by Noah Lugeons
The nature of most religious arguments is doomed from the start. It amazes me how often I’ll theoretically concede a point just to point out that even then, they’ve done nothing to prove their point. I will say, in effect, “You’re not right, but even if you were right, you still wouldn’t be right.”
How many religious debates hinge on things that barely crack the 3rd layer of the diagram above? How often does the would-be apologist fail to even break the surface? Arguing against evolution, the big bang, the secular root for morality, the existence of this or that miracle… none of this would even make it into the red.
It’s a really indicator of just how soundly we’re winning the debate. At one time the best we could hope for was to stand in the yellow and argue with the folks in the orange. Before Darwin, most learned men and women (and how woefully few learned women there were then) had to stand in the red and argue against the yellow.
But as empiricism charges forward, the mental-missionaries find themselves in constant retreat. When they pick away at tiny nuggets of their own ignorance about evolution or abiogenesis, they’re breaking their pick-axes against the blue. It’s gotten so bad for them that if they can convince one poor sap to even momentarily doubt evolution, they consider it a victory. Never mind that this does nothing to prove superstition, theism, religion or their own personal religion. They’re breaking out the party hats if they can simply convince someone to think perhaps something someone else told them might be flawed.
