Reppert on Ridiculing One's Opponents.
One of the most intelligent Christan bloggers is Victor Reppert who recently commented on those who comment on Christian and atheist blogs. To see all that he said go here. I totally agree with him when he wrote: "I really dislike ridicule, from either side of the fence." He also said, "I consider the ridicule heaped on atheists that I see on some blogs to be a bad witness." I think the same as he does when it's the atheists who are doing the ridiculing. I'm not saying there isn't a place for some of it in some forums specifically addressed to the proverbial "choir" for venting and/or entertainment purposes. It's just not something I pander to here at DC from either side of the fence.
10 comments:
What should be the attitude towards people who justify genocide?
Take the Christian Cadre, who host an article Here where it is argued that killing whole tribes of people, men, women and children is correct if their God tells the Chosen People to do so.
I don't live in America, but what should Americans do when they find people living in their midst who defend genocide?
Steven, on the one hand I personally believe that anyone who justifies wholesale slaughter based in what an ancient and superstitious people claimed their God told them to do is deserving of ridicule. There are a host of things that Christians believe that I could deride, and I'm not beyond doing just that in appropriate forums and venues, even here at DC in response to stupidity.
But on the other hand, as a former Christian apologist I once justified the same things that they do. And like Christians I too once sincerely believed that God dwelt on earth in the flesh because an ancient superstitious people claimed he did. Christians have some intellectual reasons for what they believe, even though I now disagree. There are some very intelligent and very educated Christian scholars who sincerely believe and defend these beliefs--scholars whom you and I would probably have serious difficulty debating on any single issue that separates us in beliefs.
If any of us on either side of the fence are convinced we are right on the issues we debate, then we will have this tendency to think our opponents are deserving of ridicule. But it does not do any good to treat intelligent people this way. It may make us feel better, and it may make us laugh, but it does not deal with their arguments. Ridicule, in a debate format where intelligent people on both sides of the fence try to let the other side see their side, is counterproductive, ineffective and degenerates in time to personal attacks.
Shouldn't it be obvious by now that people who disagree with us are not stupid or evil just because they disagree? Then accord them the respect you yourself want, for they probably consider your beliefs worthy of ridicule too.
Ad hominem attacks do little to further the dialogue between Christians and atheists; a dialogue which, as a Christian, I can say has helped Christianity immensely.
That said, I share Steven Carr's concern. There are times, perhaps, when ad hominem attacks, rather than being fallacious, are relevant to the argument at hand. My moral intuition tells me, for instance, that anyone who justifies genocide for any reason has stepped far beyond the bounds allowable in civil discourse, and may not merit civility.
Civility is necessary for conversation, but not all people who disagree with you make for good conversation partners. Atheists who see only the bad in the many manifestations of religion are not good conversation partners for me, nor are Christians who - as in Mr. Carr's example - find abstract theological justification for concrete moral atrocities.
That said, John, in general I agree with you, and am happy to see this post.
The "Poisoning the wells" debate strategy, as it is often called, can work well in swaying thinking audiences with open minds to avoid belief in a certain doctrine. No one wants to be stuck defending a mockable position. There is a line between ad hominems and well-structured mockery, but sometimes that line is blurred in certain minds.
I can mockingly say that Christianity demands belief in a woman eating bad fruit and causing menstrual cycles, to denote how ridiculous I believe that religion to be. I am mockingly pointing out what is true (that Christianity does teach such a thing), though the believer might disagree with it being put that way. No matter.
What does matter is if I make the attack personal, "Preacher Brooks believes a snake deceived a woman because he is on the mental level with stupid tribesmen." That may be too pronounced of an example, but many could be given, like this one. "You believe Position X because you are irrational," or "Your mind works irrationally." These are common ad hominems.
I might believe a person to be irrational, but my asserting so in an argument means nothing. It is only an insult to that individual receiving the accusation, and therefore, an ad hominem. It also begs the question of the debate -- the point of a discussion is to determine which position is correct or more likely correct. Asserting rationality just tugs at the meaning of irrational/rational thinking. A person is not rational, or another irrational, because they, or someone else, says so.
I think freethinkers have no problems drawing the line here (of course, some do, especially the fundy-ish, immature ones). But mature, science-minded adults don't have this problem.
It is believers who seem to be experimenting with a new form of "mock-evangelism" with Elijah's mockery of the Baalites as it's motivating factor. I've seen that referred to on certain Christian-dominated forums. I think that's the real problem, aside from the usual immature high schooler who is hell-bent on de-converting the world and "wowing" everyone with their naturalistic, intolerant version of wisdom. But we expect that from such people and ignore them like the internet trolls they are. It is the believers who seem to think that by saying things like "atheists suck" that they are somehow scoring points for Jesus!
Quite sickening that is. It is foul, immature, AND a logical fallacy.
(JH)
JE Holman" No one wants to be stuck defending a mockable position.
'tis true, and a great point. Maybe then it's the level of debate that I aim for here? I think that the higher the level of debate between people of different views, then the less we see ridicule. Maybe that's because at higher levels of debate each opponent realizes that "poisoning the well" is an informal fallacy and not really dealing with opposing arguments? If, however, the two sides are truly poles apart, then it would be better not even to have a discussion at all since each side couldn't take the other side seriously enough to treat the arguments with any kind of respect. In such cases maybe we should just mock each other.
Whether or not that's the case here between atheists and Christians is probably person related. I know Christians think we are way off the wall such that we deserve to be mocked. I just resist the same temptation since I myself used to defend the very things they defend. And while I think their faith is indeed mockable, I know that the more I do it the lower the level of debate becomes.
Steven,
I would guess that the wacky Christians who would justify genocide today would be a minority, and of course, there are wacky people on all sides of the fence. For example, Stalin was an atheist who murdered 25 million of his own people while creating a godless utopia. It's also one thing to justify the past, another the present. We should be wary of such getting power or guns.
I agree with (JH): "what does matter is if I make the attack personal."
John, I appreciate your over all attitude of: there, but for the grace of God, go I (sorry, I couldn't resist). But really, in a life that offers no substantial absolutes, what right does anyone have to a general attitude of superiority? Mocking and ridicule seem to be attributes of a closed mind. They also seem more like tools of manipulation, that evoke emotion, rather than the thought and reason one would want to encourage during the exploratory process of debate.
Paul,
While I agree with you that "there are wacky people on all sides of the fence," it is worth noting that while:
a.) Stalin was an atheist, and
b.) Stalin killed countless numbers of people,
it does not follow that Stalin's murderous ways were in any way related to his atheism.
Both Stalin and Hitler have been used by Christians as a counter to the atheist attack on Christianity that it has led to such violence in the name of God. The Christian counter is that atheists such as Stalin and Hitler (who was, at least, a functional atheist, even if he did have a nominal relationship to the German church, which he too often used as a pawn, much to the chagrin of theologians such as Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer) have committed the greatest atrocities of the twentieth century. But those atheists were not acting out of their atheism when they killed - it was incedental to the killings. The same, alas, cannot always be said of certain Christians who kill or justify killing in the name of their religion.
Of these Christians I can say that they misidentified the nature of their religion and the teaching of their Christ, but I cannot say that their killings, which often have theological justifications, are unrelated to their religious beliefs.
JEHolman,
You may be correct in asserting that Christians use immature mocking more often than atheists, but I'm not sure that raw numbers are the best way to determine whether an individual Christian apologist is more likely to engage in such stupidity than an individual atheist. This is because, in terms of raw numbers, there are so many more Christians than atheists, and so many more Christian apologists than atheists countering their claims. I haven't done a study, and so I can't claim to be able to predict the outcome of such a study, but the way to determine whether an individual Christian apologist is more likely than an individual atheist to mock their opponent is to look at the number of "mockers" as a portion of their respective group.
Absent that context, it is impossible to assert that Christians (considered as individuals) are more likely to mock their opponent than atheists. Consider that, given the respective numbers of Christians and atheists, and individual atheist could hypothetically be two or three (or perhaps even more) times more likely to mock an opponent than a Christian apologist, and yet there would still be (in terms of raw numbers) many more Christian apologists mocking than atheists.
Anecdotally (and thus, proving nothing) I have had more than a few opponents of Christianity offer up ridiculous and mocking ad hominem attacks at me. Similarly, I have had more than a few Christians who disagree with my theology do the same. I hope that neither the Christians nor the atheists inclined to be so insulting are good representatives of their respective communities.
Sandalstraps,
"it does not follow that Stalin's murderous ways were in any way related to his atheism."
Yes. Which was my roundabout point about wacky people on all sides of the fence. No group is immuned from wacky. Marx said: "force is the midwife of every old society. which is pregnant with the new." That may be a simple observation on Marxs' part, but can be taken as advocacy of violence to another. Stalin could have read that and said "hmm, I need to kill a few million unbelievers." Some use the Bible to support their belief that all gays or abortion doctors must die, I would guess that most Christians wouldn't do that. It's that old appeal to authority.
totally unrelated, I know you enjoy bumper stickers and I saw one the other day I thought might make you laugh: "God is coming back, and boy is She mad."
Sandalstraps,
It is with little surprise I agree with you. No matter how one chooses to demark out a group, within that group we will find optimists, pessimists, arguers, pacifiers, aggressors, peace-makers, introverts, extroverts, etc.
We could use the same arguments that some red-heads use mockery, just like blonds, brunettes, blacks, balds and grays.
However, do you think that there is a certain edge, a larger tendency to become heated in the areas of religion and politics? As if there is a draw for those that tend to be more insolent and degrading than in other subjects?
I have seen (and I suspect you may have too) less heat in a fight over millions of dollars or years in prison as compared to whether Judas died by hanging or falling.
I often get the impression that some theist feel by having a “God-Mandate” they obtain an unlimited license to use any and all means necessary, including and especially insults, mockery and contempt. I have said before there is nothing more venomous than a pent-up angry Christian who is able to label another as a “Pharisee” and let loose with a torrent of toxic vomit of words.
I also get the impression that some non-theists feel by having more knowledge, they, too, have an unlimited license to use any and all means necessary, including and especially insults, mockery and contempt.
While I enjoy a good debate, it is often very tempting to respond to those individuals, those perpetuating the problem.
So….How do we calm the tempestuous waters, or do we shrug and say, “Such is humanity”?
Paul,
*laughing uncontrollably*
What a great bumper sticker!
DagoodS,
I think that you're right - religion is a particularly volatile subject, though it is my no means the only such volatile subject. Growing up my Dad had a rule about dinner table conversations:
You can talk about whatever you want, so long as it isn't religion, politics, or abortion. When dealing with such subjects, which cut right to the heart of our intuitive self-identity, people feel threatened, get angry, and rarely ever change their minds. No good, according to Dad, comes from discussing them.
I disagree with Dad, but not with the observations which gave rise to his blanket ban of such subjects. I think that some good does come from discussing volatile issues in a sensible and respectful way - though I have to admit that such diwscussions are rarely sensible or respectful.
If we can discuss our fundamental disagreements, even if we are unable to persuade our conversation partners to agree with us, we have gone a long way towards making the world a more peaceful place. That is because, if you are truly able to consider the perspective of another, the "other" who has too long worn a hastily assembled and hostile label, then you are much more likely to be able to tolerate them and live in peace with them.
But you ask the pressing question, made more pressing in light of John Loftus' most recent post:
How do we calm the tempestuous waters, or do we shrug and say, “Such is humanity”?
I hope that this is a false dichotomy, because I know that the second half is true. "Such," indeed, "is humanity." But even still, by modelling reasonable and measured, respectful discourse, we might be able to in some small way suck the venom out of this mode of discourse.
Post a Comment