I wrote about a common area of disagreement between theists and non-theists in my previous post; namely, the foundational presuppositions upon which one bases her beliefs. Drawing clear distinctions that show the actual differences between two opposing parties is crucial for any real progress to be made in conversation. I have witnessed discussions and debates in which both sides hurl verbal javelins at each other, but neither side really understands where their disagreement lies. In fact, they usually have more in common with each other than they realize (or want to realize).
I have used the ongoing conflict between the pro-choice camp and the pro-life camp in the abortion debate as an example of this. Simply put, both sides value life, and both sides value human rights. The disagreement between the camps isn't about whether humans should have rights or whether life has any value, although you might think otherwise considering all the jargon and rhetoric each side throws at each other.
Concerning the "atheism versus theism" debate, when Christians for example refer to atheists as "god haters," "Satan worshipers," or being "in denial" about the truth of god, nothing good comes of it, because the Christians aren't addressing the actual disagreement atheists have with theism. They manage to get a few jabs in on some straw men, and that's about it.
Experience has taught me that drawing clear distinctions and discovering where the true disagreement lies requires following an important rule: find common ground. Arguing is easy. Taking the time to listen and understand requires a little more work. The goal should be to find areas where you and the other person(s) agree, and build from those points of commonality. When you find common ground, you will see the points of disagreement more distinctly, and thus you will be able to address those concerns more directly. First understand, then argue all you want.
Referring back once again to my favorite Christian apologetics blog, Apologetics 315, I saw a recent post which listed 15 Ways to Detect Nonsense. Here's the list Apologetics 315 provided:
1. Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words such as all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs, or attitudes.
2. Be alert to generalizations, especially to generalizations that are not supported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual, or extreme examples.
3. Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
4. Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance, or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
5. Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications and complexities have been identified, that its goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
6. Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
7. When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless his/her credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
8. Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
9. Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in an argument. Avoid making assumptions.
10. Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments. When a discussion becomes heated, stop the discussion, determine the source of the problem, clarify any misunderstandings, and then bring the discussion back to the topic. When people are disagreeing, make sure that they know the specific nature of the disagreement.
11. Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
12. Don't quibble; don't argue just for the sake of arguing.
13. Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don't say anything, say to yourself, "This is nonsense."
14. Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. Ask three questions:- Are the statements--the premises--the points being made and used as evidence--true?
- Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
- Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?15. Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado":
The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
The world does not need another smart aleck.Excerpt from: Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies by Robert J. Gula
Not a bad list, I think, though numbers 10, 12 and 15 really don't have much to do with critical thinking. I appreciate the sentiment of cordiality and respect, but you can be a dick and still be rational, and I think sarcasm is sometimes exactly what's needed. Nevertheless, consider that this list is being promoted by a Christian, and although I, along with other atheists, think this Christian's beliefs are lacking severely in coherence and evidential and rational warrant, we have (assuming our Christian friend genuinely believes in what he wrote) found some common ground from which genuine dialogue can occur.
Testimony time (Can I get a witness?)...
 Testify my brother! |
This is the same common ground I shared with atheists over a decade ago. This list represents many of the same virtues I upheld when I was a Christian, a minister, and an online Christian apologist. I am who I am today because of these virtues. If we are going to make our stand in defense of rationality, let's embrace the common ground we have with those theists who - like I did back when I was a Christian - share the same virtues that we uphold. If this is our starting point in conversation, then we will be better equipped to challenge others (and let them challenge us) to put their beliefs and ideas to the test of reason, to indeed see whether they "come incontrovertibly from the evidence."
Dead-Logic.com
