Hitchens V Blair

[Harryprice]

Perhaps that is because the approach only works on communities not individuals. The purpose of mockery is to create an atmosphere where certain beliefs/positions are subjected to negative peer pressure.

So how do you know it works?

Most religious people attend churches or have religious friends or are in other social networks which reinforce their belief. I strongly doubt that scoffing skeptics would have any effect on such social networks. Thus I doubt such humour works at either an individual or group level. Indeed, I doubt it works at all, at any level, unless someone can produce some evidence to show otherwise.

[smudge]

At the risk of derailing this thread away from purely Blair Hitchens Munk debate, I hope I can go with a similar dignity and clarity of thought!

So how do you know it works?

Most religious people attend churches or have religious friends or are in other social networks which reinforce their belief. I strongly doubt that scoffing skeptics would have any effect on such social networks. Thus I doubt such humour works at either an individual or group level. Indeed, I doubt it works at all, at any level, unless someone can produce some evidence to show otherwise.

Guys, with greatest respect, lets not derail this Hitchen's thread.
We have differing opinions on this. I've made mine clear. Further discussion may warrant it's own thread. This is not it!

[Dubious Dick]

Harry, I am sorry I did not mean to re-start the earlier debate. I thought we had concluded that there was not really any evidence either way. That both approaches have merit. That until we do get any conclusive evidence either way then we can continue to use all and any weapons at our disposal. Also agreed is that your efforts are admirable, and that any 'conversions' you make are for the greater good.

Only raised this for your attention as felt it was interesting that one of the most respected and tenacious foes of religion has felt it useful to apply humorous ridicule. Whilst this is anecdotal evidence in a sense, one has to say that if Hitchens found it useful an dimportant, I am not going to argue against his greater experience and certainly not without conclusive evidence.

I sdecond Pebbles. One to one I am almost certain your approach is largely correct (unless perhaps someone is already somewhat open to persuasion and has a sense of humour. Otherwise, the mass mockery of religion (based on the evident absurdities must slowly erode the ability of the theists to stand up in public and preach unopposed, as well as emboldening the existing doubters to speak out.

Also, think of it this way. Humour is often the fastest way to communicate complex issues. Many people are unable to follow long, involved philosophical discussions. Take the teapot concept. daft and funny on one level, but a pretty good way to enlighten.

'Nuff said?

[Harryprice]

Guys, with greatest respect, lets not derail this Hitchen's thread.
We have differing opinions on this. I've made mine clear. Further discussion may warrant it's own thread. This is not it!

It was an issue mentioned in the debate, so how is this derailing?

[Pebble]

It was an issue mentioned in the debate, so how is this derailing?

No evidence, but as I see it the greatest danger with religion is when it is treated with deference and respect. The nutters brigade then start taking themselves too seriously and if there is no counterweight, crowd behaviour tends to get behind the extremists. That is, I beleive, why Islam is so powerful in Islamic states, but more accomodating in democracies.

Mocking religion openly is one of the best ways of ensuring that it is obvious to everyone in the community that extremist views are just that 'extremist'.

[smudge]

Richard Dawkins on Christopher Hitchens.

[Harryprice]

I don't wish to sound skeptical but, until I see some evidence, I will continue to doubt that mocking beliefs causes believers to abandon them.

[Pebble]

I don't wish to sound skeptical but, until I see some evidence, I will continue to doubt that mocking beliefs causes believers to abandon them.

Fair enough, but I should point out that there has never been a randomised trial to demonstate the efficacy of parachutes.

[Dubious Dick]

Fair enough, but I should point out that there has never been a randomised trial to demonstate the efficacy of parachutes.

[Harryprice]

Fair enough, but I should point out that there has never been a randomised trial to demonstate the efficacy of parachutes.

Luckily they can be tested without living cargo.

[Pebble]

Luckily they can be tested without living cargo.

Yes but such studies have never been published.

There is oddly a literature on satire and it's role in persuasion - pretty old and does not really resolve the argument.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED395321.pdf

Nevertheless, politicians continue to believe that satirising opponents views is rather effective - remember how completely John Major was undermined by the grey man with his underpants on outside his trousers in spitting image.

Those who use satire certainly believe it is persuasive, though it probably more acts to immunise those who generally agree with you from being persuaded to change sides, rather than winning new converts. In the field of religion I think it has a role in stopping religion being taken too seriously by our legislators, who certainly remain terrified of being lampooned for their decisions.