There was a commentary by Christian writer Ben S. Carson, regarding the removal and return of bibles to U.S. Navy Lodge rooms, published about a week ago in The Washington Times, which I believe beautifully illustrates one of the most common bullying tactics I have seen. Though I don't know that he was trying to shut down arguments using this tactic, I have seen this same strategy often used in such a way, in verbal arguments especially.
The very common bullying tactic was this: He simply stated as fact what should rightfully be called an opinion, implying that to disagree was to be wrong.
The author of this article flat-out asserts that atheism is a religion (in spite of the fact that I have never seen an atheist say this), that it is the belief there is no god, and that it requires strong convictions. He then compares bibles to something as innocuous and non-controversial as bottled water, and even says that removing bibles would impose atheists' "religion" on everyone else. He calls atheists "whiners" and says that they need to be given "big-boy pants" (because apparently all atheists are male; I know I was issued a penis when I stopped believing).
My main problem with this article is that, without asking atheists about their own "religion," Carson states his opinions as facts, as if to disagree with him is to deny reality. That is not what I, and many others, believe. And while I think that he was not trying to bully anyone, merely trying to please his Christian readers, the addition of two simple words, "I believe..." would have made him look far less arrogant, less confrontational, and would have made it much easier for me to respectfully consider his points. Arrogant certainty is potentially hurtful to those who disagree, and therefore makes enemies.
This article made me feel rather emotional, as I have been on the receiving end of tactics like his, used to put me back in line or bully me into agreeing, before. I have even occasionally used this strategy myself, though I now know how wrong and futile it is and try not to do so. In any kind of argument, whether atheists are talking about Christians, or the other way around, or if either side is talking about God or even a different topic entirely, it is much more respectful to others to preface at least your first statement with the words, "I believe..." or "I think..." or "in my experience..." etc.
Here is an example of what it looks like if both sides refuse to do this:
Believer: "Atheism is a religion."
Unbeliever: "No, atheism is a lack of religion."
"No, it's not."
"Yes, it is."
Believer: "Atheists hate Christians."
Unbeliever: "No they don't."
"Yes, they do. The bible says the world will hate us."
"The bible's wrong."
"No, it's not."
"Yes, it is."
This creates a stalemate or shouting match. Neither will be convinced by the other, and they are probably too emotional by this point to agree to disagree (after all, they both probably have hurt feelings from being flat-out told they were wrong).
Some people actually enjoy this process, and will do it all day long. I do not, and I believe it is destructive to relationships. If there are people in my life who are angry enough to enjoy a good shouting match, and I want to maintain peace with them without pretending to agree, I will have to "go around" their anger rather than confront it head-on.
What You Can Say:
"I don't believe that."
They may claim to know all the facts, but they would sound ridiculous trying to tell you what you believe. This can go one of two ways:
Something like this:
"I don't believe that."
"Yes you do!"
"Well, I don't think I do!"
"You know it deep down."
"Well, I guess I'm not in touch with my 'deep down.' I may be wrong, but I always try to find the truth."
"You're lying. You just want to sin." (Or "You just don't want to accept reality.")
"I certainly hope not."
Or maybe it goes something like this:
"I don't believe that."
"Well, it's the truth."
"Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I always try to find the truth, and I don't believe this is it."
"It is."
"Okay. I know you believe that. That's okay with me."
These are just snatches of imaginary conversations, and I don't hope to represent real people or real arguments here, just possibilities. I think that these tactics are much more likely to diffuse an emotional situation without someone having to capitulate or "lose." Both parties can walk away feeling like they have won something, if nothing more than peace or respect.
The real challenge is to remember to shift into this mode when you're in the midst of using confrontational tactics, returning them, or having them used on you. A quick explanation often works as well as an apology in helping to cool down a battle (and doesn't give the impression that you're apologizing for "being wrong"). "This is just what I believe," you can explain, "I know it's not your beliefs." Even acknowledging that they have different beliefs than you goes a long way towards being accepted by and making clear that you accept the other person, or at least towards a grudging truce.
It is especially hard to control one's emotions when someone close to you is making accusations about your character, but this tactic can also be used in that situation. I have far fewer fights with those I love now that I know not to speculate upon their character or motives, but I think that one will eventually forget and that some of that is inevitable. Stating what you think or believe can be used effectively if they are questioning your character.
For example:
"You only care about yourself!"
"I don't think that that's true. I try not to be selfish."
This will hopefully lead to them explaining why they believe you are acting selfishly, disrespectfully, etc. If not, you can repeat this mantra, that you try not to be whatever horrible thing, and ask them to explain why they think you are being that way.They will probably think that you are not in touch with reality, but
they will not have an excuse to think badly of your character. If they
do, that is no longer your problem; you've tried to make yourself clear.
It also works for unwanted psychological evaluations:
"You always do this! You always sabotage yourself!"
"I'm not trying to do it. If I am, I don't know it."
Or, "You're depressed."
(If you don't feel that way) "I don't think that I am. Why do you think so?"
This will turn the conversation onto the reasons for their diagnoses or solutions to the problem, rather than labels.
Of course sometimes this bullying tactic, stating an opinion as a fact, is not used maliciously or intentionally, as those who employ it do not realize that they are doing anything wrong. It may still be hurtful, but it becomes bullying only when it is used aggressively or intentionally to shut down and intimidate the opposition.
By using this one phrase, "I don't believe that," or "That's not what I believe," in a respectful manner, the conversation turns back onto beliefs, not "facts," which is actually where it was all along, though now both parties agree that this is so. While you cannot turn every bully into a friend, and you should by all means avoid physically dangerous situations (in which case this tactic may not be effective, and you shouldn't risk it), this will help to diffuse an emotional situation and calm things down a bit. By being sincere but firm, you will ensure that the worst that they can rightfully conclude about you or accuse you of is that you are well-intentioned but stupid, and I would take that label any day; after all, God can't throw me in hell if I'm just stupid.
What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
No comments:
Post a Comment