On Debate
November 29th, 2006 by 
drunkentune
One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with each other than with the players. Suddenly one loses all interest in who will be champion.
(Anatol Rapoport)
The social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport said that to ‘win’ a debate, you must be able to first clearly define your opponent’s position.
1. You must re-express the points made, creating a brief overview of the ‘heart of the matter,’ if you will. The overview must be done fairly, and without use of fallacious arguments. You must do this so exquisitely that your opponent begins to nod his head in agreement.
2. Then, you should point to any points both you and your opponent agree with.
3. Then, you should express anything you have learned from your opponent.
4. Only then are you permitted to rebut, refute or criticize.
I think this should help for both the atheist and the believer.
Posted in definitions and descriptions, how to dialogue | 
November 29th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
There is an issue making it impossible to clearly define your opponent’s position when discussing religion. It appears that there are 30,000 separate incompatible Christian denominations, included in perhaps 50,000 different organized religions. Indeed, it appears that there are billions of different positions on religion as no two people in the pew seem to have the same one. No matter what synthesis or summary one makes of religious belief, it becomes incorrect by not being general enough. In attempting to determine what Christians believe, there appear to be only a few general statements that can be made. One seems to be that I may not question a point of anyone’s faith and further they need supply no evidence. That means that all people of religion are enablers of whatever anyone wants to claim about their religion. In attempting to understand religion, I’ve found the most useful hypothesis is that all religion is fraud. Using that hypothesis one can more easily analyze the consequences of any religious statement in debate.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Well, that about ends the purposes of this blog then, doesn’t it.
Not that there’s any point in conversation, since I am obviously a fraud :), but this seems to be a pretty good summary of Hypothesis I in drunkentune’s The Evolution of Religion: Is Religion Natural?. I think it seems to me that Hypothesis II, which seems more reasonable to me and many others, would say not all religion is what it claims to be, but it is not fraud, but something real of an natural and social nature. Likewise, that theory would identify certain commonalities of most religions that make conversation possible.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Excallent post. I would go even a bit beyond it to assert that the goal is not to “win” at all, but to mutually arrive at truth wherever it leads.
The goal is, technically, dialogue, not debate (though the terms overlap).
I look at these encounters as “win-win” propositions, not “win-lose.” Side-by-side; not superior-subordinate. If the goal is truth and not the “defeat” and humiliation of the other, then there need not be the slightest animosity or even tension (except a healthy intellectual tension if doubt is cast upon one or more of one’s own positions).
I welcome the challenge of true dialogue in this sense. Far from dreading it, I relish the opportunity and pleasure of being challenged, and challenging in turn: following the ideas where they seem to logically and plausibly lead. It seems to me that any thinker should feel this way.
Of course, needless to say, Proud’s attitude makes dialogue impossible from the outset: his opponents are irrational frauds. So all he can do is preach, and all we can do is listen and reform, or be further insulted.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Drunkentune:
Good post. I have arrived at similiar convictions from my study of preac-building, conflict resolution, and alternate dispute resolution. To have the process laid down is great! Really helpful for a lot of people. I think it helps people see how this blog may relate to the larger debate out there, and why it is more likely to yield progress toward truth for all involved.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Dave,
Thank you. I agree with your comments. I used the word ‘win’ in parentheses because we can all come out ahead in a debate or discussion. I guess ‘winning’ to me is finding the truth.
I’m taking the middle-of-the-road Cop stance, compared to soulster’s Good Cop routine and your Bad Cop act. While some of what he says may be true, he expresses it in a way that immediately turns off any Christian that reads his words. I do hope Proud takes a look at the post soulster links to.
Proud,
I may believe the same as you do at times, but I want to make it clear that speaking the way you did does nothing to help foster dialogue. It may feel like an uphill battle, and you may bite your tongue at times, but that is how we should conduct ourselves.
While your comments are welcome, I do not wish for Dave or soulster to be blatantly insulted. You could give information or examples that help illustrate your point, but insulting someone when they do not agree with you will not be accepted.
I suggest that you make sure that your axe isn’t so heavy as to be impossible to carry. Dave and I both know how that can hurt a debate.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Great post! I agree with Dave that the goal should be truth. It is frustrating, however when the person we are talking with is solely interested in “winning the debate”. The results in Intellectual Dishonesty on their part, usually (or our part).
I am currently “on the fence”, so to speak, between agnosticism and Christianity. I’ve heard, however, that Jesus’ would spew me out of his mouth for being luke-warm. This does not allow for discussion, dialog, investigation and mental digestion which are steps I am going through now as I re-evaluate my Mormon faith.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to insult anyone. I’ve only recently discovered the religion as a natural phenomenon material and don’t know what I think about it yet. I’ve also been going through some of The Teaching Company’s courses on anthropology and human prehistory. I don’t think that anyone can deny that there is such a thing as religious fraud. It’s existence must have implications for religious apologetics and the discussion of religion. Our methods of dialog usually preclude discussing the difference between honest religion and fraud? There is material on a skeptic’s rebuttal of the paranormal, but I’ve not seen any discussion of religious fraud, other than Mark Twain and the like. I don’t know if that’s the same subject or not. I’m trying to work through the subject on my own.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
1. Define the terms
2. In order to define the argument
3. So that the argument is based on common ground.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
“I’ve heard, however, that Jesus’ would spew me out of his mouth for being luke-warm. This does not allow for discussion, dialog, investigation and mental digestion…”
I don’t think this spitting-out is intended towards those who are sincerely questioning and trying to come to an understanding, but rather those who simply do not care, even if they do believe.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Proud- ” Our methods of dialog usually preclude discussing the difference between honest religion and fraud?”
No, they don’t preclude it, because there is room for talking about that topic, but your earlier statements seem to equate ALL religious experience with fraud.
No one denies that there is hucksterism in religion, but there’s hucksterism in medicine, business, banking etc etc. People don’t focus on the hucksterism as the main part of their study, because hucksterism isn’t the norm. As silly as you may find it, I guarantee you that the wide majority of religious people really honestly do believe what they’re saying.
If someone were having a philosophical or theological discussion, and you were to try to discount their discussion by saying, “Well what about televangelists!!?” it would be as if you asked surgeons, “Well what about snake oil salesmen?!”
Sure it exists, but what does that have to do with the discussion?
November 29th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Proud,
It’s fine. We all decended on your comment en masse.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
[quote]Sure it exists, but what does that have to do with the discussion?[/quote]
It’s off topic. I started talking about the mechanics of the debate and the difficulty of “defining the opponent’s position”. Defining terms and clearly stating arguments are important, but it’s impossible to define your opponent’s position. You can state your understanding of an argument that the opponent has made and ask for clarification, but they’ll have to define their own position.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Soulster-I believe you have made in-depth studies of your Bible and I’m curious which version you rely upon. I know that the Catholic version consists of different texts than the Protestant Bible, and these days the King James version isn’t always the point of reference for Protestants. I am also curious if you’ve read any of Bart Ehrman’s (Professor of Religious Studies UNC-Chapel Hill) books on religion, most notably “Lost Christianities–The Faiths We Never Knew.” He has spent more than 30 years researching and translating ancient texts from the known Christian hubs circa 2nd century forward and comparing them. I was astonished by his findings, and if I were Christian it would make me wonder of what the ‘original’ (no known text has yet been found) truly consisted. And since the current Bible was compiled there have been other discoveries of ancient religious texts, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls (pre common era) and the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts (post Christian)that include additional ‘inspired’ writings. How do you sort out all this information?
November 29th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Bart Ehrman has also done a number of courses for The Teaching Company including “Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication”. He is very good and I’ve watched a number of his TTC courses. He also has written many books currently in print. Check out amazon.com. His “Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament” is very interesting.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Mark G.:
It sounds as though someone is trying to get you to believe by putting the fear of hell-fire in you. Jesus did not react so with Thomas, who doubted, so I disagree with those who are trying to coerce you back to faith.
I agree with Ben that this verse was misapplied in your case. In the passage it applies to “your works” (meaning the works of the Laodicean church), meaning that these people are claiming to be theists but are methodological atheists — people who whole-heartedly confess thier belief, but who do not apply it. If you are in a search for truth, that is honest and admirable. If you honestly are not convinced by the data, you are honest. But if you have found something true, and you fail to apply it, that is reprehensible. This is what that verse is talking about.
My jounrney may be similar to yours. I went from conservative fundamental Christianity to agnosticism in college, then on to believe in Jesus again. You can find my email on the “Authors” page if you are interested in more about my journey.
P.S. Great blog, by the way.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Internet Infidel:
I use several of the current versions, mostly Protestant canon, though I have had exposure to the Catholic canon and extra-biblical sources. For reading and discussion, I recommend NLT, NIV, tNIV. For study ESV or NRSV. I also us the NA Greek occasionally or in study.
I subscribe more to Bruce Metzger (Bart’s teacher), then to Bart in terms of understanding canon and higher text critisism. Bart says some interesting things, but does not, I think, take into account how tension over truth claims tends to refine rather than corrupt, especially in non-institutional space (which is certainly true during the time period he is most fascinated with). He seems to ignore the statistical argument for the reliability of texts, and rather seems to love spending time in minority readings. I do not share his theory that the minority reading always represents a conspiracy, while it might in a few cases.
But canon and text criticism are not very central in my espistemology. I have a centered view of scripture, meaning the New Testament Gospels are the center, but only as you act in parrallel with the Jesus you encounter in the narrative. They are a seed, and the rest of the New Testament is several resulting trees representing different Christianities which vary more or less and are more or less functional, although perhaps all these are very important because of their proximity to the source. However, I am growing my own tree, so if there are other “Christianities” out there, they are in differing locations around the center, but not the center. Or they are trees grown in certain environments different from my own, so they have less bearing on my own growth than the seed itself and my own environment. What influence they do have is more about how “trees” grow and whether they are healthy or not (or in other words the historical-traditional study of other Christianities mostly critiques my Christianity, but not the core). I would categorize some of the texts you mention with my own writings which include a translation of Mark (which is biased, I’m sure) and several other writings about Jesus that should be regarded as “the seed” by no one, only what a particular tree may look like.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:10 pm
“I am growing my own tree…” I applaud you for relying upon your own power of reason to derive meaning and find enrichment within your faith, and as a result I have gained a great deal of respect for you in this touchy debate. There might not be so much tension between the believers and the atheists if it wasn’t for the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and James Dobsons of the world. They are really awful spokesmen for Christianity.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I think that is the meaning of God meeting people alone, in the dessert, on mountains, in closests, in dreams, on lonely roads in the old stories. How could someone as untamable and large as God be holed up in a fortress by the likes of Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson? If there is gross blasphemy in the world today, it is from those who claim to own God. Why does he need their protection? Who gave them the keys to the faith? They like to croach behind locked doors taking pot shots at the world. They imagine some grand assualt is brewing, but the real danger is from within the camp. I, for one, must be a wanderer trodding ancient paths or searching out undiscovered countries. I won't sit and nibble moldy bread with them.
Few things have made me madder lately than Dobson claiming to be a Christian, but showing little concern for the people seriously hurt by his political buddies. Foolishly dismissing charges, distancing himself from others. Arrgh! Sometimes I think I would rather renounce the name Christian, if it wasn't for its connection with Jesus.
Ahem. Sorry. …Oh yes, we were talking about the rules of civilized debate…
December 11th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Soulster–
I read Andrew Sullivan’s blog daily and he has coined a term for those of Dobson’s ilk–he calls them ‘Christianists.’ (Those who want to use the government to impose their beliefs on everyone.) The way you approach your faith I think it’s a shame that the term “Jesuit” has already been taken by an order within the Catholic church. It seems to fit you. I believe you have much in common with Thomas Jefferson’s view of Jesus.