Quote of the Day: Atheists Should Persuade, But Not Proselytize by Daniel Fincke

daniel finke

Should atheists engage in proselytization? I solicited questions about my philosophy of atheism on Facebook and that’s the topic of the first question: Do you think trying to “convert” people to atheism is a good idea generally or at least sometimes?

I don’t think atheism is something you “convert” to. Atheism is just one philosophical position, not an entire system of beliefs or anything like the complex set of beliefs and practices and communities that religions involve. There are religions that are atheistic and there are people with a (metaphorically) religious zeal about their atheism. There can also be atheist philosophies and communities that are not exactly religions but to one degree or another developed and organized and defined alternatives to religions.

But the real question being asked in the prompt question is whether it’s a good idea to try to get people to become atheists.

I am all for trying to persuade people of atheism, but not at all for trying to proselytize for atheism. I write articles making the case for atheism and in suitable forums where people are willingly up for debate I will argue for atheism directly to individuals.

But I would never approach my relationships with individuals with the attitude that it’s my job to change their thinking and change their lives. I do not target new people I meet and make it my mission to change them. I abhor the idea of forming relationships with people with the ulterior motive of just trying to get them to join my club. I also do not accost strangers or try to rope acquaintances into discussions about religion. It is wrong to approach relationships with others with a manipulative agenda to change them. If I cannot accept you as you are, then I am going to avoid having anything to do with you, not take it upon myself to change you. I don’t want to have the necessary self-satisfaction and self-righteousness to approach people in an asymmetric way where I see myself as the one in possession of the key knowledge of what is true and good and the other person is an ignorant person in need of my intervention. I want reciprocal encounters. I don’t want to engage in conversations with the attitude that I’m certainly right and I know what is best for the person I’m talking to and the other person is someone to be corrected. I don’t want to disrespect other people that way.

….

That said, I have described myself in the past as an “evangelical” atheist because I really do want to persuade people of atheism. I am unusually passionate about atheism becoming more common. I prefer to argue for atheism through the impersonal medium of writing because it allows people to process what I say in their own way and on their own schedule. My ultimate goal in advancing atheism is increasing people’s autonomy and rational understanding. Writing articles that people can privately read and digest without any social pressure from me is a great way for people to be truly free to engage the arguments on their own terms.

….

I also want to persuade people of atheism because I think it’s the best philosophical position on the question of interventionist personal deities and I think people ideally should believe what is true. So, even where a given individual’s theism does not link up to any undue deference to religious authorities, I would theoretically hope to persuade them of the better philosophical position (assuming I am right about what that is—and of course I’m happy to keep listening to my interlocutors and to be the one to change my mind if I am the one who is indeed wrong) since that’s a good in its own right. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having philosophical opinions or arguing for them because you think they’re correct and you think it’s, all things equal, better that people hold more correct philosophical views. This does not turn into proselytization as soon as the topic you have philosophical views about is theism or religion. Just because conflicts over religious ideas and practices have been nasty and oppressive does not mean that everyone who wants to advance a philosophical position about theism or religion is an authoritarian looking to impose a religion on others against their will.

— Daniel Fincke, Camels with Hammers, Atheists Should Persuade, But Not Proselytize, September 1, 2018

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

4 Comments

  1. Matilda

    The word ‘should’ is a turn off. My fundy life was full of shoulds and shouldn’ts. The list was endless, one never got to the end of it before new ones were invented. So I suggest, the new found freedom allows those who wish to, to evangelise or to persuade. But some us simply wish to get on with our everyday lives without discussing our non-religious position with anyone else, and are not going back to being guilted for lack of zeal for the cause. Or have I completely misunderstood Fincke’s point?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I think Dan’s point is that IF you are going to talk to people about atheism, persuade and not evangelize. He’s saying, IF we are going to do this, this should be our approach. Way too many atheists are just as Fundamentalist as Evangelicals. Like you, I want to get on with life, but when asked about my beliefs I hope I will have persuasive arguments for why I am not a believer.

      Reply
  2. ObstacleChick

    If people ask me about my beliefs, I will tell them and am willing to discuss in a respectful manner. But evangelism of any sort is a turn off for me. I would ignore a street preaching atheist just as I would ignore a street preaching Christian or Jew or Muslim or Pastafarian.

    Reply
  3. TW

    I REALLY like what he wrote here, and I think this is the key: “But I would never approach my relationships with individuals with the attitude that it’s my job to change their thinking and change their lives. I do not target new people I meet and make it my mission to change them. I abhor the idea of forming relationships with people with the ulterior motive of just trying to get them to join my club. I also do not accost strangers or try to rope acquaintances into discussions about religion. It is wrong to approach relationships with others with a manipulative agenda to change them. If I cannot accept you as you are, then I am going to avoid having anything to do with you, not take it upon myself to change you. I don’t want to have the necessary self-satisfaction and self-righteousness to approach people in an asymmetric way where I see myself as the one in possession of the key knowledge of what is true and good and the other person is an ignorant person in need of my intervention.“

    When I was a believer, (or any of us who are former believers for that matter), what was it that were told was the single MOST important and overriding purpose for us? To bring the “good news of Jesus Christ” to a “lost and dying” world. Time after time, after time, after time, we were CONSTANTLY reminded of this mission! EVERYTHING that was done was ALWAYS in support of this mission: “Friendship” days; Christmas and Easter musicals/dramas; small groups; inviting your neighbors over for “fellowship”; community “outreaches”; and so much more! And why was this all so goddamn f***ing important? Because as believers, we were told/led to believe that we were the “one in possession of the key knowledge of what is true and good and anyone else who is OUTSIDE of our bubble is an “ignorant person in need of my intervention”, and by-god we have to try and lead all of these poor ignorant saps away from the brink of hell!!

    It didn’t matter whom you were interacting with, there was ALWAYS a hidden agenda for us to fulfill. Oh sure, we were often told to “accept people where they are”, but that rarely happens. Because “where they are” REALLY meant that if they weren’t converted, they were sinners who needed rescuing! In other words, there’s something “wrong” with them, so you can’t leave them there! And of course, this didn’t only extend to people one knew, but also strangers on the street.

    When I first found Bruce’s blog, it wasn’t too long after my exit from ministry and the church. As is the case with so many of us, I was still trying to hang on to certain parts of my faith after leaving. I emailed Bruce a couple times over these last number of years with various questions here and there, but not one time in any of our correspondence did he ever try to change my mind about anything. I appreciated that about him, and I absolutely appreciate that I can now approach people I meet without the agenda of “witnessing” coming into play. When you’re a believer who has been told that you have the so-called “ultimate truth”, people become “projects”, and you ALWAYS tend to look at them differently. Yes, we also do this without the filter of religion, but without that filter, you don’t necessarily see them as someone who needs to be “changed”.

    All in all, he does make some very good points, and as I have gone through the journey of my exit from evangelical Christianity, this was one of the things about myself, and how I approached people in the past as a believer, that I did a lot of introspection about, even going to far as to question how “real” some of my friendships actually were. And there’s no doubt, there were some whom I had become friends with simply for the purpose of seeing them “converted”. And when I think about that now, it bothers me. Personally, I hope to have more meaningful interactions as I continue moving forward.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.