well, let me be honest. i also find this -- and other equally or even more preposterous beliefs -- exasperating, frustrating, even insidious. how do you express that exasperation and even genuine concern without insulting someone? i don't know if you can.
howEVa (channeling stephen a smith), here's the thing: how do you talk to someone like that in a way that might actually start to pry them loose from all those rather antiquated (if not exactly quaint) beliefs? i don't know that i have worked out the answer to that question, but it certainly isn't by attacking them or insulting them.
we can all agree that generally speaking, you don't sway people's opinions by attacking their integrity, insulting their intelligence, or questioning their motives.
now, if we don't want to change people's minds, that's another story. but isn't that what we want?
and if we don't want to do it *in a religious mode* (i.e., by "converting" people from religion to . . . what? atheism? communism? what?), then it cannot be some bizarre, manipulative appeal to unconscious needs, but by trying to open up the genuine thinking that helps people see flaws in their own logic.
i get it all the time in my bible classes. we sit there and *read the text*. and inevitably, once or twice or three times over the course of the semester, someone will raise his or her hand and say, "but didn't so and so do 'this'?" and i'll say, "do you see that in what you just read?" and they will look down at their bible and back up at me and say, "no". and i'll say, "so what would you say is the answer to your question?" and they'll say, "but that's what i was taught happens". and i'll say, "do you see it in what you just read?" and they'll say, "no". and i'll say, "so does it look like so and so did 'this'?" and they'll say, "no, it doesn't". and i'll say, "then there's the answer to your question."
now obviously, there's a lot that happens around this (and yes, we do talk about traditions of interpretation, thank you very much), and more importantly, you can't have this kind of conversation in everyday situations.
but, while i understand the anger very well, i just don't understand the rhetorical strategy of hostility. it never convinces anyone. it's just preaching to the choir (ahem), which of course is a lot of what passes for political discourse in the US, these days.
um, does that help? probably not. the truth is i haven't come up with a good answer. but maybe if more people were looking for an answer instead of arguing about the value of the question, there'd be some progress.
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead