I. It’s not just angel books, astrology, and acupuncture.

A front-page article in the New York Times of October 22, 1996 (subscription required), delved into the ‘conflict’ between two views of where Native American populations originated—the scientific archaeological account and the account offered by some Native American creation-myths. According to the former, humans first entered the Americas from Asia, crossing the Bering Strait more than 10,000 years ago. This answer, I should hope for most readers, provides an authoritative, extensively confirmed, scientific answer.

Some Native American creation accounts hold that native peoples have always lived in the Americas. That is, Native Americans have been present ever since their ancestors first emerged onto the surface of the earth from a subterranean world called the Lower Regions. If there’s anything we know, it’s that some things are definitively wrong.

That’s one of ‘em.

Yet, the Times noted that many archaeologists, torn between their commitment to scientific method and their appreciation for native culture, ‘have been driven close to a postmodern relativism in which science is just one more belief system.’ Roger Anyon, a British archaeologist who has worked for the Zuni people, was quoted as saying: ‘Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world. … [The Zunis’ worldview is] just as valid as the archeological viewpoint of what prehistory is about.’

Continue reading Postmodernism in a Theocracy

… or, Why Some Atheist are Wrong about what Matters Most.

Christianity makes broad claims about its power to change people and situations. The single largest disproof of our faith lives in its failure to do so, especially in the West. If our faith is proven by experience, then there in lies the realm of disproof. But please take into account the affects of nominalism in all truth-systems and the universal warnings against it in all wisdom traditions. At their heart, no faith endorses such living. There are even atheists that refuse to live by what they know to be true and good to the peril of us all. Nominalism, wherever it exists, is just a fancy name for cowardice, apathy, complacentcy, and laziness which are always contemptable and tradmarked by no system of thought. (Soulster, How to Talk to Believers)

Soulster’s ‘How to’ stands out as a fantastic piece on how to promote the development of atheist/believer relations.

Read it.

And Continue reading Erring on the Side of Truth: A Mistake

According to a Harris poll this last October, most adult Americans believe in God (73%), but fewer would say they are absolutely certain (only 58%) [here]. According to Harris, both these numbers have declined over the past three years from 79% who believe and 66% who are absolutely certain. [For a broader view of religious opinions, check out this listing of several news polls] Continue reading Faith in the West

At present game theory has, in my opinion, two important uses, neither of them related to games nor to conflict directly. First, game theory stimulates us to think about conflict in a novel way. Second, game theory leads to some genuine impasses, that is, to situations where its axiomatic base is shown to be insufficient for dealing even theoretically with certain types of conflict situations. … Thus, the impact is made on our thinking process themselves, rather than on the actual content of our knowledge.” (Anatol Rapaport, Fights, Games, and Debates, p. 242)

In November I gave a brief overview of Rapoport’s process to ‘win’ a debate, titled On Debate. While I agree with the procedure, there may be some inherent difficulties in applying these principals. As shown in the comments section numerous times, we must implicitly assume that both parties wish to resolve the conflict; and we must explicitly assume that both parties have a similar psyche, that of rational thought: that is, an attempt to attain the best possible outcome. Otherwise, you have the beginnings of the Fight. Agreements based on mutual understanding and conviction from both parties are sometimes quite difficult to come by, but it must be assumed that while at Philaletheia, we wish to prevent the Fight.

The emphasis of [Rapator’s debate] is on problem-solving or problem-reduction rather than persuasion; on mutually satisfactory resolutions of differences rather than victory for one party. (Herbert Simons, “Toward a New Rhetoric.” Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings.)

Chess is an excellent metaphor for debate. Both sides are in conflict, where each move has a counter-move under the shared assumption that both wish to reach checkmate, at which point the game ends.

Yet, what if the assumptions vary greatly? Rapaport names two confrontational styles: that of debate, and of the Fight. The method of debate is to the opponent’s argument is to assume that you are responding as an objective observer, weighing the data and evidence as an impartial actor; the method of the Fight is to wipe out the opponent, where rational discussion is of no use because there is no dialogue. A chess game becomes a shouting match when one side drops the rules and removes his oponent’s pieces at whim, or decides that the loss of his King is not defeat. To those that assume the Fight from the beginning, it is essentially one-sided, but the debater will soon give up, and leave behind the promotion of mutual cooperation to garb himself in rhetoric.

In alternate dispute resolution (ADR), the conflict theory I like the best, it is the things you do not talk about that get you.  Negative outcomes (war, division, predjudice, hate) are more a product of the failure of cooperation on underlying issues than of the symptomatic events themselves.  For example: It is the failure to deal with a underlying economic inequality that leads to the war, not the diplomatic incident they broadcast on TV — but the economics are unlikely to become central to the dialogue, thus the conflict cannot be resolved.  Because the root issues cannot be solved, at best you can expect a win-lose outcome, at worst a lose-lose, but never a win-win.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to present a sensitive issue to our community here: sexual misconduct among Christian leaders.

Continue reading Cooperative Problem Solving: Church Sex Scandals