IMO, a lot of improvement in rational thought can be accomplished when people learn both the meaning and importance of the terms "objective" and "subjective".
Many years ago, when I first began posting in science forums, I struggled with how to process the plethora of information that abounded in the forums. Most of other's posts were more opinion that they appeared at first glance, and not as factual as I had inferred.
Objective evidence that clearly counters FE views should be enough if a serious person wants to get to a rational result. But, subjective viewpoints can sway people's emotions enough to diminish the true value found in objective evidence.
The reason this happens, IMO, is that
people tend to believe what they want to believe. A FE group may like being in the "neo-tribe"; rebels with a James Dean spirit, perhaps.
Religion (and philosophy) are subjective-base by nature. Religions will struggle the more often they have arguments that allow objective-based scrutiny (ie science). Religions, of course, also benefit from this when more and more claims are discovered to be accurate with such scrutiny.
I felt strong enough about this dichotomy that I presented a set of rules to address the nuances between them. This was done in hopes others would improve upon them. [Suggestions are welcome.]
Given how dry this topic is, I gave them a little color.... The Green Rules:
1) The measurable objective elements of any subjective claim are always open to scientific scrutiny.
2) Science has influence upon subjective claims in proportion to the weight science can bear upon the objective elements within them. This weight is a product of the veracity that science has in that respective field and the amount of exposure the objective elements have within the respective subjective claim.
3) Subjective claims have no direct influence on science, but it can have influence on scientists.
[Added: Note that "theory" or "hypothesis" could be substituted for "subjective claim". The last rule here is more about invariance. A Mercator projection only makes Greenland appear larger, but Greenland's size is what it is.]