Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: 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.)

  • Psalm 119:51 – Confidence

    Psalm 119:51 – Confidence

    The arrogant taunt me scornfully,
    but I do not swerve from your instruction.

    The most common reason people express to me for not talking about their faith to others is that someone may make fun of what they believe.

    Now I can’t tell you that people won’t do that to you. They will. And it’s more universal than you might think. I’ve found that many Christians are unaware of what their comments on atheism sound like to an atheist, or actually to anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. When we produce “zingers” or “mic drops” regarding people who do not share our beliefs, they may cause high fives among those who share the taunter’s viewpoint, but they don’t make friends, and they don’t convince.

    Actual confidence in your beliefs doesn’t require you to put others down. Confidence will, however, give you a defense against those who taunt you. You know that the snide remark doesn’t actually make your own beliefs wrong. It’s the result of under-confidence and over-expression.

    This doesn’t mean that you can’t have dialogue about your faith or even debate it. But the dialogue of a confident person doesn’t require demeaning one’s opponent or trying to get cheap, but ignorant laughs. Dialogue requires that one listen to an opponent’s point of view and respond to what that person actually believes.

    This also applies to debating with or having dialogue with Christians in other tradition streams. For example, the Calvinists I encounter don’t resemble the Calvinists described to me by fellow Wesleyans. On the other hand, the descriptions I often hear from Calvinists of Wesleyans don’t much resemble anything I believe.

    This verse gives us antidotes to all of these problems: Sticking to God’s instructions. Doing so will help you to withstand taunters and to avoid being a taunter yourself.

    Who in your world might you need to understand better?

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

  • Openly Discussing Evolution, SDAs, and the UMC

    Openly Discussing Evolution, SDAs, and the UMC

    Credit: OpenClipart.org J_Alves
    Credit: OpenClipart.org J_Alves

    Evolution is one of those issues we often don’t discuss in church. There are actually quite a number of Christians who accept evolutionary theory in general or just a part of it, but quite often they just don’t want to get into the kind of acrimonious debate. Every so often (really quite rarely, all things considered) I’ll get an e-mail from someone who found my e-mail address on the list of board members for Florida Citizens for Science, and they wonder how I can be a Christian and be on that list. That is, unless they simply assert that I must not actually be a Christian. (This is a rambling post. [Which of mine aren’t?] Toward the end I do get around to referring to the SDA church in which I grew up and the UMC, where I currently hold membership.)

    Now this post is more about “openly discussing” than about evolution as such. I grew up in a conservative Christian culture (the Seventh-day Adventist Church), in which it was one of the articles of our faith that we accepted the literal creation week. As a result of that, and of the resistance I met when I started to see things differently, I grew up with the impression that conservatives want to close off conversation while liberals were open. Each group was, after all, treating me in that way.

    But the more I have experienced the world, the more I have observed two things:

    1. Any entrenched group will tend (or at least have a strong temptation) to exclude outlying opinions
    2. Outlying groups, especially those that actually have some traction, will tend to feel excluded even if they aren’t

    The fact is that no matter how energetically we may work to be totally open, no discussion can take place on a completely unlimited field. Not all boundaries are limiting boxes.

    A few years back I was teaching a Sunday School class and one of the members asked me to meet with him to discuss the future of the class. He wanted us to study eastern religions. I told him that I had no problem with the class studying eastern religions if that was what they wanted to do, but they’d have to get a different teacher. “Why?” he asked. Well, I explained, there are two reasons. First, I know very little about eastern religions. Second, I’m a Bible teacher. That’s what I do. He was quite surprised and told me that I didn’t really need to know much about eastern religions in order to teach it for the class.

    That attitude is more common that you might think. On the one hand we have the idea that issues can only be discussed by a very highly qualified group of experts, and outlying opinions, those contrary to the majority position, should shut up and go away. That attitude can lead to stagnation. But on the other hand we have the view that all opinions need to have an equal place at the table, no matter how poorly supported they might be. This is another attitude that will prevent progress, this time by creating chaos and wasting time.

    We live in a kind of tension between these two ideas. For example, I believe that creation vs evolution is a perfectly valid subject for discussion in the church. The debate on the interpretation of Genesis is alive and well, and carried out by highly qualified scholars in the appropriate fields. I think that there is really very little actual scientific debate on this same controversy, because I don’t see creationists doing original science that can actually challenge the various facets of evolutionary theory. I see some picking at this or that, but nothing one can get one’s teeth into. But I’m not a scientist, and I’m not qualified in any of the fields in question, so my opinion on that point isn’t particularly important.

    What I think we should work toward is a creative tension between consensus and new ideas, between open discussion of all views and perhaps more productive discussion between people who are more selective. I think this sort of discussion is well served by a variety of confessional, non-confessional, and secular schools, whether the topic is religious or not. I regularly hear complaints that certain sectarian institutions should be shut down because they are too closed in their confession. I disagree. As long as those who attend know what the principles of the school are, and graduates are functional in the subjects they learn, I think that’s an appropriate way to add variety.

    The problem is that “functional” is defined by too many people as “accepting what I already believe.” As an example, I hear from advocates of the historical-critical method in Bible study (and with some caveats I count myself among their number), that one isn’t “qualified” in biblical studies if one doesn’t “know” something so obvious as that there are three Isaiahs. But what if one knows that this claim is made, and knows why, but doesn’t accept it? One can be so absolutely certain of one’s scholarly conclusions that one cannot imagine an intelligent person disagreeing.

    Conservatives will doubtless nod and agree, but from them I hear that if someone can’t make a good argument for the 6th century dating of Daniel, or for the Mosaic authorship of all or part of the Pentateuch, that person doesn’t really know what she or he is talking about. Or perhaps the secularly educated scholar doesn’t truly understand Calvinist theology. Or Arminianism. Whatever.

    My suggestion would be that if all your knowledge comes from one source or type of source, such as all your academic ideas are those favored by the school from which you got your degree, you may be a bit narrow. And that means that the simple fact that your college is confessional on the one hand, or very secular on the other, doesn’t mean you’re ignorant or closed. Ignorance and closed-mindedness are cultivated attitudes. Especially in modern America, you have no excuse not to know how the other side thinks.

    You also have a variety of avenues to challenge the other side, so you don’t really have an excuse when one school or organization doesn’t like your ideas and tells you to hit the road. I may not like it. I too have an ideal academic environment, one in which serious scholars who disagree are welcomed irrespective of confessional statements. But that’s my imaginary ideal. I think I got a rather decent education from confessional schools that were closed in many ways I wish they were not. But they were nonetheless good schools.

    All this blather has been leading to two links with quick opinions on my part. The first comes from a Seventh-day Adventist source, in which an SDA writer responds to some claims of supposed challenges to evolutionary theory. It’s in Spectrum Magazine, titled Dangling or Not? A Response to Chadwick and Brand. This article critiques another in which creationists see some new scientific discovery challenging the foundations of evolutionary theory. Just as I’ve been hearing all my life that the end of the world is upon us because of some recent story in the news, so I have been hearing that evolutionary science was on life support due to some new discovery. I’ve become just as jaded to both. But this story takes place in an organization that really doesn’t want to open the door to full discussion of this issue. Being an advocate of evolutionary theory in the SDA educational system is unlikely to be good for your career prospects.

    On the other hand we have the UMC general conference. Now in religious terms, as I’ve said, I see creation vs evolution (though I don’t see the two in conflict), as a valid debate. Amongst the advocates against evolutionary theory is the Discovery Institute. Before you read the rest of this, you should know that I truly dislike the Discovery Institute. I think they largely make what should be scientific and theological questions into political ones. But just because I don’t like them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard in the church. Yet according to this article from UM-Insight, they were denied a booth at the UMC General Conference. Why? Because they are not in accord with our social principles. Hypocrisy anyone?

    I recall when I first joined a United Methodist congregation, I asked the pastor if I had to affirm the social principles. He said, “Those? We don’t pay much attention to them.” I know a number of Methodists who would object to his saying that, but what he says is very accurate. The social principles are a box that few would like to be confined in, yet that provide an excuse for many things. Advocating to change them is a recreational sport. If the GC venue was running out of space, you have to exclude someone, but this is a particularly thin excuse. There are plenty of United Methodists, though presumably a minority, who would be sympathetic to the institute’s work. Many of them live in this area. I disagree, but in the church they should have a voice.

     

  • By the Way, It’s Not a Debate

    It just isn’t. It’s not even a very good joint news conference.

  • 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.

     

  • 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! 🙂