Tip #32 Who Are You Trying To Convince?
Aug. 30th, 2015 01:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastTo be absolutely clear, this tip is not accusing anybody of not actually believing what they claim to believe. This is about arguments made.
In the previous tip, I talked about the tactic of judging non-believers' by expectations believers have on how they would act/believe in the non-believers' place. If I agreed that I would act or believe like that... well, I'd already agree with you, wouldn't I?
Similarly, I know my own morality better than you, so telling me that I have to borrow it from your worldview will never convince me. Neither will telling me that I already know you're right.
These tactics, these efforts at telling me my own beliefs, my own internal workings, often-times when never having met me, are fundamentally incapable of reaching non-believers. So, why are they so common?
It's a common observation, among atheists and other non-believers, that these apologetics, though ostensibly directed at non-believers, are for the benefit of believers. The goal isn't to change beliefs, but to reinforce the beliefs of the already-believing.
This doesn't have to be the intent. It just has to be the consequence. And, like I said about professional apologists, that consequence will get you rewarded by the already-believing. Of course they find it so convincing, so compelling, so moving. By definition, they're already people who share the conclusions of your arguments.
If you're trying to convince me, you've got to put the fellow believers and whatever pats on the back they'll provide you out of mind. You have to ask yourself the basic question; who is this argument trying to convince?
In the previous tip, I talked about the tactic of judging non-believers' by expectations believers have on how they would act/believe in the non-believers' place. If I agreed that I would act or believe like that... well, I'd already agree with you, wouldn't I?
Similarly, I know my own morality better than you, so telling me that I have to borrow it from your worldview will never convince me. Neither will telling me that I already know you're right.
These tactics, these efforts at telling me my own beliefs, my own internal workings, often-times when never having met me, are fundamentally incapable of reaching non-believers. So, why are they so common?
It's a common observation, among atheists and other non-believers, that these apologetics, though ostensibly directed at non-believers, are for the benefit of believers. The goal isn't to change beliefs, but to reinforce the beliefs of the already-believing.
This doesn't have to be the intent. It just has to be the consequence. And, like I said about professional apologists, that consequence will get you rewarded by the already-believing. Of course they find it so convincing, so compelling, so moving. By definition, they're already people who share the conclusions of your arguments.
If you're trying to convince me, you've got to put the fellow believers and whatever pats on the back they'll provide you out of mind. You have to ask yourself the basic question; who is this argument trying to convince?
