5 ms·

There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with

There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trouncing them so hard that the peanut gallery silently drifts toward accepting evolution. And, invariably, someone claims that this strategy is completely ineffective because it fails to convince the one hard-line religious nut that you're arguing with. (I'm sure other examples exist, but I'm most familiar with this one.)

grandalf 17y ago
It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges. In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible). For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist: God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive. By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton. As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster. Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  A counterargument that I've heard to abbreviated forms of this argument runs like, "God gave us the ability to feel lust and envy, as well, but that doesn't mean that He intends us to follow through with fornication and coveting, and we know this because He told us so in His inerrant Word..." ;)
  - grandalf 17y ago
    Good points... I'd counter-argue something like: Lust is a variation on an emotion that is necessary to truly be close to God, known as rapture. Lust is simply the profane version of it. We may misuse any of the gifts God gave us, but that doesn't mean that their intended purpose isn't to bring us closer to him.
    - klipt 17y ago
      Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also disadvantages. The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive. The downside is that this persuasiveness can be so strong as to feel invasive. That can provoke an angry reaction; in some countries it could endanger your life. There's a reason that several religions prescribe harsh punishment for apostates: someone who has left a religion knows enough about it (and about what they see as its shortcomings) to be dangerously good at 'leading others astray'. In addition, by arguing from their axioms you are implicitly accepting large parts of their viewpoint which they can then use against you. For example, any sufficiently persuasive argument against Christianity from a Christian viewpoint can be met with "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Why should they trust someone who seems to acknowledge Christianity as true, only to argue against it? Surely only someone on the side of the devil would fight God while acknowledging his existence. And once they've labeled you as being on the side of devil, the more persuasively you argue, the more sure they'll be that they're right ... and that you're just deliberately lying to lead them astray.
northwind 17y ago
Arguments won via "Argument by The Stick" will work only as long as our institutions of learning continue turning out more sheeple than rational humans (once upon a time, this was not true in the U.S.; I know because an elderly friend of mine was required to take a "Critical Thinking" class in high school). As for the "advertising immunization shots" the author of the article talks about, the authors experience is beautiful confirmation of what C.S. Lewis writes in the first few chapters of "The Abolition of Man".
stcredzero 17y ago
If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Often, victory is achieved in ways that damage reasoned public discourse, even when the "right" side wins. And the "right" side doesn't always win.

grandalf 17y ago

It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges. In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible). For example, here's my argument about why I'm an atheist: God gave humans rational minds where he gave animals teeth and claws. He surely didn't give us rational minds so that we would stop using rationality. Thus, God intended humans to be atheists at first. If He intended humans to be faithful (which you claim) then he intended it not as a counter to rationality but as the result of the application of rationality. Just as the bird is meant to flap its wings in order to alight, the human is meant to exercise the full strength of his rationality in order to thrive. By contrast, God also created angels, who lack the problem of rationality-inspired doubt. They are in essence "faith robots" who are incapable of achieving faith, since they start out with it. Such a being is really little more than a slave or automaton. As we all know, the plight of humans toward faith is a far higher cause than if we were simply pre-programmed. God intended humans to have a journey whose reward at the end (a solid, rational, unwavering faith) is not something that can be gained by reciting something as a child or sitting unquestioningly in a pew, but must (and should) be earned via the most earnest rational inquiry one can muster. Thus I, an atheist, am completely confident that if God one day wishes me to be faithful I will discover that faith through the same process of rationality that currently makes me an atheist. QED.

randallsquared 17y ago
A counterargument that I've heard to abbreviated forms of this argument runs like, "God gave us the ability to feel lust and envy, as well, but that doesn't mean that He intends us to follow through with fornication and coveting, and we know this because He told us so in His inerrant Word..." ;)
- grandalf 17y ago
  Good points... I'd counter-argue something like: Lust is a variation on an emotion that is necessary to truly be close to God, known as rapture. Lust is simply the profane version of it. We may misuse any of the gifts God gave us, but that doesn't mean that their intended purpose isn't to bring us closer to him.
  - klipt 17y ago
    Ok, so presumably you have enough of a religious background to argue from the viewpoint of your opponent. There are advantages to that approach but also disadvantages. The advantage is that, if there is any claim to rationality in your opponent's view, you can use it to build a bridge to alternate viewpoints that they'd never normally consider. It can be very persuasive. The downside is that this persuasiveness can be so strong as to feel invasive. That can provoke an angry reaction; in some countries it could endanger your life. There's a reason that several religions prescribe harsh punishment for apostates: someone who has left a religion knows enough about it (and about what they see as its shortcomings) to be dangerously good at 'leading others astray'. In addition, by arguing from their axioms you are implicitly accepting large parts of their viewpoint which they can then use against you. For example, any sufficiently persuasive argument against Christianity from a Christian viewpoint can be met with "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Why should they trust someone who seems to acknowledge Christianity as true, only to argue against it? Surely only someone on the side of the devil would fight God while acknowledging his existence. And once they've labeled you as being on the side of devil, the more persuasively you argue, the more sure they'll be that they're right ... and that you're just deliberately lying to lead them astray.

northwind 17y ago

Arguments won via "Argument by The Stick" will work only as long as our institutions of learning continue turning out more sheeple than rational humans (once upon a time, this was not true in the U.S.; I know because an elderly friend of mine was required to take a "Critical Thinking" class in high school). As for the "advertising immunization shots" the author of the article talks about, the authors experience is beautiful confirmation of what C.S. Lewis writes in the first few chapters of "The Abolition of Man".

stcredzero 17y ago

If you argue with someone in public, as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Often, victory is achieved in ways that damage reasoned public discourse, even when the "right" side wins. And the "right" side doesn't always win.