There's an old saying that goes "Do not discuss politics or religion in general
company."
1 Within any conversation where the participants
are passionate about their views, it is likely that emotions can get in the way.
The talk gets heated and it degenerates to more seeking to wound the other person
or simply trying to protect oneself. This next tip is so important, because it seeks
to help you argue well. We will use a single topic to see how each dodge can play
out, but this is just for example. Hopefully, you can recognize these and apply
them to other discussions as well.
Let's say we are discussing why God is
necessary for objective moral values and duties. I've argued
here that objective morality requires God to ground its precepts.
Perhaps
I tweet this article and get several responses. Let's walk through our scenario
and see how to deal with each.
1. Be aware of smokescreens
Many times if you raise a point that the other person cannot or doesn't want
to answer, they will throw out a smokescreen. Smokescreens are questions or objections
that are meant to a) take the pressure off them by bringing up some new subject
or problem not related to the issue at hand or b) questions where the questioner
isn't really interested in hearing the answer. So, for example, a person responded
to my article by writing "Morals can't be grounded in an imaginary being... not
grounded in Jesus any more than grounded in Santa." This response is clearly not
dealing with the problem of morals being objective versus subjective. It's simply
meant to inflame.
Therefore, Someone who wants to shout at you, ask questions
but refuses to answer ones you present, or simply barrages you with a barrelful
of issues is trying to create a smokescreen. Here's the takeaway:
- If people are honestly seeking an answer, they will be open to discussion;
otherwise it's not worth your time.
- Ask, "What evidence would you accept in order to change your views?"
2. Keep the focus on the issue at hand
The tactic of trying to get out of trouble by introducing a new subject is known
as a "offering a red herring,"
an idea coined by William Cobbett, who wrote
a story about a boy who drags the smelly fish away from a hare's trail in order
to send the tracking dogs in the wrong direction
2. In my
post above, I used confederate money as an analogy to show why morality must be
anchored in something bigger than just whatever people want to believe. I had another
respondent who began to argue about the value of gold and the economics of the1860s
versus today. These had nothing to do with my point, but were distractions. Similarly,
you may get "well, if God is moral then why did He let all those people die in the
(choose disaster of choice)?"
But God's actions are a separate question from
how we get meaningful morality. They are red herrings meant to lead you away from
your point. Here's the key:
- Stay on one topic
- Make sure both parties are responding in a way that moves the conversation
forward
3. Note who has the burden of proof
Another dodge that can come up is when a person makes a charge and when you respond
to that charge, he challenges you to prove your own position. For example, sometimes
atheists simply dismiss my argument and state God is not necessary for morality
to be real. At that point they've made an assertion, so it is incumbent upon them
to back it up. I would ask something like, "How is it that moral laws are
binding upon all of humanity and not
merely a preference?" If the person replies with, "Well, atheists are more moral
that other people" he's offered a red herring. This is why
tip #2 is so important. The more questions you ask the less work you have to
do. The objector should be able to provide reasons for his objection. The takeaway
is:
- One who asserts belief should have reasons for why they hold that view
- You don't need to prove or justify anything, simply ask them the questions
4. Watch for power moves
One time I was walking down a street and noticed a man on a bench who was shouting
about the Iran war to the crowd. He spoke in brave tones and seemed very confident.
But some of the things he said were very simplistic. I asked him how
Just War theory fits
in with his position.
He actually got off the bench, took me aside and said
in a normal voice, "Yes, I know about Just War Theory. I'm a professor as the local
college." I asked, "Well, we should talk about it since it isn't quite what you're
shouting." He replied, "Well, I have to use rhetoric in order to get the attention
of people walking by." I found such as statement educational. The man was intentionally
misrepresenting a position to draw attention to himself, but the people wouldn't
know because he'd never shout the nuances of the debate.
This
is why students must be careful when arguing with their professors during class.
It's important to try and be heard, but it's also important to realize that the dynamics
are such where the prof may do whatever it takes to save face. The takeaway is:
- Don't get "shouted down" – assert yourself as having a right to be heard!
- The man with the microphone always wins
5. Don't let emotions ruin the conversation
Of all the tips I've presented, this one is probably the most important, since
Christians are just as guilty of it as those they interact with. If your discussion
with another person starts to turn where you can feel the blood rising in your face,
it is probably time to take a break. As I said at the beginning, passionate beliefs
can turn into more heated arguments. But this is exactly the wrong way to share
your faith! Be firm in what you believe and don't let people abuse you, but you
should never alienate the person because your emotions got the better of you. Take
a break, ask to come back at a later time and finish the conversation. It's better
to part ways and have the opportunity to be heard another time than it is to offend
someone to the point where they will reject your message because they associate
it with a vindictive messenger.
To see all the posts in this series,
click
here.
References
