"Oh, well that's your opinion"

[borrofburi]

From the " Help me count the ways?" thread by gnug215:

Recently, whilst giving a talk to a group of students about a meteorite (i use a rather nice chondrite as an example, fell about 15,000 years ago in Arizona), one of the parents, who was there as an assistant supervisor, approached me afterwards and said "so what you believe doesn't leave much room for god or biblical creation, does it?" (she had the crazed stare of a fundie, and was obviously trying to suppress her rage at having her child taught science)

I explained to her the equations and processes for measuring radiogenic lead ratios in stony meteorites, allowing us to date them. I explained to her why it is significant that the results from various dating techniques, including nucleocosmochronology for the age of the Sun, all pointed to a solar system of a fairly specific age. I showed her protoplanetary disks in the Orion nebula... I even fetched her a rather awesome book from our library so she could follow for herself the reasoning behind the processes we use for determining the age of the Earth.

Afterwards she simply said (in the snidest possible tone) "oh, well that's your opinion". I said (in hindsight I wasn't as calm as I should have been), "Do what you like with god, put him anywhere, but this isn't the product of biblical creation. If you believe the Earth is young whilst it looks old, your god is a deceiver". She expressed how offended she was that I could say this, especially when there are "hundreds of christians who are scientists and think the evidence points to biblical creation". I asked her to name one....

"Ken Ham".

Needless to say, the conversation ended at that point, but I was pleased that her daughter was able to understand, albeit in simple terms, radiometric dating concepts, even though she herself wasn't. Maybe I sowed enough doubt seeds there

emphasis mine

This is something I don't know how to deal with. Usually I take YECs to simply be scientifically illiterate. I don't "debate" them, I am instructing them on the basic facts: what science is, how science works, what a fact is, what a theory is, the fact of gravity, the theory of gravity, the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution, etc. I would not "debate" someone who told me my car ran on supernatural magic and would instead explain to them the basic mechanical structure of a car engine and give him a basic understanding of combustion and maybe thermo (thermo is hard though); in the same manner I do not "debate" someone who tells me species differentiation/diversity happens by supernatural magic, rather I explain to them the basic observations we see and why all of those point to evolution as both a fact and theory, as well as common descent.

But after you do such an explanation and they come back with "oh, well that's your opinion", how on earth do you respond? Am I to take it to mean that they lack the basic understanding of the facts about fact itself? Do I need to explain to them that reality is the arbiter of truth whether they like it or not? I guess I could point to technologies and say "do these work off my opinions?"

What do you think?

 

[5810Singer]

I guess I could point to technologies and say "do these work off my opinions?"

What do you think?

I think that's a good way to go.

Maybe carrying a slip of paper with the dictionary definitions of fact and opinion wouldn't be a bad idea either.

But ultimately, as you've pointed out in other threads, there is nothing you can do in the face of pig-headed denial, especially when that denial is often a front for deliberate lying.

 

[borrofburi]

I guess I could point to technologies and say "do these work off my opinions?"

I think that's a good way to go.

To make things more complicated: "So does my car work off my opinion or does it work via internal combustion of gasoline?" "Neither, it's your opinion it works off internal combustion, that's just an opinion, it's my understanding that it works off supernatural magic"

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This goes back to a point that I've made on a variety of subjects, that when we just present facts and expect them to do our work for us, we're on the wrong path. What we maybe need to do is create a compelling narrative to compete with the narrative presented by religious people, pseudoscience supporters, and conspiracy theorists. That we have facts on our side is almost secondary to the issue of presenting those facts in an emotionally meaningful way.

 

[obsidianavenger]

To make things more complicated: "So does my car work off my opinion or does it work via internal combustion of gasoline?" "Neither, it's your opinion it works off internal combustion, that's just an opinion, it's my understanding that it works off supernatural magic"

anyone that stubborn is not looking for truth; rather they are looking to have their prejudices confirmed.

i suppose its possible for someone to honestly believe that reality is somehow dependent on human interpretation, given some instances of (post)modern philosophy, but in general if someone says "well thats your opinion" as if its a legitimate dismissal of the points you've made then they are going to believe what they will and don't want to accept any opposing evidence.

This goes back to a point that I've made on a variety of subjects, that when we just present facts and expect them to do our work for us, we're on the wrong path. What we maybe need to do is create a compelling narrative to compete with the narrative presented by religious people, pseudoscience supporters, and conspiracy theorists. That we have facts on our side is almost secondary to the issue of presenting those facts in an emotionally meaningful way.

seems to miss the point, doesn't it? rather than promoting critical thinking such a method would just leave people in thrall to a different "narrative" as you call it. reminds me of plato's republic and the noble lie... it doesn't matter why they believe it as long as they do.... so let us give them a comforting reason to believe the "right" thing.

personally i think the opposite is much more important... what people believe is secondary to why they believe it. an opinion reached by reasoning is much more responsive to facts and new information. someone who believes something dogmatically is basically static in their belief regardless of what new information comes along. this is why dogmatic beliefs tend to err. implanting the "truth" through means of dogma does nothing to get people to recognize the primacy of reality in determining what is true.

 

[Gnug215]

I think the best we can do about this is to find some common ground, some every day technology/science that both parties agree on as not being just a matter of opinion, and work our way from there.

This ties in with my reasons for making the thread that borro refers to in his original post; we need to show these people some specific examples of science that isn't just "opinion", and then work our way backwards, showing them that all science is connected, and that it isn't a matter of opinion.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think the best we can do about this is to find some common ground, some every day technology/science that both parties agree on as not being just a matter of opinion, and work our way from there.

This ties in with my reasons for making the thread that borro refers to in his original post; we need to show these people some specific examples of science that isn't just "opinion", and then work our way backwards, showing them that all science is connected, and that it isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about. We need to craft a story about science and technology that they can understand on an intellectual AND emotional level. It helps that we have the facts on our side, but they have to be presented as part of a bigger narrative that they can relate to.

 

[Deleted member 499]

But after you do such an explanation and they come back with "oh, well that's your opinion", how on earth do you respond? Am I to take it to mean that they lack the basic understanding of the facts about fact itself? Do I need to explain to them that reality is the arbiter of truth whether they like it or not? I guess I could point to technologies and say "do these work off my opinions?"

What do you think?

I think my reaction would probably be something along the lines of "and the opinion of the vast majority of people who actually know what they're talking about" but I'm fully aware that response wouldn't really help.

The only thing that has a shot of working is relating the concept to their life and making them understand that without the principles they are denying they wouldn't have "X" or "Y". The problem is some concepts are easier to relate to than others. You also have to consider that you're coming up against the kind of person who simply dismisses a patient and careful explanation of factual information as an opinion, there is very little you can do against that kind of self enforced ignorance.

 

[Gnug215]

I think the best we can do about this is to find some common ground, some every day technology/science that both parties agree on as not being just a matter of opinion, and work our way from there.

This ties in with my reasons for making the thread that borro refers to in his original post; we need to show these people some specific examples of science that isn't just "opinion", and then work our way backwards, showing them that all science is connected, and that it isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about. We need to craft a story about science and technology that they can understand on an intellectual AND emotional level. It helps that we have the facts on our side, but they have to be presented as part of a bigger narrative that they can relate to.

Exactly. Obsidianavenger may have slightly misunderstood what you meant further up - I think I may have too when I first read it; you're not talking about deception of any kind, but an explanation with more emotional value while still sticking entirely to facts.

We need to relate to these people on a personal level, because that seems to be where and how their intellect is operating.

We have perhaps been stupid for all this time to try to appeal to these people on a reason-based and hard-core factual level.

 

[obsidianavenger]

how do you make facts emotionally relevant? relate them to people's lives? by showing them carl sagan videos?

hehe.

but i seriously wonder what you could say to someone after you explain a scientific phenomena to them and they simply say "well thats your opinion". you would basically have to get them to revise their entire underlying philosophy about truth, or at least get them to apply their everyday notions about it consistently. ( i really don't think anyone goes about and lives their lives in an everyday sense as a relativist )

i never really thought IJ was suggesting lying; i am weary about appeals to emotion. i don't see why not believing in god because it makes someone feel good is any better than believing in god because it makes someone feel good. thats what i was trying to get at. even without lying, "winning" converts by appealing to their irrationality in a new way just... doesn't seem productive.

i think it would be helpful to show a coherent worldview in which lack of belief in god is "ok" ie not simply an attribute of crazy people. but i think for that to work the person in question would have to be open to questioning himself, which i don't see the "thats your opinion" crowd doing.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I think the best we can do about this is to find some common ground, some every day technology/science that both parties agree on as not being just a matter of opinion, and work our way from there.

This ties in with my reasons for making the thread that borro refers to in his original post; we need to show these people some specific examples of science that isn't just "opinion", and then work our way backwards, showing them that all science is connected, and that it isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about. We need to craft a story about science and technology that they can understand on an intellectual AND emotional level. It helps that we have the facts on our side, but they have to be presented as part of a bigger narrative that they can relate to.

This isn't the real problem...

The problem is religion. For many people, their religion is more important than truth! For most people, their religion is truth. If what you're saying contradicts their religious beliefs then, by definition, what you're saying is false no matter how seductively you say it. For many people, the more convincing you sound, the more of Satan's power you're wielding. I wish I were exaggerating...

If you listen to the stories of all the people who have ever deconverted, the one thing they all have in common is that they value truth above their religion, making it possible for them to be convinced out of their religions...

 

[Gnug215]

how do you make facts emotionally relevant? relate them to people's lives? by showing them carl sagan videos?

hehe.

but i seriously wonder what you could say to someone after you explain a scientific phenomena to them and they simply say "well thats your opinion". you would basically have to get them to revise their entire underlying philosophy about truth, or at least get them to apply their everyday notions about it consistently. ( i really don't think anyone goes about and lives their lives in an everyday sense as a relativist )

i never really thought IJ was suggesting lying; i am weary about appeals to emotion. i don't see why not believing in god because it makes someone feel good is any better than believing in god because it makes someone feel good. thats what i was trying to get at. even without lying, "winning" converts by appealing to their irrationality in a new way just... doesn't seem productive.

i think it would be helpful to show a coherent worldview in which lack of belief in god is "ok" ie not simply an attribute of crazy people. but i think for that to work the person in question would have to be open to questioning himself, which i don't see the "thats your opinion" crowd doing.

Heh, yes, exactly, by relating them to people's lives; for instance by letting them know what kind of science is behind the computer they're using - and if those sciences are "just opinion" or a conspiracy/whatever, then they simply wouldn't work.
The argument doesn't have to be emotional per se, but we could use facts that they can relate to emotionally. Talking about frameshifts or aleles and other advanced biological concepts won't have them relating in any way, and they'll either close up, or start spamming Creationist propagandist copypasta from the Hovind/Ham school of dishonest crappery.

As for the thing about IJ, I didn't mean you thought IJ suggested lying, but it sort of looked like you thought he meant some kind of dishonesty along the lines of what Creationists have been doing.
I do think he is, like me, suggesting something other than just hard, dry, scientific facts; something with a little more... emotional relatability. I'm fairly convinced that can be achieved with entirely honest means.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Exactly. Obsidianavenger may have slightly misunderstood what you meant further up - I think I may have too when I first read it; you're not talking about deception of any kind, but an explanation with more emotional value while still sticking entirely to facts.

We need to relate to these people on a personal level, because that seems to be where and how their intellect is operating.

We have perhaps been stupid for all this time to try to appeal to these people on a reason-based and hard-core factual level.

Yeah, OA has been intentionally misunderstanding me in several threads lately... it is a personal issue he has with me, feel free to ignore it. :roll:

We need to understand that other people might have foundational beliefs that don't allow them to accept our facts at face value. Part of the formation of those beliefs, and our beliefs as well, come from the "narrative" we accept about the world and how it works on a fundamental level. That means that if we want people to accept our facts, we have to include appeals that resonate with the way they understand the world.

Some people... most people who I consider to be on "my side" of most issues... believe it is somehow beneath them to appeal to regular people in a way that they can understand. Guess what? That is part of the "arrogant elitism" that fits the narrative that allows people to reject facts, along with just treating them like they are stupid and unable to change, instead of changing our approach to reach them. That makes folks on "our side" fucking idiots, if they are so dogmatic and snobbish in their attitudes that they would prefer to stick to the raw facts in the face of continued failure.

Guess what else? The liars and loonies on the other side have no problem talking to the regular folks. That's why they are kicking our asses, and why they always will until WE change.

 

[Gnug215]

Yeah, OA has been intentionally misunderstanding me in several threads lately... it is a personal issue he has with me, feel free to ignore it. :roll:

We need to understand that other people might have foundational beliefs that don't allow them to accept our facts at face value. Part of the formation of those beliefs, and our beliefs as well, come from the "narrative" we accept about the world and how it works on a fundamental level. That means that if we want people to accept our facts, we have to include appeals that resonate with the way they understand the world.

Some people... most people who I consider to be on "my side" of most issues... believe it is somehow beneath them to appeal to regular people in a way that they can understand. Guess what? That is part of the "arrogant elitism" that fits the narrative that allows people to reject facts, along with just treating them like they are stupid and unable to change, instead of changing our approach to reach them. That makes folks on "our side" fucking idiots, if they are so dogmatic and snobbish in their attitudes that they would prefer to stick to the raw facts in the face of continued failure.

Guess what else? The liars and loonies on the other side have no problem talking to the regular folks. That's why they are kicking our asses, and why they always will until WE change.[/quote]


I agree entirely. This is why people like Kent Hovind are popular. Even if a Creationists will find Hovind to using from facts that are wrong, or presenting something in a strawman fashion, they'll allow him that liberty and still like him, because he's on their page. If all such a person has experienced from the "other side" is highly advanced science babble, served with a load of condescension, hostility, ridicule and name-calling, then they'll simply never want to be associate with that side; they will see the other side as a cold, hostile place, and if the other side has the truth, they'll probably want to even deny the truth because their own side is better and more comfortable.

I've always disliked the harsh tone of "our side", even when justified, because I know how some of these people must be feeling when they come around and get yelled at.
This isn't "Hell's Kitchen" where they have a drive and purpose of enduring verbal abused. Going Ramsey on these people won't help a damn bit, on the contrary.

I can't, however, point to some doctrine that we all have in common that encourages us to be nice, even to enemies, like they can, but come on, people: We're supposed to be the reasonable ones! And it stands to frigging reason that yelling hostilities at someone will never persuade them!

People are emotional beings, that's an inescapable fact. Even us in here in the League of Reason, something which has been made abundantly clear on the boards and chat in the relatively short time we've been here.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I agree entirely. This is why people like Kent Hovind are popular. Even if a Creationists will find Hovind to using from facts that are wrong, or presenting something in a strawman fashion, they'll allow him that liberty and still like him, because he's on their page. If all such a person has experienced from the "other side" is highly advanced science babble, served with a load of condescension, hostility, ridicule and name-calling, then they'll simply never want to be associate with that side; they will see the other side as a cold, hostile place, and if the other side has the truth, they'll probably want to even deny the truth because their own side is better and more comfortable.

I've always disliked the harsh tone of "our side", even when justified, because I know how some of these people must be feeling when they come around and get yelled at.
This isn't "Hell's Kitchen" where they have a drive and purpose of enduring verbal abused. Going Ramsey on these people won't help a damn bit, on the contrary.

I can't, however, point to some doctrine that we all have in common that encourages us to be nice, even to enemies, like they can, but come on, people: We're supposed to be the reasonable ones! And it stands to frigging reason that yelling hostilities at someone will never persuade them!

People are emotional beings, that's an inescapable fact. Even us in here in the League of Reason, something which has been made abundantly clear on the boards and chat in the relatively short time we've been here.

The harsh tone is fine when dealing with the professional liars head-on, or amongst ourselves. Something we need to remember is that the average folks on the other side have been subjected to decades of finely-crafted propaganda that not only presents false facts that need correcting, but also an underlying worldview that needs improvement. We need to respect the fact that those folks aren't stupid, or crazy... or at least not JUST stupid and crazy... they have simply been fed bad information for so long that it will take more than just reciting new and better information to get them to agree with us. We have to change the way we think about them, and then get them to change the way they think about us. If they don't trust us, and they can tell we don't respect them, why would they ever bother to listen to us?

For instance, I've changed my mind recently on calling religious belief a mental illness or defect, because it simply isn't so. "Mental defect" asserts that there's something broken in the believer's mind that makes them believe. The reality is that religious indoctrination exploits the normal and sane working of the mind to insert a false belief. When we're kids, we naturally believe the things we are told, and the things that are believed by our family and society as a whole. For the first decade or more of life, we believe things for no other reason than because they are taught to us. For the most part, we are right to believe those things without question, since the people we are being taught by are good and decent people who are telling us things that they honestly believe to be true and that they believe are in our best interest to know. The fact that religious views are factually wrong has little to do with how well they are absorbed by young minds, nor is it a defect of the child's mind to not know the difference. If your parents and school and everyone you know and everything you read tell you something that is incorrect, you are not crazy to believe it. The whole world was not insane and batshit crazy when they had mistaken beliefs about the world that were corrected by science, and then became sane when science got things right.

 

[borrofburi]

The post I just wrote was rather massive, so I'm going to try to break it into a couple of separate "topics", we'll see how well it works...

Yeah, OA has been intentionally misunderstanding me in several threads lately... it is a personal issue he has with me, feel free to ignore it.

You should really stop jumping so quickly to assuming people are dishonest or hate you or purposefully misunderstand you. Perhaps your communication skills aren't as effective as you think they are.

If all such a person has experienced from the "other side" is highly advanced science babble, served with a load of condescension, hostility, ridicule and name-calling, then they'll simply never want to be associate with that side; they will see the other side as a cold, hostile place, and if the other side has the truth, they'll probably want to even deny the truth because their own side is better and more comfortable.

I've always disliked the harsh tone of "our side", even when justified, because I know how some of these people must be feeling when they come around and get yelled at.

I've been saying this for a long while, and I am often told that "ridicule" is a great way to convince fence sitters. I keep pointing out that "ridicule" just makes you look like an ass, no matter who you do it to, no matter how justified it is, and it makes the guy you are ridiculing the victim that people at least sympathize with, and drives everyone listening/reading your debate to side of the ridiculed.

The harsh tone is fine when dealing with the professional liars head-on, or amongst ourselves. Something we need to remember is that the average folks on the other side have been subjected to decades of finely-crafted propaganda that not only presents false facts that need correcting, but also an underlying worldview that needs improvement.

No, the harsh tone is never fine, you should always be at least 10 decibals less harsh than you think you should be, for two reasons: you should not be certain you can identify which ones are the liars and which ones are just so horribly misinformed and brainwashed they *sound* like the liars and are really just bad at thinking rationally, and (2) even if you have one of the liars, a harsh tone makes you look like the intellectual bully and them the victim, meaning the audience sympathizes, and perhaps even empathizes, with the underdog who is being oh so horribly attacked, and, as we have been discussing, the audience then emotionally shuts you out, so even if you have the better facts and reasoning you have already lost because your position is that of assholes and they'd rather a happy fiction than to identify with you (which ties into what gunboat diplomat was saying).

We need to respect the fact that those folks aren't stupid, or crazy... or at least not JUST stupid and crazy... they have simply been fed bad information for so long ... We have to change the way we think about them, and then get them to change the way they think about us. If they don't trust us, and they can tell we don't respect them, why would they ever bother to listen to us?

Exactly, and I think we all, you especially, are very poor at distinguishing between those who *are* dishonest propoganda lying assholes and those who are just exquisitely misinformed for the entirety of their lives. We should always give them the "benefit of the doubt" for as long as we can, and even *after* we are *certain* that they are one of the dishonest propoganda lying assholes, it is rarely the right strategy to ridicule them, or even to call them a liar, because it makes you look like an asshole/bully and makes the other guy the victim, and audiences sympathize with victims and hate bullies.

I don't mean to say you can't point out inconsistencies or incorrect things, but my personal habit is to try (I may fail sometimes) to make my strongest wording something along the lines of "this is wrong/inconsistant, and you pointed that out when you said this other stuff, so I guess you had a momentary lapse of memory, because I'd rather not think you were being intentionally dishonest", and even that is only for times when there's a very strong smoking gun; I think that in so doing I am able to keep people from emotionally identifying me as the bully/asshole and my "opponent" as the victim, and instead I hope that people identify me as the nice guy who is calm even in the face of complete and obvious hypocrisy and contradiction... But I don't know if it works, what do you guys think?

 

[borrofburi]

This turned into an essay in itself... Oh boy it'd be the epitome of essays for the creationist quoteminer... I tried to mark all instances of the point where i use the word "fact" to mean "something obvious in the mind of a believer", though I may have failed. Anyway, on with the response that slowly morphs into an essay in itself.

For instance, I've changed my mind recently on calling religious belief a mental illness or defect, because it simply isn't so. "Mental defect" asserts that there's something broken in the believer's mind that makes them believe. The reality is that religious indoctrination exploits the normal and sane working of the mind to insert a false belief. When we're kids, we naturally believe the things we are told, and the things that are believed by our family and society as a whole. For the first decade or more of life, we believe things for no other reason than because they are taught to us. For the most part, we are right to believe those things without question, since the people we are being taught by are good and decent people who are telling us things that they honestly believe to be true and that they believe are in our best interest to know. The fact that religious views are factually wrong has little to do with how well they are absorbed by young minds, nor is it a defect of the child's mind to not know the difference. If your parents and school and everyone you know and everything you read tell you something that is incorrect, you are not crazy to believe it. The whole world was not insane and batshit crazy when they had mistaken beliefs about the world that were corrected by science, and then became sane when science got things right.

I'm glad you figured this out... As supporting evidence: I watch my younger half brothers being forced to pray at dinner before they can even form their own coherent sentences (and as they've gotten older it's become a game: they *want* to pray, and complain because "B got it last time! it's my turn!"); this is happening long before they will have any coherent memory of their lives. That kind of socialization is extremely powerful, and after seeing it first-hand I am surprised *anyone* escapes it (though they are mormons, I wonder if the mormon deconversion rate is lower than that of other religions). Hell I can't even claim to have escaped it myself, because my parents divorced when I was 7 and they bickered over religion, so by the age of 7 I already had voices I trust telling me the other parent has it wrong and they have it right (who would have guessed I would conclude they are both half right in that the other parent is indeed wrong), so I was lucky enough to not even get the complete uninterrupted course of socialization. I suppose the non-existence of santa helps some people escape it, and I guess others are just strong willed enough or something...

The point is, I agree entirely. They have been told since before they could speak that god is real and personal, and that's simply a fact of reality. The reaction you have to a "flat earther" is the same reaction they have to a "non-believer", because in most of our minds we think "flat earth? What the hell are you talking about? It's simply a fact of reality that the earth is round", and in the religious mind "Don't believe in god? What the hell are you talking about? It's simply a fact of reality that the supernatural world and a personal god exists". Indeed this is part of the reasons why atheists are "the least trusted group in america" (the other being the canard that we "have no moral basis" of course): because the religious can understand other religious people, they don't deny the "basic fact of reality" that the supernatural world exists, they just either (A) get his name wrong or misunderstand him, or (B) worship the wrong supernatural entity, neither of which are crazy, just wrong (and possibly a bit sinister, but even in the latter case most of them are just deceived and not willfully evil). But not believing in god? You might as well deny that the earth is round, because their socialization means god is a "fact" in their minds.

And indeed, why would you deny such a basic "fact" of reality? This very question is why many conclude we just want to live an immoral lifestyle: they can't possibly understand *why* we would deny such a basic "fact" so they look for rationalizations, and find that we do live what many religious people would consider an immoral lifestyle (if for no other reason than that the very idea of not-believing is an immoral idea, so if you self-identify as a non-believer you are embracing that immoral idea), so maybe *that* is why we deny basic "facts": for emotional reasons because we want to be immoral heathens and can't if we don't deny "facts" so we have to deny "facts"; or maybe it's other emotional reasons like a religious person hurt us, etc. because it's obviously not for sound rational intellectual reasons, no one denies a "fact" without emotional reasons. This might be why we have such crazy rationalizations and myths about atheists. Of course they get the cause and effect backwards, but that's because in their mind not-believing must to be an effect, it cannot be a cause, because it doesn't make sense as a cause because it's so "obviously wrong".

As a person who tries his best (though I imagine I fail, but I've got good company) to critically evaluate *everything* I am told in a fair and rational manner, I am often confused and frustrated by the religious person's complete inability to question or critically evaluate the whole concept of the existence of god. I even wonder why on earth there is such a barrier there. I have become convinced (in the course of writing this reply) that it's not as emotional as I once thought, they have simply been so heavily socialized for so long that god *is* a "fact" in their minds in the same way that "massive objects attract [gravity]" is a fact in our mind. Would I question gravity? Certainly, but my approach to such a disagreement is: gravity is a fact, there is massive amounts of evidence, the burden of proof is on you, things I would be inclined to consider as evidence is, say, a button you press that turns gravity off (though this might just be advanced anti-gravity technology, so there'd have to be some evidence that it wasn't that), etc. That's the way the concept of god often works in a religious mind: they'll question god, but since god is a "fact" with "tons" of "evidence" backing it, the burden of proof is on you (see waza minoo's thread as corroborating evidence).

I suppose the way to deal with that is to go back even further, before science, and give them a lesson in epistemology and what knowledge is (and this gets into what gunboat diplomat was saying); alternatively I suppose we could go the route of giving them stronger (by which I mean obvious and undeniable) facts like, as gnug215 was saying, computers, cars, speakers, airplanes, satellites, the internet, etc. all working off the same scientific principles and use *those* basic and "stronger" facts to get them to accept science itself, and then show how the things they don't like are not only scientific (my traditional route) but also heavily interconnected with and naturally springing forth from the same scientific principles that allow us to design basic facts like working computer monitors.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I can't, however, point to some doctrine that we all have in common that encourages us to be nice, even to enemies, like they can, but come on, people: We're supposed to be the reasonable ones! And it stands to frigging reason that yelling hostilities at someone will never persuade them!

The emphasis is mine.

"Like they can?" By and large, they are not nice to us. That whole "love thy enemy" thing is only something they say and not something they actually do...

 

[Gnug215]

I can't, however, point to some doctrine that we all have in common that encourages us to be nice, even to enemies, like they can, but come on, people: We're supposed to be the reasonable ones! And it stands to frigging reason that yelling hostilities at someone will never persuade them!

The emphasis is mine.

"Like they can?" By and large, they are not nice to us. That whole "love thy enemy" thing is only something they say and not something they actually do...

Hehe, true... Some of them do, though.

But the point wasn't so much that they are supposedly nicer (because they have doctrine to support it), but rather that I have no "justification" of telling "our side" to behave.

I can only appeal to reason, and that's what I was trying to do...
And then we can be reasonable for reason's sake, not because doctrine tells us to.

 

[xman]

Reading through this thread I am struck by two thought:

When confronted with a "god is the light" mentality it might be better to simply say,"That's nice for you, but on another topic look at this fascinating evidence found about this species and look, it fits with this geology too". Whenever supernatural points are brought up, don't counter or contradict them. Simply move forward with reason. If such an attack by the spiritualist continues perhaps point out that you are talking about something else (is it wise to mention magical thinking?) and that that doesn't matter.

Alternately and perhaps more profoundly, it sounds to me like you are looking for parables. New ones written for our generation, our society. The parable of Charles and the beagle might be too heavy handed to start with, but you catch my drift I am sure.

Ultimately, the goal is to teach critical thinking and let that do the work for us.