• BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.

    Unfortunately arguing only works if the other party is open to it.

    • Squiglet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There must be a desire on both sides to get to the truth. If one of the sides already believes he knows what is truth, then its pointless. It becomes a situation where that person’s objective is not to get to the bottom of things, but to convince you he/she is right. Unconsciously I do this sometimes with some of my beliefs, and its hard not to do it. It requires some level of maturity, not getting attached to beliefs, and rather adhere to an uncertainty principle.

      Another situation is acting in bad faith. Someone who gives zero shits about truth and its only desire is to advance his position/power.

      The 1st example it might still be possible to bring the other around by hard facts, sometimes. The 2nd its hopeless because there is no desire for truth.

    • sauerkraus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      When I argue in a public forum my goal is directed more to third parties than to an individual who may not be acting in good faith.