Holm Gero Hümmler’s research while affiliated with Accadis Hochschule Bad Homburg and other places

Here we are forced to find ways how a reasonably peaceful coexistence is possible despite different positions. If a change of views does not seem possible, then much is already gained if a friend-foe thinking can be counteracted. Respect for other opinions can only be demanded if it is also exemplified. Despite all understanding and empathy, it remains important to recognize and maintain one’s own boundaries. Misanthropic, radicalizing ideologies should not be legitimized and normalized through silence. Protecting and delimiting oneself and, in the worst case, ending a contact remains an option. Changes in worldview often take place over many years; the family is an important resource, especially from the onset of doubts and after a change.

There are no easy answers to how to successfully communicate with adherents of anti-scientific belief systems.Nevertheless, we want to conclude by summarizing the insights from this book into a number of practical tips that can be applied to many appropriate situations. Some of these may seem frustrating at first glance, such as the advice not to have unrealistic expectations and to accept that people have a right to think differently. Others, like the courage to disagree and the courage to be conciliatory, may seem contradictory at first glance. However, what is also true in any case: do not let yourself be demotivated!

The development of children and adolescents in safety and freedom can be endangered by extreme religious or ideological beliefs of their parents. In addition, they can also be a target group for diverse products and ideologically influenced offers. As a society, we share responsibility for ensuring that children and adolescents can participate in a diverse, liberal democracy, seize professional and educational opportunities, and develop into independent personalities. The right to freely practice one’s religion and the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and world views are important fundamental rights of a democracy. However, they must not be at the expense of the rights of minors: the right to develop one’s personality, the protection of human dignity, the right to life and physical integrity. Religious freedom must not come at the expense of children’s rights. If parents have different ideological positions, care must be taken not to draw children into conflicts of loyalty.

When discussing with people who adhere to an anti-scientific belief system, it seems at first to be an obvious goal to try to convince them otherwise. But how realistic is such a goal, and how does one get closer to it? To shed light on this, we spoke with a number of people who have themselves already found their way out of such a belief system. Their experiences and impressions are varied, but they show one thing above all: trying to convince believers is a difficult task.

Pure online communication, possibly even with an audience, is one of the most difficult situations when it comes to successfully communicating with dissenters. The non-verbal level is missing, messages are often strongly abbreviated, and many people act strongly disinhibited in the anonymity of the net.But here, too, there are significant differences, for example, whether one is addressed directly or whether one could at least in principle stay out of a situation. When does it make sense to get involved, and when might it even be absolutely necessary? What changes when we discuss things online with people we know in real life instead of with anonymous strangers? What very different motives can people have for spreading anti-scientific ideas on the Internet? One particular area of concern is how to deal with hate on the Internet. We provide concrete practical tips for those affected.

As strange as esotericism, conspiracy belief and religious or political fanaticism may seem to us: Behind them are largely psychological mechanisms that run in each of us. These mechanisms are to a large extent useful for our everyday life, and to some extent even necessary for our survival. But they can also lead us up the garden path, justify and stabilize anti-scientific belief systems. And we fight against all these psychological mechanisms when we try to convince believers.

When personal health is at stake, people are particularly susceptible to promises of quick, easy and comprehensive healing. This is also where the greatest damage occurs when unprofessional providers overestimate themselves. The need for wholeness, for being seen and cared for as a person in all aspects, for time and attention, is particularly great for the sick. This is seldom possible in the medical establishment; therefore, health professionals also like to switch to alternative and not always reputable forms of treatment. In the field of psychology, psychotherapy, counseling and coaching, too, dubious and even harmful concepts and treatment methods can be found, which are often difficult to distinguish from reputable ones. The number of problematic providers is particularly high in this field. Counteracting radicalization processes, supporting critical thinking, providing access to education and science, and protecting clients from exploitation are central concerns of social and youth work. Radicalization is a multi-layered process that cannot be countered with bans or information alone. On the one hand, it is important to set clear limits to inhumane statements and actions, but to perceive the person acting in his or her history, motives and needs and to reach out by building an appreciative relationship.Empathy, a focus on a person’s resources and measures that strengthen autonomy and the experience of self-efficacy help to question extremist ideologies that create identity.

Business life, which is misunderstood as rational, is also susceptible to promises of success from dubious offers and unscientific products. To act as a critic and admonisher in one’s own company is particularly delicate due to the dependency and power structures in this field. Support from like-minded people, a look at the external impact on customers and the company’s reputation, as well as basic regulations for dealing with religious/spiritual/ideological offerings can be helpful. Educational institutions have a special responsibility not to give controversial methods any appearance of respectability.

We have seen that it is not easy and perhaps impossible to convince certain believers. At the same time, very different approaches are conceivable in such a discussion, and there is no obvious best solution. Which strategy might be advantageous depends on a number of factors in the specific situation, including the relationship with the counterpart as well as the importance of the topic for the discussants or the involvement of third parties.It also depends which goals one can reasonably strive for in a discussion. It does not always have to be about convincing believers – sometimes a lot is already achieved if one can keep the communication going, set an example or achieve acceptable behavior.

There are many different ways to position oneself in a discussion, and even in the case of the topics considered here, it is not always obvious which one is more promising. For this purpose, it is useful to first of all clarify the different options and to illuminate what consequences it may have, depending on the situation, if one positions oneself rather confrontationally or rather understandingly in a certain situation. Likewise, it makes a difference, for example, whether one argues in a more factual, informing way or in a more moral way, and whether one addresses the topic concretely or more on a meta-level.