Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Debate

  • The Limited Value of Debate

    The Limited Value of Debate

    A challenge to immediate debate is a frequent feature of discussions–perhaps arguments!–in religion and politics. But is it a reliable way to get to a better answer?

    There are certainly points of value in open debate:

    1. Hearing more than one side at the same time
    2. Airing out differences quickly
    3. Challenging alleged “facts” on each side by the other
    4. General brevity

    In many political debates, these points are lost as rules of the debate are negotiated by each side hoping to favor their own person. These rules often prevent precisely the things for which debate is most valuable.

    But there are also weaknesses:

    1. Rarely are listeners in a position to check the alleged facts themselves
    2. It’s quite possible for both, or all, debate participants to be wrong
    3. Debates go to the quick, confident speakers, but confidence is not a reliable indicator of accuracy
    4. Debates tend to demand, and often get, quick responses where more deliberation is necessary

    I write this as someone who is often asked questions with an assumption by my questioner that I am an expert. I was once informed that I took too long answering, and should just give the answer based on my expertise in about 30 seconds.

    While I am fairly confident of my answers to many questions in the area of biblical studies, I have some problems with this view.

    First, I am well aware that there are others, many with better credentials than mine, who disagree with my own position. Is it my duty to present a consensus view even if it differs? If I present my own, should I point out that the consensus is different? How much confidence should I show in a view that I know is a subject of valid debate?

    Second, while I often have the upper hand in a debate, I have also experienced times when an opponent overwhelmed me with invention. How do I know? I heard things that I couldn’t confidently refute on the spot, yet which, on further research, I discovered were unfounded.

    We tend to treat the quick thinker as more intelligent, but that is frequently not the case.

    Third, there’s a popular tendency to accept the quick, confident answer as valid and leave it at that. I prefer to fight that tendency.

    But for many people whose brains work more slowly, or whose memories are not stellar, the quick give and take of verbal debate is challenging, and not in a good way. The speaker demands a decision, yet the hearer has not had time to process. We tend to treat the quick thinker as more intelligent, but that is frequently not the case.

    I have some suggestions:

    1. You are the person who has to decide. Take whatever time allows you to make your best decision.
    2. Don’t let anyone dismiss you or diminish you because you refuse to acknowledge their self-assumed superior wisdom in an instant.
    3. Listen to more than one voice. Read more than one article. Study from more than one book.
    4. Don’t be concerned about winning debates. Learning is more important. Planting seeds is more important. Winning on points is just ego-building.

    Debating is actually a good thing and can be helpful. It’s the pressure to make quick decisions that creates problems.

    Listen, study, discern! You are responsible for you.

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

  • My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

    My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

    Please note the word “personal” in the title. Often when I discuss freedom of speech, people respond with comments on what the law says about freedom of speech. The responses sometimes differ based on the country. These are my beliefs about how I should support freedom of speech personally. They represent my own contributions, not something mandated by law.

    Background

    Early in life, even before my teens, I was quite combative and always ready to argue about what I believed. One of my formative experiences as a teenager was arguing international politics with people in Guyana. Generally, foreigners shouldn’t comment on politics in a country where they are guests. However, as a teenager, I got by with it. More importantly, I learned something important about perspective that has stuck with me.

    People with different backgrounds, in different countries will have a different perspective. This perspective is not inferior to my own. Rather it is just different. Guyana had recently gained its independence after a long colonial period. The country also had to deal with a world largely richer and more powerful militarily. Guyana provided a different perspective.

    I don’t believe that truth is ultimately relative. But as finite people with limited perspective we can only reach for that objective reality. It’s very valuable for us to take the time to actually comprehend someone else’s perspective. Comprehending doesn’t require agreement. What it requires is that one can take in some of that perspective. I had the pleasure of learning from my Guyanese elders about a different perspective on imperialism, the middle east, China/Taiwan, and other such issues.

    The Requirement for Free Speech

    My experience brought new perspective, but I continued to regard debate as central. How did one test ideas? Debate. Go at it hammer and tongs and you’ll be able to test the boundaries and the inner structure of your knowledge and ideas.

    Free speech is an absolute necessity to carry out such an enterprise. If certain ideas are considered out of bounds, it’s impossible to get a complete and fair combined expression.

    Note that this process, as I saw it, was not one of equally informing one another. I had a number of people with whom I had such dialog. But I was perfectly willing to debate vigorously with someone I knew would dismiss every idea. I expressed those ideas because I had the challenge of expressing them. It also gave me the opportunity to see how they landed in someone else’s world.

    I will note that I was also very political. I registered to vote as soon as I was able to do so and immediately signed up as a precinct captain. I was a captain with nobody but myself to command, but I got involved and active. I spent my time on election day debating with others at the polls.

    In my experience, however, I can’t recall actually changing anyone’s mind through debate. This doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that debate is worthless. Rather, it wasn’t accomplishing what I hoped it would accomplish. There was also the question of time. If you have an opinion on pretty much everything (which I did), and you are anxious to debate, it will take time. As the online opportunities grew, so did the consumption of my time.

    I was online before it was a major thing. I ran a computer Bulletin Board System (BBS) in the late 80s that was rather popular for its time. I got in political debates there. I was on Compuserve when we accessed it by phone, and I got into plenty of debates there.

    Some Restrictions

    I learned quite quickly that while free speech was good, there was more to it than just allowing expression. There were times and places. Online that meant various discussion boards. For these boards we had rules. Often these rules were simply subject matter. What is the purpose of this discussion group? If you want to talk about something else, go somewhere else. A good rule of freedom of expression is that if it’s your space, you rule the expression.

    Then there’s time. For someone with as many opinions as I had (and have), I needed a way to restrict the time spent. I began to tell some people who challenged me that I would have to give them the last word as I didn’t have time to pursue the issue. Many people find it difficult to let a discussion or debate go online. It can often become a time-consuming black hole. You need to learn to thicken your skin. Just ignore it when the other party declares victory and does a cyber-dance on your virtual grave.

    Energion Publications

    This brings me to my founding of Energion Publications. I founded this company to have a common publisher for a broad range of ideas within the Christian community. My previous experiences had led me to believe that while it had its purposes, debate was not going to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish. The idea was listening and testing one’s ideas in relation to other ideas. I don’t recall that “echo chamber” was that common of an expression at the time, but avoiding an echo chamber was my intent.

    Over the years I have greatly reduced my debating time, and also limited my commentary to a much smaller range of issues. I do this because I want to do as well as I can with what I can share. By publishing the works of others, I can help ensure that a variety of viewpoints are represented.

    Still Free Speech

    My key point, and main reason for writing this is that I continue to believe the same things about free speech as I did back in college and before, including the additional lessons about spaces. Not every space has to have all speech, but there is value in keeping the walls as far away as possible.

    A number of people wonder how I can publish material I disagree with. Since I include a variety of viewpoints, it’s clear that some of the material will represent viewpoints other than my own. I wouldn’t be carrying out the mission I established for my company or my own goals in life if I did not.

    I do not find this difficult at all. I enjoy hearing various ideas. I enjoy helping people present them as well as possible. I enjoy being part of the process of presenting those ideas so that others can test their own ideas against them and learn. If I look like I’m enjoying a discussion in which an author is saying something you know I don’t believe, that is precisely what I’m doing. And while I may ask clarifying questions, I won’t start debating that person. That’s not what I’m here for.

    From a strictly secular point of view I call this respecting other people and their own abilities. When I decide to protect others from hearing “bad” points of view, I don’t respect them for their ability to reject those points of view. From a spiritual standpoint, I believe in the ability of the Spirit of Truth to do better at influencing people than I could.

    To those who will point out all the evidence of people failing in either of those, I would first point out that your judgment is fallible as is mine, but also the substantial failure of control mechanisms to actually control the human heart and soul.

    Respect

    Ultimately, I think this is about respect. I respect another’s individuality and right to an opinion, even one that might annoy me. Especially one that might annoy me. I respect the spaces that others set up.

    I make my own discussion spaces as open as I possibly can and still carry on the discussion.

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI. I incorporated several AI suggestions in the text, but rejected a number of others.)

  • The Demand for Opinions

    The Demand for Opinions

    There has always been a tendency for crowds to call for others to support them. If you do not, you are contributing to the other side, however they define that.

    Social media has multiplied that demand and given the demanders a megaphone. If you do not express an opinion–the right opinion according to them–on this or that issue, you are letting other people by with something.

    This attitude spans the political spectrum. There will be those who will think I’m talking about them, and those who think I’m talking about their enemies. Both are correct. I’m talking about the way we talk about just about everything.

    Don’t imagine I’m talking about politics alone or even primarily. I first encountered this sort of attitude over religious viewpoints. If you weren’t arguing for a particular viewpoint, then you were obviously arguing for the opposite, variously defined.

    In particular, I saw this in denominational authority. I was a student at the Seventh-day Adventist seminary at Andrews University. If you were not defending the authority of the SDA General Conference, you were obviously a rebel. You couldn’t just go on about your business. Note, however, that while my experience was with the SDA church, this is by no means exclusively an issue in the SDA church.

    Social media simply magnifies the call. I see posts every day that demand that someone speak out about this or that. And there is a point to speaking out. Speaking out can be a good thing. In addition, we have those who claim that if we don’t post something about their favorite cause we are heartless. We don’t care.

    I believe we have a different problem. We are trying to generate good results starting from a mob mentality. We have an effort to create a mob of people without serious knowledge of an issue who will say yes, click ‘Like’ or Share. When this is done, we can feel that we are truly fighting evil. I’d say “as defined by,” but really, we have undefined opposition to undefined evil in the pursuit of undefined good.

    Now there are a number of voices out there who are well-informed. I do not condemn pastors for preaching their understanding of Jesus and applying that to the moral actions of their congregations. I don’t condemn an informed politician (may their tribe multiply) in advocating a position.

    What I do is choose myself not to play this game. I choose a small number of issues, largely in the realm of spirituality and community, and I advocate for those. I understand them fairly well. I can speak of them to some effect, though I am not extremely optimistic. I was chastened by overhearing someone in the hall of the church admin building telling someone else what a beautiful answer “Henry” had to their question. I did not recognize, nor would I have endorsed the answer attributed to me. They didn’t know I overheard.

    What I suggest is choosing what you will spend your time on and ignoring the calls for proclamations on other things. Be prepared to defend what you say and make your presentation most effective.

    I could say that the times call for genuine dialogue and grace to our enemies, but that has always been true. Firm opinions, carefully researched, and presented with conviction will go a long way. There is a place here for negatives, for calling evil “evil” no matter who is carrying it out.

    But the need for clearly presented information is much greater than the need for opinions.

    That’s my opinion!

  • When to Cut Off Dialogue

    I’ve read recently about people cutting off dialogue because of certain behaviors of those on the other side. And indeed, there are times when dialogue becomes futile because someone else refuses to be honest or refuses to engage.

    I’m writing this simply to appeal to those who want to see more dialogue, more working together, more actual exchange of ideas, and more true debate in which we actually engage one another’s thinking to be the good guys. Just that. You can respond to another person rationally and with sanity even if they are not likely to do the same thing. If this is done in a public forum, neutral parties who may be influenced will see what you do and be positively influenced by the way you debate as well as by the point you make.

    This can involve the determination that you’ve said enough on a subject and are going to just sit back while someone else raves. If they bring nothing new to the debate, you don’t have to answer.

    Dialogue will not prosper when we place too many preconditions on starting it. Be willing to let the other guy argue badly. The benefits of true dialogue are simply too great for us to allow obnoxious people to stop it.

  • Intimidation by Divine Wrath

    Some Christians resort to an argument of intimidation by divine judgment and wrath when the going gets tough. I read this most recently in a comment on YouTube, in which the writer simply quoted Bible texts implying first that people were wrong, and second that God was going to do something about it.

    Those texts didn’t specify that I was wrong, or that my accuser was right; taken out of context as they were, they didn’t specify the topics on which God would get you if you were wrong; they simply suggested that people who were wrong might well be in trouble.

    This method is intended to make the person who is less sure of himself give in because of the fear of divine retribution. On the surface, the person using it is so absolutely certain he is right, that he believes the other person will flinch, being less certain. But there’s another element to it. He must also believe that the other person secretly knows he is wrong and is simply holding onto a position out of sheer perversity.

    Our hypothetical debater believes that the atheist with whom he is arguing is really a closet theist who refuses to acknowledge belief in God because he doesn’t want to obey. Perhaps if he is threatened with judgment enough times he will come to acknowledge how wrong he is. The more liberal Christian, in his view, truly knows that fundamentalism is true, but has been deceived by the spirit of the age. Again, he will flinch if confronted with the potential wrath of God.

    This isn’t a conservative/liberal type of approach, however. Many very conservative Christians are attacked by other seekers of absolute certainty who regard them as liberal, or just plain wrong in some other way.

    I’ve heard this approach to debate many times. Sometimes it comes in the form of “doubting your salvation” because your theology isn’t correct, at others in the more direct form of telling you that you will have to face God’s judgment.

    What I was thinking today, however, is that despite its surface appearance, this approach doesn’t come from a position of supreme confidence, but rather one of profound doubt, but doubt which cannot be admitted. Those who believe that they have to have certain doctrinal positions correct in order to be right with God, or to gain some eternal reward can become quite tense about the possibility of being wrong. After all, the penalty for an error here runs all the way to eternity in hell!

    And please don’t remind me of salvation by faith. I had a young man question my salvation after he had spent an hour preaching to me about salvation by grace through faith without works of any kind. Then because I didn’t quite understand the words that he did, he said he was concerned about my salvation. I guess it wasn’t just grace and faith, but also a full theological understanding of them!

    Being both uncertain and terrified of the penalty of being wrong, such people would have to get into the habit of never thinking they are wrong. I, on the other hand, have been wrong so many times, it is certainly no remarkable event. I suspect the people who have used this on me cannot imagine that I am unconcerned with being wrong, and that I’m simply waiting for someone to actually show me that I am.

    I think this one works a bit like an insult. When someone you don’t respect insults you, you are hardly hurt by it. When someone threatens you with something you do not fear, it also doesn’t concern you.

  • On Being Moderately Sheeplish

    Joe Carter has had a salubrious encounter with the human mind, such as it is, and has discovered that conservatives are sheeple too. “I have to confess that I’d always associated sheeplishness with the Left,” he starts out, but then notes how, in his new role with the Huckabee campaign, he has found sheeplishness amongst conservatives as well. He thinks he should have known this all along.

    Well, give yourself a break, Joe. It’s easy to assume that people who agree with one’s well thought out opinions are obviously brilliant and agree only because, having thoroughly examined all the evidence, they are impressed with the brilliance of those opinions. Then one encounters the so-called “popular mind” in action, and one finds out that this isn’t precisely so. And I’m not trying to be particularly sarcastic here about Joe. It really is easy to do, and quite natural. (Oh, and I had considered writing something about Huckabee’s foreign policy, as I thought it was getting badly treated, but since I’m not a Republican I never got up the energy to do the necessary research.)

    The addiction to secondary and tertiary sources is becoming (if it hasn’t already become) endemic in our culture. For many of us the facts come from purveyors of opinion without regard to references, sources, context, and logic. It’s not a particular failing of the left or the right, no matter how much each side would like to think it is. Much of public discourse occurs without fact checking. We believe what is said by folks we regard as authorities and we choose authorities based on how sympathetic they are to our own viewpoint. Often we avoid reading those who may disagree, and thus reinforce our feeling of rightness. How could those other folks disagree, given the overwhelming array of authorities (the six people whose blogs I read and who agree with me) who support our position.

    Now since I call myself a moderate, I need to add here that moderates are by no means immune to the problem. There’s a particular form of the problem that afflicts moderates in which we look for the extreme positions on an issue, not so that we can study the evidence for them and determine our position without excluding any option, but for the purpose of avoiding the extremes. Moderate sheeple make sure that they can in no way be regarded as extreme. That doesn’t mean that they are resistant to following leaders. Rather, they look for leaders who stay well away from the edges on any issue, and follow them.

    It’s very difficult to avoid this problem. I know I have caught myself following someone’s lead on a point without checking a few times, and it’s embarrassing. The answer, of course, is to check your facts, then check your logic, then check them both again. The only way to avoid simply following one’s impressions and feelings is to explicitly look at the foundations of one’s positions. But this is hard work, and modern journalism and popular writing is not helping us carry out the task.

    The tendency now is to cite a number of viewpoints. Balance in journalism means that one gives the various views on the topic. In politics, you get a Republican and a Democrat to tell you what they think, and you have balance. You get a Christian and an atheist to express their views on religion, and you have balance. Evaluation of the issues involved don’t matter.

    I’m sure we’ve all seen documentaries such as those that come out just about every Easter on the historical Jesus. Several scholars are interviewed, and as the material is narrated, we get short clips of what those individuals may say. But we never get their actual evaluation of the evidence in enough detail to judge for ourselves what they are saying. I rarely watch one of those shows all the way through, because I become agitated. In general I will have read at least something by every scholar they cite, and as they take abbreviated quotes from those authors and charge forward I become more and more agitated until I must choose between changing the channel and damaging the TV when I throw something at the narrator’s head.

    We have people getting the impression that they know something about the search for the historical Jesus when most couldn’t identify a pericope, or define what is meant by form, source, or redaction criticism, or identify one or two criteria which any group of scholars might use to determine historicity.

    Of course, they believe the documentary is balanced, because they have shown a variety of viewpoints. We’ve gotten to the place where people don’t think it’s nice to evaluate ideas. But some ideas are really stupid. Some ideas are really dangerous. Are we to expect journalists to simply present all sides without giving any kind of evaluation? That seems to be the way that we’re going, and I hear these complaints from people all across the spectrum of political and religious beliefs.

    I would suggest that we don’t want neutral media. We want diverse media. These days we have no reason to believe we won’t get diverse viewpoints because there are many sources available. Of course, those sheeple who are looking for a leader to follow will get their information from the easiest source, but in the modern world it’s very difficult to actually exclude an idea from discourse. Just consider the intelligent design movement. Never has a “suppressed” idea been so loudly and constantly proclaimed.

    Many today seem to think that “all men are created equal” somehow means that “everything is equal.” We want equal results, equal time, and so forth. But not everybody deserves the same amount of attention. Not every idea deserves the same amount of exposure and proclamation. A few more facts, a few more references, and a little more evaluation would go a long way.

  • The Balance of Outrage

    Frequently I see the challenge to outrage on blogs or even occasionally in print media. It goes something like this: Group A has been very outraged by X, the horror of which is minimized by the writer. The writer describes something that outrages him or her, surely much more horrible than X, and wonders if Group A will be duly outraged by this new thing. If they don’t, they are inconsistent and possibly morally reprehensible.

    I’m not really aiming this at anyone in particular. I’m certainly guilty of this very behavior. The idea is that we have to expend appropriate amounts of outrage and the various bad things that happen. Our outrage should balance, and will say something about our true moral beliefs. A lack of expressed outrage is sometimes taken as an indication that someone secretly approves of the horrifying action, or perhaps is totally apathetic.

    Well, I’m resigning from this little game. I think it’s silly. I cannot be outraged about all the outrageous things that go on in the world. There are simply too many. I cannot express my outrage at all the things that do outrage me. Time at the keyboard would fail me.

    Many different things go into personal outrage, a personal connection being the most important. Other factors also enter into writing about such outrage. There are a number of issues that have angered me a great deal, but yet have not moved me to write. Often this is because I can’t think of anything to say that I feel would be constructive. In other cases, I don’t believe I can gather enough facts to back up whatever I say. (Sometimes that doesn’t stop me!) At other times I feel that so many people have expressed themselves on an issue that anything I might say would be superfluous.

    So when I express outrage at something here, it means nothing more or less than it says. It doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that annoys me at the moment. It doesn’t mean that I think other issues on which I have not commented are unimportant. It doesn’t mean that I have created a hierarchy of outrage, and am now blogging through the top 10. If you challenge me to outrage so as to prove my sincerity, I’ll evaluate it in the same way. If you think this makes me insincere, well, that’s you’re problem.

    Enjoy being outraged! 🙂