Why it's usually useless to discuss religion

I'm a Paul Graham fan; I often find his articles thought-provoking. In a short 2009 article, "Keep Your Identity Small," Graham explores "why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions."

In general, people tend to talk about what they know about. I talk a lot about religion, biology, and computers, things I know about and am interested in. I don't really talk about nuclear power, because I'm more or less ignorant on the topic.

But, as Graham puts it, "[religion] is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is [sic] strong convictions." Unfortunately, since religion is so all-encompassing a topic, this gives everyone a license to pontificate on issues ranging from philosophy to science to morality - without giving such issues the deep and unbiased study and thought they deserve.

When there is no threshold for expressing an opinion, discussion begins to be "driven mostly by people's identities," instead of being driven by facts or logic. Passion begins to replace reason, and people begin to talk past each other, becoming increasingly vitriolic. This is completely unproductive and results in changed opinions zero percent of the time and hurt feelings and strained relationships nearly a hundred percent.

The only solution would be to sever religion from one's sense of identity, to think about and discuss one's own religion as if one were not a member, and demand the amount of evidence that an impartial observer would demand. Once one identifies a system of thought as a fundamental part of their self, they lose the ability to think critically about it.

Is this separation of opinion and identity even possible? Certainly not for most people. But where it is possible, healthy and useful discussions can take place.

It's not just religious people who have an issue with assuming a shared identity. Similarly, I want to avoid the label "atheist" for myself, for a number of reasons. One is that the term carries huge amounts of baggage to those who hear it. The actual definition of atheism is lack of belief in a god; popular opinion combines this with other philosophies and scientific issues ranging from the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution to anti-theism or sometimes, ironically, devil-worship, witchcraft or paganism. When you hear that someone is a "Republican" or a "Liberal" or an "Atheist" or a "Scientist" or even a "Gun Shooter" you immediately attach stereotypes to that person, and you can no longer have a real discussion with that person, only a puppet that you've created in your mind that looks like the person.

And, once you've defeated the puppet Atheist, you can feel like you've defeated the entire stereotyped philosophy. It's not a fair stance, though; whether or not you've previously bested an Atheist in debate, I'm a person, not a puppet. I have individual thoughts and feelings and when you delivered your final blow to the puppet of Atheism I couldn't even feel it. While I'm technically an atheist (as I don't believe in any gods) I'm probably quite different from the Atheist you could conjure up in your head.

Identifying as a "Lutheran" or a "Muslim" or an "Atheist" induces a sense of tribalism. It makes you inherently want to stick up for and adopt the views of others within your group, regardless of their individual merit. It enables you to give opinions not as an individual but as a member and representative of that group. ("What do you believe happens when we die?" "As Christians, we believe...") It insulates the individual from having to form and analyze all of their own opinions, as there is a default position ready for them to assume without criticism. Conversely, an attack on their ideas or the ideas of their group becomes a personal attack, as the individual is now inseparably connected to the group identity. Challenging a poor idea becomes a large-scale attack on an entire class of people. When this is the case, criticism is impossible, and therefore honest discussion is impossible.

So, how can we have effective discussions on a topic people tend to take so personally? "The best plan," according to Graham, "is to let as few things into your identity as possible." Definitely easier said than done.