--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Plus, its my observation, that people are far less likely > > to change their minds, is sustained and deeps ways, if > > you simple challenge their beliefs. They may indeed dig > > in deeper not that their egos are involved. It is often > > more productive, from my experience, to create conditions > > that enable the "believer" to challenge their own ideas, > > and to see the light -- to create that "ah ha" experience > > within them - on their own terms, using their own logic. > > Not always easy -- but not always hard either. > > Exactly what I think. > > As I've said to Curtis, it seems to me that one way to > approach this is to address actual behavior without > reference to beliefs. > > If you can make a convincing case to the believer that > a particular behavior is actually harmful, with no > redeeming value--preferably by using examples of harm > that the believer is familiar with firsthand (such as > banishing a gay child)--the believer is going to have > to question the belief that this is something God wants > them to do, since God presumably wants only what is > good. > > And once this question has arisen, it can lead to other > questions, such as whether the believer has accurately > interpreted the scripture of his/her religion, or even > perhaps whether the scripture itself accurately > represents what God wants. From there, all kinds of > additional questions become possible, right up to and > including God's very existence.
Good questions are like kleenex -- one leads to another -- more questions. And points of view, premised on particular assumptions - can swing back and forth -- or in a spiral upwards. And can lead to a Hegelian type dialectic where an initial idea or view -- when the linchpin assumptions are removed, can create an opposite view. The resolution of the conflict -- synthesis becomes a new view subject to the same eternal swing. Asking (oneself or others) the right questions can trigger an inner landslide and reconstruction that is more powerful than direct argument. > > As you say, if it's the *believer* who asks these > questions of him/herself, it's much more powerful than > if the critic poses them. > > The *primary* goal, though, IMHO, is to stop the bad > behavior and the suffering it inflicts. If beliefs > change or are dropped as a result--and there's no > guarantee of that--it's a bonus. But futzing around > with epistemological challenges which, valid though > they may be, don't influence the bad behavior means > that the suffering inflicted by the bad behavior > continues. Yes. And not disagreeing -- but "bad" behavior, one could speculate, may be a swing of the Hegelian dialectic-- in ideas but also action. The "bad" thing" invokes and opposite behavior (in our selves or others), get synthesized, is re-contracted -- resynthesized etc. Who can say the swing to the "bad"side was unproductive in that it lead to the swing to the good side. The cycle, one may view, is all good. > It's more satisfying intellectually to trot out one's > grasp of epistemology and use it to triumphantly > wrestle the beliefs to the ground, but it's unlikely > to spur the same wrestling on the part of the believer. But it may help one resolve issues internally. That is, when people argue vigorously against another -- or their ideas -- this can be a facade -- or smoke screen -- to the real action -- we are arguing with our selves -- trying to convince ourselves of the merit of our current view. > To the believer, the virtue of faith is that it > transcends epistemology. > > (I subscribe to the rest of the points Tartbrain makes > as well, BTW.) >
