A Manual for Creating Atheists (17 page)

PB
: Well, I think about this stuff a lot, so don’t feel bad. Plus this is what I do for a living. So if it’s possible that the universe always existed, what would that mean to you?

I reset the conversation to wonder. I also wanted him to draw his own conclusion, and perhaps even impose the method upon himself. In other words, SG would use the same method of questioning upon himself that I’d been using on him, so I waited for him to see the opportunity to talk himself out of his beliefs. The obvious conclusion was that if the universe always existed then God didn’t create it. It’s a short intellectual step from God not creating the universe to God not existing—but SG didn’t see that yet. I continued.

SG
: I’m not sure.

PB
: Well, let’s think through it together.

(Pause)

PB
: So the main argument for God was, “Look around you. How did this get here?” But we know there’s another possible explanation for what there is. So if the universe always existed, what would that mean?

Here I use the word “we” to confer upon the subject the feeling that he is not alone, that we are equals, and that we as humans are all facing the same ultimate questions.

(Pause)

SG
: I’m not sure.

I would have normally taken more time with this process, but I was already running late for class. Still, I had to seize the opportunity.

In my rush, I made a mistake by leading the subject too much. It would have been better to give him more cognitive space to come to his own conclusions and thus increase the likelihood of a successful transition to stage 5 (act accordingly). This is because he would have been more likely to accept the conclusion if he arrived at it of his own accord, as discussed earlier.

PB
: Well, if the universe always existed then it wasn’t created. If it wasn’t caused what would that mean?

(Pause)

SG
: That there’s no God?

I tried to hide my joy, show my approval, and acknowledge our success.

PB
: Yup. That’s what it would mean.

He looked horrified and scared. Even though late for class, I proceeded to provide him with the resources he needed to escape from the Mormon Church. Specifically, I furnished him with contacts and resources he could use for support. I made sure to let him know he wasn’t alone. I also specifically explained why it’s crucial to not succumb to the “just pray about it” line that I was certain he’d be subject to once he started voicing doubts. (Asking people to “just pray about it” pushes them into a form of confirmation bias where the very act of prayer means they’ve already bought back into the system they just escaped.)

This was a successful intervention. It was successful because the conversation was brief and because he came to the conclusion on his own with minimal prodding. When I left him that night he told me he was “freaked out.” I don’t know if SG ever completed stage 5 and left the church. I never saw him after that.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Socratic interventions are easy to administer, no-cost treatments that can engender doxastic openness and even separate faith from its host. The main way this happens is by helping expose contradictions and inconsistencies in subjects’ reasoning processes.

When administering Socratic treatments, keep the following in mind:

• Be aware of the stages of the method. Don’t transition from one stage to another stage until you’ve exhausted everything you need to do in that particular stage. Don’t rush.
  
• When appropriate, incorporate strategies noted in chapter 4: be attentive to context, don’t develop adversarial relationships or negative tones, “roll with it,” divorce belief from morality, focus on epistemology and not metaphysics, target faith not religion, and model the behavior you want the subject to emulate. Develop a safe space for discussion, almost a camaraderie.
  

At the conclusion of some interventions, subjects will be confused or even scared. In chapter 6, I’ll discuss how to deal with this and what goes in faith’s place.

DIG DEEPER

Articles

Peter Boghossian, “How Socratic Pedagogy Works” (Boghossian, 2003)

Peter Boghossian, “Socratic pedagogy: Perplexity, Humiliation, Shame and a Broken Egg” (Boghossian, 2011b)

Books

Guy P. Harrison,
50 Simple Questions for Every Christian
(Harrison, 2013)

Platonic Dialogues

Plato,
Euthyphro

Plato,
Meno
(focus on the discussion with Meno’s slave)

Plato,
Republic
(particularly Books I, II, and III)

NOTES

1. Socrates was the protagonist in Plato’s dialogues. The majority of scholars think he never wrote anything. Socrates also never referred to his teaching method as “the Socratic method.” Subsequent scholars termed his method of teaching—by asking questions instead of telling—the Socratic method.
   
2. In the context of a Socratic intervention, and only in the context of a Socratic intervention, do I use the words “hypothesis” and “belief” interchangeably.
   
3. Virtually everyone has wondered whether or not there’s intelligent life in the universe. Why haven’t extraterrestrials made contact with us? One way to conceptualize this question is with the Drake Equation. The Drake Equation estimates the number of intelligent, technologically capable civilizations in the universe: N = R* • f
   _p
   • n
   _e
   • f
   _l
   • f
   _i
   • f
   _c
   • L
   

   Where,
   

   N = The number of communicating civilizations in the Milky Way
   

   R
   ^*
   = The number and rate of star formation
   

   f
   _p
   = The fraction of those stars with planets
   

   n
   _e
   = The number of planets per star with an environment suitable for life
   

   f
   _l
   = The fraction of planets on which life develops
   

   f
   _i
   = The fraction of planets on which intelligent life develops
   

   f
   _c
   = The fraction of civilizations that develop technology (that release detectable signs of their existence into space)
   

   L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space
   

   By plugging in best estimates for the variables, one can guestimate the number of intelligent, technology-producing life forms in the Milky Way. Even by conservative estimates the number is larger than 1.
   

   Why then have we not witnessed evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life? (This question is made even more curious when one factors in American inventor Ray Kurzweil’s idea of exponential technological growth, with mere centuries translating into unimaginable technological differences among civilizations.)
   

   One answer to this is that there’s something wrong with our model of the universe. There’s something we don’t understand, or something we’ve considered to be a remote possibility that’s an actuality. For example, we could be brains in a vat (à la
   The Matrix
   ), or as Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom has posited, we could be living in a holographic simulation (Bostrom, 2003). Alternatively, there could be some kind of “Great Filter,” that is, a kind of “probability barrier” that life must pass through (Hanson, 1998).
   

   Hanson (1998) provides a “best-guess evolutionary path to an explosion which leads to visible colonization of most of the visible universe.” He writes:
   

    
   
   1. The right star system (including organics)
      
   2. Reproductive something (e.g., RNA)
      
   3. Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life
      
   4. Complex (archaeatic & eukaryotic) single-cell life
      
   5. Sexual reproduction
      
   6. Multicell life
      
   7. Tool-using animals with big brains
      
   8. Where we are now
      
   9. Colonization explosion
      

   The Great Filter hypothesis states that one or more of these steps must be “
   very
   improbable” (Hanson, 1998). If it wasn’t improbable, then humanity would have already witnessed evidence of intelligent, extraterrestrial life, perhaps in the form of von Neumann probes (self-replicating spacecraft that draw raw material from stars, planets, gas giants, etc.) or spaceships or even signals.
   

   Fortunately, as Bostrom argues, failure of contact is actually good news for humanity, as this means that the Great Filter likely lies behind and not in front of us (Bostrom, 2008). That is, if it’s more difficult for life to arise in the initial stages, then it may be easier for life to become spacefaring in the latter stages. No news of intelligent life is good news—it bodes well for our future.
   

4. There’s a glaring problem with knowing that the strategy of using the Socratic method to help people overcome faith works: there are no studies to support the effectiveness of this approach. In fact, there are
   no studies at all
   documenting the use of the Socratic method as an intervention to alleviate people from their faith.
   

   Here’s why: in order to conduct a study that uses human subjects (people), the researcher
   must
   submit approval through an IRB. IRBs are independent ethics review boards, usually associated with universities, that grant approval for studies that use humans as subjects in experiments. Their purpose is to protect research subjects from abuses.
   

   It would be impossible to receive approval for a study that would help people overcome faith.
   

   Proposing this sort of study would be considered not just far too controversial, but also abusive and damaging to subjects.
   No researcher could ever receive IRB approval for such a study
   .
   

   This means that one can attempt to use the Socratic method to help others to abandon their faith and then blog about it, or tell one’s friends about their failures and successes, or use it in the classroom as a pedagogical intervention. (I’ve helped countless people abandon their faith and acquire reliable paths to knowledge.) Without IRB approval, no peer-reviewed journals would accept such a study and no university would allow faculty to conduct research on human subjects. Consequently, the effectiveness of Socratic techniques in helping people abandon their faith is not, at this present time, documented.
   

   Fortunately, there is solid evidence that Socratic techniques can elicit behavioral changes outside the realm of faith. Much of my previous research focused on using the Socratic method to help prison inmates desist from criminal behavior (Boghossian, 2004; Boghossian, 2006a; Boghossian, 2010) and explained the mechanics of the Socratic method (Boghossian, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2012). My current research focuses on using the Socratic method to help diabetics in the Diabetes Clinic at Oregon Health Science University improve treatment compliance by generating counterexamples to clarify their thought process and reach their health-related goals. Others have also conducted studies on the effectiveness of using the Socratic method to change cognitions (Froján-Parga, Calero-Elvira, & Montaño-Fidalgo, 2011) and improve critical thinking and reasoning (Boghossian, 2004). Furthermore, somewhat similar cognitive behavioral interventions have an extensive basis in the corrections, addiction, and psychological literature, though again not for the purpose of liberating people of their faith.
   

   The current body of literature is highly suggestive, though not conclusive, that the Socratic method can be used as a self-imposed corrective mechanism that helps people fix flaws in their reasoning. We know what the Socratic method does, how it works, its preliminary successes, etc. What’s not been documented in the peer-reviewed literature is the Socratic method’s use as a treatment for faith. Based upon a related body of literature in regard to the effectiveness of the Socratic method, and based upon literature detailing the success of questioning to deprogram members of religious cults (Dubrow-Eichel, 1989, pp. 43–49, 195), it’s reasonable to infer that Socratic interventions are a reliable treatment for faith. However, because of popular perceptions of faith as a virtue, concerns over threats to religious liberties (Robbins & Anthony, 1982, p. 292), and the ethics (IRB) involved in conducting studies with the explicit aim of helping people abandon their faith, there is no research on the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.
   

CHAPTER 6

AFTER THE FALL

On Oct 14, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Katie Z. wrote:

I just stopped believing in God. It’s an unbelievable feeling. Are there any books you can recommend? I’m not ready for anything sarcastic or ribbing. Not yet. But I do need some direction. I just feel lost. Anything you can suggest will help. Thank you.

On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Peter Boghossian <
[email protected]
> wrote:

I’ve always thought that what’s important is to be a person who values reason and rationality, and not to be an atheist. Atheism is a conclusion one comes to after a sincere, honest evaluation of the evidence. Here’s the evidence for the existence of God: Nothing. There is no evidence for God’s existence.