When you attack emotionalism with rationalism, because you believe that rationalism is the more correct, and more functional method of perceiving and reacting to the world, you 'force' the emotionalist to defend himself, ... to himself, if not to you.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "attack emotionalism with rationalism," or what you think is occurring when somebody like me disagrees with somebody that he thinks is in error, but I don't consider dissent and a rational rebuttal an attack even if the other party does. In fact, I can't identify with that reaction at all. The creationist also disagrees with me, but I don't have an emotional response to that or feel attacked.
And though I am aware that others have emotional reactions to being contradicted, they have to be responsible to manage their emotions, not others. As long as I am polite and give carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered responses, any dysphoria on the other end is the responsibility of that person. One must learn to hear criticism without an emotional response, stop offering opinions in a mixed forum which contains experienced skeptical debaters who can and will do that, or continue feeling attacked. It's unreasonable to expect those with academic standards to modify them to accommodate the emotionally immature.
It's a little like the idea that the vaccinated should accommodate those unwilling to get vaccinated out of fear or tribalism. Sorry, but if you want to live in that world, don't expect me to adapt to your vulnerability. Such people need to take care of themselves, and not expect others to do it for them at their own expense. Like the creationist who wants to interact with the people around him, but comes to the table "unvaccinated" with critical thinking skills, scientific literacy, and emotional maturity and get's hurt in the process, the unvaccinated needs to take care of himself and not expect others to adapt to him to shield him from an undesirable experience if he doesn't.
If you consider that either selfish or cruel, I disagree. And I'll bet that you aren't hurt by reading that. And if you were, that would be on you, wouldn't it?
he does, using whatever means he can muster. It may be 'warped science', or 'warped reasoning', or threats from the gods, or whatever. And you shouldn't be surprised by this.
I'm not. I think I understand how the creationist or any faith-based thinker thinks. I understand how he comes by his beliefs, and how he processes information (confirmation bias), that he is apt to take the dissent personally and view it as an attack, and that if he responds, it will not address the actual rebuttal but be some answer based on his limited understanding and perceived need to defend his faith-based belief from reason and evidence.
Because you did attack his existential paradigm. And like most humans, he responds with whatever defense he can muster.
As I said, it's his choice to view my dissent as an attack just as it's mine to not interpret his dissent as an attack on me.
I understand that such people lack the knowledge and skills to engage in such discussions rationally and dispassionately, but it was their choice to take that path, to go down the road of faith and to eschew reason and education. If there wasn't a price to pay for that choice, it wouldn't be a mistake.
It's also a mistake for such people to fail to recognize that they should not engage dissenters in conversation if it inevitably results in anger and frustration. They need to notice and acknowledge to themselves that their methods are ineffectual outside of their tribe, and to cease presenting ideas that are routinely rejected if the rejection will be vexing to them .
And they don't, if they continue to tilt at evolutionary windmills without those skills, they just have to experience rejection, however unpleasant for them. I tell such people such things form time to time, but not surprisingly, it never has any effect, and I strongly suspect it is rarely even understood. If they can't figure it out themselves or let others help figure it out for them, they're painted in.
Sorry if I don't feel like stifling or sugar coating my opinions to accommodate that self-inflicted predicament.
Otherwise he has to face the disintegration of his understanding of everything.
If his worldview is untenable and reality keeps contradicting it, then he either has to continue his mental gymnastics to defend his faith-based beliefs, or preferably, accept that he has made a mistake and suffer the disorientation and possibly social exclusion that comes with that as I did 35 years ago when I left Christianity. It was very difficult, but one I realized that I was on the wrong track, my choices were to make the correction or continue living the lie. Others have that same option available. It's also the time in my life when I quit cigarettes, a different painful transition, but like leaving religion, a price worth paying considering what the alternative would be.
How would YOU like to face that?
I wouldn't, which is in large part why I am grateful to have extricated myself from that same predicament.
But I don't see that as an argument for asking the skeptic to shelter the unprepared from dissent in a forum like this.
For those of you who have been religiously indoctrinated, accepting the theory of evolution may have been a real act of liberation, but keep in mind that this may not automatically apply to everyone.
