How can we approach gracious dialogue to counter science cynicism?

[Daniel_Fisher]

And if interesting to take a case in point… I’d mentioned…

@Daniel_Fisher

Be willing to acknowledge the scientific or rational reasons others have for their alternate convictions, rather than attributing their different beliefs automatically to problematic philosophical or religious reasons. Much (though certainly not all) argument I’ve encountered here against ID is a version of what CS Lewis called “Bulverism.” Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ as he noted, “you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.”

And right on cue, as if to illustrate…

@sfmatheson

I concluded that discussions of MN, like this one, were never about science or its underpinnings but about the curious need for so many believers to have a god that does magic. These therefore are not questions for scientists, or even for philosophers, but for sociologists.