... with apologies to Milan Kundera
https://hbr.org/2011/02/arguing-is-pointless.htmlThink about it. You and someone have an opposing view and you argue. You pretend to listen to what she’s saying but what you’re really doing is thinking about the weakness in her argument so you can disprove it. Or perhaps, if she’s debunked a previous point, you’re thinking of new counter-arguments. Or, maybe, you’ve made it personal: it’s not just her argument that’s the problem. It’s her. And everyone who agrees with her.
In some rare cases, you might think the argument has merit. What then? Do you change your mind? Probably not. Instead, you make a mental note that you need to investigate the issue more to uncover the right argument to prove the person wrong.
There are only two areas where arguments are fruitful; the courtroom and science.
Here we argue religion. Is it pointless?
The unbeliever suggests the world is round, evolution is true, and abiogenesis is close to being proven. The believer scoffs. He may admit the world is round; he may concede an aspect of evolution, but deny it in general and completely deny the possibility of abiogenesis.
The believer claims science is a religion and God is the author of all things. The unbeliever scoffs and demands evidence.
Let us suppose abiogenesis is demonstrated. How many Christians will agree, "There is no God?"
Let us suppose Jesus returns to Earth in all his glory with a host of angels and the stars are swept from the heavens. Will the atheist confess his error?
Perhaps the only point in arguing religion is in the craftsmanship of the argument rather than in its effectiveness to persuade.
