Sometimes I think I can change other people's minds...but threads like this remind me why it's so hard to do. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. Attacking someone's ideology usually just makes things worse. That's why Carl Sagan was such a powerful force for good. He didn't attack religious values; he explained scientific knowledge. And when that knowledge happened to tread on the toes of the conventional wisdom of religion, he pointed this out without malice or enmity. He told it as it was, and encouraged people to draw their own conclusions. If minds were changed, it was because people realized their previous understanding had been inaccurate or incomplete. The key is that they chose to change their own minds. Sagan merely provided the ingredients for them to do it. That's the sort of strategy that will win in the end.
There are plenty of decent people who happen to be religious, and making enemies of them is a poor idea because it usually just makes them more volatile. But religion itself, and all the people who practice it--even the decent ones--continually work to destroy the future of the entire world...no matter how noble their intentions. It isn't as simple, therefore, as just leaving these folks alone. That's why education and civil rights are so important: These help people to be able to adopt sound principles for themselves that reflect the best in modern human understanding. In so doing, individuals even in the most conservative lands can overcome some very deep-rooted but extremely harmful traditions and beliefs.
I've given this a great deal of thought over the years, and if you can put aside for a moment some of the things I've said in other threads, I think the best way to solve the problem is to try and make friends instead of enemies. It is the essence of why I am an imperalist. All peoples belong together, under the rule of law. My god is E pluribus, Unum. We aren't going to change people by attacking them. This doesn't mean letting bygones be bygones, but it does mean respecting people to make up their own minds. Our job in this is to provide good knowledge wherever possible, to aid people in their mind-making.
That means always checking your facts. Never make a claim you aren't prepared to support with a credible source. And don't just post links without discussion, or copy-paste someone else's argument. You yourself must understand what you are talking about. So much energy in this thread has been wasted on hearsay and rumor.
Much of what I do on the Compendium is a public service: I keep religious people from getting away with passing off lies as the truth. That doesn't win me any popularity contests, but it helps establish the knowledge pertinent to whatever issue at hand, and the logic of whatever interpretations involved. This thankless work isn't necessary, though, to help people help themselves in the best tradition of heroes like Carl Sagan. It is much easier and straightforward to deal with a debate like this one by taking the opportunity to expound upon a little of the relevant scientific discourse. Argue logic and philosophy if you must, and never miss an opportunity to point out where the religious superstition is discredited by an uncontroversial display of the facts, but in the end it's all about educating people in the marvelous workings of our world.
For instance: Abortion. Does life begin at conception? Religionists will say that the human soul is separate from all human biology, and that the soul is of course immeasurable, in an attempt to shut the biological and sociological facts out of the argument, effectively leaving you with no way to argue a pro-abortion stance. At this point you could tell them that their faith is wrong, that their perception of the human soul by definition cannot be corroborated and is therefore almost certainly false...but where will this get you? It'll get you an unwinnable argument about faith and souls and God's will and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with abortion. We saw the same game play out on another issue in this very thread.
Instead, make the biological and sociological cases anyway. If people want to trust in faith rather than reality, they are in their rights to do so. But make it costly for them to maintain the delusion: Educate them in the physical facts. Show them why you support your position, instead of wasting energy showing them why they are wrong to support theirs. Explain to them what an embryo or a fetus is all about. Talk about this in detail. Then explain to them why women can and do suffer if they are forced to complete a pregnancy against their wishes. Explain why a woman's choice is more important than an unborn fetus' development. Touch on the broader social implications of denying women the abortions they seek. Get as deeply into the facts of the issue as your expertise allows--and if your facts don't run very deep, don't get into a debate on that subject!
Many contemporary religionists are comfortable trusting in their faith and ignoring the facts because, like a president who leads a war not from the front lines of the battlefield but from the comforts of his lavish office in the homeland, religionists don't really know the facts. They have never been exposed to the proverbial horrors of war; all they have seen are the neatly-stacked reports that reach their desk. They must be given the opportunity to see the naked truth. This is what helps people change their minds. Anecdotally, I have witnessed that many people who abandon religion do so because the truth of the real world finally got to be to overwhelming for them. Those who have fallen into religion I have witnessed to do so because their understanding of the real world was overwhelmed by their frustrations with it. Both affirm the need for greater education, so that people can improve upon their awareness of the way of things.
A religionist says abortion is wrong because of this inviolable "soul" whose nature is apparently not up for discussion because it apparently cannot be discussed in scientific terms. Show them how dull that is by painting a much more vivid picture of the real world. Give them a Zerg rush of the facts. Put the sum of human knowledge side by side with their childish claim that the real world isn't where the action is. The very reason religionists don't want to get into a factual argument is that they--like every sane human on the planet--realize that facts are the currency of awareness. Everyone places at least some trust in the facts, because our entire existence is predicated upon the realities of the physical world. Our bodies dwell in the physical world, and answer to the laws of nature and the circumstances of our environment.
Carl Sagan took the white lab coat off of science and presented it in a way anybody can understand. The full power of physical knowledge is stunning, and beautiful. He convinced people of this, simply by opening their eyes to the obvious. That's why he is a hero. And I say that, unless you are equipped to play a more difficult game, you should follow his lead. It is significant progress to improve people's factual knowledge even if it does not lead them to change their minds. Why? Because of this: Anyone who successfully blends scientific expertise and religious faith in their lives, does so by letting the facts speak first. They let the facts define the truth, and they reserve their religious beliefs for passing judgments on these truths. In this case, their religious conviction is mutated into a sort of God-based ethics system, and if you simply must be religious, this is the best way to do it. Don't put your religion in science's way. Religion will lose every time.
Take a lesson from that when you're arguing with a religionist. If you want to change their minds, don't attack their beliefs. Discuss the issue at hand. Deliver up the relevant facts of whatever issue it is on which you are arguing a position. Check your facts first, then drop 'em on the table for your opponent's consideration. And let them make their own decisions. If you cannot rally the facts to your side, you do not have an argument to make...so don't get into one.
This thread...what a waste. Needless enmity between decent people.
