There are layers of objections to "abrahamic" theism coming from the PoE. Critics of it have patience for discussing the first layer or two, but, I have never met a critic who is willing to look at it in total, acknowlege and evaluate their assumptions, and fill in the gaps in their knowledge of theology.
For me, I found a great deal of solace putting the peices together, seeing the puzzle completed. Because. I love my religion. That's what fueled my pssion to find an answer to this problem. Critics, I expect, receive that same sense of solace from their objections. This has the converse effect. They have almost zero patience for discussing this in depth. For these people, the perceived inherent contradicitons in the abrahamic faith are very important for them, personally, in order for the individual to make sense of the world. In the worst cases, showing the individual that they're wrong about the PoE, will send them into a bit of tail-spin. It's because the hooks and barbs from the their childhood indoctrination never really go away. The religion was engraved on their personality. It will always be there, the individual will need to re-convince themself, justify, regularly, that leaving their faith, and all the associated heart-ache, family turmoil, that comes with it, was the right choice for them. If they're shown they're wrong about the PoE, it opens up the possibllity they are wrong about God. This is not good for the bible-critic who is coping with being raised in a harmful environment.
If the individual, like me, finds solace in the the PoE, but from the opposing valence, they will never listen to me with an open mind for the entire duration of the discussion. It's too complicated. They're going to lose patience. Naturally. It will be be irritating for them. I'll be accused of apologetics, with mocking and virtual snickers. And, I completely understand. But, this puts me in an awkward position. I need to determine whether or not the individual actually wants me to answer the question. Or, are they arguing with me looking for an opportnity to validate the reasons they left their faith, the reasons they blame the ignorant irrational God-believers in America ( and Israel ) for the entire world's problems. If I decide, "Yes, they are actually curious" then I need to decide where to begin. Should I just go for it, and explain in detail from the beginning? Or, do I give little bits which don't actually address the dilemma, but, at least I look like I have some of it figured out. Even if I don't solve it completely for the individual, it will produce a modicum of credibility for future discussion?
But. Regardless of my approach:
If they are looking for validation, if they need my religion to be wrong and false and contadictiory in order to make sense of the world? To be completely honest, it's probably wrong for me to take that away from them. They need to find fault my religion, in that way? To make sense of their world and the circumstances they observe around them, near and far?
