Welcome Theists and Religious People to Camels With Hammers!

On Monday, Real Clear Religion linked to a Camels With Hammers post on hell and so we were fortunate enough to get an unexpected influx of Christian commenters here to morally and intellectually exposit and defend a variety of Christian views on hell. And I could not be any happier to have these visitors to my atheist philosophy blog. I love it when my blog has many diverse, well-versed voices speaking up so that genuinely revealing debates can happen. So, welcome, Christians, and other theistic and religious commenters to Camels With Hammers, I am always pleased to have you here.

Let me orient you a bit to how things work here at Camels With Hammers and make a few proposals for how we can dialogue and debate fruitfully while together on this blog. In the future my readers and I are just going to give new theist and religious readers who seem hostile or overwhelmed or inclined to proselytization a link to this post so that hopefully such new readers like you can feel as welcome as possible and be able to constructively participate as much as possible. I do not want anyone to be frustrated away or to just ineffectually vent at me and my readers and leave. I want all people, and especially those who disagree with us, to stick around and profit from hanging out with us.

Respect That This is a Civil Blog Where All Ideas Are Fair Game, But Personal Attacks Are Discouraged

First things first, this is a blog for civil and vigorous debate about the most divisive philosophical, ethical, theological, political, and personal matters. No topics are taboo here, only attempts to silence and hate on other people present. I am convinced that the higher the stakes of an intellectual disagreement, and the more searching the mutual criticism of one another’s ideas is to be, the higher we must hold ourselves and each other to standards of interpersonal civility, intellectual charity, and, even, personal warmth. I think thought is freest and most truth conducive when people feel the most listened to, the least threatened, and the most liked.

Because a lot of us here are antitheists and anti-religion, we sometimes have to do our conscientious best in order not to be personally rude, but instead genial, to you who are theists and/or religious. We will criticize your ideas and your values with unsparing honesty. But I do my best to make sure that we atheists do not bully you theists and other religious people as individuals in the process. Further, I try to model graciousness and amicability as much as possible too. This is not a place where name-calling, interpersonal goading, or other forms of personal hostility are welcome at all.

Your end of the bargain, my theist and religious commenters, is that you will accept this blog’s standards of civility too. You can read all about them in a civility pledge I have committed myself to and which I ask readers to abide by while visiting my blog. I forgive you if you came here riled up and raring for a fight when you made your first comment and were nasty as a result. I know how it is to feel all pugilistic coming into intellectually hostile territory. I know you may come here defensive against the ways atheists in general (or I in one of my blog posts) attack your core identity, values, and beliefs. You may have even encountered atheists you thought of as smug or ignorant or persecutory in some way. While I think often atheists are maligned unfairly, we are certainly not perfect and so I am sorry for any genuinely bad treatment you have received. I hope that you will give this blog a chance to be a place where you can focus on the substance of atheist views and our reasons for disagreeing with your beliefs, values, and identity, rather than on distracting personal attacks from us or upon us.

Follow These Strategies for the Most Constructive Dialogue

Secondly, if you want to make the most progress debating us atheists, here is my most practical suggestion. Ask us questions that aim to figure out where our starting common ground is and where we diverge from each other exactly. Affirm what you think is good about what we think and what our values are. Let us know you appreciate we are not monsters. Once we can figure out together what we actually hold in common in terms of our perspectives and our values, then we can ask each other “if you share these understandings with us, don’t you see how they entail this next thing as the most logical conclusion or coherent corollary belief?” Or “Here is how my perspective answers this important problem for me. How do you try to answer it and why do you think your answer is actually superior to mine? How does it overcome all these potential problems that I think my solution does?” You may also stress up front how you differ from others with similar positions from your own to establish that you’re not a robot, that you’re reasonable, that you think for yourself, that you’re willing to listen, that you might have something original to contribute, and that you have more common ground with us to start off with than we might expect.

Such focus on finding the exact root points of our divergence from each other have the potential to be most productive. They connect us as people engaged in a common inquiry from some common starting points, despite our differing endpoints. They also reduce what are at first clash seem like massive, numerous, complex, intricate, and hopelessly irreconcilable pictures of the world down to more fundamental, manageable, and sharable questions. Finally, by working on more fundamental levels of disagreement we have the most hope of progress because when we can affect each other on that level, there are ramifications for all the rest of our beliefs on more surface levels.

Focus on Discussing Rather than Proselytizing

Thirdly, I need to warn you that neither my vocal atheist readers nor I are very amenable to drive-by preaching. If you just blast us with the Gospel and do not engage us in specific, careful terms that take our questions and objections seriously philosophically and theologically then you are wasting your time. I appreciate that you want to advance your viewpoint and that some of you really want to save our souls. I am not offended by your desire to convert us. I want to deconvert you. But this is going to take work on both our parts if either of us is going to change. And for your part, just going on and on about the Gospel (which atheists have already heard a thousand times) and not interacting with your atheist interlocutors’ thoughts is not the way to get through to us. You are going to have to engage me and my commenters in specifics that relate to our concerns or we are just not going to see any reason to change our minds.

Don’t Just Personally Attack Me or Atheists In General

Fourthly, it’s a bad idea to come here blasting anti-atheist hostility on high. You just risk making us either defensive, combative, and/or uninterested in what you have to say. Speaking for myself, when you rage at me or try to get under my skin, all I am going to be focused on is figuring out how to calm you down so that hopefully we can have a constructive discussion. You are really not going to be able to press my buttons. I don’t have a lot of them to begin with and you don’t know where the ones I do have are. For the purposes of philosophical and psychological illumination and cathartic personal expression and clarified self-understanding I sometimes write about my vulnerabilities, mistakes, anxieties, failures, weaknesses, and other struggles. But if you try to twist any such personal information that I share against me, then I am really not going to fall for it.

I am going to just form the suspicion that you are an ill-willed, manipulative, domineering, indecent, petty bully who jumps at the chance to find and exploit others’ psychological limitations in order to try and dominate them. Essentially, you are going to make me mistrust you and tune you out as a bad person, and you are going to represent your religion’s ability to make people good extremely poorly. If you think you can use information I gave you in order to try to make me feel insecure and change my mind about what I think about anything of substance, then you are amusingly naïve. Want to change my mind? Bring compelling arguments, conceptual clarifications, logic, coherency, consistency, intellectual creativity, honesty, good will, and evidence. Leave the bully tactics for the schoolyard.

Similarly, just popping off about how you think Nietzsche was crazy or said something wicked is not impressive to me. I neither worship Nietzsche nor endorse every word he said. If you come off as unable or unwilling to understand what is of value in Nietzsche and to respect him as a serious thinker, then you just impress with me with your own shallow closedmindedness. Your ad hominem attacks on him or your attempts to paint him as merely a monster do not make me feel ashamed for studying him or dissuaded from being convinced by him where he is compelling. They are a waste of time.

Understand Atheist Positions Before Criticizing

Fifthly, it’s a waste of time to come here and tell me that I am a nihilist. I am not. Don’t tell me I think life is meaningless. I don’t. Don’t tell me that I don’t believe in any objectivity in morality. Because I do. Don’t accuse me of disbelieving in God with 100% certainty. Because I don’t. You are wasting your time if you attack these strawmen. When you attack positions I do not hold, I just shrug my shoulders and either ignore you (since there is no time to reply to everyone) or focus on correcting the record about what I really think. I certainly don’t spend any time learning anything or reconsidering my views.

If you want to do more than just vent with futile rage at an atheist—if you genuinely want me to actually learn something from you and reconsider my views, then what you really need to do is look at all the arguments I laid out in the blog post you are replying to and show me where my premises or my inferences to conclusions have flaws. I will be eager to listen and will start thinking in that case. Same rules apply to the many atheist commenters you interact with. Address their actual arguments and conclusions carefully if you want to affect them.

If you want to counter my views on some other issue that was not raised in the post you read, then by all means ask for my views on that topic. I may not have time to reply but sometimes I may get a blog post idea from you and will be grateful. You can be more guaranteed of an answer if you just Google in quote the words “Camels With Hammers” and the keywords of your issue. Or, for a short cut, use the handy tabs at the top of every page of this blog to find links to posts that overview my major positions on a wide variety of topics.

Again, going back to the second point, if you attempt to find common ground, ask questions about our positions instead of put words in our mouths, distinguish yourself as a unique thinker different from others like you, and have a genial spirit of good will, my readers and I will be much more inclined to engage with you constructively. And we will all learn much more that way.

For more advice on how to reach out to atheists, see my top ten tips for engaging us.

Your Thoughts?

If you enjoy reading my philosophical blog posts, consider taking one of my online philosophy classes! I earned my PhD and taught 93 university classes before I went into business for myself. My online classes involve live, interactive class discussions with me and your fellow students held over videoconference (using Google Hangout, which downloads in just seconds). Classes involve personalized attention to your own ideas and questions. Course content winds up tailored to your interests as lively and rigorous class discussions determine where exactly we go. Classes are flexible enough to meet the needs of both beginners and students with existing philosophical background

My classes require no outside reading or homework or grades–only a once weekly 2.5 hour commitment that fits the schedules of busy people. My classes are university quality but I can offer no university credit whatsoever. New classes start up every month and you can join existing groups of students if you want. Click on the classes that interest you below and find the course descriptions, up-to-date schedules, and self-registration. 1-on-1 classes can be arranged by appointment if you write me at camelswithhammers@gmail.com.



About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • http://raisinghellions.wordpress.com/ Lou Doench

    Also, we have vigorous and no holds barred debates about Star Wars, Batman and beer occasionally. Luckily, the civility pledge still applies… ;)

    • plutosdad

      But question the value of Doritos and you get the banhammer!

  • Smashed-Potatoe
  • http://carloscabanita.blogspot.com Carlos Cabanita

    Most of the people here were kids when they saw the first Star Wars movie and hadn’t read already some five hundred SF books before, so they were nor appalled when they HEARD a planet blow up in space, even with zero delay sound to boot. But I almost forgave Geogge Lucas the Battle of England style fighters because the jazz scene with the aliens was really hilarious. I just saw one more of those movies.

  • MNb

    Hi Daniel,
    I just read your reproach. It’s not my intention to troll or something, so I just will comment on your blog very rarely. The reason I did this time is that your explanation “why atheists dislike to be told that they’ll go to hell” is incomplete and not representative. That’s all.
    All the best.

  • http://catholicismforcutters.wordpress.com Broken Whole

    Thanks for this and for providing a site for productive, civil, and vigorous discussion. I sometimes teach Freshman Comp, and I’ve taken to providing my students with some “ground rules” for discussion on the first day of class—I think they mirror the basic ideas you’ve laid out here. My rules are: (1) No idea is sacred. (2) All members of the classroom are entitled to respect. (3) First, seek to understand. (4) Second, seek to be understood. (5) Recognize that we all bring knowledge to the table—and ignorance.
    Pulling this off in the classroom is, I think, relatively straightforward. Hats off to you, though, for attempting it in the Wild West of the Web!

  • Danny Klopovic

    “I am not offended by your desire to convert us. I want to deconvert you. But this is going to take work on both our parts if either of us is going to change.”

    Do you have a link to any discussion on why you think it is important to convert / deconvert someone? I am a Christian myself – of the Anabaptist variety – but I am disinclined to try and “convert” atheists. I do not see the point in doing so.

    • plutosdad

      For me it is not like the “Great Commission”, but just sharing. Some people want to share more than others. If I found this awesome thing, then I want you to know it too. But without the Great Commission and a judge watching me constantly to make sure I share enough, it is more natural and just when things come up.

      So I might say something like I want you to be deconverted also, but I don’t necessarily want to be a deconverter or deconvert anyone, because my motivation is I want what’s best for you, not to put a notch on my belt or fear of a judge.

      My wife is a believer, we don’t try to convert each other on that, but we share what we think and what we care about and try to help each other become better people, or teach the other something new that might help them understand an issue.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=543663946 Danny Klopovic

      I don’t believe in that notion of a judge watching us in that fashion – I don’t understand the Great Commission as a call for notches in one’s belt or that fear is the basis.

    • penn

      If we believe someone is wrong about something that is of immense importance as to how they life their life, then we should try to show them why they are wrong, so their thoughts and behavior will be better aligned with reality. Fundamentally it’s about valuing truth and respecting people enough to think they can understand and accept the truth, whatever it may be. Also such discussions are useful for showing us where our thinking is wrong, so we can better live our own lives.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=543663946 Danny Klopovic

      I agree somewhat with this – but only on the level of ethical and political discourse, not on the level of the Big Metaphysical Question “Does God exist?” I don’t think an answer to that question is possible or even that important to how we live our lives here and now.

    • penn

      Well, I think it’s prudent to think more broadly than the purely philosophical question of “Does god exist?” Religion as lived by most people is about much more than that. There’s a reason atheists don’t spend much time arguing with deists or pantheists, because it fundamentally isn’t that important. Most religions beliefs that atheists spend arguing about and trying to de-convert people from have a great deal of impact on their lives. Such as attitudes on contraception, sex, circumcision, abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, scientific facts, etc. If people’s thoughts on these topics are founded on irrational ideas, that matters a great deal.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=543663946 Danny Klopovic

      Hence my earlier observation that it is better to focus on political, social and ethical questions – a belief in God does not entail of necessity a certain moral or political view.

    • penn

      Yes, but if belief in their god is the foundation for how people answer those questions, how can you ignore that foundation and skip to answers? The original post also wasn’t about “Does god exist?” it was about converting someone to/from a specific religion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=543663946 Danny Klopovic

      I don’t think one should wholly ignore the foundation – but it all depends on what the relationship is between that belief and their views on say contraception or science for instance. That can only be discovered in conversation. It does seem however that, most of the time, it is not really the foundation but something else is foundational for that person such as belief in an inerrant text for example.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Harriet-Baber/1017165655 Harriet Baber

      As a Christian I want to convert you for two thoroughly selfish reasons. (1) I want to live in a world where my religious beliefs are in the majority so that I can be comfortable and even more importantly (2) I LOVE religiousity and my religiousity requires fancy buildings and elaborate rituals. I need those buildings and rituals financed, so I’d like to see more people kicking in so that I, and others who enjoy them, can get the best possible show. And that’s the way it is. Whether you actually believe the stuff, I couldn’t care less. And of course I don’t believe anyone’s going to hell.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=543663946 Danny Klopovic

      As a Christian myself, those two reasons sound ethically and theologically repugnant …

  • Liralen

    Just an fyi, but Fred Clark at Slactivist here on Patheos, where I often lurk, posted a link too, which is how I found the thread: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/04/25/smart-people-saying-smart-things-97/

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/ Daniel Fincke

      Yes I caught that and was quite appreciative.

  • http://profiles.google.com/david.mike.simon David Simon

    That’s strange, why does the title say “12 comments” but the Disqus section down here say “0 comments”?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=543663946 Danny Klopovic

      Not to mention that they are appear to not be viewable?

    • http://patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism Libby Anne

      Dan’s blog has just made the switch to Disqus, same as mine, and some of the comments between the upload and the switch have disappeared temporarily. I was told my comments will return over the weekend, so I would imagine his will as well!

    • http://camelswithhammers.com/ Dan Fincke Camels With Hammers

      What Libby Anne said! Sorry everyone! (Thanks Libby Anne for being on the case!)