How can two people talk about big beliefs without it turning into a fight?
Big beliefs touch identity, family and what feels sacred, so here is what research says helps a hard conversation, a step-by-step way to try it, and why you are allowed to stop.
God Plays Dice Editorial · independently fact-checked · corrections welcomeChecked Sep 30, 20269 min read
THE SHORT ANSWER
By aiming to understand, not to win. Ask open questions, listen closely and say back what you heard. Invite the other person’s story, share your own view as yours, and admit what you don’t know. Research on listening, humility and hard conversations supports several of these habits, though most studies tested politics, work or lab tasks rather than faith. You can respect a person, and their right to believe, without agreeing with them. And you can always pause.
In five experiments with more than 10,100 people and 52 issues, factual corrections did not make people hold false beliefs more strongly.
In four lab experiments by one research team, speakers who received high-quality listening became less defensive and held their views less extremely.
Across 25 experiments, imagining another person’s point of view did not reliably make people more accurate about them; in a final study, asking them did.
Explaining step by step how a policy works lowers people’s sense of understanding, but three replications planned in advance found it did not soften their views.
In a Pew survey of U.S. adults reported in 2016, 70% of evangelical Protestants and about two-thirds of atheists and agnostics said they try to understand the other person’s beliefs and agree to disagree.
About this picture
Rembrandt’s Two Old Men Disputing (1628). Some have suggested the pair are philosophers or the apostles Peter and Paul, but in 1641 the will of Jacques de Gheyn III, a friend of Rembrandt, described the painting simply as two little old men seated and disputing.
Rembrandt, Two Old Men Disputing (1628), oil on panel, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, via Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · Image source ↗
WHERE THE EVIDENCE STANDS
How sure are we?
Correcting someone’s facts usually backfires and strengthens the false belief.Wood and Porter (2019): five experiments, more than 10,100 people, 52 issues, no correction that backfired. Nyhan (2021), who co-wrote a 2010 study that reported backfire effects, writes that later research suggests they are “extremely rare in practice”; corrections usually help modestly, though the gains often fade.
Being listened to well makes people less defensive and their views less extreme.Itzchakov, Kluger and Castro (2017): four lab experiments by one research group, on a range of topics. A 2023 meta-analysis of workplace studies links feeling listened to with better relationships (r = .51), but 75% of that research used self-reports, and it shows association, not cause.
To understand what someone thinks, asking works better than imagining.Eyal, Steffel and Epley (2018): across 25 experiments, perspective-taking did not reliably improve accuracy and sometimes raised confidence instead; in a final experiment, getting perspective through conversation did improve it. Kalla and Broockman’s field experiments found small, lasting effects from a non-judgmental exchange of personal stories; their topics were not faith.
People higher in intellectual humility are more open to opposing views.Leary and colleagues (2017, four studies) and Porter and Schumann (2018, four studies). A 2022 review in Nature Reviews Psychology notes that much of the research on humility’s benefits is correlational, with little evidence beyond Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies.
You can respect a person while disagreeing with their faith.This is a question of ethics, not experiment. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes a distinction, widely regarded as fundamental, between recognition respect, which can be owed to persons as such, and appraisal respect, which means thinking highly of something. Christian, Muslim, Jewish and humanist texts also call for gentleness or respect across disagreement (1 Peter 3:15–16; Quran 16:125; Talmud, Eruvin 13b; Humanist Manifesto III).
Most studies behind these tips did not test conversations about faith itself; they used political topics, workplaces or lab tasks. Nobody knows yet how long the effects last inside families, or how they differ across cultures and traditions.
WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS ANSWER
Large studies of real conversations about faith, in many cultures and with plans filed in advance, could confirm, sharpen or overturn these tips. If careful trials found that listening and humility made such talks go worse, this answer would change.
By aiming to understand rather than to win. That one shift changes the rest: you ask more, you listen longer, you speak about your own view instead of attacking theirs, and the other person keeps their dignity. Research on listening, humility and hard conversations supports several of these habits. Most of it tested politics, work or lab tasks rather than faith, so treat it as a useful guide, not a guarantee.
People ask this for good reasons. A believer may want to talk with a skeptical brother without a holiday blowing up. Someone questioning their faith may want to be honest with devout parents. Two friends may love each other and still disagree about God. Big beliefs touch identity, family and what feels sacred, so a disagreement can feel like a threat.
Here is some encouraging news. The famous “backfire effect,” where correcting someone makes them dig in, turns out to be rare. In five experiments with more than 10,100 people, corrections on 52 issues did not backfire. Being listened to well may also help. In lab experiments, people who were heard with empathy and without judgment became less defensive and held their views less extremely. And to understand what someone thinks, asking seems to work better than imagining. In a series of 25 experiments, trying to picture another person’s view did not reliably make people more accurate. In a final experiment, simply asking did.
Can you respect someone’s faith while disagreeing with it? Yes. Philosophers separate the respect every person can be owed from the respect that means thinking highly of something. You can give the first even to someone whose belief you reject. Several religious and nonreligious traditions also call for gentleness or respect across disagreement.
This page will not tell you what to believe. It offers steps for a kinder conversation, and it gives you permission to stop when a talk stops helping.
THE LONG ANSWER
THE LONG ANSWER · ABOUT 8 MINUTES
You’ve read your 3 free long answers this month.
The short answer, how sure we are, what we don’t know, what would change our mind and every source stay free on every page, for everyone.
All Access members read the long answer: the evidence piece by piece, the strongest objections, and how to check it yourself.
The idea that correcting a false belief makes people hold it more strongly. Large studies find it is rare.
Intellectual humility
Recognizing that your beliefs might be wrong and that your knowledge has limits.
Perspective-getting
Learning how another person sees things by asking them or by hearing a story about their experience, rather than only imagining it (perspective-taking).
Illusion of explanatory depth
Feeling that you understand how something works in more detail than you do, until you try to explain it step by step.
Motivational interviewing
A counseling style built on open questions, reflective listening and respect for a person’s own choices.
Recognition respect
Giving proper weight to a person, or to something about them, in how you act. It differs from appraisal respect, which means thinking highly of something.
Sources & further reading
(9) · Checked Sep 30, 2026
The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence ↗Political Behavior 41(1):135–163 (2019; online Jan. 16, 2018), Thomas Wood and Ethan PorterAbstract (Springer page): five experiments, more than 10,100 subjects, 52 issues of potential backfire; no corrections capable of triggering backfire, despite testing polarized issues; “By and large, citizens heed factual information.” Also: Brendan Nyhan, “Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions,” PNAS 118(15):e1912440117 (2021), doi:10.1073/pnas.1912440117, full text via PMC8053951: in 2010 he and Jason Reifler reported that corrections increased the targeted misperception among predisposed groups in two of five studies; subsequent research “suggests that backfire effects are extremely rare in practice”; corrections typically produce modest but significant gains in accuracy that often fade as people revert to views congenial with their partisanship or group identity.
I Am Aware of My Inconsistencies but Can Tolerate Them: The Effect of High Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Ambivalence ↗Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43(1):105–120 (2017), Guy Itzchakov, Avraham N. Kluger and Dotan R. CastroAbstract (PubMed 27856728; a corrigendum appeared in PSPB 43(7):1065, whose text was not accessible to scripts): listeners characterized by empathy and a non-judgmental approach; high-quality listening decreased social anxiety and defensive processing, increased awareness of contradictions (objective ambivalence) and decreased attitude extremity; consistent support across four laboratory experiments on a range of attitude topics. Also: Kluger and colleagues, “A Meta-analytic Systematic Review and Theory of the Effects of Perceived Listening on Work Outcomes,” Journal of Business and Psychology 39(2):295–344 (2024; online July 17, 2023), doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09897-5: registered systematic review, 664 effect sizes, 400,020 observations; perceived listening and relationship quality r = .51; 75% of the literature relied on self-reports.
Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective ↗Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114(4):547–571 (2018), Tal Eyal, Mary Steffel and Nicholas EpleyAbstract (PubMed 29620401): 25 experiments; no consistent evidence that perspective taking increased accuracy; if anything it decreased accuracy overall while occasionally increasing confidence; a final experiment confirmed that getting another person’s perspective directly, through conversation, increased accuracy.
Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments ↗American Political Science Review 114(2):410–425 (2020), Joshua L. Kalla and David E. BroockmanAbstract (Crossref): three pre-registered field experiments on attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants and transgender people; 230 canvassers, 6,869 voters, 7 U.S. locations; in Experiment 1, face-to-face conversations with arguments alone had no effects, while otherwise identical conversations that added a non-judgmental exchange of narratives durably reduced the targeted attitudes for at least four months (d = 0.08); Experiments 2 and 3 replicated (d = 0.08, 0.04); the paper calls these “contentious topics.” Follow-up: Kalla and Broockman, “Which Narrative Strategies Durably Reduce Prejudice? Evidence from Field and Survey Experiments Supporting the Efficacy of Perspective-Getting,” American Journal of Political Science 67(1):185–204 (2023; online Oct. 31, 2021), doi:10.1111/ajps.12657, abstract (Crossref): conversations employing only perspective-getting narratives durably changed the targeted attitudes. Preprint of Dec. 28, 2020 (OSF, doi:10.31219/osf.io/z2awt, PDF read with macOS PDFKit): perspective-getting “involves hearing a narrative about the experiences of an outgroup member (not necessarily from an outgroup member first-hand)”; canvassers “were trained to ask these questions in a non-judgmental manner, not indicating they were pleased or displeased with any particular answer, but rather to appear genuinely interested.”
Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility ↗Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43(6):793–813 (2017), Mark R. Leary and colleaguesAbstract (PubMed 28903672): four studies; intellectual humility is the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong; associated with openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity and low dogmatism; high scorers were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. Also: Porter and Schumann, “Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view,” Self and Identity 17(2):139–162 (2018; online Aug. 2017), doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861, abstract (OpenAlex): four studies; more open to learning the opposition’s views; making a growth mindset of intelligence salient boosted humility and openness (Study 4). Review: Porter and colleagues, “Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility,” Nature Reviews Psychology 1(9):524–536 (2022), doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9, full text via PMC9244574: people are unlikely to act with intellectual humility when their political, religious or ethical values seem challenged; much of the work on individual benefits is correlational; little evidence on generalizability beyond WEIRD societies; when humility becomes “too much of a good thing” is still unexplored.
The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth ↗Cognitive Science 26(5):521–562 (2002), Leonid Rozenblit and Frank KeilFull text via PMC3062901: items included a zipper and a flush toilet; participants rated their understanding, wrote step-by-step causal explanations, then re-rated; nearly all participants showed drops in estimates of what they knew. Also: Fernbach, Rogers, Fox and Sloman, “Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding,” Psychological Science 24(6):939–946 (2013), doi:10.1177/0956797612464058, abstract (PubMed 23620547): explaining policies in detail undermined the illusion and moderated attitudes; Crawford and Ruscio, “Asking People to Explain Complex Policies Does Not Increase Political Moderation: Three Preregistered Failures to Closely Replicate Fernbach, Rogers, Fox, and Sloman’s (2013) Findings,” Psychological Science 32(4):611–621 (2021), doi:10.1177/0956797620972367, abstract (PubMed 33667138): understanding ratings fell, but extremity and in-group favoritism were unaffected; the well-established finding that justifying prior beliefs strengthens them replicated.
Understanding Motivational Interviewing ↗Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers (MINT)Definition quoted from Miller and Rollnick (2013); spirit of partnership, evocation, acceptance and compassion; a nonjudgmental stance that respects a person’s right to make informed choices; core skills of open questions, affirmations, reflections and summaries; Elicit-Provide-Elicit, which seeks permission before offering information; “It is not a way to ‘get people to change’.” Evidence: Frost and colleagues, “Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: A systematic review of reviews,” PLOS ONE 13(10):e0204890 (2018), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204890, abstract (PubMed 30335780): 104 reviews including 39 meta-analyses; most evidence low or very low quality (128 of 155 comparisons); moderate-quality evidence of small, mainly short-term benefits in 11 of 155, including reduced binge drinking.
Many Americans don’t argue about religion – or even talk about it ↗Pew Research Center (Apr. 15, 2016), Alan CoopermanU.S. adults, from Pew’s survey on religion in everyday life. When someone disagrees about religion: evangelical Protestants 70% try to understand the person’s beliefs and agree to disagree, 10% try to persuade, 18% avoid discussing religion; atheists and agnostics two-thirds understand and agree to disagree, 4% try to change the person’s mind, 30% avoid; 62–69% across generations understand and agree to disagree.
Respect (Robin S. Dillon) ↗Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (first published Sept. 10, 2003; substantive revision Aug. 17, 2026)Darwall (1977, “Two Kinds of Respect,” Ethics 88:36–49; author Stephen L. Darwall per Crossref, doi:10.1086/292054) distinguishes recognition respect (giving appropriate weight in practical deliberation; objects include persons as such) from appraisal respect (the “thinking highly of” kind); the distinction “is widely regarded as the fundamental distinction,” though some philosophers question it. Inside the traditions: 1 Peter 3:15–16 on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ online Bible, listed under its New American Bible pages (https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1peter/3): “but do it with gentleness and reverence”; Quran 2:256 and 16:125, Sahih International (https://quran.com/2/256, https://quran.com/16/125, via the Quran.com API); Talmud, Eruvin 13b, William Davidson Edition (https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin.13b, via the Sefaria API): three years of dispute; “Both these and those are the words of the living God”; the halakha follows Beit Hillel because they were “agreeable and forbearing” and taught Beit Shammai’s statements, even before their own; Humanist Manifesto III, American Humanist Association, 2003 (https://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist-manifesto-iii/): humanists “respect those of differing yet humane views.”
There is no single religious creation account. Here are three selected texts: Genesis, the Quran and a Rigveda hymn. These examples do not speak for every religion or…
Religion shows up almost wherever people live, so here is what surveys and archaeology show, what scientists think explains it, how those ideas have held up, and how believers and skeptics read the same facts.
Nearly all historians, of every background, conclude that a Jewish preacher named Jesus lived and was crucified; here are the sources, the debates over them, and the questions history leaves to faith.
Established9 min read
THE OCCASIONAL LETTER
Stay curious.
New stories, book updates, and notes from God Plays Dice, delivered when there is something worth sharing.
EMAIL UPDATES ↗
500 DIGITAL COPIES • GIVEAWAY PREVIEW
Be first to know when the 500-copy reader giveaway opens.
Join for the book launch, verified retailer links, and the announcement for a planned giveaway of 500 digital copies. The giveaway is not open yet: dates, eligibility, a dedicated entry form, and Official Rules will be published first.
Privacy · Check your inbox to confirm your subscription. Newsletter signup alone is not a giveaway entry.
