skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Dogmatist's Guide for Engaging a Critical Thinker:
A. The first rule for any dogmatic believer, whether your belief(s) be religious, political, economic, social, racial or cultural is this: you are right! But because you are right, you - and people like you - are a target for evil people in the world that are jealous of your clarity and wisdom. These jealous people, we'll call them "critics", want nothing more than to steal your peace and joy from life. But they can only do that if you allow them to make you doubt that you are right... so never doubt it.
B. You have every right to whatever beliefs, opinions, or values that seem best to you. But because your beliefs are the right ones to have, you have a special right to tell everyone you come into contact about these beliefs - in fact, it is your duty to spread the truth to them! In the course of sharing your beliefs, you will run into a lot of people that already believe like you do. Make sure that you surround yourself with those people - they're the key to your strength and convictions.
C. Sometimes, however, you'll run into people that have different beliefs. They believe just as much in what they think is true, but - of course - it isn't true because it isn't what you believe. If you're feeling generous, you can tell them how much you respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, and they will probably tell you the same thing. But never forget, you are right - not them.
D. Every once in a while, though, you will run into someone that asks a lot of questions. People like this are very dangerous. When you try to tell them about your beliefs and how they are the right thing to believe, they will ask you all kinds of questions that you don't necessarily have the answers to. Don't panic! You're dealing with a "critical thinker", or a "critic" for short. Here's how you deal with a critic.
1. A critic will ask you, "How do you know what you believe is the absolute truth?" Remind them that you know it because you believe it (duh!). Remember, if it wasn't true you wouldn't believe it because you only believe things that are true.
2. The critic might then ask you, "But what if you're wrong?" You see what (s)he's doing? (S)he's trying to steal your soul by suggesting that you could be wrong! Refer to point "A": you are right. Simply remind the critic that a lot of people believe what you believe. You couldn't all be wrong! It is more likely that these critics, as an extreme minority, are the ones that have something wrong with them that, they can't simply accept the truth that is so obvious to most people.
3. The critic may then ask you, "Ok. Well, where did you personally get these beliefs from?" Here are the acceptable answers to this question: your parents or family members, your place of worship or religious leader, your local congressman, one of your favorite television talk-show hosts or news pundits, one of your favorite musicians, an author or a radio show host.
4. (S)he will ask you, "Where did that person get their information from?" This answer is much easier: a really old book, collection of writings, or a single document. This can be anything from Paul's Epistle to the Church at Rome, to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, to Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence", to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. The best answers are always the oldest writings, though, so use those first to discourage any further questions by the critic.
5. The pestering critic, not knowing that it is rude to continue asking questions and disturbing you, might point out information in other books - sometimes even older than the one(s) you cited - that seems to make your belief seem unoriginal or even wrong. They might use statistical data, facts, or research. This can be very intimidating since you don't have anything like this to support your beliefs - not that you need them, because you don't! (S)he might then ask you what you think about that information and if that makes you wonder if you're as convinced as you were when you first started talking, pointing out contradictions or things that don't seem like they can be real. Remember, you cannot be wrong: you are right! But, you cannot win this fight. The sinister critic has baited you and is about to spring the trap! Whatever you do, do not try to answer his/her questions anymore but simply try to end the conversation. Here are the best ways to get rid of the critic.
6. Appeal to his/her sense of reason and propriety: tell the critic that "this isn't the right time or place to have this conversation." If you can use the word "venue", do so - it will make you sound really smart to anyone else that may be listening. Also, it doesn't matter if your excuse is true or not - you're not trying to engage the critic anymore, you're simply trying to evade and get away. You now know that you're in a fight you can't win, which means that there are no rules for how you behave anymore.
7. If that doesn't work, accuse the critic of being a bad person. Tell the critic that (s)he is "being a douchebag" or "a bitch". Oh, sure, they'll respond by saying that they're only trying to have a civil conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but don't let their hurt feelings stop you. Keep going on the offensive!
8. Tell the critic that you never wanted to have a conversation anyway. All you wanted to do was tell them what the true beliefs were. What the critic doesn't understand is that it is stupid for this process to be a two-way road. There is only one way: the truth! And you, not (s)he, that knows what the truth is so you should only be the one that can talk and make claims. But they went and ruined that chance! Not to mention that you don't care what they think anyway, because if it isn't what you think then it isn't true!
9. The critic will be offended or bewildered by your responses. Now's your chance to turn up the heat! Tell the critic that (s)he is a "traitor", a "heretic", and/or a "Communist". Remind them that they are what is wrong with your life and the country you live in. Tell them that they are probably going to "Hell", especially if they don't believe in it. That will teach them to question your beliefs!
10. If it doesn't, threaten physical violence. Tell him/her that you are going to "kick their ass!" Most critics are physically puny people that can't defend themselves anyway, so this is the best way to shut them down completely. Even if they're not, most critics don't believe in "fighting" or "physical confrontation" which makes them losers. This is how you know they don't live in the "real world" like you do. Almost every critic will leave the conversation at this point. You've done your job - what needed to be done to defend your beliefs.
11. If you feel that you have to get one last word in, make sure you tell the critic that you will pray for him/her so that they'll find the truth that you have.
With these steps, you will finish every fight over opinions, beliefs and values that a critic starts - even if you don't "win" it. There is, however, one very serious danger in arguing with a critic: critical thinking is like a disease. When you come into contact with a critical thinker, there is a chance that they may get some of their disease in you without you noticing at first. We know this because almost every single critical thinker was - in the beginning - a very dedicated dogmatist that was infected with critical thinking while arguing with a critic. This is why, if you feel like you may be getting affected by a critic, you should just jump to step 10 and threaten violence. This limits your exposure and the chances that you'll ever become one of them.
I hope you use this information wisely and always remember: you are right, they are wrong.
The Preamble: I've gotten some good questions recently on the ideas I've posted so far (which, granted, isn't really much) and they've led to some really good conversations. I love conversation. Anyone that knows me knows that much. I don't like "small talk" or "chit-chat". It drives me crazy - too superficial, no depth, no meaning... whatever the reason I've just never liked it. But conversation is kind of like a unique learning style for me. Some people are auditory, some visual - I'm a very conversational learner. I guess that's why I like asking questions and making potentially provocative statements: they're bound to start a conversation - a chance for me to learn something. Today I got to talk to someone about the difference between "truth" (as I've defined it out to the right of the posts) and "reliability". As always, some people will accuse me of splitting linguistic hairs or of being too pedantic or technical when I say that there's a real difference between truth and reliability. But allow me to make my case and elaborate on why I think it's important.
The Case: Let me first say that there are two different kinds of "truth" that people will identify with. There's a factual truth (which, to me, is the only real kind of truth) and then there's a "philosophical truth". Factual truth deals in the realm of what is knowable. Tonight it is partly cloudy outside and 76 degrees... it rained earlier and the power went out twice. This is factually true if you live on the east side of Allen, Texas. Philosophical truth - which isn't technically a question of truth at all - is the realm of belief and opinion. "Humans are inherently evil" or "love conquers all" or "blondes have more fun", etc. These are statements that cannot be empirically proven or factually substantiated (yet or, perhaps, ever). They are opinions, beliefs, and values. They are axioms and maxims - not facts.
Let's put the more axiomatic philosophical truth aside for a moment and talk about the difference between factual truth and general reliability for a moment. A friend of mine asked me to unpack the differences that I saw between truth and reliability so I went to a place that was very familiar to the both of us: Biblical Christianity. (Uh oh.) You may think that what I'm about to delve into will look like I'm "picking on" Christianity and you may end up having very strong feelings about what I'm about to say. All I'll ask is that you simply hear me out.
Despite the rhetorical platitude you'll hear from evangelicals calling it a "relationship", Christianity is a religion. It is a religion and has been since (roughly) the late-third-to-early-fourth century. Just like every other religion in existence today (though I will readily admit its complete uniqueness in history), Christianity is an ideological framework based around "the sacred": in its case "the sacred" is Jesus Christ. As an ideology Christianity has been, at many times, at complete odds with the objective and factual reality that we call "the truth." In a vain attempt to deny the claim I'm making about Christianity, many modern (mostly protestant evangelical) believers will try to divorce the vast history of the Christian "church" from its more modern manifestations. As an ideological framework Christianity has historically been on the wrong side of truth by tying itself to empirically improvable or empirically false beliefs and insisting on their truthfulness. Ok - that's a big, bold, and mean claim to make. A big accusation to level. So what could I be talking about?
Let's go back to my particular problem: the elevation of something that isn't empirical, factual, and objective to the elite status of true. Christians use Jesus as the reference point of truth. Jesus, according to Christians and the synoptic gospel narratives, is "the Truth." The word used for this in the gospels is "aletheia" and there is both an objective way to translate that word and a subjective translation. In an empirical sense, there is no way anyone can substantiate the claim that Jesus is the central reference point for all truth. There's no way to validate the truth of Jesus' "truthiness" (to borrow from Stephen Colbert). Until the day that we can prove - one way of the other - the factuality of this statement by Jesus, it remains firmly in the realm of philosophical truth: the realms of opinion and belief. This is the starting point for every skeptic in the world: every non-believer, every skeptic, every critic, and every cynic. What makes this unnerving to a Christian is that the notion of Jesus' factual truth-ness is unquestionable. The Christian won't even entertain the question - as my friend could not during this conversation. But in order to be intellectually honest, in order to remain objective, in order to give loyalty to the truth above all else, we must come to this conclusion - it's the only one that reality has left available to us. What should console the Christian is this quote from Dallas Willard: "Jesus is on the side of truth and if you don't believe that, you don't believe in Jesus." If Jesus is "the Truth", then our loyalty to finding the truth will ultimately lead to him. If not, then the Christian is wasting his time. Either way - there is nothing lost by evaluating the truth outside of an ideological scope while using uncomfortable questions.
The Christian, in this case, may not be interested in "the truth" or interested in intellectual honesty, or objectivity. It's understandable. The ideological framework of Christianity cannot allow a core supposition to be challenged. But let's get it out there: if we can't substantiate the truth-ness of Jesus or prove his divinity empirically, then what are we left with? That's where the vocabulary of "general reliability" comes in. We may not have empirical proof for a philosophical truth, but what information we do have - while not devoid of internal and factual "question marks" - can easily be called "generally reliable". In other words: what we do know about Jesus, on question of factuality, is reliable information. Much of it has been substantiated by archaeology, anthropology, historical studies, etc. The synoptic Jesus traditions and gospel narratives are historically reliable. Not "inerrant" as many Christians would try to elevate it, but reliable. We may not be able to prove Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles or was born in Bethlehem to a girl named Mary... but we've got plenty of reasons to believe that this information is reliable and that's good enough to put some trust in. It's good enough to believe until or unless the information is proven one way or the other. We may never know if the Bible on the whole or the gospels is true in a factual or empirical sense - proven beyond reasonable doubt - but it can be said in the very least that it is "reliable" and potentially true.
Ok - so why would I even make this point? Why would I walk into such an unpopular and controversial minefield? And why would you, the reader, be at all interested in following along? Let me say this: I'm not naive. The statements I've made and the questions I've asked are, to many, inflammatory or even blasphemous. More to the point: what I've said is either going to turn most people off from listening to anything else I've got to say, or piss other people off. But this point has to be made.
When someone makes a claim of truth that cannot be substantiated or proven, it damages the credibility of the person(s) making the claim. One of the biggest reasons Christianity - as a religion - has slowly slipped further and further into complete irrelevance to this world is because its credibility is almost completely shot. From the absolutely corrupt institutions of the Catholic papacy in history, to the political catastrophe of the Crusades, to the shameful Copernicus/Gallileo (Sun-revolves-around-the-Earth) fiasco, to the Inquisition, to Protestant persecutions, to the Conquistadors, to the Augustinian/Calvanistic tradition of hybridizing church-state powers, to the modern embarrassment of literal creationism and the divorce of discipleship from "churchgoing" - Christianity has lost its credibility and claim of relevance because it advanced an ideology and elevated opinions and beliefs to the elite status of truth. And instead of being honest with themselves and others, Christians (like everyone else in the world) has placed a higher importance on being "right" instead of being "truthful"... on being believed instead of being honest.
The only way for anyone, in any walk of life, to regain any degree of credibility with the world-at-large is to return to a stalwart loyalty to the truth, calling things what they are, being intellectually honest about reality, and keeping an open dialogue with people who have different opinions and beliefs. And you can't regain credibility inside the framework of an ideology.
The Question: I hope that this post was very provocative. I don't have a specific set of questions to ask, but feel free to elaborate on whatever thoughts (if any) were spurred by the topic. Feel free to disagree or express whatever opinions you may have on it. Comments are not "moderated" or edited - I only ask that you be respectful to other commentors.
