He didn't say they couldn't discuss things rationally, he said they couldn't have a fruitful argument.
I'm not sure what he meant by this, but to me a fruitful argument is one where one or more sides learn something, and/or one party changes another's mind on a subject.
Very often, with religion and politics especially, everyone's already made up their minds. They know the right answer. There's certainly no chance that they're mistaken. Regardless of how rationally the topic is being discussed, there's no learning going on, it's just a performative recital. IMO it's better just not to get involved in conversations like these (I'm personally bad at this, though).
I think that all pg is saying here is that it's better to be open-minded.
I'm not sure what he meant by this, but to me a fruitful argument is one where one or more sides learn something, and/or one party changes another's mind on a subject.
Very often, with religion and politics especially, everyone's already made up their minds. They know the right answer. There's certainly no chance that they're mistaken. Regardless of how rationally the topic is being discussed, there's no learning going on, it's just a performative recital. IMO it's better just not to get involved in conversations like these (I'm personally bad at this, though).
I think that all pg is saying here is that it's better to be open-minded.