In my opinion it’s on you to substantiate your argument if you are trying to get someone to re-examine their faith. That means you link to the linguist and historian who explain whatever point you are making, but ideally you would be able to present a summary in your own words too.
~Max
Well, the Bible DOES say that we have a responsibility to correct others who are in error! 
Seriously, though, combating ignorance is a moral value, but it’s madness to extend that to the point of feeling obligated to correct any random person on the internet who says something wrong. Claiming such an obligation sounds more like an excuse for rudeness.
And pointing out someone’s ignorance in a context where they’re obviously not going to change their mind based on what you have to say, and may well feel threatened and dig in even deeper, isn’t fulfilling any moral obligation, it’s just being one more jerk on the internet.
If you enjoy these conversations, go for it, but the chance of any actual positive result is small enough that there’s no reason to bother unless you enjoy it.
As far as whether it’s “ethical” to correct them, if they’re the ones who chose to take the conversation in that direction, there’s no reason you need to hold back from sharing your honest opinion IMO. The only reason would be if you particularly want to maintain a positive relationship with that person, which presumably wouldn’t apply to random folks on FB.
Although combatting misinformation is a moral obligation, you aren’t going to combat it with a deluge of FACTS. Why? Because people don’t learn that way. They don’t think that way. Even scientists don’t, even you don’t. You gather your information and create your belief map just the way Mrs.Flat Earth does: you use the sources you trust and the intelligence you have and the training you have. You can’t readily tell what shape the earth is from where you are standing right now. You go by what you have been taught, including how you’ve been taught to make inferences and all the rest of it. Which is what she is doing too. Slamming facts doesn’t change her world view, and only changing her world view would cause her to believe something different about the shape of the planet. Are you going to change that with facts? You will not. Ever.
People who were raised to believe in biblical literalism might change if they are surrounded by friendly others who seem morally upright good Christians, and yet negotiate the world with a different set of tools. That might give them a door to walk through into something a little less rigid but with familiar handholds.
They aren’t going go by the word of some frothing atheist who despises them. Give me a break.
I think Jim_B is specifically referring to people who believe in biblical literalism but not flat earth or young earth creationism. The debate would therefore be theological.
~Max
This is the main crux of the matter, so often missed - the source of an argument matters a lot more to people than the content.
Many religious folks would rather hear a falsehood from Fox News or a trusted friend than a truth from a source they don’t like, like CNN or MSNBC. Because the former has their trust while the latter does not.
It doesn’t matter how devastating your truth-bomb may be, if you aren’t a source that someone trusts, they won’t listen to you. You need to get their trust first.
Sidejack, perhaps?
But one place I find it utterly important, and certainly ethical to correct religious folks on is when they make statements about ANOTHER person’s religion (IE one they don’t share). We’ve had that come out on the board itself, where certain posters were making somewhat absolutist statements about a faith he had no part in and fundamentally refused to discuss it after being called out on it. The callout is in the Pit, so I’ll blur it just in case no one wants to see the names involved: Dark Sponge Knows the Secrets of Judaism - no link to avoid discourse’s back linking
Similar issues occur when someone says things like “The Quaran says XYZ” and any other flavors of bigoted belief quoted from the dark corners of the internet. Admittedly, almost any of the ‘Holy’ books have a lot of contradictory materials, and stuff that is better/worse given the literary or historical study, but people who toss out authoritative one liners on another person’s religion are almost always doing so from profound ignorance of that party’s actual practices and culture.
Still, while it is absolutely ethical IMHO, it’s not normally productive for the reasons already mentioned in the thread. It’s not exactly new for someone to quote out of context to support pre-existing ideas, especially ones that are entirely unprovable IRL, to justify their existing feelings or bigotry.
See also,
~Max
I typically steer away from discussions regarding other people’s religion - it’s their own beliefs and personally held opinions, and challenging them won’t do any good, and may make you an enemy. It’s fine to say “Let’s just agree to disagree, OK?”. However, once the discussion veers into non-secular public policy, then I will gladly chirp-up to set things right. Also, if someone is wanting to engage on my beliefs, as long as respectful, I am happy to discuss my total lack of thinking about religion.
Exactly. It probably isn’t even the Bible itself that they are trusting, but rather their pastor or other community religious leader.
Which is often simply wrong, even in the context of their own religion. That was one of the things that used to blow me away…how people who think they know so much about their own religion really don’t, even those who are their local priest or pastor or whatever.
I personally respect faith. Honestly though these people aren’t going to even listen to.you, so why bother?
I would guess this goes back to when churches started - the clergy were probably among the few literate people in town, so the common folk just took the church leader at their word for what was written in the bible. Seems to be the same today, altho presumably most people today are literate, but it’s just easier to go by what a trusted leader says, than to actually dig into the texts ones-self.
Well, Biblical scholarship isn’t something that the layman can pick up easily or quickly, so for most of the faithful, having a surface understanding of a few key precepts of their faith, and a few related Biblical passages, wind up being all they feel they need (along with a trust in their pastor/their denomination’s precepts and dogma).
Back in college, when I hung around with some fundamentalist Christians, I knew some who would read through the entire Bible over the course of a year (there were, and I presume, still are, day-by-day guides which lead you through it), though reading doesn’t necessarily lead to a deep understanding.
It also doesn’t help on the comprehension front, if you are also a person who believes that the best translation of the Bible is the King James Version, which means you’re reading an archaic form of English from the 17th and 18th Centuries.
The other factor at work is that a lot of Christianity is based off of believing something, or sticking to something, against “common sense” to the contrary.
The Bible is replete with examples of people being rewarded for this - for instance, Daniel’s three friends stubbornly refusing to bow down and worship an idol when all “common sense” would dictate that you should worship rather than be burned alive. Noah built an Ark against all “common sense” because he’d been told there would be a worldwide flood. Etc. etc.
Unfortunately, this teaching can lead to a cancerous mutation, which is that Christians then stubbornly cling to the wrong course of action and cannot be persuaded otherwise because they now think they are doing what’s right and that anyone who tells them otherwise is an evil one, trying to lure them away.
That problem is not confined to Facebook. It happens right on this board.
My guidelines on Facebook are to treat it like you would real life. And remember that posts on someone’s wall most likely go to all their friends and all of yours, so it’s not remotely a private conversation.
I would not get into an actual theological debate. I would argue moral things at times (usually when they bring it up), but then I would argue them within the framework of the person I am talking to. I would not at any point try to convince them that their religion is wrong, but I might occasionally try to convince people that Christianity is incompatible with something hateful they said. And, even then, I talk about it like I would in person, with all the softening I can muster.
People do not go on Facebook to be berated or have complicated conversations. It’s not necessarily that they want to just share something without replies. But they don’t want to get into a big fight. Just like you probably don’t get together with your friends for that purpose.
Now, an exception is when Facebook is just the comments section of a site. Then it works more like any other comments section, save with the caveat that someone who knows your real name might see it. Another exception would be groups specifically formed for the sort of conversations you are talking about.
And, of course, just like in real life, sometimes you wouldn’t have brought up the topic yourself, but are not averse to talking about it if someone else brings it up. Still, I think it’s probably good to think of it like a real life conversation, and not just an online debate.
Like it or not, the standards for discussion online and offline are different—at least, for the vast majority of people. Facebook is the weird middle child, due to being designed as a place online where you can meet with all your offline friends at once. And I think it makes more sense to treat it as offline talk.
It’s not even just the topics themselves. I find I’m just more personable in that environment, and less academic, for lack of a better word. I’m more expressive of most emotions, save for anger where I’m much more reserved.
Very good point! Wise words.
Yes, I’ve had plenty of those types of arguments.
Them: “The Bible says X”
Me: “The Bible doesn’t say X. In fact, the Bible says the opposite of X in many places.”
Them: “You’re wrong - the Bible definitely says X.”
Me: “Here are multiple excerpts of the Bible saying the opposite of X. Please show me where the Bible says X.”
Them: “Well, I know in my heart that the Bible means X, even if it doesn’t say it.”
Can’t really argue against that sort of “reasoning”.
Also, I get a lot of use out of this:
I have found that the most people know the Bible by proxy-what a lot of them “know” about the Bible comes from others pushing an agenda and not from actually reading it themselves.
In much the same way people on the internet “do their own research”.