What is the Point of Debating Online?

I came across this picture on FB that I think makes a very good point.  

Earlier this year, I was debating abortion with some people on my FB page and I was in several other debates on that topic over the period of a couple of months. During that time many people have said to me that we should just ignore pro-choice commenters, especially ones that are more emotional and do not give cogent arguments. They won't be convinced, so what's the point debating them? Not everybody says this, but it is something I hear relatively often.  Sometimes, you hear cynical people in any controversial discussion say "What is the point in arguing about this?!  No one is going to change their mind!"

I definitely understand that issue. It is very unlikely that they will be convinced by any arguments we give on this platform. In my experience, they often just repeat the same things over and over again without considering what my pro-life friends or I argue. I do, however, think that entering these debates with pro-choicers on FB is a worthwhile endeavor. I don't necessarily enter these debates to convince these people, though it would be nice if they were convinced. Here is why I engage them

1) It may at least help them understand why people are pro-life beyond "You just want to control women's bodies!"
2) It may help them become pro-life ten years from now.
3) It helps a brother out. If a friend of mine is debating the abortion issue with multiple people, I don't want to leave him alone. I want to help him out. I also appreciate it if people help me out and don't leave me alone.
4) I don't want these people to be so confident in their assertions. I don't want them to get away with saying what they want without being challenged.
5) The audience may be genuinely helped and educated by seeing your contribution to the debate.

I'm not saying that all pro-choicers are bad arguers or closed-minded. I am also not saying that there aren't legitimate times avoid engaging with some people. I just don't like the categorical charge that engaging them is always pointless because they won't be convinced.  This doesn't just go for the abortion debate.  This applies to any topic of debate online.  

Needs and Rights

We have been emphatic in the past that the topic of our show is not guns.  We do this as a bit of a running gag because of the name of our podcast.  The theme of our show is Christian commentary.  However, that theme is wide enough to allow for a wide variety of topics to be discussed, including the topic of guns.  It's an interesting and important topic, so it has and will likely come up in our episodes and writings.  I had an interview with a philosopher about gun rights and this article is going to be about guns.

In this article, I want to address a particular argument or phrase that people who are for more gun control like to say.  This is an argument/phrase that more sophisticated defenders of gun control probably don't use, but I do see it frequently in the popular-level discourse on social media or protests.  Because of this, I like to call it a "meme-argument."  The phrase, or question depending on how the person says it, is basically "Why do you need this?!"  There isn't really an argument here, but there are implicit premises and conclusions in there if you think about them or draw them out.  Defenders of more gun restrictions (or complete gun bans) will talk about features of certain guns, like the AR-15, and say that there is no reason to have a gun like that because you don't need those features for whatever purpose.  The question is: What conclusion is supposed to be drawn from this?  For this post, I'm going to focus on the AR-15 since that's the gun I usually see being referred to when I hear this.

First, we need to figure out what they mean when they say that we don't need an AR-15 because of whatever features it has.  Are they saying 1) that we shouldn't have that gun or are they saying 2) that the gun is unnecessary, so there's no reason to have one?

The conclusion of (1) does not follow.  The fact that something is not needed has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal to obtain or whether or not is it moral to own.  If you want to argue those conclusions, you need to do more work than that.

If they mean (2), that its unnecessary, then I agree, but that doesn't mean that the gun isn't sufficient.  What I mean by this is that, yes, you do not need an AR-15 over other guns.  You could have a shotgun, a glock, a beretta, or any number of other guns.  However, the AR-15, like any other gun, still does the trick.  It still does what a person who wants a gun wants the gun to do: it provides a means of self-defense and recreation.  So, the fact that an AR-15 is unnecessary does not mean there is no reason to own one.

This article is not an all-out refutation of arguments for more gun control.  I am showing that this meme-argument, like all others, is insufficient to give any good reason for that viewpoint.  People at the popular level, even on social media, need to give more comprehensive and relevant arguments for their position that require more context and critical thought.  In the case of the phrase that I have talked about and its implicit argument, it does nothing to show that the AR-15 should be banned or that there should be more gun restrictions.  It also does nothing to address the positive arguments for less gun restriction based on a person's right to defend his or her life from danger.

Listen to the interview I linked above for the arguments for less gun ownership restrictions.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 20

Aaron and I talk about a dialogue that happened between Pastor Timothy Keller and Dr. Jonathan Haidt called The Closing of the Modern Mind.  Keller and Haidt talk about living in a pluralistic society and what resources their viewpoints have to offer to help people live in and foster a pluralistic society.  Aaron and I talk about the issue of civility when living around and talking with different people, the strengths Keller has as a speaker and representative of Christ, and the problems with identity politics.

Listen to the episode here.

This is the article Aaron mentions about Jim Jefferies and Jordan Peterson

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 18

I interview Dr. Greg Ganssle on fittingness arguments for God's existence and God of the Gaps arguments.  We discuss what fittingness arguments are, what fittingness arguments there are for theism, what fittingness arguments there are for atheism, and Greg responds to the arguments for atheism.  We finish off by giving an analysis of "God of the Gaps" arguments and responding to the charge that arguments for theism are God of the Gaps arguments.

Listen to the audio here.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 6

In this episode, Aaron and I have a discussion about public debates.  We discuss their structure, the issue or persuasiveness, and if Christians are way too "nice."

This is my (Kyle's) first time hosting and uploading a podcast, so I don't know how to add an intro or outro yet, so I'll need to figure that out as we go along.  Forgive the lack of music!

Listen to the episode here on Anchor.

Be Sure to Clarify Ambiguous Words When Debating

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Ambiguity

Something that I have quickly learned in my philosophical studies and my job teaching English to Chinese kids is that individual words often have more than one meaning.  When you use a word in a sentence that has more than one meaning, but the meaning of that word is not clear in its context, the word is ambiguous.  This is one way that our words can be unclear. One of the things that affects the productivity of discussion and debate is that people will use the same words, but mean slightly different things by them.  Unless the debaters are clear on what they mean by the words that they use, ambiguity will remain and the debaters will be talking past each other.

An Example from Discussions on Morality

An example of where ambiguity can negatively affect a discussion is in the realm of morality.  The word “morality” is an ambiguous word and, unless the speakers are clear, it can be easy for speakers to talk past each other on this issue.  Most of the time, “morality” can mean one of three things:

1. Moral Beliefs: These are simply what one believes is right or wrong; good or bad.
2. Moral Behaviors: These are the right or wrong behaviors or actions that people engage in.
3. Moral Facts: These are the truth-makers for moral claims.  A moral fact is what makes our moral judgments true or false.

When Christians and atheists debate on how Christianity or atheism ground morality, I think both groups often talk past each other because they sometimes mean different things by “morality.”  Often, when an atheist uses the word “morality,” he is talking about moral beliefs and behaviors.  If an atheist says “We don’t need religion or belief in God to explain morality,” he likely means that we do not need God to explain the development of moral beliefs and behaviors.  Dawkins, for example, says this

We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral’ towards each other.  First, there is the special case of genetic kinship.  Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback.  Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness.  And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising. (The God Delusion, pg. 251)

Dawkins gives an account of how moral beliefs and behaviors may have developed, but that does not address whether moral facts exist. However, when a Christian says “morality,” she often means moral facts.  When a Christian says “In order for moral values to exist, God needs to exist,” she is likely talking about the things that make our moral judgments true or false.  Notice that they are not actually disagreeing with each other.  They can both agree with each other because neither of their claims are inconsistent with one another due to the fact that they are referring to different things when they say “morality.”  In fact, William Lane Craig constantly makes it clear that the moral argument for God’s existence is referencing moral facts, not beliefs and behaviors.

Now it’s important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us.  The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?  There’s no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives.  Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God?  If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there’s no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree.  Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God?  The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. pg. 175-176)

When this ambiguity is not cleared up and eliminated, the atheist and the Christian are simply talking past each other and no progress is being made in the discussion.

Be Clear on the Meaning of your Words

The example I gave above is just one subject where ambiguity can come up.  There are many other controversial topics where ambiguous words can pop up, so my advice is to make sure that you clearly know what you mean when you use certain words and that you clearly express the meaning of that word to whoever you are speaking to.  You should also make sure that the individual or individuals that you are debating are clear with their words too.  Ask questions like “What do you mean by x?” or “When you say x, do you mean?. . .”  Being clear will help your apologetic and hopefully make your discussions more productive.

Note: A good book to read on how to discuss your Christian beliefs in a winsome and intelligent way is Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl.

The Problem With Quick Appeals to Mystery

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

How do Some People Respond to Deep Questions about God?

There are many questions that Christians have about the existence of God.  Some of these questions have to do with the coherence of the concept of God or other theological issues in Christianity.  How can God be three persons?  How does God’s sovereignty work with our free-will?  How is Jesus both God and man?  These questions, and many others, are often on a Christian’s mind and will inevitably be asked in church and Bible studies.  A common response to these questions is to appeal to the mystery of God.  God, being infinite, is beyond complete comprehension, so it is a mystery how these things work together.

Potential Problems with this Kind of Response

There is truth to this response.  God is not completely comprehensible by us because He is infinite.  We will never fully understand a being like God and we would be fooling ourselves to think that we can.  However, my concern is that Christians and pastors will use quick appeals to mystery as an easy way to dismiss a legitimate question about God and certain theological doctrines.  While acknowledging the mysteriousness of God has legitimacy, it leads to a few problems if it is used as a quick response to complex questions about God.  Here are the problems.

1. Quick appeals to mystery stop us from thinking deeply about God.  When you love something, you think about that thing as often as possible and seek to understand it more.  Quick appeals to mystery can cut that deep thinking short and it comes off as saying “No, don’t think that deeply.  That’s far enough.”  Thinking deeply about God is a worshipful and prayerful act, which is clearly shown in writings like Augustine’s Confessions or Anselm’s formulation of the ontological argument, so quick appeals to mystery can stop us from doing something that is worshipful and glorifying to God.
2. Quick appeals to mystery also invalidate people’s legitimate questions about God.  Those appeals can come off as saying “Don’t ask those questions.”  I think that if God and theology are important to people, then it is good for them to ask questions and we should help cultivate a desire to ask questions and seek to understand God better.  We do not want to discourage people from asking those questions.
3. Finally, quick appeals to mystery can make God look absurd.  If a pastor or small group leader continually uses quick appeals to mystery as a response to deep questions about God’s nature and his actions in the world, it will make it seem like there is no answer to those questions, which makes the concept of God look more and more incoherent and ridiculous.  If there is anything that the God of Christianity is not, it’s absurd, incoherent, and ridiculous.  People probably think that appealing to God’s mystery is a way of glorifying God because it acknowledges His infinite nature.  This is not wrong, but using appeals to mystery as a lazy response to legitimate questions can actually have the opposite effect and make it look like there is no answers to these questions because the concept of God, in actuality, doesn’t make sense.

Do the Hard Work

Again, I am not saying that God is not significantly mysterious to us.  He is infinite and we are limited beings who can hardly even comprehend our own world.  I also understand that I have not answered every question one may have about this topic.  When is an appeal to mystery “quick?”  How do we know when we are relying too much on human reason to understand God perfectly?  These are good questions and I do not have answers.  My problem is when appeals to mystery lead to laziness and discourage deep thinking about God.  If you are in a position of leadership in the church or have the opportunity to talk about your faith with non-believers, take the questions about God seriously and be willing to do the deep thinking that we ought to do about our Lord.