thread: 2005-06-06 : Happenings
On 2005-06-06, The Metallian wrote:
On the topic of #5, here's a question that's been bugging me a lot in recent years: "How can a non-religious person have a productive discussion with a religious person about a real-world matter on which the religious person holds an opposing position for purely religious reasons?" The media answer is to have endless partisan screaming matches. My answer is to shrug and agree to disagree. Neither is very productive.
I can't wrap my brain around a way to solve the fundamental problem that the religious person may consider the non-religious person's ("earthly") concerns inconsequental relative to their conception of the Divine, whereas the non-religious person considers the religious person's purely-religious concerns to be (functionally, if not definitively) unfounded. They're just not trading in the same currency. In a discussion with someone who is "on the same page," you can score points by introducing new evidence. What do you do when none of the evidence you believe in matters to the other person?
It's tricky for me, because while I was (gradually) persuaded towards positions that conflicted with my (now-former) religious beliefs, I was religious more by default and out of laziness than anything else. I have no personal experience with well-considered and deeply-held faith, so I don't know how to address the concerns of people who have it. I suspect that your experience is more relevant than mine, and I enjoy reading your analyses of other issues, so I'd love to see what you have to say on the subject.
(You can use the same-sex marriage issue in MA as a working example if you'd like.)
