Skip to main content

Women Doing Street Epistemology

By Karen Garst ~

Epistemology = “The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.”

This blog post is about Street Epistemology (SE). I interviewed three women who have learned about its methods and have engaged in conversations with people who hold religious beliefs using these methods. Because of the length, I have not used every answer to the questions I posed. A special thanks to Christine, Lynnsy, and Violet for responding to my questions and a special thanks to Anthony Magnabosco who introduced me to them.

1.         How would you define SE?

Street Epistemology is a set of conversational tools for conducting respectful dialogues with individuals about their deeply-held beliefs. The idea is to use these tools and techniques to help both conversation partners understand the belief in question, explore the ways of knowing used to justify the belief, and hopefully to assess the reliability of these ways of knowing what is true. (Lynnsy)

2.         Why do you think it is important?

The ability to hold a conversation with someone, especially those who hold opinions that differ from ours, is one of the most important skills one can have and share with others. Discussion is essential to a civil society and democracy is founded on it. SE is one of the ways we can engage in civil discourse. Dialogue and discussion are how ideas move forward into our lives and become actions so that insight can be shared. The abuse of dialogue is one of the ways that people are manipulated into beliefs that don’t help them; it’s how their freedom can be taken from them. Our liberty depends on being able to effectively challenge those who are trying to take it from us by convincing us of what they believe to be true, whether they are trying to recruit us into a cult/religion, or to influence how we spend our money or to take substances, or stay in a bad relationship. (Christine)

3.         How did you learn its methods?

I have degrees in literature and philosophy and am trained in facilitation. My day job is in communications. I think about conversation a lot, so the SE approach appealed to me strategically and I wanted to be systematic about understanding it. I’ve been involved in the SE community in a few ways and one was helping to organize the role-play elements sessions in the private FB group. So over the various sessions, I worked through some of the key element sin practicing SE as part of that activity. I always learn something at each session. Lynnsy made a substantial contribution in terms of building community and conceiving useful tools as well. As a member of the early discussion groups, she came out of the gate with a process flow chart etc. and she later started recording conversations and such. I am pretty sure she introduced the clipboard to the concept! Her involvement certainly inspired me to stay with it.

I learned mostly by watching Anthony Magnabosco’s videos, reading A Manual for Creating Atheists, and participating in many conversations in the Facebook Group Because I’m a visual learner, I created a flow chart to help me remember the process, and eventually helped write bits of The Complete Street Epistemology Guide (both available in the resources section of

The only training I’ve had has been with content like the Atheos application, A Manual for Creating Atheists, and channels like those of Anthony Magnabosco.

4.         Is there a "normal" or "common" reaction when you speak to religious people?

I engage people who can’t seem to get their head around being able or having the freedom to question a given belief. When I detect that this might an issue for them, I probe for it and work through that with them. They are usually shocked that I would even ask a question about their belief. Topics include beliefs about what they are capable of, about other people, about how things work, about what we have to accept, etc. One belief I encounter in my region which was predominantly Catholic in the past, is that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. It has been shocking to some people, even after they no longer believe in following Catholic doctrine, to learn what beliefs are espoused by others who call themselves Christians. SE can help open minds to considering other ways of looking at issues we thought we understood well. (Christine)

I find that my conversation partners love to talk more about WHAT they believe (the tenets, teachings, dogma, etc) than WHY they believe (what convinces them it’s true). They often need me to phrase the question several different ways before they understand that I’m asking how they arrived at their stated confidence level. I’ve also noticed how many believers tend to peg themselves at 100% confidence, even if they can’t verbalize why they are so confident. But they are still 100% sure! In my experience, it’s also uncommon for someone to tell me they’ve lowered their confidence level as a result of the conversation, even if they admitted doubts or couldn’t explain why their method of knowing was reliable. (Lynnsy)

5.         If there are many different reactions, what are they?

When I use SE, it is with someone I’ve met who seems to me to be entrenched in a belief that, by their own admission, although they may not have realized they expressed it as such, does not seem to be serving them well or causes injury to others. I tend more to work through a series of short conversations with people I know or work with (as opposed to SE with strangers) and build rapport with them to be able to draw them out. I think it is important that a person feels heard. I feel I have done good SE work when the person expresses that they felt that I listened to their position and understood where they were coming from and then says they will think about our discussion. I have been surprised by those who are doxastically (refers to a type of logic about reasoning about beliefs) closed, when I get a glimpse into the world view they have, and how they feel they must impose it on others, and how it seems that the more closed they are, the more they must impose on others. (Christine)

Reduced to its essentials people can be defensive, open, reflective, and incurious. I've noticed sometimes people can get stuck in their stream of thoughts and begin micro preaching. Other times believers are genuinely curious and enjoy the conversation. (Violet)

One of the most fascinating things I’ve learned doing SE is the sheer variety of ways that people arrive at and justify their deeply-held beliefs. Off the top of my head, I’d say that the most often cited reasons for belief are based in personal experiences with the unexplained, though even those experiences range from a relative recovering from a grim medical prognosis, to support through a terrible experience or addiction, to a vision or other strong feelings of supernatural wonder. What they all had in common was that the individual ascribed these experiences to their particular deity because they couldn’t otherwise explain it. (Lynnsy)

6.         Is there a difference in reactions of men versus women?

I often find myself working a little more on building rapport with women to draw out their thoughts. They seem more reluctant to talk openly about their beliefs. Men seem to want to get right to it. Once into it, though, I find women can often be more open and men may become more entrenched in their position, not always willingly. However, that is an impression based on my own experiences, and I ought not to generalize. I am careful about how I engage people, too, as it is important to me not to alienate people or make them feel personally challenged — it’s about the belief not the person and we distinguish the two. The times when a conversation made a person change their beliefs, I took care to provide referrals and resources to help with next steps if needed. (Christine)

No I don't think there is much I can say on the differences of men and women when doing SE. Perhaps there is one in which women tend to be a little more suspicious of me and my motives. (Violet)

I can’t say that I’ve noticed a difference in the way men and women respond. I’d say it’s more about whether the person has the time or inclination for my interview. I think because most of my interviews have been conducted on college campuses, there is less of a gender divide than there might be with older people. College students are also accustomed to answering questions and supporting their answers, which helps the interviews go easier for me! (Lynnsy)

7.         Do you think there is a difference if women who are trained in SE approach women versus a man trained in SE?

We have not given much thought to the gender of those we approach and how we differentiate techniques depending on what gender we ourselves are. If there is to be other training (I’m not aware of any specific course), I would hope that it is also based on shared best practices. I had not looked at SE from the male/female perspective, which is odd, since I have at times been the only woman on a given thread or in an RP session and now you’ve got me thinking about it. As a general principle, I would want to ensure that I was not building my SE practice on any shaky gender-based beliefs as that might close me off to greater insight. (Christine)

There may be some minor differences between the two, but I'm not sure one would be better than the other. (Violet)

Because the main point of SE is to engage one-on-one, any individual’s response to a man approaching versus a woman approaching is going to be based on their own biases. I do think, however, that it’s extremely important for more women to learn about and employ SE (even if just in their own daily lives with friends and family) in order to normalize the idea of discussing deeply-held beliefs. Women are often expected to be more polite than men, so might avoid provocative discussions in order to not offend anyone. But how can we make good decisions about how to act if we can’t talk about and amend the foundational beliefs on which our actions are based? (Lynnsy)

Resources for learning more about Street Epistemology:

The Complete Street Epistemology Guide – Many collaborators including Lynnsy.

The Manual for Creating Atheists by Dr. Peter Boghossian.

Training videos by Anthony Magnabosco

Atheos by Dr. Boghossian in conjunction with the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Science and Reason.

Information on collaboration – Christine’s site.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two