Everyone knows it’s a bad idea to argue about religion and politics on the internet. But is this actually true, and if so, why? What is it about religion and politics that makes it so difficult to convince people to change their views? And what effects do social media platforms have upon these arguments?
In 2022, students in the course “Arguing on the Internet: Persuasion and Polarization” addressed these and other questions. This course—part of the undergraduate Religious Studies program at the University of Chicago—included readings and discussions about social media, the psychology of conflict, the ethics of belief, epistemology, and religious communication.
The final collaborative project for that course is a resource for anyone interested in the questions: Why does it seem so difficult to argue about religion, ethics, and politics on the internet? If you decide to argue online about these things, how can you do this better?
Why do people believe such radically different things? by Samantha Koretsky
How do social media algorithms affect users’ interactions with one another on these sites? by Carson Weekley
Are conspiracy theories necessarily unreasonable? by Kate Whitaker
What does it mean to engage in interfaith dialogue on the internet? by Feyza Yucel
Would deleting social media establish peace among adversaries? by Tyler Sarkisian
Do people ever really change their religious beliefs? by Claire Weber
Can we argue well about religion and politics in performative online spaces? by Grey Moszkowski
How does self-perception affect our use of social media? by Ray Davies-Van Voorhis
How does directionally motivated reasoning influence discussions of politics and religion? by Brett Riegler
Is it possible to create the conditions of deliberative democracy on the internet? by Evelyn Li
