How do you get people to realize they have an imaginary tyrant with them?

[leahcim1985]

Today while working with my retail job I had a Muslim coworker talk to me about books she read in class. One book she mentioned was 1984.  This spun into a conversation about statism and a state not allowing you to think, question things, telling you what to do and when to do it etc., We both agreed an oppressive state was not the place we would want to live in. However, she has a God that tells her what she can eat, who she can marry, how many times she has to pray, that it is wrong to question him, if she abandons him she will be killed and send her to hell etc. etc. I feel like the real difference between 1984 and Islam is that in 1984 you can hunt down your tyrants where in Islam you have an imaginary tyrant that was stolen from the Christians.  I didn’t feel the work place would be the right place for a religious debate.

 

My question is how do you get religious people who claim they are against tyranny to wake up and realize they have an imaginary tyrant calling the shots for them?

[powder]

I think that Stef claims that you cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into.  I am sure that is very much the case.  Religious indoctrination is inflicted on children, that programming is in the hard drive.  

 

Since in religious traditions morality is purported to be a big part of what matters when I talk to religious people I talk about ethics and challenge them on the moral contradictions that the belief system requires them to adhere to and support.  It is interesting to watch because they give you a blank stare as if the program has frozen because it cannot handle the input, then they usually ramble on with one of their programmed responses or 'testimonies'.  I don't know if it makes a difference but I think it plants a virus in the program at least.  chances are they will just avoid talking to you after when you do that sort of thing to them because it really is a afront to their security.  

[Pepin]

If it is a work relationship, I personally wouldn't continue with that sort of conversation. You probably won't change her mind, you will likely make work very difficult and awkward, and you are likely to get a bad reputation. It's a risk of course, and if you are willing to accept it, continue the discourse. I might have a bias in this, as I don't like comprising my job.

[powder]

I agree with Pepin.  It really depends on the nature of the relationship and the possible impact on all concerned.  It has to make sense to me before I will engage in that kind of conversation with someone.  

[Daniel Unplugged]

My question is how do you get religious people who claim they are against tyranny to wake up and realize they have an imaginary tyrant calling the shots for them?

I've been trying to find the answer to that question for a long time...near total failure. Since the world is full of religious people (and Statists too), I assume nobody else has figured it out either. I suppose Richard Dawkins and Stefan Molyneux have made some progress, but we still seem a long way from having a 'cure'. I think the problem stems from rational people believing (perhaps insanely) that insane people can be reasoned with. This is why peaceful parenting may be the solution: Eliminate one of the primary causes of the insanity to begin with. Prevention is of course, better than a cure.

[Heisenberg]

Interesting question and I actually have some (very small) experience with this. I managed to convert a coworker who was a full on creationist.

 

A lot is going to depend on your personal relationship with the person. I was friends with this person outside of work so it wasn't just a coworker type deal. That helped in my case because I tend to be extremely blunt in conversations about religion and go straight for the jugular (you'll see what I mean), so being friends beforehand took some of the sting out of what I had to say and ask.

 

I didn't bother with logical arguments or scientific arguments, I basically took the Bible (she was a Christian) and applied it in a personal way to her. For instance I took the story of Abraham and Isaac and asked her if she was told by God to kill her brother to prove her faith if she would. I didn't allow her filibuster with rationalizations or excuses, I cut her off immediately, and made her answer Yes or No. I forced her to confront the problem she knew innately, that if she said yes she would be committing an unspeakably horrible act and if she said no because of that then God surely wasn't the source of morals (since she would be substituting hers for his) nor a completely good or moral entity because no one of even average moral character would even ask that. Things like that.

 

I think for a lot of people the moral aspect is more difficult to overcome than the logical or scientific aspects. If you can overcome that then the other stuff is easier to convince them of.

 

There are some caveats of course. Despite the fact that her father is a pastor and both parents are creationists (of the "the earth is 6000 years old" ilk) she is very smart and curious. She was willing to atleast listen and willing to face up and give an honest answer (eventually) instead of continuing to deflect with irrelevancies.

 

So I think you need to gauge the person, if they are willing to listen and honestly answer questions then you have a shot. If you see some daylight through the cracks then hammer away at them. Eventually the façade will crumble.

 

Of course if they aren't willing to face up to questions honestly or even worse say something like "well yeah id kill my brother to show my faith" then you have no chance.

 

So if you have a good relationship as friends (so they wont just get furious and not talk to you anymore), the person is smart and atleast willing to answer honestly, I think making it personal (in the way I described, I didn't once say she was a horrid person or anything like that because of her beliefs for instance) is a good way to go. It's sort of like Stef's "against me" argument in a way.

[firefop]

I've actually been thinking about this topic for awhile myself. As a former pastor and bible scholar what finally did it for me personally was a rejection of the morality of the leadership involved in every church I visited. Except for myself I couldn't find anyone who wasn't corrupt. Over the past 10 years or so I've been concentrating on philosophy as a scholarly pursuit instead of religion. UPB actually took me from agnostic to atheist. But now as an atheist I'm think we spend entirely too much time debating with theists...

 

All you really need to do to shatter someone's faith is argue from within their context, I've been intending to post an essay i'm working on called "the red letter argument" discussing specifics as this relates to christianity.

 

Now I'm not as well versed (pardon the pun) when it comes to islam, but I think the best tactic there is to address the morals of their prophet... he's a self admitted child molester and describes in the qu'ran ways in which a 'bride' who's under the age of 9 can be used for sex. Once you can show the immorality there, their faith should depart quickly.