I like conversational accountability much better than Sam’s conversational intolerance and I think anything with “intolerance” in the name is going to throw up barriers to absorption so it won’t even really be considered by many, probably most.
In any case, there are a few things to consider regarding conversational accountability. Assuming we want to promote the idea, does a lack of conversational diplomacy compromise the effort? How do you include challenging the status quo in the meme? Is it too late to “sell” a solid package of proper conversational accountability when most people will more than likely include faith in their version?
IOW, this topic is about rehashing the basic reasons Sam wrote The End of Faith and started this forum (and tossing that term tweak out there to see what yous think of it).
‘Is it too late to “sell” a solid package of proper conversational accountability when most people will more than likely include faith in their version?’
I would say yes to that. Faith would seem to be the opposite of accountability. How can people converse with accountability when they interject faith into the discussion? Doesn’t that deflate the entire process right there?
I think the concept of Sam’s Conversational Intolerance is to be intolerant of faith from the beginning, being is that it is a non sequiter. We should stop respecting faith and delusion before the discussion even begins, because there is no accountability in that train of thought.
Such high falutin’ words, boys. Byron, perhaps there needs to be more than one approach to the issue. Let’s examine the Civil Rights movement as an example, and compare it to the growing numbers of confessed faithless. Drawing attention to an issue requires some sort of militancy, whether it is a widespread boycott or physical violence, but the result is a combination of attention (negative or positive) and recognition. In the case of the blacks in the US, they weren’t an idea but, of course, people who couldn’t go away or stand to hold their tongues, so MKL’s and Malcolm X’s tactics both drew attention to the plight for legitimacy, and through a long process have achieved many of their goals. In short, both of your approaches are correct at the same time, it’s the old “Good Cop, Bad Cop” game. Thoughtful atheists like you and Jefe are just as important as the attention grabbing bludgeons of Salt Creek and Bad Rabbit.
Another way to look the issue is as teacher with a new class - spend the first couple weeks being a hard-ass and then slowly become the nice guy. This works because the students think the teacher primarily has a bad side but with good behavior can keep it at bay. But if the teacher were to start out by being a nice guy then when the time came to be a hard-ass the students wouldn’t take the teacher seriously.
But I see the point you are possibly trying to convey; don’t let up from the start, and have high expectations in as far as accountability is concerned.
Yes, that all makes sense. There is a difference between calling bs on something and calling for an explanation.
I don’t find myself in a position where I am speaking to people about religion. I virtually never have been asked kind I am. I do remember instances where I was clearly being baited, and in such instances, I usually find a way to not take the bait and still leave them wondering. I don’t see any point in a baited conversation. In the right setting, I’d be pleased to say what I think.
OMG, did I just use the juvenile web convention “OMG”?
Put me down for “good cop” about 80% of the time. I enjoy calling BS on complete asshats as much as the next guy, but conversational accountability implies a continuing dialogue in a manner which conversational intolerance does not - and time makes more converts than reason.
I think of dealing with not-ready-for-open-atheism doubters as a battle of attrition. It takes a bit of information here, a conversation there etc. for a person to abandon old belief structures (IOW - a continuing dialogue). A bash in the face usually doesn’t change someone’s mind, rather it puts them on the defensive.
Unless, of course, you hit them hard enough to cause amnesia and/or alteration of brain structures.
I enjoy calling BS on complete asshats as much as the next guy, but conversational accountability implies a continuing dialogue in a manner which conversational intolerance does not - and time makes more converts than reason.
I think of dealing with not-ready-for-open-atheism doubters as a battle of attrition. It takes a bit of information here, a conversation there etc. for a person to abandon old belief structures (IOW - a continuing dialogue). A bash in the face usually doesn’t change someone’s mind, rather it puts them on the defensive.
I think of dealing with not-ready-for-open-atheism doubters as a battle of attrition. It takes a bit of information here, a conversation there etc. for a person to abandon old belief structures (IOW - a continuing dialogue). A bash in the face usually doesn’t change someone’s mind, rather it puts them on the defensive.
If ‘liberal or moderate’ Christians are willing to read ‘THE VIEW FROM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE’ by Joel Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams . . . it won’t bash them in the face, and it might rattle their teacups. Thinking about it later, it might strike them that Bible stories are like Disney fairy tales in comparison.
I was with you until here. Deconstruction is futile? Or did the point sail right past me?
You got me with that one, and anyway, I didn’t spell it correctly as “Derridean”. Maybe I meant something like “derision”. How can we know what we mean, anyway? What would you call a combination of elision and derision? Futility has been deconstructed in earlier conversations, but it wasn’t futile. See, “the infinite amount of nonsense one can know about nothing”.
