Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: argument

  • 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!

  • Argument Test

    Whether you’re using an argument against someone’s position, or dealing with application of a text, try it out against yourself. As in X said A contradicting Y who said B. Response: “X has been known to lie/be wrong.” Would you accept  “Y has been known to lie/be wrong” if you held position B?

  • Addicted to Arguing?

    Yes, that might be me! Peter Laarman at RD Magazine says many in American protestantism are addicted to arguing, and need to learn that arguments don’t win people over–contact with people and sharing of stories does it. He titles his piece Why Liberal Religious Arguments Fail, but while I’m well aware of many liberal examples, I think there are plenty on the conservative side of he spectrum as well.

    I must temper my support for his position by noting that I recall quite a number of my own positions that I changed due to listening to arguments against the position I held before. People differ from one another on this as well.

     

  • Are Creationists Stupid?

    Many people get the idea from my posts on evolution that I believe all creationists are stupid or at least irremediably ignorant. In today’s atmosphere, that may be a reasonable view to take from the posts, but I don’t mean it that way, and I don’t intend to accept the current atmosphere.

    In current American culture we are frequently urged to treat everyone’s ideas as essentially equal. They’re just someone’s opinions, and how can one be so arrogant as to suppose his own opinions are better than anyone else’s? I reject that view. If I’ve studied an issue and taken a position, I do so because I think that position is superior to the alternatives. If you want me to change it, don’t explain to me that your view is just as good because all views as “just opinions”; tell my why your view is superior to mine and sound like you mean it. I’ll argue with you, but I won’t be offended.

    There are even certain arguments based on authority that has merit. I believe my opinion on an issue of Biblical Greek or Hebrew is superior to someone who either does not know those languages or has only the basic seminary introductory class in them. Why? Because I have spent years both in formal study and in continued personal study, with daily reading of the Bible in its source languages, and regular study of grammars, lexicons, and other relevant literature. There are those whose opinion is more valuable than mine. That doesn’t mean that the “most superior person” is always right, but it gives them an edge.

    In the creation and evolution controversy, I have taken a position. I’m a theistic evolutionist, or I would prefer to say I am a Christian theist who accepts the theory of evolution in the form of the neo-Darwinian synthesis more or less. I’m going to defend that position with vigor. I have repeatedly stated that I do not question whether those who disagree with me are true Christians. I would be happy to have them in fellowship with me in the same church. I would be happy to have them challenge me. But I’m not going to pretend that I think their position is as correct as the one I’ve accepted. If I thought that, I wouldn’t have accepted it!

    So do I believe all creationists are stupid? Of course that would cover a lot of ground, even with my more limited definition of the word “creationist” as those who believe God has repeatedly intervened in the process. But the answer, even for young earth creationists, is no. Are there some stupid creationists? Yes. But intelligent people can disagree on things. Dr. Kurt Wise, for example, is clearly an intelligent man, but I find his position on this issue totally untenable. He’s a good man, an honest man, and an intelligent man, yet of those adjectives I can apply only “honest” to his position and also be honest myself. So I have to say that I believe his position is fatally flawed. Many will see “fatally flawed” as a weaselly way of saying “stupid.”

    But besides the possibility of simply evaluating the evidence differently, we may encounter self-deception. I think that many creationists have deceived themselves either by avoiding encounters with the evidence (reading only one side, for example) or via the use of conspiracy theories (that’s just those atheist scientists trying to destroy my faith). These people I could not call liars, but nonetheless they present misinformation that has been repeatedly and definitively refuted. It’s hard to keep just the right tone, especially when I think such a person should know better, yet I know that they don’t.

    Intelligent Design (ID) advocates actually get on my nerves in a special way, because they’re chorus of claims that ID has nothing to do with God or religion is simply so obviously phony. The spin is so clear and obvious, and yet they will try to claim that they are misunderstood or that straw man versions of their views are attacked. Yet given a moment of relaxation and they will bring God into the picture.

    Now this whole post could be labeled “arrogant” and “condescending”. Go ahead. I am arrogant enough to believe that my view is superior to other views, condescending enough to tell you so, and stubborn enough not to change them unless you can prove to me that your view is better. I would suggest that Christians especially, as we have truth claims in our religion, should be very careful in using the claim that all ideas are equal.

    Obviously, that is my opinion, to be held until I am convinced by superior evidence and arguments.