOK & LEWANDOWSKY DON'T MENTION IT, COULD THE METHODS OF "STREET EPISTEMOLOGY" WORK WELL WHEN DEBUNKING PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC BELIEFS? OR IS IT BETTER TO CONVEY THE BASIC FACTS & ENCOURAGE DEFERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAN TO TRY TO GET A LAYPERSON TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES & HOPE THEY INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVE AT THE TRUTH?

1a) Jevin West, "Calling Bullshit: Debunking Myths" (video - 9:38 min.)
https://youtu.be/W3APikrtqqU

1b) Peter R. Licari "The Backfire Effect (Is Not As Bad As You Think)" (video - 7:43 min, listen to 7:05)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vg9BX11pFo

John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky, "The Debunking Handbook"
https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
John Wihbey, "Misinformation and fact-checking: Research findings from social science"
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/misinformation-fact-checking-research-findings-social-science/
Christopher Graves, "Why Debunking Myths About Vaccines Hasn’t Convinced Dubious Parents"
https://hbr.org/2015/02/why-debunking-myths-about-vaccines-hasnt-convinced-dubious-parents
Steven Novella, "Backfire Effect Not Significant"
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/backfire-effect-not-significant/
Hilda Bastian, "Debunking Advice Debunked: Recommendations for effective myth debunking may thus need to be revised."
https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/04/05/debunking-advice-debunked/
Will Thalheimer, "New Meta-Analysis on Debunking — Still an Unclear Way to Potency"
https://www.worklearning.com/2017/09/19/new-meta-analysis-on-debunking-still-an-unclear-way-to-potency/
Stephan Lewandowsky, "Familiarity-based processing in the continued influence of misinformation: Can Repeating False Information Help People Remember True Information?"
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskydbh-2.html
Brendan Nyhan, "Science Says This is the Best Way to Persuade Someone Who's Wrong: It's frustrating when a friend or colleague is plainly mistaken. Is this method [i.e. using charts & graphs] worth trying?
https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/science-says-this-eye-opening-method-is-best-way-to-persuade-someone-whos-wrong-jeff-bezos-will-hate-it.html

.
II. "SCIENCE MOMS" & "SCIENTISTS WITH SELFIES" AND THEIR USE OF AUTHENTICITY & AUTHORITY IN RESPONDING TO MISINFORMATION:

CAN PUBLIC OPINION POLLS HELP US GAUGE PUBLIC TRUST IN SCIENTISTS? WHY DOESN'T GENERALIZE "TRUST IN SCIENTISTS" SWITCH PEOPLE'S VIEWS ON CONTENTIOUS ISSUES?
CAN REPEATED EXPERIMENTS LIKE HAVING CHILDREN "DRAW A SCIENTIST" GIVE US AN IDEA OF COMMON STEREOTYPES ABOUT SCIENTISTS? DO THEIR DRAWINGS CHANGE AFTER THEY'VE MET SOME REAL SCIENTISTS?
DOES PUBLIC TRUST IN SCIENCE MOSTLY DEPEND ON FORMING A POSITIVE VIEW OF SCIENTISTS DURING CHILDHOOD, OR CAN ADULTS WHO GREW UP SUSPICIOUS OF SCIENTISTS BE WON OVER LATER?
CAN SCIENTISTS & DOCTORS INCREASE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH BLOGGING, PODCASTING & VLOGGING? IF SO, IS IT BECAUSE IT HUMANIZES THEM & MAKES THEM SEEM RELATABLE, OR BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR KNOWLEDGE, OR BOTH?
DOES THE AVERAGE PERSON'S TRUST IN SCIENTISTS DECREASE WHEN SCIENTISTS ADVOCATES FOR A PUBLIC POLICY THEY DISAGREE WITH? IF NOT, ARE THERE MORE PARTISAN TYPES OF BEHAVIOR (E.G. THE "MARCH FOR SCIENCE" PROTEST) THAT WOULD MAKE THE AVERAGE PERSON LOSE TRUST IN SCIENTISTS?

2a) Paige Jarreau, "To Selfie or Not to Selfie - How Can Scientists Foster Public Trust on Instagram?" (video - 3:48 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf7ROXhZYmI

2b) Alison Bernstein, Kavin Sapernathy & Anastasia Bodnar, "Science Moms Trailer" (video - 2:00 min.)
https://youtu.be/lDfmZzY2leA

2c) Emily Vraga, "Does advocacy affects scientists' credibility?" (video - 2:40 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgAuqtEss5E

Paige Brown Jarreau, "Scientists Who Selfie Break Down Stereotypes: Researchers who post personal photos of their lives can build trust with public audiences."
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/scientists-who-selfie-break-down-stereotypes
Kristina Killgrove, "How The 'Skype A Scientist' Program Combats Fake News Through Public Education"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2019/02/27/how-the-skype-a-scientist-program-combats-fake-news-through-public-education/#38939b0025d7
Nathan Dickey, "Science Moms: Fighting Fear with Facts and Empathy"
http://trollingwithlogic.com/skeptical-inquests/2017/12/17/science-moms-fighting-fear-with-facts-and-empathy/
Cary Funk & Meg Hefferon, "Most Americans have positive image of research scientists, but fewer see them as good communicators"
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/19/most-americans-have-positive-image-of-research-scientists-but-fewer-see-them-as-good-communicators/
Jenny Rohn, "Who are you calling a boffin [i.e. nerd]? What do the public think scientists are like - and what do stereotypes matter anyway?"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/24/scientists-boffin-stereotype
Jamie L. Vernon & Mary Woolley, "Visibility May Be the Key to Increasing Support for Science"
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/visibility-may-be-the-key-to-increasing-support-for-science
Emily Vraga, "Can scientists march for science without losing the public’s trust?"
https://grist.org/article/can-scientists-march-for-science-without-losing-the-publics-trust/
Suzi Spitzer, "Five Principles Of Science Communication"
https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2018/04/five-principles-of-science-communication/

.
III. PETER BOGHOSSIAN'S "MANUAL FOR CREATING ATHEISTS" & ITS USE OF "STREET EPISTEMOLOGY" TO PLANT SEEDS OF RELIGIOUS DOUBT VS STEVEN HASSAN'S "STRATEGIC INTERACTIVE APPROACH" FOR STAGING INTERVENTIONS TO GET PEOPLE TO LEAVE CULTS:

IS PETER BOGHOSSIAN RIGHT THAT MOCKERY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WORKS WELL TO PROMPT DECONVERSION ON THE SOCIETAL LEVEL, WHEREAS A MORE EMPATHIC APPROACH WORKS BETTER ON THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL?
IS RELIGIOUS FAITH ANALOGOUS TO A "VIRUS" IN THE MEMETIC SENSE? IF SO, DOES THINKING OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AS MOSTLY COMPOSED OF ETHICAL & INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN INFECTED WITH A "FAITH VIRUS", AS BOGHOSSIAN RECOMMENDS, CONDUCIVE TO INTERACTING WITH THEM IN A COMPASSIONATE MINDSET?
FOR STREET EPISTEMOLOGY, IS IT BETTER TO APPROACH PEOPLE WITHOUT REVEALING YOUR INTENTIONS (I.E. SHAKING THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH), OR WOULD IT BE MORE HELPFUL TO SET UP AN "ASK AN ATHEIST" STAND IN A PUBLIC PLACE & LET PEOPLE APPROACH YOU?
WHY DO STREET EPISTEMOLOGISTS OFTEN ASK PEOPLE TO RANK THEIR BELIEF IN GOD'S EXISTENCE (OR ANOTHER CLAIM) FROM 0%-100%? DOES THAT ENCOURAGE INTERMEDIATE POSITIONS BY FRAMING DOUBT AS INCREMENTAL?
IS GEORGE REY'S THEORY OF "META-ATHEISM" CORRECT - I.E. DOES THE EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR OF MOST NON-FUNDAMENTALISTS INDICATE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN GOD (OR THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE, THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER, THE AFTERLIFE, YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM, MIRACLES, ETC.) BUT THAT THEY MERELY "BELIEVE IN BELIEF" - I.E. THEY BELIEVE THEY SHOULD PAY IT LIP SERVICE? IF SO, HOW CAN STREET EPISTEMOLOGISTS GET THEM TO REALIZE THIS WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE THEY'RE CALLING THEM HYPOCRITES?
DOES "PERSPECTIVE TAKING" - I.E. ASKING A RELIGIOUS BELIEVER TO IMAGINE WHAT THEIR BELIEFS WOULD BE IF THEY WERE RAISED IN A DIFFERENT FAITH - HELP ENCOURAGE DOUBT BY FORCING THE PERSON TO RECOGNIZE THEIR OWN CONFIRMATION BIAS?
CAN ASKING PEOPLE SOMETHING LIKE "DO YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE THINGS THAT ARE TRUE & DISBELIEVE THINGS THAT ARE FALSE?" PRIME PEOPLE TO THINK MORE ABOUT THE EMPIRICAL BASIS OF THEIR BELIEFS? CAN THIS SUBVERT THE COMMON TENDENCY TO ARGUE THAT "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MY OPINION"?
ARE STREET EPISTEMOLOGISTS CORRECT WHEN THEY DEFINE "FAITH" AS "PRETENDING TO KNOW" AND/OR "BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE" OR DOES THAT OBSCURE OTHER MEANINGS LIKE TRUST, LOYALTY OR HOPE THAT DON'T DEPEND ON EVIDENCE?
IS "DEPROGRAMMING" A PERSON WHO'S RECENTLY JOINED A CULT EASIER THAN "DECONVERTING" SOMEONE WHO WAS RAISED IN A RELIGION SINCE WITH CULTS YOU CAN RALLY THEIR FRIENDS & FAMILY & TRY TO REKINDLE THEIR ORIGINAL IDENTITY? OR IS DEPROGRAMMING HARDER BECAUSE CULTS TYPICALLY INCULCATE FANATICAL BELIEFS IN THEIR FOLLOWERS & EXERCISE MORE CONTROL OVER THEM?
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LEAVING A RELIGION? IS IT UNETHICAL TO SOW DOUBT IN A PERSON WHO MIGHT EXPERIENCE AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS OR LOSE THEIR SOCIAL SUPPORTS IF THEY DECONVERT?

3a) David Pakman w/ Peter Boghossian, "A Manual for Creating Atheists" (video - 8:52 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnKhHSjptxo

3b) Steven Hassan, "How to Rescue a Loved One from a Cult - The Strategic Interactive Approach" (video - 4:34 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bnDhgGMcXc

Jonathan Rydberg, "The brain treats questions about beliefs like physical threats. Can we learn to disarm it? Street epistemologists are trying to give people ‘the gift of doubt’" https://massivesci.com/articles/brain-political-beliefs-reaction-politics/
Rick Repetti, "Book Review: Peter Boghossian, 'A Manual for Creating Atheists'"
https://www.academia.edu/17262869/Peter_Boghossian._A_Manual_for_Creating_Atheists
Rod & Linda Dubro-Marshall, "How to talk someone out of a damaging cult"
https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-someone-out-of-a-damaging-cult-68930
Derek Beres, "When and why do people become atheists? New study uncovers important predictors."
https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/study-discovers-how-and-why-and-when-people-become-atheists
Eponym, "Against Street Epistemology"
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tb3mti2Y5znK5vs4L/against-street-epistemology
Jon Fortenbury, "The Health Effects of Leaving Religion: How a loss of faith can manifest itself in the mind and body"
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/the-health-effects-of-leaving-religion/379651/

.
IV. CHRIS STEDMAN'S "FAITHEISM" & ITS PROMISE FOR REDUCING ANTI-ATHEIST BIAS VIA INTERFAITH DIALOGUE - AND HOW THIS TIES INTO THE "ACCOMODATIONIST DEBATE" AMONG ATHEISTS:

WHY DO MANY RELIGIOUS AMERICANS HOLD NEGATIVE VIEWS OF ATHEISTS? IS IT BECAUSE THEY THINK ATHEISTS ARE MORAL NIHILISTS & PRONE TO CRIMINALITY, OR BECAUSE THEY FEEL DISRESPECTED BY ATHEIST ACTIVISM, OR BECAUSE ATHEISM STIRS UP THEIR RELIGIOUS DOUBTS (ESP. ABOUT DEATH & THE AFTERLIFE) WHICH MAKES THEM MORE UNCOMFORTABLE?
DO STUDIES THAT FIND LOW LEVELS OF TRUST FOR ATHEISTS OVEREMPHASIZE THE EFFECT OF STEREOTYPING BY ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ARE TOO ABSTRACT & HYPOTHETICAL? DOES STEREOTYPING DECREASE WHEN STUDY PARTICIPANTS GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE ASIDE FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?
DOES THE WAY THAT "DEEP CANVASSING" WAS ABLE TO SWAY AMERICANS' VIEWS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SUGGEST THAT A FRIENDLY ATHEIST WHO LISTENS & SHARES THEIR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH A RELIGIOUS PERSON COULD HELP DISPEL SOME ANTI-ATHEIST BIASES? OR IS IT LESS LIKELY TO WORK FOR ATHEISTS, SINCE THEIR WORLDVIEW IS AN EXPLICIT REJECTION OF THE RELIGIOUS PERSON'S WORLDVIEW?
IS THE SOCIAL & POLITICAL IMPACT OF INTERFAITH DIALOGUE GROUPS LIMITED BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY JUST PROGRESSIVES WHO ARE RELIGIOUS MODERATES THAT ATTEND? IF SO, COULD IT STILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR ATHEISTS TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERFAITH DIALOGUES TO WIN OVER MODERATELY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, OR WOULD IT BE BETTER TO INTERACT WITH THEM ONLY IN OTHER CONTEXTS TO PREVENT ATHEISM BEING EQUATED WITH "FAITH"?
WHEN TALKING WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS, SHOULD ATHEISTS BE WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE ANY & ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, OR DO ATHEISTS HAVE A DUTY TO SPEAK UP & OBJECT WHEN SOMEONE ADVOCATES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT JUSTIFY VIOLENCE OR COERCION AND/OR BELIEFS ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD OR THE PAST THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT WE KNOW FROM SCIENCE & HISTORY?
IS "FAITHEISM" A STEPPING STONE TO THE "REGRESSIVE LEFT" - I.E. SINCE MOST INTERFAITH GROUPS ARE LEFT-LEANING, DOES THIS MEAN THAT "FAITHEISTS" WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO AVOID CRITICIZING ISLAM & FOCUS THEIR CRITICISMS ON CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES & "NEW ATHEISTS" LIKE SAM HARRIS & RICHARD DAWKINS IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE GROUP?

4a) John Iadarola, "Fear Of Atheism Explained" (video - 2:00 min.)
https://youtu.be/207DJgyHxyI?t=9

4b) Chris Stedman, "What is a Faitheist?" (video - 3:58 min.)
https://youtu.be/tRfGYlI7d9U

Jesse Marczyk, "The Distrust Of Atheists: What makes the non-religious seem less trustworthy?"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pop-psych/201805/the-distrust-atheists
Chris Stedman, "Atheists are disliked — but new data shows interfaith dialogue can help"
https://religionnews.com/2014/07/21/atheists-pew-interfaith-dialogue/
Richard C. Grove, et al., "Distrust persists after subverting atheist stereotypes"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430219874103
Joseph DeMott, "Religious Conservatives, 'Nones,' and Interfaith Dialogue: Too often, interfaith programs fail to attract broad participation and have little social impact."
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/articles/religious-conservatives-nones-and-interfaith-dialogue
Alex Chituc, "Our 10 Commandments of Faitheism"
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/09/29/our-10-commandments-of-faitheism/
Ronald A. Lindsay, "Atheism, Humanism, And 'Interfaith' Coalitions: Atheist and humanist groups should participate in 'interfaith' coalitions only in exceptional circumstances."
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/atheism_humanism_and_interfaith_coalitions/
Ken Perrott, "The 'interfaith' trap – particularly for atheists"
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/the-interfaith-trap-particularly-for-atheists/
Jerry Coyne, "Reza Aslan and Chris Stedman: Atheists and Muslims have lots in common and should be pals"
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/resa-aslan-and-chris-stedman-atheists-and-muslims-have-so-much-in-common-and-should-be-pals/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This event was canceled

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

Biweekly Discussion - Persuasion for Skeptics & Atheists

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

Details

Related topics

You may also like