It blew into my mind

I was drying my hair just now and thinking about if I could reply to this post on cognitive dissident. I was pondering The Great Debate and what I've learned so far is that it's not about changing minds. It's about having the conversations. It's about being able to talk to people that are completely opposite from you and come away feeling like you've learned something about them. Whether you agree with what you learned or not, the point is you are always learning something new from different worldviews. It's also about improving your position. And then into my head popped Christopher Hitchens. I remembered during The Four Horsemen when they were talking about if it would be best if religion was gone entirely. Only Hitchens said he didn't want religion to go away. He said it would end the debate. I'm including the clip below. Listen to it. You might not agree, certainly Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris do not but Hitchens is a fan of The Great Debate. I'm not sure if I am a fan. I don't particularly enjoy debating because I like to win and usually feel poorly when I don't. Perhaps I am just not practiced enough yet. So while I don't necessarily agree with Hitchens, I can now understand what he is saying. When I watched this video a few months ago I thought he was crazy. Who wouldn't want a world free of religion and superstition? I still do though.

So back to Haidt and this question from cd:

The "backfire effect" explains the impervious-to-reason problem I've seen, although it leaves me with another question: if exposure to the facts won't change conservatives' minds, what will?

The answer, I think, is nothing. Sure exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking will help. Repeated exposure is even better but until a person decides in themselves that they are ready to ask the questions, they simply will not. With religion, you can't argue with faith. Either you have it or you do not. In politics, it's the "backfire effect". Once you are in that cycle, you are likely to stay there. It's pretty uncomfortable to leave your safety zone and people these days do not like to be uncomfortable. With all the information on the Internet, you'd think we could find out anything but even I find myself just hanging out with my "own". I don't read conservative blogs or join social networking sites for Christians. And they don't want me to either. People don't want to participate in The Great Debate. They want to be right.

By the way, I went looking for a good link for The Great Debate but the truth is there isn't just one, it's many. Google it and you'll see. There's stem cell research, atheism vs. religion, the Shapley-Curtis debate of 1920, etc. The Great Debate is a conversation between two opposing viewpoints that leads to greater understanding. So get talking. Stick to your principles, be respectful, be passionate, but most of all learn something!

Learn more about debating here at Debatepedia.