Posts
Comments
I thought it to be a nice illustration: Dawkins vs. Tyson This is a 2-minute-excerpt of "Beyond Belief", where Tyson accuses Dawkins of "the first type of winning an argument". (But his answer is no more than "You're right. But some people are worse".)
Probably the question of Multiverse- versus Collapse-Interpretation in Quantum Physics could suffice. It fits your needs as a factual and, somewhat, important question, while there is no overall aggreement in the respective fields of experts (although the trend to MI seems becoming clear...). Furthermore I guess there aren't any status- or mindkilling-issues concerning this question, but, and that might rule out this question at least in some cases, a religious person might feel otherwise and reject the idea of "multiple creations" at first sight. Regarding "High uncertainty" the MI/CI-conflict might not fit your scheme, as(you already know if you read the Quantum-Physics-Sequence) there is a strong Bayesian argument to decide for Multiverse-Interpretation, but since you are going to talk to people who don't know about expressing their believes in probability, they maybe will not have read into that topic either (of course this just describes the standart-street-guy you encounter, maybe not you discussio-club-friends...). If so, at their state of special knowledge, there is little reason to value one more than the other. The worst would be for them to consider this a problem plainly boring or - within high physics- out of their reach, but if you explain multiverse beautifully enough and, maybe, ask them to imagine they are supposed to discuss the topic in a school-essay, it could become interesting enough.