First Attempt at a Peter Boghossian Intervention
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: First Attempt at a Peter Boghossian Intervention
(03-03-2014 06:11 AM)BeccaBoo Wrote:  I judge the results of the message. Like when I was 19 and in a really crappy, destructive relationship, and I was praying, and for the first time I could see everything at once from the past two years, and also possibilities of the future. For me that was a moment when I received more information than I previously could see.

Rob: So, you're saying that it hasn't shown itself to be malevolent yet? Also, how do you know this was a vision? I, too, can recall instances from the past and also imagine multiple possible future outcomes based on decisions I might make. This doesn't sound very conclusive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2014 09:20 AM by DLJ.)
RE: First Attempt at a Peter Boghossian Intervention
DLJ (not wanting to butt in on your conversation with Rob but just reminding you that there was another part to my question): How do you know it's a 'he'?
At some point you must have decided that this 'feeling of a voice' was male and then went on to decide that it was an external voice (rather than the internal one that we all have).

Have you given this external feeling of a (male) voice a name? If so, what made you give it that name rather than any other?

And I'll go to the bar for you. What's your poison?

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: First Attempt at a Peter Boghossian Intervention
(10-02-2014 03:57 PM)mrlmichael Wrote:  I recently finished reading Peter Boghossian's book "A Manual for Creating Atheists".

In the book, he proposes using a non-confrontational strategy or trying to get the person you are talking to to exhibit doxastic openness using the Socratic method. The gist is to not throw a bunch of evidence and facts in their face, and instead introduce doubt and critical thinking about their position. I tried this for the first time today with an old Army Buddy(AB) who I consider, for the most part a pretty reasonable dude, who genuinely wants to be right, but is a Christian and borderline YEC.

He told me that he knows god is real because he can personally communicate with him. The conversation unfolded like this:

AB: I know God is real because I can speak to him and hear him.

Me: How do you know you hear God? Is it like you physically hear a strange voice? I am just trying to better understand what you are saying.

AB: It's not exactly like that. But it' like I feel I am hearing him, it is really hard to explain.

Me: Ok, I think I get what you're saying. So how can you be sure you are hearing him. How do you know you are not delusional? Not saying you are, just curious how you can claim to know.

AB: I just know it's true.

Me: Okay, but people think they know and hear things all the time, but sometimes they are delusional. Sometimes people are delusional right?

AB: Yeah, but I don't think I am.

Me: You might not be. The reason I ask is, because there are people all over the world that believe in different versions of God than you, and many of these people make the same claim as you that they speak to and hear their god. Is it possible that some of these people are delusional?

AB: Yeah, that's possible, maybe some are, some aren't.

Me: True, maybe. However, since you all believe in a separate version of god, you can't all be correct can you? Someone has to be hearing the wrong God, thus, they are delusional.

AB: Maybe everybody is correct.

Me: I don't know. If you are having a conversation with Jesus, and you are hearing confirmation that he is the son of God and the Christian God is the one true God, and somebody in Iran is having this same conversation with Muhammad, only one of you can be correct on who is talking to the one the true real God right?

AB: Yeah, that's true.

Me: So at maximum, only one group of people talking to their God can be the correct group, and even though the rest may be sincere in thinking they are talking to God, the rest have to be delusional right?

AB: Yeah.

Me: But just because not all groups talking to their God can't be correct, doesn't mean they aren't all incorrect does it?

AB: I guess not. But that is highly improbable.

Me: Why is that highly improbable?

AB: Because that would mean that most of the world is delusional.

Me: True. But it has happened before. There is no truth in numbers. If I tell you that there is an alien craft in my backyard, even though that is clearly not true, but I convince you to believe there is, so now two people truly believe there is an alien craft in my backyard, that doesn't make it any more truthful does it?

AB: Hmmmmmmm

AB: I need to think

(End of conversation)

This was my first time trying this, so I know I can do better, but Peter Boghossian would consider this a successful intervention. What say you TTA?

I have this book, and love its approach system. I have had some success thusfar....the trap we atheists fall into is trying to throw science and facts at the problem, which just gets both parties mired in a back and forth, and both being in a defensive posture. His approach and asking questions to get them to do a little vocalization and introspective question to turn on their own doubt is genius.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: