You're right, neither of the participants was going to be converted. I knew that going in, and now that he has expressed a desire to conclude, I won't pursue it any further. I have several reasons for responding to him.
I feel like I have, in a way, stood up on the rooftop of the internet to defend certain things, and in so doing, practically invited challenge. When challenged to provide the things of value that I claim to possess, it would seem strange to me if I withheld it. I constantly tell people that reasoning with each other is preferable to the only alternative means of approaching a conflict: coercion, deception and emotionalistic distraction. That means I have set forth certain rules, and must obey my rules as I wish others would do.
But there is some benefit from exposure to those who are different from us. David Brin wrote a novel titled "Earth" in which internet filters are able to keep every person completely insulated from views or personalities not compatable with their own. I am constantly astonished by the people in the circles I now travel in who have no idea how ubiquitous this man is. He, in his turn, gets very little exposure to you. If nothing else, each interaction slightly nudges our idea of what the "average person" is like. In other words, how normal are our good and sane friends who refer to themselves as religious? Is my correspondent the exception that proves the rule, or are they? I participate to remind myself how shocking my statements are to most people. That way I don't fall into the trap he has fallen into, where his beliefs are so normal to him that they seem self-evident.
Third, you never really know how his expression of faith is going to be molded, in a tiny way, as a response to what he heard from me. It will be molded in another tiny step by something he hears elsewhere. The entire establishment of enlightened liberal religion is probably due to this.
no subject
I feel like I have, in a way, stood up on the rooftop of the internet to defend certain things, and in so doing, practically invited challenge. When challenged to provide the things of value that I claim to possess, it would seem strange to me if I withheld it. I constantly tell people that reasoning with each other is preferable to the only alternative means of approaching a conflict: coercion, deception and emotionalistic distraction. That means I have set forth certain rules, and must obey my rules as I wish others would do.
But there is some benefit from exposure to those who are different from us. David Brin wrote a novel titled "Earth" in which internet filters are able to keep every person completely insulated from views or personalities not compatable with their own. I am constantly astonished by the people in the circles I now travel in who have no idea how ubiquitous this man is. He, in his turn, gets very little exposure to you. If nothing else, each interaction slightly nudges our idea of what the "average person" is like. In other words, how normal are our good and sane friends who refer to themselves as religious? Is my correspondent the exception that proves the rule, or are they? I participate to remind myself how shocking my statements are to most people. That way I don't fall into the trap he has fallen into, where his beliefs are so normal to him that they seem self-evident.
Third, you never really know how his expression of faith is going to be molded, in a tiny way, as a response to what he heard from me. It will be molded in another tiny step by something he hears elsewhere. The entire establishment of enlightened liberal religion is probably due to this.