I suspect the best approach is not a lengthy, coherent argument—but planting a seed of doubt. They’ll object strenuously and often stupidly, but it’ll stick in their minds.
Read this review of a TV show on the historicity of the Bible. When someone starts by presuming a television show about actual history and archaeology is an “attack” and says, as if it’s a debate-winning argument, “there isn’t much point trying to attack a religion using facts” … you’re not in the rational zone, but in the “foundations of my world are rocking somewhat” zone.
(This is why I really like the notion of planting seeds of rationality—it’s like the difference between exposing someone to radiation and feeding them radioactive material. Perhaps that’s not the very best analogy ;-) )
I suspect the best approach is not a lengthy, coherent argument—but planting a seed of doubt. They’ll object strenuously and often stupidly, but it’ll stick in their minds.
Read this review of a TV show on the historicity of the Bible. When someone starts by presuming a television show about actual history and archaeology is an “attack” and says, as if it’s a debate-winning argument, “there isn’t much point trying to attack a religion using facts” … you’re not in the rational zone, but in the “foundations of my world are rocking somewhat” zone.
(This is why I really like the notion of planting seeds of rationality—it’s like the difference between exposing someone to radiation and feeding them radioactive material. Perhaps that’s not the very best analogy ;-) )