Yes, there are contradictions in the teachings of the Catholic and other
churches—but using logic to convince people their religion is mistaken does
not seem to work very well.
Believers have a deep emotional connection with their religion and (at least
as important) a social bond with their co-believers. They are not going to
give that up so easily, ‘just’ because of some logic.
“but using logic to convince people their religion is mistaken does not seem to work very well.”
It worked for me. To be precise not “logic” but “epistemology” but you get the point. There are (few) believers who are open to reason and only haven’t come around to thinking things through yet. I had to think about my religion for years and build a rigorous logical framework of christianity before I could identify the one faulty assumption on which all was resting.
Regarding the OP, I don’t think arguing over minor points instead of the whole deal is futile. As I said, I needed to start thinking logically within my religious framework before I could break out of it. Of course I can’t generalize from one data point, but still I am one example where this tactic worked.
Good it worked for you! Obviously, in these circles (LW) there is a bit of selection bias present for basing things on logic, reasoning and epistemology...
Interesting in this respect is Yale’s Cultural Cognition, which tries to identify the
cultural values that influence people’s opinion about controversial matters.
Many (most?) people seem to be quite willing to bend logic and reasoning a bit to arrive at the desired conclusion.
Regarding the OP, I don’t think arguing over minor points instead of the whole deal is futile. As I said, I needed to start thinking logically within my religious framework before I could break out of it. Of course I can’t generalize from one data point, but still I am one example where this tactic worked.
I actually also started challenging my childhood religion because of smallish inconsistencies in my family’s faith.
As djcb points out, this may not be an effective tact for most people, but for potential rationalists it might be significantly more effective, and therefore worthwhile (depending on your original intentions).
before I could identify the one faulty assumption on which all was resting.
What was that one assumption? I’m impressed by your approach here: what made you decide to build a rigorous logical framework of your beliefs? The details of building that type of framework would make a great top level post, and it would be useful to all of us, regardless of what our beliefs are.
I think this path leads away from the original post, so I will be brief. The one assumption that remained to the end was the assumption that I could have a justified belief in god even without evidence. Since LW is all about what’s wrong with that, I don’t think I could add anything substantial to what is already there. And to show how simple the usual atheist arguments can be refuted once you make this one assumption might be an interesting but ultimately futile point.
Yes, there are contradictions in the teachings of the Catholic and other churches—but using logic to convince people their religion is mistaken does not seem to work very well.
Believers have a deep emotional connection with their religion and (at least as important) a social bond with their co-believers. They are not going to give that up so easily, ‘just’ because of some logic.
“but using logic to convince people their religion is mistaken does not seem to work very well.”
It worked for me. To be precise not “logic” but “epistemology” but you get the point. There are (few) believers who are open to reason and only haven’t come around to thinking things through yet. I had to think about my religion for years and build a rigorous logical framework of christianity before I could identify the one faulty assumption on which all was resting.
Regarding the OP, I don’t think arguing over minor points instead of the whole deal is futile. As I said, I needed to start thinking logically within my religious framework before I could break out of it. Of course I can’t generalize from one data point, but still I am one example where this tactic worked.
Good it worked for you! Obviously, in these circles (LW) there is a bit of selection bias present for basing things on logic, reasoning and epistemology...
Interesting in this respect is Yale’s Cultural Cognition, which tries to identify the cultural values that influence people’s opinion about controversial matters. Many (most?) people seem to be quite willing to bend logic and reasoning a bit to arrive at the desired conclusion.
I actually also started challenging my childhood religion because of smallish inconsistencies in my family’s faith.
As djcb points out, this may not be an effective tact for most people, but for potential rationalists it might be significantly more effective, and therefore worthwhile (depending on your original intentions).
What was that one assumption? I’m impressed by your approach here: what made you decide to build a rigorous logical framework of your beliefs? The details of building that type of framework would make a great top level post, and it would be useful to all of us, regardless of what our beliefs are.
I think this path leads away from the original post, so I will be brief. The one assumption that remained to the end was the assumption that I could have a justified belief in god even without evidence. Since LW is all about what’s wrong with that, I don’t think I could add anything substantial to what is already there. And to show how simple the usual atheist arguments can be refuted once you make this one assumption might be an interesting but ultimately futile point.