Hi, 0991atheus. Great question. It is important to better understand the backfire effect so that we can effectively communicate with each other and ensure our capacity to course-correct when we're mistaken. I've run into profound difficulty with the backfire effect. I have read Michael Shermer's thoughts on this matter, and am glad to read yours and others' comments about it here. I don't know why it occurs, but it clearly does.

If I had to guess, the ability to persuade someone with a strongly held contrary view rests in the ability to appeal to multiple parts of the brain. Our logic and reason do not reign supreme in our minds; deeply held convictions are built on premises that were not necessarily thought through but were rather accepted over time through indoctrination, instinct and assumptions about reality. Our logic and reasoning can be like a person working a math problem with an original, fundamental flaw. We can dedicate ourselves to very exact math as we work on the problem, but if the problem has an original error, all of our exact mathematics will still be incorrect. Our math wasn't the problem, it was the initial mistake that doomed our efforts. The same goes for attempts to understand reality. With something like religion, a person has to be willing to submit even their deepest, most intimately held premises to critical analysis, and that's asking a lot. Pure reason isn't often sufficient. It seems to me that a combination of mental processes is needed.

In my case, the technical awareness of the sciences was not sufficient to move me from theism to atheism. It was the conflict that arose from realizing that an eternal, loving creator would not have used the suffering of billions of intelligent mammal-like species going through the Permian Extinction 251 million years ago to bring me into existense. The harmonics of that cognitive dissonance finally shook something loose inside of my mind and allowed me a moment to assess the whole proposition outside of my religious mindset. A moment outside of my bubble of faith was like a dreamer lifting his head briefly off his pillow. Argument and logic were important, but they were aided by internal processes that weren't purely analytical- they were emotional. The injustice and the lack of compassion of such a plan was offensive, and that gave logic a leverage point within my mind. The thousands of conversations leading up to that point weren't enough; my sense of fairness and compassion had to get involved to allow me past the backfire effect.

On the point about ridicule, I disagree. When I was actively considering my previously held religious position with the Atheist position, I watched Christopher Hitchens debate Theists and mercillously ridicule their beliefs and the resulting effects of religion on their moral choices and views. To accurately describe a vicious, stupid worldview requires telling someone about why their vicious, stupid worldview is wrong. That's going to be hard and pointed, and it will often come across as ridicule. I valued Hitchens' clarity and while other means might be more effective, ridicule has a definite role to play. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss and the late Christopher Hitchens are not cruel people, but they were willing to say that a person is homophobic or mysoginistic or whatever due to their beliefs. People like Steven Pinker are far more curteous and cautious in their remarks, and there's a role for that, but it lacks the plain spoken quality that Dawkins and company share. To be clear requires that one speak clearly, and that's offensive. Hence the ridicule label.

We who see the devastation wrought by religion are keen to see humanity move past our superstitious traditions and thought processes. I'm actively trying to accomplish that goal. I'm willing to change my argument style if a means to avoiding the backfire effect is identified. That's why I am so interested in your topic. Thanks for the question, 0991atheus.