Some of the reasons…
A. Difficulties specific the Church are discussed here.
B. General problems:
- You can’t convince somebody of that which they refuse to believe.
- Although we can easily see the faults of others (both real and imagined), our own faults are much more difficult to see.
- The issue (under discussion) are often not the real issue: there are more fundamental issues which are difficult to address, or even to identify, which blocks agreement. For example, do we allow Christianity to drive the car (so to speak), or is it just a passenger? If one person is arguing from a fundamentally Christian view, and the other is arguing from a fundamentally political/ideological view, talking past each other is almost inevitable. Even within sincere Christianity such disconnects are common.
- We can’t write dissertations, and if we did nobody would read them. Dissertations are meant to be defended, and defensive writing is tedious and boring. And so, yes, there really are holes in the logic of most any writing, and if the goal not understanding, but tearing the writing of an “opponent” apart, there will be grounds for doing so. We must over-simplify or remain silent: in talking about complex situations, generalization is necessary.
- We have access to oceans of words–with more being written each day. We can’t read them all–or even all of the ones that could benefit us. (This is a particular problem in the modern Church, with constant speeches, press conferences, lengthy documents, and controversies.)
- There is a constant temptation to be reactionary. A simple example: if we see that many who talk about “social justice” a lot seem to be heterodox, it does not follow from that that we should be in favor of social injustice. 😂
- The law of gradualness: often we cannot understand “Z” until we first understand “A”, “B”, “C”, and so on… Additionally, if you already understand all the way through “X”, then starting at “A” again is too boring.
- Often people do not say what they really mean. Even more often, they do not realize the necessary implications of their claim…what must logically follow–without regard to their intentions. Ideas have consequences.
- There are many invalid arguments commonly made: these are often called informal fallacies. Perhaps the most common is the ad hominem attack, but there are many others such as false choices, straw man, and the Motte and the Bailey (explanations are here and here).
- At the same time, stating the name of an informal fallacy of argument, standing alone, does not refute another’s argument–they are not magic incantations. Arguments are not won through labeling–although you may successfully shut somebody up. For example, some slopes really are slippery–in fact many are.
(This is under construction, and there will be links provided for additional explanations.)