I think there's a major difference between Roe v. Wade/the Irving trial and the Scopes trial; in law, the Creationists won the Scopes trial despite losing the arguments, whereas in the other two they lost in law and in the argument (Roe v Wade being a half-lose; it was decided, I'd say, the right way on the wrong legal/moral/ethical grounds, but let's pass over that).
The other thing is that the engagement with Creationists is a tactical one, rather than one of argument; it's not winning the high ground, it's winning the power - that doesn't involve argument in the logical sense of the term, it involves changing the nature of the debate, unless we can figure out how to change the tone. Holocaust Deniers, however, it's a simpler argument with - they do not have the high ground (in most of the West, at least; we can't forget people like President Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kamiński in Poland and the EU); they do not have the majority; and (again, this is in sections of the world, unfortunately not the totality) they do not have a platform.
So there's similarities as well as the differences; engagement being a risky business, and a seemingly necessary one. The question is, how do we reframe the debate, as opposed to the frame that all the faith-based disputants use to their advantage?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2010-02-09 09:33 pm (UTC)The other thing is that the engagement with Creationists is a tactical one, rather than one of argument; it's not winning the high ground, it's winning the power - that doesn't involve argument in the logical sense of the term, it involves changing the nature of the debate, unless we can figure out how to change the tone. Holocaust Deniers, however, it's a simpler argument with - they do not have the high ground (in most of the West, at least; we can't forget people like President Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kamiński in Poland and the EU); they do not have the majority; and (again, this is in sections of the world, unfortunately not the totality) they do not have a platform.
So there's similarities as well as the differences; engagement being a risky business, and a seemingly necessary one. The question is, how do we reframe the debate, as opposed to the frame that all the faith-based disputants use to their advantage?