Debating religion with facts usually doesn't work

[Quintessence]

For certain kinds of topics, arguing over facts doesn't result in a productive debate or discussion. This tends to happen when the topic relates to personal ideologies that tread into being matters of opinion rather than matters of fact. In the English language, we'll typically use "believe that" or "feel that" language when talking about ourselves or our opinions. Statements like this are understood to reflect the speaker, not the world (that is, they are not to be taken as facts). As a result, simply presenting facts may not result in a productive discussion or disagreement.

"[Factual] information alone is often insufficient to resolve disagreements. It’s addressing the part of ideological beliefs that is like a fact, the part where someone is trying to communicate information about the world. But it’s missing the part where ideological beliefs are also like an opinion. Without this part, saying, “Actually, evidence shows that X” sounds a lot like saying, “Actually, evidence proves that blue is not the prettiest color.” To be convincing, you need tools that address both the fact part and the opinion part of an ideology.

People rarely change their opinions because someone out-argued them. Rather, opinion-based change can come from exposure. People like the familiar, even when that familiarity comes from the briefest of prior exposures. The same could occur for viewpoints that they’ve heard before.

What does exposure look like when talking about ideological disagreements? “Hmm. I actually think something different.” “I really appreciated the way my science tutor was patient with me when I didn’t understand evolution. The way she explained things made a lot of sense to me after a while.”"
From - How to have productive disagreements about politics and religion ​

Sometimes, just expressing your own opinion without being pushy is all you need to do.
Feel free to give the entire article a gander - I found it interesting as it resonated with some of my own experiences. There have definitely been questions asked around RF that have felt like "evidence proves blue is the best color" like the various "prove your religion" threads I've seen from time to time. What are your thoughts on this, though?

If you're someone who tends to use facts when trying to persuade others on the subject of religion, why do you think that is? Do you feel you've had success with it? What obstacles have you faced?

When others have tried to persuade you using facts, how do you usually react? Do you feel like that person has communicated effectively with you? In what cases do facts appeal to you, and in what cases do they feel irrelevant?

These prompts are only starting points for reflection... feel free to take it in other directions.

 

[youknowme]

Facts would make a big difference if religion could produce some facts to back up some of their claims. I think that is the point most skeptics get hung up on, the lack of empirical evidence. However, I can see how it would be convenient for believers to establish a narrative that facts should not be used to prove their claims; however, personally, I don't see why religion should deserve special exemption.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Presenting facts without being pushy is not all what you need to do. If someone is dogmatic in their view of the world, regardless of facts, productive discussion is pointless. The point of productive discussion when facts are presented are about progress and evolution of ideas. If I told you the sky was blue because of the reflection of the world's ocean, but you felt the sky was blue because God used a crayon to color the heavens, no matter how I articulated my view, the nature of that thing which we call facts, is rendered irrelevant to the deaf ears of someone who believes they are right.

 

[Nakosis]

For certain kinds of topics, arguing over facts doesn't result in a productive debate or discussion. This tends to happen when the topic relates to personal ideologies that tread into being matters of opinion rather than matters of fact. In the English language, we'll typically use "believe that" or "feel that" language when talking about ourselves or our opinions. Statements like this are understood to reflect the speaker, not the world (that is, they are not to be taken as facts). As a result, simply presenting facts may not result in a productive discussion or disagreement.

"[Factual] information alone is often insufficient to resolve disagreements. It’s addressing the part of ideological beliefs that is like a fact, the part where someone is trying to communicate information about the world. But it’s missing the part where ideological beliefs are also like an opinion. Without this part, saying, “Actually, evidence shows that X” sounds a lot like saying, “Actually, evidence proves that blue is not the prettiest color.” To be convincing, you need tools that address both the fact part and the opinion part of an ideology.

People rarely change their opinions because someone out-argued them. Rather, opinion-based change can come from exposure. People like the familiar, even when that familiarity comes from the briefest of prior exposures. The same could occur for viewpoints that they’ve heard before.

What does exposure look like when talking about ideological disagreements? “Hmm. I actually think something different.” “I really appreciated the way my science tutor was patient with me when I didn’t understand evolution. The way she explained things made a lot of sense to me after a while.”"
From - How to have productive disagreements about politics and religion ​

Sometimes, just expressing your own opinion without being pushy is all you need to do.
Feel free to give the entire article a gander - I found it interesting as it resonated with some of my own experiences. There have definitely been questions asked around RF that have felt like "evidence proves blue is the best color" like the various "prove your religion" threads I've seen from time to time. What are your thoughts on this, though?

If you're someone who tends to use facts when trying to persuade others on the subject of religion, why do you think that is? Do you feel you've had success with it? What obstacles have you faced?

When others have tried to persuade you using facts, how do you usually react? Do you feel like that person has communicated effectively with you? In what cases do facts appeal to you, and in what cases do they feel irrelevant?

These prompts are only starting points for reflection... feel free to take it in other directions.

What facts so we have anyway? I usually argue from my opinion because that it is my opinion is factual.

Ok, there are scientific facts. Sometimes though often not that useful in day to day life. Most decisions I make are usually not a direct result of a scientific fact.

Some "facts" are really someone else's opinion that it is expected that other's should accept their authority.

Some "facts" are statistics, polls. Ok but I think most know polls can be biased, or even have wrong conclusions extrapolated from them.

Scientific facts seem seldom used in most discussions anyway.

 

[youknowme]

Presenting facts without being pushy is not all what you need to do. If someone is dogmatic in their view of the world, regardless of facts, productive discussion is pointless. The point of productive discussion when facts are presented are about progress and evolution of ideas. If I told you the sky was blue because of the reflection of the world's ocean, but you felt the sky was blue because God used a crayon to color the heavens, no matter how I articulated it the nature of that thing which we call facts, is rendered irrelevant to the deaf ears of someone who believes they are right.

So then would you say the effectiveness of facts is relative to the audience? Skeptics might be more open to them while the "dogmatic" might be more put off by them.

 

[Quintessence]

Facts would make a big difference if religion could produce some facts to back up some of their claims. I think that is the point most skeptics get hung up on, the lack of empirical evidence. However, I can see how it would be convenient for believers to establish a narrative that facts should not be used to prove their claims; however, personally, I don't see why religion should deserve special treatment.

I don't see it as being about "special treatment" as much as recognizing that a lot of what religion is doesn't have much to do with making claims or matters of fact to begin with - it's about practices, communities, values, opinions, feelings... that sort of thing. It doesn't make much sense to me to treat someone's personal preferences as a matter for factual dispute (like the example about the color blue given in the article). Granted, a number of the discussions that happen around RF do involve fact-based claims relating to religion. For better or worse, mythological literalism became something of a fad in some of the religions that dominate our discourse. I hardly blame folks for wanting to combat that with fact-based argumentation strategies, even if it might not be the ideal strategy to use.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So then would you say the effectiveness of facts is relative to the audience? Skeptics might be more open to them while the "dogmatic" might be more put off by them.

Unfortunately in any discussion/debate the audience does matter on one hand then it doesn't on the other hand. Facts do not care about audience especially if objectively true. The point is from what I was saying some you just to disagree and is NOT open to another worldview is what I call dogmatic in their viewpoint. What I mean is there is no point in sharing ideas with someone who just wants to disagree just to disagree because they don't like what you believe.

 

[Quintessence]

Unfortunately in any discussion/debate the audience does matter on one hand then it doesn't on the other hand. Facts do not care about audience especially if objectively true. The point is from what I was saying some you just to disagree and is NOT open to another worldview is what I call dogmatic in their viewpoint. What I mean is there is no point in sharing ideas with someone who just wants to disagree just to disagree because they don't like what you believe.

On the other hand, if, as the article suggests, familiarity is key, there may be a point after all.

 

[exchemist]

For certain kinds of topics, arguing over facts doesn't result in a productive debate or discussion. This tends to happen when the topic relates to personal ideologies that tread into being matters of opinion rather than matters of fact. In the English language, we'll typically use "believe that" or "feel that" language when talking about ourselves or our opinions. Statements like this are understood to reflect the speaker, not the world (that is, they are not to be taken as facts). As a result, simply presenting facts may not result in a productive discussion or disagreement.

"[Factual] information alone is often insufficient to resolve disagreements. It’s addressing the part of ideological beliefs that is like a fact, the part where someone is trying to communicate information about the world. But it’s missing the part where ideological beliefs are also like an opinion. Without this part, saying, “Actually, evidence shows that X” sounds a lot like saying, “Actually, evidence proves that blue is not the prettiest color.” To be convincing, you need tools that address both the fact part and the opinion part of an ideology.

People rarely change their opinions because someone out-argued them. Rather, opinion-based change can come from exposure. People like the familiar, even when that familiarity comes from the briefest of prior exposures. The same could occur for viewpoints that they’ve heard before.

What does exposure look like when talking about ideological disagreements? “Hmm. I actually think something different.” “I really appreciated the way my science tutor was patient with me when I didn’t understand evolution. The way she explained things made a lot of sense to me after a while.”"
From - How to have productive disagreements about politics and religion ​

Sometimes, just expressing your own opinion without being pushy is all you need to do.
Feel free to give the entire article a gander - I found it interesting as it resonated with some of my own experiences. There have definitely been questions asked around RF that have felt like "evidence proves blue is the best color" like the various "prove your religion" threads I've seen from time to time. What are your thoughts on this, though?

If you're someone who tends to use facts when trying to persuade others on the subject of religion, why do you think that is? Do you feel you've had success with it? What obstacles have you faced?

When others have tried to persuade you using facts, how do you usually react? Do you feel like that person has communicated effectively with you? In what cases do facts appeal to you, and in what cases do they feel irrelevant?

These prompts are only starting points for reflection... feel free to take it in other directions.

I agree entirely that arguing about facts is usually beside the point in discussing religion. The core purpose of most religion is to provide a guide to living one's life, through inspiring stories of the lives of holy people and their teaching. It is not the purpose of religion to provide an alternative account of the physical world.

 

[icehorse]

As long as religious folks keep their religious discussions in religious contexts things seem ok. It's when the religious move into domains that are fact based that we start to have problems. Why can't people just agree that faith is faith and facts are facts.

 

[dybmh]

For certain kinds of topics, arguing over facts doesn't result in a productive debate or discussion.

I agree.

This tends to happen when the topic relates to personal ideologies that tread into being matters of opinion rather than matters of fact. In the English language, we'll typically use "believe that" or "feel that" language when talking about ourselves or our opinions.

Some people act like they are offended by the concept of belief, or maybe they see people with strong beliefs causing the majority of political problems world-wide. If this is their judgement, I cannot fault their reasoning.

If you're someone who tends to use facts when trying to persuade others on the subject of religion, why do you think that is? Do you feel you've had success with it? What obstacles have you faced?

I try not to persuade. But I suspect it comes off that way. I think it's easy to pick on people with religious beliefs. For me, it's sticking up for people who are often teased.

 

[Revoltingest]

It all depends upon what one is trying to do & with which facts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As long as religious folks keep their religious discussions in religious contexts things seem ok. It's when the religious move into domains that are fact based that we start to have problems. Why can't people just agree that faith is faith and facts are facts.

That would be because they are the wings of one bird. Both Religion and Science are paths to knowledge of who and what we are, both are needed for humanity to fly.

To seperate them, is to set an imbalance.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be because they are the wings of one bird. Both Religion and Science are paths to knowledge of who and what we are, both are needed for humanity to fly.

To seperate them, is to set an imbalance.

Regards Tony

I prefer to be off balance.
The old one hand clapping, eh.

 

[dybmh]

Facts would make a big difference if religion could produce some facts to back up some of their claims. I think that is the point most skeptics get hung up on, the lack of empirical evidence. However, I can see how it would be convenient for believers to establish a narrative that facts should not be used to prove their claims; however, personally, I don't see why religion should deserve special exemption.

Respectfully: Laws in science are few. Theories in science are many. No special exemption. Science is a process.

 

[Nakosis]

Exposure changes opinion more than facts do.

Exposure to FOX News, exposure to CNN, exposure to tweets, radio, movies. So I think what's implied is that in the realm of opinion, exposure works better than a stated fact to change opinion.

So actual exposure to a religion works better than a series of stated facts in changing opinion about that religion.

Not a lot of folks are involved in scientific research, so there is limited exposure. Exposing people to science itself, the endeavors of science would do more to change people's opinions than posting a bunch of facts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I prefer to be off balance.
The old one hand clapping, eh.

Then you are happy for the world to also offer this. Could it not be said one who takes this position, then aids the imbalance?

Regards Tony

 

[icehorse]

That would be because they are the wings of one bird. Both Religion and Science are paths to knowledge of who and what we are, both are needed for humanity to fly.

To seperate them, is to set an imbalance.

Regards Tony

It's usually not useful to compare apples to oranges. I'm not (in this case), arguing against religion. But religion is based on faith, not facts.

 

[dybmh]

I prefer to be off balance.
The old one hand clapping, eh.

You make it seem so simple, so artful

Off balance for me = THUD

Are you sure you're not a Scottish custodian Yogi?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Respectfully: Laws in science are few. Theories in science are many. No special exemption. Science is a process.

Laws aren't above theories though, they're just major tenants of a theory which can be expressed in equative formula.
Germ theory is universally accepted but has no 'law.'