Should We Only Focus on the Tip of the Iceberg?

I like that image.

As someone in an inter-“faith” marriage (or whatever you call it when an atheist and person of faith are married), finding the similarities isn’t optional. And you’re right — I don’t think it means backing down from what we believe is right (or know is right), but I think we can do it in ways that respect one another’s basic humanity. Granted, it can be harder when there’s no prior relationship and the person engaging is antagonistic, but I appreciate people who are willing to put the effort in to meaningful discussion about differences rather than simply noting the most polarizing topics.

And I love this drawing.

…but I don’t think we can dismiss those bridge-builders who choose to focus on everyone’s similarities

There are those who do that in an insidious manner, such as Chris Mooney who maliciously stabs his atheist cohorts in the back to make his points. His bridges are rotten.

Well sure, it’d be great if we could all recognize the things that unify us. The problem is that some differences of belief, regardless of how small they are in proportion to our similarities, leads a lot of people to think other people are dirty, sinful, evil, and unworthy of basic rights, in some cases the right to life. Or it gives them license (in their minds) to enforce their standards on everyone. In general, it is theists who are causing all the divisive strife, and so I think it’s primarily their responsibility to address it. I’m not holding my breath.

Like.

I agree that we need to focus on what we have in common more often than what we don’t have in common. I find I need to remind myself that sometimes, because I get too spirited in debates. But this image reminded me of a conversation I had with a skeptic asking me why I focused more attention on atheism than over-all skepticism. My answer was the following:

“If you were to stop and talk to any random person on the street and say you don’t believe in ghosts or psychics, you wouldn’t get very many ‘He’s crazy’ looks, even if the person themselves believed in ghosts. On the other hand, if you did the same but claimed to not believe in God, many more people would look at you as if you had sprouted a second head.”

Until the believers can look at us non-believers as having a valid viewpoint, we are not on the same iceberg in their minds. You can’t work with someone who doesn’t want to meet you halfway.

I don’t know. I like the cartoon, but I don’t think that atheists are generally the ones who have a problem recognizing our common humanity. I don’t see myself as fundamentally different from theists, but they seem to feel that they’re fundamentally different from me.

I think we all start off in the same place, and we’re all human beings, but I will admit it is sometimes hard to see that when people express beliefs that are, quite frankly, extremely foreign and bizarre. It’s almost like, “Are we really members of the same species, or did I drop in from some other planet?” The more I contemplate religion, the more this feeling can be heightened. I want to see our similarities, but all the supernatural stuff gets in the way. I find it hard to have meaningful dialogue with people who seem to be on completely different wavelengths. I mean, how do you talk to people who interpret everything they see in a supernatural way?

The cartoon also fails to address that there’s quite a spectrum between “atheist” and “believer.” Some believers are much closer to atheists than other believers. I don’t consider that I have much in common with fundamentalists of any stripe, but it’s much easier to regconize similarities between myself and liberal believers. There aren’t that many differences between me and a believer who’s Unitarian or UCC, despite the fact that they may have some supernatural beliefs.

Thank you David Hayward for this excellent drawing, and thank you Hemant for publishing it here.

When I am trying to reach out to theists who demonize and dehumanize atheists, I talk about particular things that we have in common to which they have emotional attachments, attachments that are just as strong as their religious beliefs:

I talk about my daughter, my wife and my mother, how much I love them, and how I would sacrifice whatever is necessary for their well-being. Then I talk about my friends and how lucky I am to know such caring people. Finally I talk about my wanting to participate in my community, to work with anyone else who wants to make it a better place for everyone.

I show them my humanity. I show them my vulnerability. They see that they have nothing to fear from me. Our shared human traits, wanting to love and be loved, wanting to participate, those traits are the solid surface just beneath the water. I walk right down into that stretch between us and I ignore my wet feet. They start to realize that the water is only ankle deep; we’re not going to drown if we come close enough to understand each other.

Once in a while, one of them will take a few steps toward me. That is worth it.

They don’t discard their belief in their god, they only discard their belief that atheists are evil and inhuman. That’s the only thing I’m really interested in.

@Anna You may feel that way, but realize that you may be the exception to the rule if you view atheists as humans with differing opinions.

It has been my personal experience that many theists will judge me as a whole person based solely on my lack of belief. Most atheists (again anecdotal so I know this could be untrue) will view theists as people first and possibly misguided in their belief of a higher power.

Again, there are exceptions on both sides, but from my experiences and those of the atheists I know, the rule of thumb is everyday theists think atheists are not good people. They may not explicitly think they are bad people, but they frequently can’t think of atheists as good people without God.

This is a great point. There are many, many thoughtful theists who actually struggle with and try to understand their religion share with atheists a rejection of groupthink and especially mindless consumerism and materialism. These are people who think about their values, even if we think they have wrong conclusions. That rejection of consumerism and groupthink (again, in thoughtful theists, often ones in a minority) is really strong common ground, and it’s not addressed nearly enough.

Let’s take the tip of the iceberg/island comparison a notch further. First, absent diving in to the water and swimming across, you want to know more about the other island. Are the people there friendly? What’s the place look like?

And that requires you to have good eyesight, or at least a telescope with a clean lens. You have to be a good observer, as Galileo was as he took notes about the moon, and the moons of Jupiter. And then you have to be able to draw the right conclusions from your observations.

Perhaps part of the problem is that some of the participants view inclusion as ‘leaving my island’ to journey to a place they don’t really know all that well (though, as Richard Wade points out, actually know better than they think), and that abandoning the island means being untrue/disloyal to what that island represents.

I think Jeff P’s point is very important: this picture is from the atheist perspective. Much of the atheist argument can be seen as trying to convince the theist that there is this huge amount of commonality: atheists are ethical and moral, awe and artistic inspiration arise in all people regardless of religious beliefs, etc.

Sackbut says

I think Jeff P’s point is very important: this picture is from the atheist perspective.

Given that Hayward is a theist, I’m not sure why you have come to this conclusion.

Maybe someone already responded to this:

Much of what is passing for ‘Christianity’ today is zero-sum, I-can-be-saved-only-if-you-are-damned claptrap.

But according to the internal logic of Christianity (which of course is false, but let’s think about it from their perspective), this is true. Anything else would be contradictory to the basic premises of their belief system.

@Alise,
I think he is a Deist. He just hasn’t admitted it to himself yet.

@Anna You may feel that way, but realize that you may be the exception to the rule if you view atheists as humans with differing opinions.

Oh, I’m an atheist. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, but we’re on the same side. I agree with you. Many believers appear to see atheists as defective in some way, like we’re inferior to them because we don’t believe in gods. It’s not all theists, but it’s certainly most conservative Christians and many of the moderate ones. But it’s not just that they think we’re not good people. They think everyone is inherently a bad person, including themselves. Many of them believe that they’re riddled with original sin and broken and depraved, and that’s why everyone needs to accept Jesus.

I mean, how does one deal with that mindset? It’s fine and dandy to say that we’re all human beings, but they have such a low opinion of humanity that I just don’t see how I could have much in common with them. It’s sad and depressing, and I find myself disheartened by the vastness of our differences. How do I get to the point where I can see people with those kinds of beliefs as similar to me? We’re standing on the two different tips of the iceberg, but it’s also like we’re speaking two different languages. I don’t know how to communicate with people like that. Is it even possible to have a mutually respectful relationship if the other person thinks you’re damned for all eternity?

I think the cartoon misses the point – Its not how much we have in common , but what thats important.

Someone else believes in a theistic God – I don’t care about that difference. Someone thinks Baseball is better than Cricket – who cares? But someone would deny rights to say gay people – then even if that is the only difference then its a pretty major one , no?

@Nordog:

Re: Zero-Sum Saved/Damned …

I was raised Catholic. If there is a God, I much prefer one whose ultimate plan is to save everyone, not one who has some kind of ‘acceptable losses’ program (i.e., an all-powerful, all-knowing being who PLANS to get outmaneuvered and snookered by an evil nemesis he created).

But in conversations with evangelical coworkers and on other forums, the zero-sum view has come across loud and clear. One person (a Methodist) insisted there was a line in the sand as far as Christ’s redemptive power – do x, and you’re damned, no ifs buts or ands. Another refused to consider the question, ‘what if the final judgment came, and you found yourself standing beside your worst enemy in life, and God said, ‘You get in only if you forgive each other.’

That person steadfastly insisted that his worst enemy could not, would not ever be there. Couldn’t happen. God doesn’t work like that.

More recently, one Christian told me I couldn’t believe in evolution and be a Christian.

I just keep running into the nut fringe.

@Anna

Oh, I’m sorry, looking back now, I should have read your comment more carefully.

Let that be a lesson, never reply until you’ve read it twice :/

~Rubbs

I’ve got to agree with stogo and deepak much as I’m always going on with not being anti-theist.

The thing is, basically, yes, as humans we all have certain things in common and I overlook foolish belief when it’s benign but it’s those who aren’t benign that you have to worry about.

So while the first thing I think on meeting someone is not are you a believer or not, if I meet them and they’re frothing at the mouth about their god, alarm bells freaking go off. It’s displaying an obsession and a dangerous one at that. One that would deny rights to gays, women and all too often is even racist. I can’t bridge gaps like that. I can get alone fine with the theist that is willing to live and let live but not the theist who wants to inflict their god’s laws on me or other innocent bystanders (such as denying gays the right to marry or a woman who needs an abortion the right to obtain one).

So, yeah, depends on the theist but there are all too many that have burned that bridge instead of realizing that only those who believe in their god are obligated to keep his laws.

The 2D view really doesn’t represent things the way they are in relation between different people. There is a gulf, void, or a brick wall between believers and atheists on the point of the supernatural realm, but not necessarily on other topics. If you can draw a 3D view, I would suggest you’d see connected “land” because they probably see they have other things in common. The only difference is that the belief in a supernatural often informs a lot of other things, particularly in politics. But they might both like sports, the same team, hold similar jobs, both have families they love dearly or both have family/job difficulties.

i don’t like the image. it suggests that atheists are equivalent in stature to the religiously inclined, and also that some mushy middle is a superior way to go. first of all, i think that the false equivalence is absurd: atheists are far more thoughtful and convicted than the religious zealots and hypocrites. second of all, i think the comparison is absurd: make up your mind, you silly agnostics. to what do you falsely cling?