![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastIn Tip#7, I explained that other believers aren't a good source on the minds or beliefs of nonbelievers. In that same tip, I advised asking the nonbelievers about the nonbelievers.
Let me add on another tip for how you ask.
A common element of my experience with people who are trying to convince me of their faith is being asked a leading question. The claim is often made that this is a genuine attempt to learn. Sometimes, it even is. In either case, the answer is soon followed up by the apologist pouncing upon a perceived flaw in my position, regardless of if the flaw stated is anything close to an accurate understanding of my position.
Like I said, this can start out as a genuine attempt to understand my position, but one that is quickly fumbled by an eagerness to find error. It can also be a dishonest attempt to create an opening for a criticism and apologetic. One of the important things you need to keep in mind is that, from the nonbeliever's perspective, the two look remarkably similar, costing you credibility.
From your perspective, either position also leaves you without accurate information. You can't find fault with a set of beliefs you can't accurately describe. And, you can't accurately describe if you're looking to find fault.
This doesn't mean that you can't find fault, simply that the process needs to be handled step-by-step. First, you ask the questions, you ask for clarifications, you attempt to accurately and respectfully describe the disagreeing position. Once that is done, then you look over the position for potential faults.
Let me add on another tip for how you ask.
A common element of my experience with people who are trying to convince me of their faith is being asked a leading question. The claim is often made that this is a genuine attempt to learn. Sometimes, it even is. In either case, the answer is soon followed up by the apologist pouncing upon a perceived flaw in my position, regardless of if the flaw stated is anything close to an accurate understanding of my position.
Like I said, this can start out as a genuine attempt to understand my position, but one that is quickly fumbled by an eagerness to find error. It can also be a dishonest attempt to create an opening for a criticism and apologetic. One of the important things you need to keep in mind is that, from the nonbeliever's perspective, the two look remarkably similar, costing you credibility.
From your perspective, either position also leaves you without accurate information. You can't find fault with a set of beliefs you can't accurately describe. And, you can't accurately describe if you're looking to find fault.
This doesn't mean that you can't find fault, simply that the process needs to be handled step-by-step. First, you ask the questions, you ask for clarifications, you attempt to accurately and respectfully describe the disagreeing position. Once that is done, then you look over the position for potential faults.
