We do see theologians try to respond to these sorts of issues. Look at the many attempts to deal with {fate, free will, existence of evil, God’s omniscience,God’s omnipotence, God’s omnibenevolence}. We don’t get deep controversies. Instead we get theologians competing with how sophisticated they can make arguments to try to have their cake and eat it too. Meanwhile in almost any tribe(whether united by religion, politics or something else), the vast majority of members go about their days without giving any serious thought to whether any of their tribes standard beliefs contradict each other.
That is actually very clever. I wonder if one could do this for other arguments. The form would be something along these lines, perhaps?
If (agreed upon belief of our tribe) is true, then (belief that is controversial within our tribe) is very likely to be true.
(Belief that is controversial within our tribe) is not likely to be true.
Therefore, (agreed upon belief of our tribe) is false.
Then one has the enemy-tribe argue for proposition 1.
We do see theologians try to respond to these sorts of issues. Look at the many attempts to deal with {fate, free will, existence of evil, God’s omniscience,God’s omnipotence, God’s omnibenevolence}. We don’t get deep controversies. Instead we get theologians competing with how sophisticated they can make arguments to try to have their cake and eat it too. Meanwhile in almost any tribe(whether united by religion, politics or something else), the vast majority of members go about their days without giving any serious thought to whether any of their tribes standard beliefs contradict each other.