I have a hard time answering people’s objections/accusations against Catholicism without making them mad. Often times after I’ve exhausted the objection the conversation bounces to another objection and often the topic of faith ends on a negative vibe.
Are there any good audios or written articles on how a person can spin such conversations in a more positive direction?
I’m a convert and most of my acquaintances are rather anti-religious so this stuff comes up regularly. It makes me think of the saying “he who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. If I prove my point but the other person isn’t convinced and all I’ve done is ruffle their feathers then what did I accomplish?
A couple years back I joined an atheist dominated philosophy group on facebook to debate stuff (primarily the existence of absolute morality and the like - and that’s what the group was for, I try to avoid making people feel like they’re under attack) when my job was to sit in a computer lab for hours on end and do nothing until a student had a question.
What I learned is that some people are really, really angry, and will spew vitriol and little else the whole time.
But I also learned that some people are really, really angry, will spew vitriol the whole time, but are nonetheless actually processing what you say. And eventually, when they discover that you are also well meaning and sincere (and I do think many of them are well meaning, just not terribly adept at communicating that to people they disagree with), and that what you say has some sense to it, the vitriol will die down a bit and if they don’t immediately concede your point, they may at least admit that your point was not as stupid as they had once thought.
What I tried to do was always remain polite (failed a few times, but hey. At least they appreciated sarcasm over there) and address any real points behind the anger. Towards the end I had a couple atheists admitting that theism wasn’t quiet as ridiculous as they thought - even if they didn’t buy into it right then.
I count that as a success, hoping that other successes will follow later.
I say all this and bolded and italicized part of your post because some of the people among the angry dismissive crowd when I first started talking with them ended up in the group of people who (sometimes slightly grudgingly) admitted that the position wasn’t as stupid as all that towards the end.
So I would say that we should not try to ruffle feathers, or at least not have that as a goal, but that we should defend and present the truth as and when appropriate and not consider ruffled failures as a direct failure - especially if the other person is bringing this stuff up. Even if it does not seem immediately apparent, and even if the person won’t admit it, they may be considering what you say and noticing that it’s not as stupid as they thought.
And they may be… less than polite in the process. So while heated discussions aren’t good in themselves, I wouldn’t necessarily consider them worthless even if at the end of the argument neither side admits to have changed its mind at all. The points may bang around inside their minds after the argument stops and they may see the reasonableness of some of what you say some time later.