While I am 100% in agreement with the skeptical and scientific approach that JREF espouses and supports, I put it to you we are losing ground to religionists (and quite badly I might add). While our position is supported by the weight of evidence, our side of the debate is not producing results that would seem necessary to the continued progress of reason.
I have seen many a considered and thoughtful person shouted down, ignored or dismissed even though they have the entire weight of evidence on their side (ID v. Evolution is a perfect example). With the rise of religionists to positions of political power in the United States, I have been giving some thought to how best to retake the initiative which we have lost. The question I asked myself is why have we failed even though we should, by all reasonable standards, practically own them?
Here is what I believe to be our basic flaw - we expect reason to win over superstition. Why should we expect someone who is superstitious to listen to reason? It would seem to be a fool's errand.
Our failing is we continue to take this line of argument over and over expecting a different result. Psychiatry would define this as insanity. While I am not prepared to go that far, it would seem we skeptics need to re-frame and re-conceptualize our line of argument if we expect to prevail rather than being marginalized, as is happening now.
A basic rule to winning a debate is: know the other side's argument cold. You might say we already know the other side. Conceded. However, we have stopped short of landing a knockout puch even thoguh we have all the cards. Why? Because we have failed to observe another basic rule of debate: to deal a fatal blow to your opponent, you must use not only the weight of your argument but also the weight of theirs. This combination, when used properly, is devastating.
This means we children of the Enlightenment must do something that few of us are prepared (or want) to do - become as knowledgeable as our advesary is in their own field. This means we must become as conversant in their texts as they are. To win we must use their own words and arguments as well or better than they do. Gentlemen, start your Bibles!
What if we became experts in their fields? What if we used their their texts, their words, their actions against them to shake the foundation of their belief system? What if eschewed using our most devastating debating weapons until they were on the run? What would happen if we administered a coup de gras at just the right moment - the twin barrels of evidence and reason when our opponent is at their weakest? I put it to readers that this is the winning startegy.
Here is my question. Leaving aside our side of the argument for a minute, where would you start if you were to take the debate to the opponent on their terms? Which openings would you explore? Is there a line of argument that would seem more profitable than others?
To get things started, I would like to use the Sermon on the Mount to shame the more strident Christians into silence (I'll take murmuring) so a discussion can take place rather than a shouting match.
Religionists are getting good at using (and twisting) science to confuse and obfuscate our arguments. I think it is high time we took the battle to the other side of the fence and use their own arguments against them.
Your turn folks.
Big Brain
I have seen many a considered and thoughtful person shouted down, ignored or dismissed even though they have the entire weight of evidence on their side (ID v. Evolution is a perfect example). With the rise of religionists to positions of political power in the United States, I have been giving some thought to how best to retake the initiative which we have lost. The question I asked myself is why have we failed even though we should, by all reasonable standards, practically own them?
Here is what I believe to be our basic flaw - we expect reason to win over superstition. Why should we expect someone who is superstitious to listen to reason? It would seem to be a fool's errand.
Our failing is we continue to take this line of argument over and over expecting a different result. Psychiatry would define this as insanity. While I am not prepared to go that far, it would seem we skeptics need to re-frame and re-conceptualize our line of argument if we expect to prevail rather than being marginalized, as is happening now.
A basic rule to winning a debate is: know the other side's argument cold. You might say we already know the other side. Conceded. However, we have stopped short of landing a knockout puch even thoguh we have all the cards. Why? Because we have failed to observe another basic rule of debate: to deal a fatal blow to your opponent, you must use not only the weight of your argument but also the weight of theirs. This combination, when used properly, is devastating.
This means we children of the Enlightenment must do something that few of us are prepared (or want) to do - become as knowledgeable as our advesary is in their own field. This means we must become as conversant in their texts as they are. To win we must use their own words and arguments as well or better than they do. Gentlemen, start your Bibles!
What if we became experts in their fields? What if we used their their texts, their words, their actions against them to shake the foundation of their belief system? What if eschewed using our most devastating debating weapons until they were on the run? What would happen if we administered a coup de gras at just the right moment - the twin barrels of evidence and reason when our opponent is at their weakest? I put it to readers that this is the winning startegy.
Here is my question. Leaving aside our side of the argument for a minute, where would you start if you were to take the debate to the opponent on their terms? Which openings would you explore? Is there a line of argument that would seem more profitable than others?
To get things started, I would like to use the Sermon on the Mount to shame the more strident Christians into silence (I'll take murmuring) so a discussion can take place rather than a shouting match.
Religionists are getting good at using (and twisting) science to confuse and obfuscate our arguments. I think it is high time we took the battle to the other side of the fence and use their own arguments against them.
Your turn folks.
Big Brain
)