In a nutshell, my assumption is that more dialogue between disagreeing parties is nearly always preferable to less. I realize that disagreeing parties will not always come together in agreement, and I certainly realize that dialogue cannot solve all problems. However, I find myself clinging to the idea that more discussion is better than less.
It is this assumption which leads me to write posts encouraging atheist-theist dialogue and identifying obstacles to such dialogue. Even if I recognize that such dialogue will change few minds about the theistic claim itself (i.e., that some sort of god or gods exist), I am convinced that greater dialogue is beneficial to both sides and will ultimately reduce conflict.
I suppose this assumption was ingrained in me during childhood. For years, I was not even aware of it. There have been periods in my life where it got me in trouble, as I often found myself trying to make peace by encouraging opponents to come together and talk. Obviously, it does not always work.
Still, I cling to the idea that parties coming together to discuss their differences is nearly always preferable to the alternative. I am honestly not sure why I am starting to question this now. It is difficult to question what has long been an implicit assumption, but I feel that I must do so.
I suppose my questions to you (and to myself) are along the following lines?
- Are there circumstances where increased dialogue is counterproductive, and if so, what would be some examples of such circumstances?
- Do you think that atheist-theist dialogue is something to encourage?
Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionTags:
