|
All so-called discussions start with believers taunting readers to engage on a rational argument. Then, as AZ finely detailed, the "discussion" jumps, shifts and changes in a mercurial manner. The rationalist engages because the argument is presented in a rational manner and, in so doing, implicitly validates the believer's position that the belief is admissible and cannot be dismissed. This is pr oven by the rationalists very participation to the discussion and *not* by the content of his participation, which is therefore in effect irrelevant. There are thus two logical possibilities: 1- Refuse to participate, which amounts to validating the believer's implied secondary message that the rationalist's perspective is weak or demeaning, and therefore weak. 2- Neutralize the argument by reminding publicly the believer that belief is defined at the root by a break with reason and logic (e.g. the famed "leap of faith"), which makes arguments based on logic and reason logically irrelevant. The question naturally follows of knowing why a believer would need to adulterate, indeed question, his belief with reason and logic. Is the belief too weak? Is the believer insincere? Aggressive? Golden Rule: when a believer attacks on reason and logic, counter-attack on belief, never on reason or logic.
|