“My goal is for everyone to be atheists.”
I thought your goal was to find the truth. Statements like this make me wonder if I should question your sincerity. Because it sounds like you are finished; already done…
Of course one can still act while short of 100% certainty. And I do think you are sincere. But I have to say, I am Catholic and even I don’t say that I think everyone should become Catholic. That all should be atheists is a very oddly totalizing statement, indicating certainty without doubt, to me. And denying even multiple paths to the truth (whatever that may be). I think we have learned by now that diversity is a strength, not a liability…
I suppose my real concern is a theory-practice one again, as usual. As you gain practical commitment to atheist causes, the bond strengthens. Theory follows practice. Habit deepens. When you become president of the American Atheists, your freedom of thought will become highly constricted just due to practical concerns, even if on an unconscious level. The stronger your overt physical commitment, the more tightly are you mentally chained to that commitment.
This is a problem that’s come up before, especially in reference to the ‘My Burden of Proof‘ tab above, which serves as an about page and will hopefully be updated by the end of the week. A previous iteration of the page ended with the line “I’m in this argument to win, and I don’t want to shirk any challenge.” I ended up revising after I found out a number of Christian readers were turned off by that line (one reader raked me over the coals for it).
And as to how sure you need to be, I’d refer everyone back to my faith and probability post. Most decisions don’t require a “bet your life” level of certainty. And when you’re making a choice, the way you commit to your most probable choice should look exactly like the way you would commit if you were rock-solid certain. Whether you’re just over the tipping point or as certain as you are of the Pythagorean theorem, you’re still fully committed until new evidence emerges. The only difference is how strong the new evidence has to be.
Tactically, though I guess I could stand to soften my tone for a general audience. Just as I wouldn’t (sadly) expect to use Roberts Rules of Order in everyday life or rely on some traditional slang (though I think I’ve managed to get you all in the loop on ‘metaphysical backsliding‘). But perhaps I can’t use the pugilistic metaphors that come so naturally without frightening people off.
Are there any suggestions about how to frame this differently, so people stick around for the arguments? Or is it the very idea that philosophies and ethical systems should aggressively confront each other and attempt to triumph over each other that people find inappropriate?
I seek out conversation and hard questions on this blog, but I don’t see dialogue as an end in itself. Every conversation is always directed towards conversion. Searching for truth is good, but if you’re not coming up with any truths to share, or identifying any falsehoods to purge, you may want to reevaluate your methodology.
I’ll address the other problem Brian raised, about compromising your reasoning by making an ideology part of your identity in tomorrow’s post.