I didn’t review the exchange in detail, but my $0.02 in general: if I’m dealing with someone who is making claims that seem incoherent to me, and I decide it’s actually worth engaging with that person, my preferred approach is to ask them specific questions to clarify what their claim actually is.
So, faced with something like “what if the soul is the energy?” and the decision to engage with it, I’d be inclined to follow up with some version of “OK, what if it is? What would I expect to experience if it were, and how is that different from what I’d expect to experience if it weren’t?”
I know this is somewhat anecdotal, but that’s the approach that the hosts on the Atheist Experience call-in TV show have learned to take with religious callers, over the course of years of experience. It seems to be simply the right thing to do in this kind of discussion: ask questions, and let the other guy dig the grave for his ideas. For one thing, this forces the person you’re talking with to think, rather than just repeating incoherent ideas while ignoring anything you say. For another, it lets you argue with what they’re actually saying, rather than what you think they might be saying.
It’s Judo-style arguing: instead of throwing the other guy to the ground, you guide his motion so he falls down from his own weight. I’ve personally found this to be the most effective method for such arguments, especially when you can maneuver the other person into seeing a contradiction or unfortunate implications.
That said, I know lots of people who seem to prefer the more punch-to-the-solar-plexus style of arguing, and it seems to work pretty well for them to achieve the goal of making other people “fall down” efficiently.
For my own part, I’m usually less interested in knocking people down in conversations than various other things we might be doing, so I don’t care too much… but different people have different goals.
I didn’t review the exchange in detail, but my $0.02 in general: if I’m dealing with someone who is making claims that seem incoherent to me, and I decide it’s actually worth engaging with that person, my preferred approach is to ask them specific questions to clarify what their claim actually is.
So, faced with something like “what if the soul is the energy?” and the decision to engage with it, I’d be inclined to follow up with some version of “OK, what if it is? What would I expect to experience if it were, and how is that different from what I’d expect to experience if it weren’t?”
But I don’t know that it’s any better.
I know this is somewhat anecdotal, but that’s the approach that the hosts on the Atheist Experience call-in TV show have learned to take with religious callers, over the course of years of experience. It seems to be simply the right thing to do in this kind of discussion: ask questions, and let the other guy dig the grave for his ideas. For one thing, this forces the person you’re talking with to think, rather than just repeating incoherent ideas while ignoring anything you say. For another, it lets you argue with what they’re actually saying, rather than what you think they might be saying.
It’s Judo-style arguing: instead of throwing the other guy to the ground, you guide his motion so he falls down from his own weight. I’ve personally found this to be the most effective method for such arguments, especially when you can maneuver the other person into seeing a contradiction or unfortunate implications.
(nods)
That said, I know lots of people who seem to prefer the more punch-to-the-solar-plexus style of arguing, and it seems to work pretty well for them to achieve the goal of making other people “fall down” efficiently.
For my own part, I’m usually less interested in knocking people down in conversations than various other things we might be doing, so I don’t care too much… but different people have different goals.