By: Matt White
This will probably be the last “blog of ten” that I’ll be
writing for a while. Recently at our
Owensboro Freethinkers Meeting, there was the expression of interest in opening
up a dialogue with theists in our community.
Though we are not well-known in Owensboro
(yet), there may come a time when we must intellectually defend ourselves against
differing points of view. The way to do
that is through argumentation – the ability to soundly defend one’s views while
critiquing the opponent's. Our group is
atheistic in element – most of us do not believe in a God – and while this isn’t
an atheist group, this is a group where atheists are most welcome to join,
fellowship, and enjoy the company of fellow non-believers. As a community, though, we always encourage
dialogue and we welcome all theists to prove us wrong or try to convert us. It makes for great discussion, and as
freethinkers, we’re pretty open to new ideas.
That is generally the group’s policy towards theism.
As for myself, I have debated theists for a few years now,
and I have found that the rules of debate, while unspoken, tend to prove themselves
time and time again. In response to
these rules, I have created a general set of guidelines that will help the
unbeliever in tackling theistic topics of discussion. I hope this assists our fellow members in
possibly stretching their wings a bit if the opportunity to debate does
arise. You will have to forgive me for
the broad strokes, and I understand I speak in generalities, but these are from
my experiences.
- Remember: You won’t change minds.
Theists, in my opinion, usually debate with the intention of
saving your soul or defending their faith.
The best way to do so is for you, their opponent, to be converted. Theists are generally taught that
their mission is to save souls, change hearts and minds, and to convince you
they’re position is real. However, most I have met
lack an element that is essential in debate – the possibility of having their
minds changed. Theists normally do not
go into a discussion with the notion that perhaps they’re wrong. As an agnostic atheist, I do. I always admit that I could be wrong. I haven’t met many theists willing to grant
the same concession. As a matter of
fact, be prepared to meet hostile theists who find your presence to be
offensive just because you stand and say “I disagree”. That’s a stigma that we have to deal with,
and that prejudice works against our chances to change minds.
As such, I have never had a formalized debate where the
intention was to change a theist’s mind because it’s almost unrealistic to
think that it will happen then and there on the spot. Perhaps you can plant a seed; perhaps the
resources you offer, they may look into.
However, the vast majority of time, you will not change their minds, and
you’ll leave the discussion in the same position as you came in. It doesn’t mean the discussion shouldn’t
happen, though, as we have a responsibility to discourse and entertain ideas.
- Remove Emotion; Replace with Evidence.
There is a vast difference in the world view of the average
theist and atheist. Atheists are usually
seen as cold, calculated, and critical (and to a degree, when thinking, one has
to be in order to arrive at objective truth).
Theists view themselves as spreading a message of love and
salvation. I have been a theist, so I
understand the importance of witnessing to the “lost”. I also understand that they come from a position of faith. Most non-believers do not. Many discussions I have had with theists have
been an ideological clash between emotion and evidence. The atheist asks for evidence, and the theist
responds with emotional pleas. Many
time, you’ll see it in the form of “argument…with an addendum attached asking
you to open your heart to God in one way or another.” Be prepared to have to shrug off emotional
pleas; especially guilt. Conviction is
what normally leads to salvation, and if something they say can, to borrow their language, "stir your heart"
to conviction…then they have done their job.
That’s an actual goal they reach for, so anticipate it manifesting by appeals
to emotion. Do not take attacks personally. Call them out on it, but never digress to that level.
These attacks can range from being an agent of the
devil, to being insensitive because you’re questioning their beliefs, that you're inferior or ignorant because you willfully choose not to believe in God, or it may
be an appeal to take down your intellectual barriers and trust with your heart
in God. It happens all the time. In response, demand evidence. Everyone has their own bar for what passes as
good evidence, but Carl Sagan once wrote in The Demon-Haunted World: “extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence.” In
the world of academics, where evidence is the key, the truth doesn’t lie on who
can make the best emotional plea. It
relies solely on proof. Theist’s claims
are no exception. If they do not provide evidence, point it out.
- Know Your Argumentative Fallacies.
Many theists, I have met, usually don’t argue all too often
(though I have met many notable exceptions).
I hate to sound like an ass when I say this, but it is mostly true: most theists do not know how to argue. There are rules in proving your thesis, and
if you shirk those rules, more likely than not, you’ll be using argumentative
fallacies. The more fallacies you learn,
the more you can offer correction when they occur, and hopefully your opponent can learn by having them pointed out. Normally by doing this, you can then
dismantle their argument and they’ll have to either concede or move on. For an introduction, check out my last blog
on argumentative fallacies.
- Make them keep the burden of proof.
I am an agnostic atheist.
I have no evidence to believe in God.
I never say “there is no God”. I
don’t know that. I don’t have to prove a
negative, in the same way that I do not have to prove that there is no Loch
Ness monster. As such, he who makes the
claim has to support it. Unbelievers, be
careful by saying “there is no God” because we don’t know that for sure (it’s
almost intellectually dishonest to speak with that kind of certainty). If the theist makes the claim that God “absolutely,
100% exists”, it is up to them to prove it, and you must play the role of
skeptic. If a theist says “well, you don’t
have proof that God doesn’t exist”, remind them of the importance of the burden
of proof. Atheists have nothing to prove. That's why we are atheists.
- Define and Deconstruct.
This is a rule that often requires the patience of the
atheist in debating, but much of what theists have to say can be deconstructed
to show the inconsistency in their theses.
It’s best to set definitions if one can to set parameters when discussing a term. When one speaks of God, what do they mean? Be prepared to quibble over meanings of words,
because you might see equivocation as a fallacy pop up if you don’t, as well as
confusing definitions and terms, or the shifting of goalposts. Usually, I ask the theist two questions when
I sense a debate coming: “how much time
do you have to commit to this?” and “how often do you debate?” This takes time, but it can help you avoid
hassles. Vague terms need to be defined.
- Avoid Shifting Topics.
Many theists have a very base understanding of atheistic
topics. It comes from them knowing about us through their spiritual leaders or biased commentators. As such, the atheist will probably have to offer a lot of correction on misplaced assumptions. One of the consequences of those assumptions is having theists shifting
topics all the time, because they see them as linked (evolution and abiogenesis; existence of God and morality; etc.). A recent debate I had was quite
rife with the tactic, and it can exhaust an atheist who must reply to each
accusation. We were discussing, I
believe, whether or not the Bible was authentic, but I was accused of not being
able to interpret the Bible correctly because I didn’t have the Holy Spirit,
and no moral compass…so we had to discuss morality – something completely
different from whether or not the Bible is historically accurate. I then had to point out to my opponent that
what we were talking about had nothing to do with how I read and comprehended
his book. Be very watchful – once you
hit a topic, recognize it, reinforce it, and stick with it until a point is
conceded.
- Recognize the Patterns; Anticipate the Generalities; Know Your Opponent.
This is kind of the big one.
The easiest way to prepare for a debate is to know what arguments to
expect and to understand the theistic world view. If I’m debating evolution, I anticipate
hearing “it’s only a theory”; “it doesn’t explain the Big Bang”; “we’re too
complex to have evolved”; “why are there still monkeys?”, etc. If I’m debating
the Bible and its authenticity, I anticipate hearing arguments from Josh
McDowell and Lee Strobel. If we are
discussing morality, I’m probably going to have to explain how I form my own
morality and why it is in man’s best interest to be kind to his fellow man (and
the evolutionary implications). I
usually have to retread the same ground over and over, but it’s mostly because
the same arguments are presented to me over and over. The best preparation is to read Christian
apologetics…and then read critical responses to them. It requires a lot of learning to have a
response, but it is well worth it in the end if you have the opportunity to
exercise what you have learned. The best
policy, as one of our members alluded to, is to treat debates with theists like
a game of chess. In chess, one removes
all emotion, and the trick is to calculate the opponent’s next few moves as
rationally and critically as possible.
Theists normally play the strategy of using the same arguments over and over, so it is relatively easy to anticipate them if you've been debating for a long time...though I’m always on the
look-out for new ones.
- Debate One-on-One.
This is something most folks don’t think about, but it is
crucial if you’re debating in person.
This isn’t so much a rule as it is a guideline, but debating one-on-one
is easier, and it places the atheist in the stronger position if he is the minority. Ganging up is unfair to the minority and it
drowns out their voice. A group will usually
win not because they made the better argument, but because they were louder
and didn’t give the other person ample chance to make their case. There is no reason a person should willingly place
themselves in this situation. When I’m
with atheist friends and I have a theist who says something, and a debate is
brewing, I try to make it a point to mention how unfair it is to gang up on
someone, and ask that one person talk with the other as opposed to everyone interjecting something. I haven’t had the same
consideration from theists, but if I believe I’m going to have to debate three
people, I ask that they pick someone to speak for them and for the other two
people to hold off…or I address them one at a time. This leads to the next rule…
- Be Prepared to Explain In-depth.
Be prepared to explain in-depth what you have to say. How this connects with the last guideline
concerns exhaustion. If you are debating
three people who throw three different accusations at you, you have to spend ample
time addressing each one of those if the interest is to correct the
theist. That’s three times the
work. I normally do one-on-one debates
or discussions simply because I want to address all the points my opponent
makes. Much of the time, assumptions are
thrown at us where we have to correct them, and we must explain our
rational. That can take up a lot of time
and space, but it comes with the territory.
- Practice, Practice, Practice.
The best way to learn how to debate is through experience. I used to find random message boards and
forums where nobody would know me, walk in, and debate. Sometimes I won; sometimes I was handed my
own brain on an argumentative silver platter.
But I learned from it. That’s the
essential ingredient in debating. Minds
may not be changed, but skills should be improved. Don’t be afraid to place yourself out there
and, more importantly, ask for help or research what you’re going to be
discussing. Besides, you may find you
have a knack for debate when you put your mind to it.
Conclusion
Hopefully these ten recommendations will give the new
debater a set of general guidelines of what to expect when debating a
theist. Most of my experiences have been
debating theists, so these are just what I’ve noticed occur in the natural
course of discussion. Each side in the
theistic discussion – theist and non – have their own set ways of conducting
the debate, but gaining an understanding of how each operates is essential in conducting
good, constructive dialogue between opposing viewpoints.
No comments:
Post a Comment