In the interview, we discuss angry atheism, the role religious believers can play in fighting the harm done by religion, strategies of arguing religion with believers, the importance of coming out and atheist visibility, internalized atheist stigma, my favorite arguments against religion, challenging entrenched biases within skepticism, hyperskepticism (or what I’m now calling denialism) and treating ordinary claims as extraordinary ones, straw Vulcans and the notion that being unemotional about an issue makes you more rational, tone-trolling about misogyny, coming out bisexual versus coming out atheist, Twitter walls, self-publishing, and more. Enjoy!
…straw Vulcans and the notion that being unemotional about an issue makes you more rational…
Had a recent roleplaying encounter involving that notion, involving a Victorian gentleman and a woman from the future. My character’s response from the sideline: “Quite often, a logical and rational assessment of the situation is precisely what provokes an emotional reaction. Opposite that, calmness and apathy can be arrived at through ignorance and fallacious rationalizations.”
I find the idea that emotions and logic are opposites really irritating. Emotion can interfere with logic, but just because someone gets emotional doesn’t mean their argument can be summarily dismissed. You still have to point out false premises and fallacies. Your opponent’s emotional state is not a “get out of rational discourse free” card. A cogent argument is a cogent argument.
I also find it annoying that a lot of people don’t recognize the difference between emotion and expression. Being able to hold a Vulcan poker face just means you’re repressing facial expressions, not that you’re stoic. There are people who can maintain a straight face and measured tone of voice despite being dominated by irrational biases.