If you’re more concerned with sending the message out rather than getting credit, then multiple psuedonyms tackling different levels of inferential gaps might be a possibility in the internet era.
You can have one psuedonym who is atheist and is targetting the root questions, however people coming to this final level will be relatively few. You might be mostly preaching to the choir here.
You can have another psuedonym of a tolerant religious person who would write a post like the one you are trying to write. You can signal plently over here. You can say that you are a believer and that love is paramount, etc.
And even if you don’t have any moral qualms such tactics are reasonably likely to be discovered, will completely discredit you and by association everyone arguing on the same side as you if they are, and are therefore liable to do much more harm than good to your cause.
Example: So-called “climategate”, where the actual misbehaviour was comparatively harmless. Ideologists apparently are much better at getting away with dishonesty than rationalists.
Also countless usenet aruments where sockpuppets got exposed.
Yes, there are countless usenet arguments where sockpuppets got exposed, so we ought to be able to figure out what happens. It looks to me that they make it difficult for the puppeteer to be taken seriously in that venue in the future, and thus are a net loss, but they don’t look to me like they damage the puppeteer’s side in that venue or the puppeteer in other venues. Sock puppets probably mainly appear in situations that are already so polarized that nothing is really going to happen. The puppetry just gives an excuse to declare beyond the pale someone who wasn’t really being engaged anyhow. That’s certainly how climategate looks to me: people who don’t talk to each other looking for excuses not to talk to each other.
Surely it would be better in multiple ways to simply find a well-spoken religious person with whom you can work. He will have more knowledge of his audience than you have, so there’s a practical benefit, as well as the moral benefit of not being dishonest.
If you’re more concerned with sending the message out rather than getting credit, then multiple psuedonyms tackling different levels of inferential gaps might be a possibility in the internet era.
You can have one psuedonym who is atheist and is targetting the root questions, however people coming to this final level will be relatively few. You might be mostly preaching to the choir here.
You can have another psuedonym of a tolerant religious person who would write a post like the one you are trying to write. You can signal plently over here. You can say that you are a believer and that love is paramount, etc.
Use sockpuppets? Lie?
And even if you don’t have any moral qualms such tactics are reasonably likely to be discovered, will completely discredit you and by association everyone arguing on the same side as you if they are, and are therefore liable to do much more harm than good to your cause.
I don’t think that’s historically accurate.
Example: So-called “climategate”, where the actual misbehaviour was comparatively harmless. Ideologists apparently are much better at getting away with dishonesty than rationalists.
Also countless usenet aruments where sockpuppets got exposed.
Yes, there are countless usenet arguments where sockpuppets got exposed, so we ought to be able to figure out what happens. It looks to me that they make it difficult for the puppeteer to be taken seriously in that venue in the future, and thus are a net loss, but they don’t look to me like they damage the puppeteer’s side in that venue or the puppeteer in other venues. Sock puppets probably mainly appear in situations that are already so polarized that nothing is really going to happen. The puppetry just gives an excuse to declare beyond the pale someone who wasn’t really being engaged anyhow. That’s certainly how climategate looks to me: people who don’t talk to each other looking for excuses not to talk to each other.
Surely it would be better in multiple ways to simply find a well-spoken religious person with whom you can work. He will have more knowledge of his audience than you have, so there’s a practical benefit, as well as the moral benefit of not being dishonest.