Signal to Noise – Good Ratio or Bad?
Posted by RazorsKissFeb 20
I think it important to remember that the internet is a medium which propogates a special kind of wave quite well–ideas. It is also a medium which does not propogate another kind of wave at all (like a sound wave in a vacuum)–emotional appeals.
Even arguments which attempt to present an emotional appeal do not find the sort of resonance that *personal* emotional appeals find (eg face-to-face). That is one interesting thing I’ve noted about theist versus atheist websites, and the apparently disproportionate representation of atheism on the web in general. I am not claiming that the speaker’s emotions do not come through in their writing. What I am claiming is that the power of eliciting an emotional response in your reader is rendered virtually null via writing compared to personal proselytizing, sermons, and evangelism in general.
That is, the amount of intellectual material on *individual* websites (versus orgs and groups) representing atheism seems overrepresented in proportion to the % of people who espouse atheism. Conversely, the amount of intellectual (versus evangelizing, emotional appeals, etc) material on Christianity (again, among individual sites) is underrepresented by stats.
You’ll find all kinds of Xian “apologists” (yes those are sneer quotes), but you’ll also find that they are nearly all united in “defending the faith” from skeptics and the arguments of atheism *to minister to other Xians!* Nearly all the articles on sites that address creationism, atheist logic, etc., are explicitly addressing an audience of Xians.
Admittedly, a few amateur Xian apologists have taken their best arguments to the WWW for the purpose of evangelism, but I would put forth my observation that they are beset on all sides by the ideas of the godless, a chorus composed of ever more voices. I think the web has helped more atheists to “come out” and to realize they *are* atheists than *anything* positive it has done for religion, because religions are stripped of their most powerful tool–the emotional, personal appeal to repent and join the fold. The web helped me to address the things that kept me quagmired in liberal Xianity for years, and then deism, and then agnosticism. I could’ve gone to libraries, sure, and still could, to find books and arguments (i have a bookshelf that is now stocked with and growing with atheist literature). But the WWW has provided a “crystallization” effect for atheists–with a seeded center like the RA site, more and more doubters and freethinkers find what they need: not companionship and comfort, but food for thought.
People who are critical of *any* ideas may come across as unhappy…but I would rather be *perceived* as unhappy than *be* gullible.
Thinking Freely, on the Raving Atheist’s comment section
I find it interesting that emotional appeals are thought to be the centerpiece of evangelism. I was always taught that an emotional “conversion” was not likely to be real, or lasting.
They make some good points about the differing signal-to-noise ratios between atheist and Christian apologists, however. I’ve found the same myself. Even with internet apologetics, the roster seems awfully small – the ones who cater to skeptics smaller still.
Am I wrong?
8 comments
Comment by Ron on February 21, 2006 at 11:30 am
No, I don’t think you’re wrong at all. Any decision based on emotion, rather than reason, is intuitively less trustworthy and lasting. While I’ll be glad to note there are exceptions, I’ve found that when people rely on their heart instead of their head, during times of trouble they have nothing on which they can base a counter-offensive.
This concept, that long-term commitment to a decision differs based on whether the decision was reached via emotional appeal or rational analysis (or most often a mix), can be best exemplified in how our society sees “love.” When love is reduced to a feeling, the temptation to flee during times of trouble increases; the feeling is gone, ergo the reason to stay is gone. When love is viewed as a choice, based on reason (i.e. I choose to love this person, through good times and bad because…) tough times are withstood more often.
God doesn’t call us on emotion. He calls us based on truth, goodness, and obedience – all intellectual pursuits. They touch on emotion, but are intellectual in nature. You can’t grasp the beauty of the good unless you first understand it intellectually. For most Christians I know, faith comes through understanding, not through feeling.
Comment by Milton Stanley on February 22, 2006 at 8:18 am
There’s a reason we have preaching, because evangelism is done best face-to-face. That’s not to say there’s not a place on the web for evangelism and apologetics (especially apologetics). You and your fellow apologists are doing a service to the church by what you do here.
It’s a similar job to the apologists of the early centuries of the church. Through their writings and the buzz they created, the apologists helped establish a background of intellectual integrity for the gospel. In front of that background, the evangelists went forth and proclaimed the Kingdom.
Comment by t.f. on February 23, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Thanks for the link-love. I’m afraid while you and the first commenter were quite reasonable, Stanley underscored my point.
Milton, the early apologists were defending the faith from heresy, not using their apologia to evangelize. Sorry.
Comment by t.f. on February 23, 2006 at 5:41 pm
May I elicit from any readers a guess at why it is that so many intellectuals are atheists? I don’t mean to falsely promote a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc…I promise. I just mean, if you really think that god’s people have the best arguments and the power of reason (“T”ruth) on their side, why is it that 7% of the National Academy of Sciences members believe in a personal god? Why are philosophy departments (nearly) devoid of theists?
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 23, 2006 at 11:10 pm
No problem. I like to read well-thought-out responses – even if I don’t agree with them 😀
Define what you mean by “reasonable” – a statement in alignment with reason, or in alignment with your *own* consideration of “reasonable”?
I’d have to agree with Pastor Stanley, actually. Apologetics, while they do have a heresy rebuttal aspect, can also be a defense against *attacks on the faith* – or to answer objections to the faith.
An apologist who answers objections from such as yourself cannot be classified as “defending the faith from heresy” – because you aren’t claiming to be preaching our faith. You are objecting to our faith. Thus, you would be a candidate for evangelism. The answers given are not just to assuage the fears of Christians over an objection rasied – they are to directly answer the objection. Often, the objector is not the primary target of the apologetic, true – in my case, the primary target (objective, audience, whatever) is the bystander, or the audience *to* the debate. That is why you have debates – to convince others that what you say is right, and is true.
Because most religious-minded folks who want an intellectual pursuit go into theology, not philosophy. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. The greater part of the questions asked by philosophy are answered, in Christian theology’s teaching. Thus, those who go into philosophy and are religious want to share those answers in the terminology of philosophy.
Here’s a quote that may explain it:
Found here.
Anyway, though, there’s two answers:
1) Empiricism is a natural consequence of a life lived to advance empirical studies, and in an envirnment which trusts nothing but empirical data. It’s no wonder we’re growing increasingly empirical.
2) People believe what they want to believe, whether it’s true or not. Some people, no matter how long, or how hard you debate with them, will not change their mind. Regardless. They are set in what they think, they will not be moved, and they aren’t going to change. However, the question we need to ask ourselves is “why are they like this, and how did they get this way?”
Empiricists focus on the empirical because science is so focused on empirical data. They “know” whta is true, because that is what they have been taught. Today’s scientists, to an astonishing degree, have seen/heard nothing else save evolutionary theory. What else do we expect? God-fearing evangelists in the secular scientific world which encourages skepticism as it embraces empiricism?
See above. I answered to some degree earlier, but it’s a pretty easy answer, actually. To study knowledge, to a theist, is to study God. Philosophy is called something else, to a theist. It’s called theology 😀
Comment by t.f. on February 24, 2006 at 5:53 am
Milton Stanley was referring to the *early* apologia. So was I.
Are you saying that the early apologists were not consumed with establishing an orthodoxy and defending it? I think only of Gnosticism and Marcion when I consider “early apologists”, not of a Peter-esque delivery of theology to convert the unbeliever ala Acts.
So your answer appears to side with a Vantillian presuppositionalism–without God, there is not knowledge. God subsumes knowledge, and thus knowledge/logic/reason are themselves “arguments” for God’s existence…I have heard much more convincing TANG arguments than TAG, based on this very premise–that the very concept of God breaks the law of noncontradiction (Identity). Can you tell me the attributes you ascribe to god? Omnipresent? Omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnibenevolent?
In regards to empiricism (#1), empiricism is not demanded of scientists. Inference and creativity are extremely important in making discoveries. Further, I think what stands out in my mind (and yes I’d read the study you linked to before, that’s where i got the 7% stat) is that one thing you can certainly say of these people is that they have extremely refined critical thinking skills and are very good at sniffing out illogical conclusions from (premises) data.
While I understand your point, (#2) I cannot say I find it convincing. I know many people who genuinely want to know truth. They do not want to believe in falsehoods and fallacies. THey regularly subject what they believe to critical analysis and external scrutiny.
I was a conservative Xian for a long time, but troubled greatly with most of the great philosophical arguments against god’s existence and attributes. I realized that I did, indeed, need a conversion founded on reason, but doubt plagued my every thought. For years, I struggled with the game of hermeneutics and exegesis to attempt to make sense of everything from the number of lepers healed by Jesus to the resurrection story (and its subsequent embellishments) in Mark, then Luke, then Matthew, then John…
I can honestly say I did not *want* to become an atheist. It hurt. Bad. I remember crying one night as I considered how there was no god looking out for me, that I would never see my wonderful wife after she died, that the sun would go “red giant” within 1 billion years and wipe out all of the beauty and music and mathematics and poetry and everything good we’d ever accomplished as a species. Talk about “dark night of the soul”, ha, I never had one until I lost god.
Comment by Ron on February 28, 2006 at 1:47 pm
“May I elicit from any readers a guess at why it is that so many intellectuals are atheists?”
I would guess there are a couple of answers to this question that may come close to being sound answers. The first is that there are almost certainly more intellectuals who are theists than atheists. If 90+% of the population is theistic, theists will win on pure size, if not on percentage of the sub-population that is intellectual.
Another answer would be to ask another question – how do you define an intellectual? You mention the NAS – but there are intellectuals in many fields, not just the sciences. I would presume other fields (such as theology, as mentioned by our esteemed host) would flip this number on its head (i.e. fewer than 7% atheist.)
A final answer would be to say that scripture indicates that when we reject God, or choose to ignore Him, we will be blinded to some truths. Jesus spoke in parables to keep hidden from some the deeper meaning He was preaching. In other words, there is something to the old saw that “there is none so blind as one who will not see.”
Comment by t.f. on March 5, 2006 at 6:10 am
Ron,
I am reminded of the Scriptures in 1 Cor.: Paul admits the gospel is “foolishness” to Greeks/Gentiles, them that are dying/those that perish, he says that God’s foolishness is stronger than man’s wisdom, he says that a natural man thinks things of the Spirit are foolish.
I think this is a clear admission that a leap of faith is required to regenerate your soul, so that you can finally see the widsom of God, receive the spiritual things of god, etc. If you are not a XIan, the gospel is foolishness. That seems to be pretty clear to me.
But god asks us to submit to foolishness on trust/faith/hope/authority of scripture/authority of church…
…and that is one (of many) reasons that I am not a christian.