When most people hear “argue” or “argument,” they think of what’s pictured to the left. I’m not referring to that. I’m referring to logical discourse.
Argumentation has fallen on hard times in our postmodern age. Arguments have been replaced by assertions, rhetoric, and sound-bites. The reasons for this are many: the idea that there are no absolute truths to argue for, a false notion of tolerance, and a pragmatic approach to life to name a few. We have become more concerned about the utility of an idea than its truthfulness, and our subjective feelings than objective truth. What I find both interesting and disheartening is that even conservative Christians have disengaged from the art of argumentation.
For many there is an aversion to the very word “argument” because in their mind it connotes fighting. But there is a difference between being argumentative (a psychological and behavioral disposition), and presenting an argument. An argument is simply a series of reasons given in support of, or in opposition to some proposition(s). In this sense the process of argumentation is vital to the epistemological veracity of Christianity.
The process of argumentation and debate aids us in our journey toward more truth. Argumentation forces us to think of things we might not have thought about before, and only by doing so do we have a chance to grow in knowledge and wisdom. In his book The Revolt of the Elites Christopher Lasch wrote that it is only in the course of argument that “we come to understand what we know and what we still need to learn,…we come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others.” The process of argumentation puts our own ideas at risk. In the words of John Leo, arguments “can rescue us from our own half-formed opinions.” The opinions that survive the argumentation process demonstrate to both us and our opponents the strength or lack thereof of our ideas.
Arguing with those who hold positions contrary to our own is an act of love because its aim is to rescue people from bad ideas, and bad ideas have bad consequences. So contrary to those who oppose argumentation because it is unloving, nothing could be more loving. We actually fail to act in love if we allow someone to hold false beliefs.
May 20, 2009 at 11:55 am
Brother Jason,
I agree with what you say, with qualification.
We are warned that foolish questions gender strife and this goes beyond asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether Adam had a navel. If a person’s disposition isn’t receptive to logical argument, wisdom dictates we seek peace over confrontation. That is not to imply we shouldn’t try, but it simply recognizes the futility of argument when someone clearly doesn’t want to participate. Of course, you’re not advocating a verbal fight. I’m just saying it’s best to avoid certain topics with certain people.
There is also another group we need to avoid: The blind leading the blind. As Christ said, arguing with them is pointless because they don’t want to see the truth. We just leave them alone.
There are also certain doctrinal issues I avoid when interacting with certain saints. If the apostles, after serving under Christ’s ministry for over three years, were unable to “bear” certain truths temporarily (John 16:12), it behooves us to be very careful when discussing certain doctrinal issues with the immature or when the potential exists for the immature to be damaged by such a discussion.
These things notwithstanding, it is refreshing to sit down and discuss differing views with others if the objective is to convey and receive truth. Nobody who loves Jesus should be afraid of growing in His grace and knowledge.
In Christ
LikeLike
May 21, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Scalia,
I agree. In the Proverbs we are told not to answer a fool, and Jesus told us not to cast our pearls before swine. There are times and people with which there is no point in advancing (or continuing to advance) an argument for your point of view because they are not interested in the truth.
I also agree that we need to be wise in what we discuss with certain people. But when wisdom dictates that we address an issue, we should do so using argumentation, rather than assertions.
Yes, it is refreshing to discuss matters with others when both of your goals is to know the truth, rather than defend some cherished position at all costs.
Jason
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 8:34 am
Good read! I like how you sum it up: “Arguing with those who hold positions contrary to our own is an act of love because its aim is to rescue people from bad ideas, and bad ideas have bad consequences.” I ask, however, that you realize your [implied] position of “my ideas are good and others’ ideas are the potentially bad ones” is excruciatingly one-sided and a bit arrogant–which is the norm for religions in general.
I came across this blog because I saw your “argument” graphic deep linked from another site–very bad practice and impolite to boot. Email me if you’d like to know the offender’s details…
FWIW, I’m a “devout” atheist if you hadn’t guessed. 🙂
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Eric writes,
Why is the belief one’s ideas are good arrogant? If Jason believes slavery is bad and John Doe believes it is good, is Jason arrogant because he wants to persuade John slavery is a bad thing?
Moreover, what is “bad” about being arrogant? Are you telling Jason that arrogance is a bad thing? Why are you asking him to “realize” his “implied” position is “one-sided”? What is wrong with being one-sided? Your “idea” is that arrogance and one-sidedness are “bad” and your opposition to them is “good.” You thus exhibit what you object to. One cannot consistently climb the ladder of one-sidedness only to deny the ladder can be so used.
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Nice response Scalia!
Eric, as for the picture, I fail to see how it’s impolite to use a picture from the web. Every picture I use comes from the web. This is a blog, not a business venture. Is there some copyright law I’ve broken?
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Scalia-
Touche! Just as both parties are devoted to forwarding their own belief, they must also be devoted to the idea that they must be able to depart from that belief if a productive conversation is to occur.
As I may argue that god likes blue shoes over red, and you the opposite, we must both acknowledge that the truth (untestable as it may be) is one or the other and requires a yielding of one party should they convince the other of their “truth”.
That was my point, which, I suppose, is a subtle point secondary (but critical imho) to the gist of the article. We must each be able to examine our own beliefs with doubt, and be able to abandon them for what we each determine for ourselves is a better belief should the situation arise. Otherwise, no amount of arguing, discussion, nor debate will ever change anyone.
PS Respect for arguing with me, in the most positive of ways 🙂
I think Chris Rock said it in a movie once: “It’s easy to change an idea. It’s hard to change a belief. People have died for beliefs. People have killed for beliefs.”
Jason-
Wow, really? Images are copyrighted by their creator. You must ask permission to reuse it. Just ask any stock photo artist how they feel about copying pictures at whim. Not only is (was?) it considered illegal and impolite to rip pictures, but the image itself is being hosted on your website but downloaded by his visitors. I guess since the idea of bandwidth costing money has become so vague there really is no big inconvenience. FYI it’s called “deep linking” when someone uses pictures on *your* host in *their* site. Once upon a time people became very, very angry when they found out their bandwidth was being used by someone else’s site. Many a good prank resulted (changing the image without their knowledge, etc.)
Oh, how times have changed. I just thought I’d alert you to what I thought was bad practice, but I see that’s not truly the case… boy, you’re making me feel old, and I’m younger than you!
Keep those minds open and thanks for the good post.
~Eric
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Eric,
I’m not getting it. The picture is not linked to another website (if it is, I’m not detecting it). It was downloaded from another site and then uploaded to my blog.
Well, if what you are saying is true, then I’m guilty as charged. Where do you suppose people are getting all the photos for for their blogs? I don’t think they are creating them themselves. I don’t know. Maybe this is like music downloads. Technically illegal, but action is never taken against it. Hmm.
Jason
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm
For example, someone else has a website, say stuffandthings.com. They have a banner image on top of their page. Instead of the image file residing on the hard drive of the server for their website, they instead instruct a web browser in the code of their webpages “go get the banner from Jason’s website instead of this one”. It’s not the same as saving the file then uploading it to your own server/website, as you did.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to… all images on my sites are created by me. I’d be really pissed off if someone started claiming them as their own, and I doubt I’m alone. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I do take responsibility for my own actions.
Granted, as you say it is fairly commonplace now to steal images and music, but… hey wait, I seem to remember something in the bible about not stealing? I guess it’s not absolute? Perhaps since everyone else does it, it’s morally “OK”? Boy, what a pickle you’ve gotten yourself into. I bet you could make another good blog posting out of this! J
~Eric
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Eric writes,
Eric, if you’re merely asking for open-mindedness, I think you’ll find agreement all-around. I don’t know anybody who hasn’t modified h/er beliefs to some degree over time. However, your statements appear more skeptical than that. If you are arguing one cannot know truth, or that there is no such thing as “truth” (in the absolute sense), then your argument is logically self-defeating. You are claiming to know the truth that truth cannot be known. And if your statement lacks absolute applicability, then it bears no relevance to me.
So…if one cannot logically dismiss knowledge of absolute truth, then it is at least possible it can be known. If it can be known and somebody knows it, one cannot expect such a person to be “open” to something false.
LikeLike
August 4, 2010 at 2:29 am
Eric,
For the record, I am opposed to downloading music. I consider it to be theft. That’s why I raised the question of the similarity between that practice (which I condemn) and using photos from the internet for personal use (which I do not). If they are similar, then I am being inconsistent and may have to rethink my position. I’ve never considered it before. It seemed harmless to me. I’ve never noticed any copyrights or “do not use without permission” notices for any pics I’ve used on my site. The only pic I’ve ever used on my site that needed permission to be used is the one for the banner to my site, which I asked permission to use and was granted it. I would have never thought using pictures that show up in Google images with no expressed copyright would be wrong to use for personal (as opposed to commercial) use. Is there a law on this?
LikeLike