""/
Dialogue, Philosophy

The Lost Art of Thoughtfulness: Dismissing Ideas Because We Fear Them

October 22, 2018

I love philosophy for a lot of different reasons. One of those is that philosophers often have a particular skill that is lost in many discussions of politics, religion and anything else in which people are deeply invested.

Here’s the skill: inviting and welcoming others to press one’s idea without being personally threatened by being pressed.

Call this: thoughtfulness.

An Intellectual Virtue

Thoughtfulness is a genuine intellectual virtue. It is hearing, and I mean really listening to, an objection for the purpose of finding truth. The reason why this is intellectually virtuous is when we get good objections, we are either going to be able to address those objections or we won’t. If a view can address a really difficult objection, one’s view is ipso facto now better supported. If it can’t, then we are going to have to reject or change our view. But our rejection or change will be due to something epistemic (rather than something nonepistemic, like social pressure). Either way, we’ll be on stronger rational grounds.

Now I’ll be quick to say that I’m generalizing about philosophers quite broadly. Let’s just say not ALL philosophers have this intellectual virtue and certainly no philosophers exhibit this virtue all of the time. We all (and I am chief) have our weak moments. Also, some are able to engage thoughtfully in certain areas (say, systematic theology or metaphysics) but then become unhinged as it relates to something else (such as politics, religion, or when they are on a church committee).

It’s hard work, but we should all strive to be thoughtful. We sometimes fail to be thoughtful, I suspect, because we are scared we are wrong. We don’t want to honestly look at an objection because there might just be something to it. So we distract ourselves from being thoughtful.

3 ways we distract from thoughtfulness

How do we do distract? Here are 3 ways we distract ourselves from being thoughtful and engaging the ideas of others:

    1. We get emotional!

Emotions are really not your friends when it comes to defending and engaging ideas. Sure, we are and should be passionate about what we believe. But there’s a big difference between defending an idea passionately and feeling so threatened we have to yell (online or otherwise!). Look, if an objection is so obviously bad, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. Just critique the idea. Getting emotional about ideas will almost always work against rationality.

What’s amazing about this is we tend to get super emotional about issues in which we are deeply invested. But presumably we are deeply invested in ideas which we see as clearly true. If that’s right, then we should be able to defend the ideas and rest assured on the evidence without getting all worked up. Maybe we are not able to defend the ideas and this is a problem.

If you can’t help get upset when your ideas are challenged, this is an excellent reason to genuinely evaluate said ideas.

    1. We simply dismiss ideas or challenges.

I’m convinced that most ideas are serious ideas that are put forward in a serious way. But how do we know if an idea is serious? One way to know is if it has a long tradition and especially if, within the tradition, there are genuine scholars, past and present, who hold the view. If a view is truly ad hoc, then it can be dismissed. But otherwise, it should be treated as serious.

A good example of this, for me, is Mormonism. It’s difficult for me to understand how anyone believes Mormonism in an kind of informed way. To think that God was once a man who worked his way to an exalted state and has populated our planet with his spirit children is is, in my view, fraught with difficulties of all sorts. Or to believe the ever changing Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture is hard for me to buy.

However, Mormonism is a serious belief and it should be engaged seriously. This is a view that has existed for the better part of two centuries and there are very fine scholars who defend it. I shouldn’t, therefore, merely dismiss it. I should attempt to listen to the reasons Mormons give in defense of the view and critique the view accordingly.

I’m not saying one needs to take all views as a serious contenders. Just don’t simply dismiss the view especially when it is seriously held. If it is ludicrous, then you should be able to say why it is ludicrous.

If we simply dismiss a view, then it may be because we are afraid to try and actually confront it.

    1. We call names, mock, or impugn someone’s character.

Even when it seems clear a person deserves to be called a name, it’s almost always not worth it. There’s almost no discussion on these fronts that goes by today without someone being called a liar. Someone might be being dishonest in a discussion, but 99% of the time you will not know if this is the case. How could you? You would have to know someone is intentionally trying to mislead or misrepresent. Disagreeing with you is not lying. Even being factually inaccurate on something is not, by itself, lying. Maybe one is just wrong. And if they are so obviously wrong, then say why they are wrong.

So don’t call names. It’s too easy and it completely ruins a discussion.

If you are quick to call someone a name, mock or impugn their character, this suggests you don’t want your views challenged. You are being a bully and nobody likes a bully.

Being thoughtful

So what should we do to be more thoughtful?

First, we should do our level best to listen to the views of others. The next time you are in a discussion, here’s a novel idea: clarify what someone means before critiquing!! Try to repeat back how you are understanding what they have said and then, after that and only after that, critique the view. You can critique beforehand, but you’re likely to be critiquing a view they don’t actually hold, and this is pointless.

Second, we should invite having our views critiqued. Dogmatism is wide spread in our cultural moment. This is true of many Christians, to be sure. Christians tend to be rather dogmatic and can often be dismissive of opposing views or objections. But I’ve got to say, I often see extreme dogmatism from atheist circles and discussion groups. There are many things that are not genuinely open for discussion for many atheists. When one tries to challenge or take a different viewpoint, one gets ridiculed, called names, and summarily dismissed. It’s not everybody and it’s not everywhere, but Christian/atheist discussions are very often not fruitful.

But I think who takes the cake on this is our politicians and pundits. When was the last time you saw a politician honestly hold his or her position out for critique and possible correction? The problem of course is many of the views are not held because they are true but because they are politically expedient. This makes for a toxic intellectual culture, for sure.

Now this isn’t always fun. It can be a bit painful to see a weakness in our deeply held view. But the point is we are always better for it. The moment we fail to be thoughtful is the moment we fail to genuinely seek after truth.

Bonus Tips

(Here are a couple of bonus tips:

Bonus tip #1: Be original. I’m a big fan of sarcasm and wit. I don’t mind someone objecting to me, but I really love it when it is interesting and somewhat witty. This is good times. What I don’t care for is when people trot out the same ol’ tired quips and memes and then pronounce victory. It’s not genuine discussion. Memes are not arguments and 99% of the time the meme is not something you’ve created. Be original. It’s much more fun.

Bonus tip #2: Don’t say someone is committing a logical fallacy unless and until you are clear what that logical fallacy is and how and when it applies. It’s really easy to signal the strawman or non sequitur or false equivalence alarms, but these are very often false alarms because the signaler isn’t straight on how these fallacies are supposed to go.)

 

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Dialogue, Doubt

The Importance of an Open Mind that Closes

October 13, 2017

Minds Were Made to Shut

We typically think having an open mind is a good thing. And in certain situations, it certainly is a good thing. For example, we should have an open mind when we are beginning an inquiry. If we have no settled views on some matter, then it would be quite foolish to hold strongly to a particular view. We should be open to a variety of voices of authority on the matter as begin our inquiry.

But once we have settled our views about some matter, it seems our minds should shut. That is, once we have surveyed and evaluated the most plausible views on some matter, we need not and should not stay completely open minded any longer.

G.K. Chesterton once said:

An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut. (Illustrated London News. October 10, 1908)

Open Mindedness as a Virtue?

When we begin to think carefully about open mindedness, we see that open mindedness, without qualification, is not a virtue. To remain completely open minded about p when we have good reason to believe p is, say, false is not acting with intellectual virtue. As evidence comes, then we should, in a sense, become more and more close minded.

Is it really okay to be close minded at times? Yes, because not all views are equally plausible, especially after some reasonable inquiry. If a view proves to be false or irrational, then it seems to be a good idea (and very normal) to foreclose on that view as a genuine possibility. After we have looked into the matter, we may not know exactly what view to hold, but we often know which views are clearly false.

Should We Ever Be Absolutely Close Minded?

Do we ever come to shut our minds completely and absolutely? Though it isn’t really implied by the Chesterton quote, my own view is that it should be very rare for our minds to shut completely and absolutely. That is, we should shut our minds on things we have reason to believe are true, but be willing reopen when countervailing evidence presents itself. This is because it is at least possible to be wrong about the things we believe. Again, we need not be completely open to any and all views given the evidence we possess, we should still listen to the most plausible opposing views in case we need to reopen in light of new evidence.

My Mind is Shut on Christianity

It was really important for me, in my Christian journey, to have an open mind about alternative views. I came to doubt my faith and the truth of Christianity. Consequently, I systematically considered as many relevantly different worldviews as I could. I had an open mind and tried to approach these without bias. In complete honesty, I found myself surprised at how badly supported nonchristian worldviews are compared to the support and evidence for Christianity, including atheism and even agnosticism. Most other worldviews do not even think in terms of evidence and objectivity. For example, one is hard pressed to find Buddhist apologetics these days! And it seems this is for good reason. There isn’t much for evidence for Buddhism as a worldview. When it came to atheism and agnosticism, there were far too many questions that these left unexplained. In fact, it has always seemed to me that atheism fails to explain the most important aspects of life.

My mind came to shut on Christianity. It would take quite a lot, at this point, to unseat my Christian intellectual commitments. It’s possible, but I don’t think it is likely. If Christianity is false, there should be plenty of evidence that presents itself in which case I would reconsider my commitments. But I’ve been at this pursuit for almost 20 years and the counter evidence is lacking. There are objections, but I find satisfying answers to these objections and then some.

So here I am, I have been completely open minded along the way and I’m willing to reconsider, but, at this point, I am shut on truth of the Christian way.

""/
Christian Faith, Dialogue

Please stop saying “Faith is belief without evidence”

July 26, 2017

Is Atheism a belief?

Last week, my post, entitled “Please stop saying ‘Atheism is not a belief’” generated a lot of discussion on various online discussion groups. A number of atheists took issue with me telling them what they believe and (sometimes kindly) suggested that I stop saying that.

Fair enough. If you, the atheist, really do not have beliefs about God (broadly construed as the greatest conceivable being with all perfection who exists outside of and has created the universe) and his existence, then so be it. I wasn’t trying to shift the burden of proof or otherwise trick anyone. I really just think a dialogue where both sides lay out the case for their respective views is far more fruitful.

Also, I honestly think there is evidence for atheism (as a belief). Those evidences are at least:

  • the problem of evil
  • the problem of divine hiddenness
  • the specific ways in which the atheist thinks the many theistic arguments fail

Again, I of course don’t find this case persuasive. I think there are good responses to the problem of evil and divine hiddenness, and I think there are many theistic arguments that are sound. But really intelligent (professional philosopher) atheists disagree. They, with reason, believe that God does not exist.

And this seems to me to be a stronger position than merely lacking belief. That is, it is stronger to say, on the basis of evidence, there is (or is likely) no God. It seems weaker to say the theist hasn’t YET made her case and therefore we lack theistic belief.

After all, don’t you, the atheist, think the argument from evil is a good argument? Here’s one version of that argument:

  1. If an all powerful, all good God exists, then there is no pointless evil.
  2. There is pointless evil.
  3. Therefore, there is no God.

Be careful what you say here because the conclusion is that there is no God. If you say it is a good argument, then this is to say that the premises rationally support the conclusion/claim that there is no God. That’s going to suggest you affirm the conclusion (which makes it a belief). But if you merely lack a belief, then what do you say about this argument?

Let’s make a deal

But okay, if it is just a lack of belief, so be it. I think it would make for a better dialogue for us both to present evidence for our views. If you don’t think so, okay. But let’s make a deal. If you would like for theists to stop saying atheism is a belief, then please stop saying faith is belief without evidence.

In the discussion boards last week, many atheists got very upset that I would define for them what atheism is, but felt perfectly free (sometimes in the same post) to say Christian faith is belief without evidence.

Have you ever noticed there is not one Christian who has defined faith that way? Doesn’t it strike you as a little strange that you are building a case against Christianity using your own definitions of faith rather than what the scholars of the faith say. Shouldn’t that suggest that perhaps you are building a wee bit of a straw man?

Now I’m perfectly willing to grant that Christians have talked about faith this way before. We have A LOT of work to do in the Christian community. But this is using what lay people say in order to critique Christianity as a whole.  Wouldn’t it be more charitable and rational to critique the claims of its scholars?

Faith as an act of trust

On most views, faith is seen as an act of trust. It is not, in this sense, a belief at all. Evidence then is very important to faith since it guides us to those things that are trustworthy. I like to use the example of an airplane. None of us really know how an airplane works. Now we might know a thing or two about flight, but most of us really don’t know how an airplane can cruise 6 miles off the ground. But we know enough about the reliability of an airplane and flight as a mode of travel to entrust ourselves to it. We have good evidence from statistics to testimony to past experiences, etc., to get on board and literally place our faith in the airplane.

Likewise, (rational) Christians have considered the evidence, find the case for Christianity persuasive, and have, consequently, entrusted themselves to the Christian way of life. That’s Christian faith. There are plenty of things we don’t know about how all this works (just like the airplane), but we trust on the basis of evidence. We have faith. We have given our lives to the truth of Christianity. (I say more about this here)

As a side note, when you define faith as belief without evidence this also shuts down dialogue. The reason for this is, first, because this just isn’t true for most Christians. Second, if you think faith is belief without evidence, then the debate is over. Evidence has been defined out of the discussion and so we are no longer discussing the rationality of our respective positions. Mine has defined as a position of belief without evidence.

So we do we have a deal? I won’t say you believe that God does not exist and you don’t say faith is belief without evidence.

""/
Apologetics, Dialogue

Please stop saying “Atheism is not a belief”

July 20, 2017

A lack of belief

It’s become excruciatingly predictable for atheists who operate on a pop level to clarify that atheism, for them, is not a belief. It is, as they say, a lack of belief. They will point out that there is a difference between saying “I believe there is no God” (which is a belief) and saying “I do not believe there is a God” (which is a mere lack of belief). Many atheists will say they only lack a belief and this defines their atheism.

Now I’m not sure where this came from, but the talking point memo has spread far and wide.

Why does the atheist claim atheism is the mere lack of belief? The reason for this is that atheists don’t think they need to justify their atheism. Beliefs are the sorts of things that need to be justified by reason and evidence. If atheism isn’t a belief, then they need not shoulder any burden of proof for their atheism. So the theist is stuck having to meet some (usually extraordinarily high) burden of proof while the atheist gets to sit back and poke holes in whatever the theist says. It’s really quite brilliant as a rhetorical dodge.

They will often say that most of us are a-Santa-Clausists or a-tooth-fairyists, but it is not like we’ve justified these beliefs. There simply is no evidence for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and so we lack these beliefs.

A plea

If I may, may I talk with you, the atheist, for a minute. Please stop saying this! Let me give you a couple of reasons why.

For one, it shuts down rather than fosters dialogue. It is way easier to shoot holes in a view than it is to defend a view. If you are engaged in a formal debate (especially if there’s prize money involved!), then it makes sense to put yourself in the best possible position to win the debate. However, if you and I are dialogue partners, both attempting to know truth about these matters, then it seems infinitely better for both of us to lay out a case for our respective views and then we can, you know, talk about the case for both positions.

Second, I suspect you do have beliefs about God’s existence.

To see this, let’s first say what a belief is. A belief is simply the affirmation of a proposition or claim. Belief states always have a propositional content picked out by a “that clause.” A belief is always in the form of “I believe that p.” I believe that grass, when living, is green. Or I believe that Coke is better than Pepsi. Or I believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Or I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The contents of these beliefs are the following propositions:

  • grass, when living, is green
  • Coke is better than Pepsi
  • the Tooth Fairy does not exist
  • Jesus rose from the dead

Notice that one can wonder about or consider the truth of these propositions/claims without affirming that they are true. But once one comes to assent or affirm a proposition’s truth, then it is a belief.

Beliefs do not have to be held with 100% certainty. I believe that my car is in the parking lot outside of my office building. I affirm this proposition, but I am quite aware I could be wrong about this. The car could have been stolen or towed or my wife could have picked it up, and my belief would be false. I don’t have anything close to 100% certainty, but it would be absurd to say that I don’t thereby believe it.

Beliefs held with less than 100% certainty also do not require faith. I get it, you do not want to have anything that smacks of faith. Rest assured, one can intellectually assent to something (i.e., believe it) without placing one’s faith in that thing. Indeed I can believe that airplanes are a safe mode of travel without ever getting aboard.

So a belief is simply the assent to a claim/proposition.

Don’t you, the atheist, think that it is true that there is no God (even if you are not 100% certain about this)? You’ve reflected on this claim, you’ve considered the evidence for and against. Haven’t you concluded that there is no God?

Not identical states

Now it’s true that believing something is not the case and lacking a belief about something are not identical states. It is logically possible for one to say it is true “I do not believe p” but it is false that “I believe that not p.” But when is this the case? This only seems to be the case when we haven’t sufficiently reflected on some issue. There are a lot of historical controversies about which I don’t have beliefs simply because I don’t know enough about them (e.g., who was involved with the JFK assassination).

But this doesn’t seem to be where most atheists are at. They seem to have made up their mind that there is no God. I mean I could be wrong, but their tone (especially in internet groups) suggests that they have some very strong beliefs about the existence of God and it is not just a lack of belief that they spend so much time going on about.

I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I also believe that there is no Tooth Fairy. Do I have justification for this belief? Of course I do! My kids have lost about 40 teeth thus far and I’ve got good reason to think there is no one (but me!) that’s providing candy in exchange for a tooth.

The irony of this dodge is twofold. For one, the atheist begs off of having to provide justification for his or her atheism while simultaneously acting as if theirs is the position of reason and evidence. If the atheist is all about reason and evidence, then he or she shouldn’t be reticent to provide reason and evidence for his or her atheism.

Second, there is indeed reason and evidence for atheism. I’m happy to admit that! Now I obviously don’t think the case for atheism is, all things considered, persuasive. However, there are some objections to theism that I think have some punch and there are plenty of very intelligent atheists who think these justify their atheism. So why not just lay out the case for atheism and let’s have a dialogue?

A way forward

Even if you, the atheist, are not convinced, I think I have a way forward. Maybe you merely lack a belief in God. I don’t think so, but okay. What about the likelihood of there being a God? Do you think that it’s likely the case that God does not exists? Or do you just lack this belief too? It seems odd indeed for to say that one lacks a belief about the likelihood of there being a God.

I suspect that you do believe that God likely does not exist. If so, it seems we could then have a productive conversation. Let me lay out why I think there is good evidence to believe that God exists and you can lay out reasons and justification for why you believe this is likely false. Before you know it, we may just have a dialogue!

[for more info on this issue see Beliefmap’s post on this issue]

""/
Christian Faith, Dialogue

Eugene Peterson and the difficulty of message

July 14, 2017

Two days ago, an article was published declaring Eugene Peterson had come to affirm same-sex issues and marriage. Then there was the blow up. Eugene Peterson is an iconic luminary type of figure for many Christians and this affirmation was either a big problem or a reason for celebration depending, of course, where one stood on these issues. Then comes a retraction by Peterson who said he was put on the spot and, in his words, “I haven’t had a lot of experience with [navigating same-sex relationships issues].”

But his retraction leaves many questions unanswered. In the original interview, when asked whether he would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, he answered with a one word “yes.” He’s retracted this and said:

When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else.

But why did he say “yes” in the first place? It’s a bit hard to believe that, as thoughtful a guy as Eugene Peterson is, he doesn’t have worked out views on this. Again, he’s a hero of pastoral ministry and the issue of whether pastors should perform same-sex weddings has been a central issue in pastoral ministry for at least a decade or more. Has he not had young pastors who have come to him for wisdom and insight on this question?

He was also very positive about the fact that the church he pastored was accepting of a music minister who was gay and said, seemingly referring to being gay, “it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.” So far as I know, Peterson has not addressed or clarified these things in his retraction.

So there are a lot of questions here. And what he has said publically is, at least, a bit confusing. And I’m of course going to let Peterson speak for himself.

This does, however, highlight a difficulty of message. My sense reading less than 1000 words of Eugene Peterson’s thoughts about same-sex issues is that he is clearly affirming of the person with same-sex attraction. Peterson says “they’d be welcome at my table, along with everyone else.” And, as he’s now made clear, he affirms biblical teaching on marriage and sexual ethics.[1]

I imagine this is where a lot of us are at. We have friends and family members who are same-sex attracted and we think, as people, they should be able to pursue Jesus too. And yet we hold to biblical views about these things and think the practice of homosexual relationships is morally wrong.

But it is VERY difficult to articulate this without either sounding affirming of homosexual practice or coming across as rejecting the person who is same-sex attracted. It doesn’t help that both sides seem ready to pounce depending on which side we lean. My sense is that Peterson was trying to emphasize that he accepts and would love a person who is same-sex attracted (even to the extent of momentarily being willing to perform a same-sex wedding), but it came across as he was affirming of same-sex marriage and sexual ethics.

This, it seems, is especially difficult for a church in their messaging. As a church, we want to say that everyone is accepted. “Come as you are” is a familiar refrain. But does that make a church an LGBT accepting church? If a church is “LGBT accepting” does that mean they accept same-sex attracted people who can pursue Jesus and biblical holiness (I hope so) or does that mean that the homosexual practice is morally acceptable (I hope not)?

It is difficult to message but I think it’s not impossible. I think we can and have to maintain both the acceptance and love of the person who is same-sex attracted and our convictions about biblical teaching on homosexual practice.

We need to make clear that all people, no matter what they have done or what sorts of things they deal with, are accepted as people. All people should be welcome at your table (and your church) too. We can be friends and remain family members with people whose lifestyles are contrary to biblical teaching. It may limit the relationship some, but it shouldn’t, in principle, disqualify it. Many of us can and do have friends and family members who sleep around, or who, from time to time, take recreational drugs, or who don’t parent well, or who engage in legal but immoral business practices. Just to be clear, I’m not referring to womanizers, drug addicts, child abusers, or the mob. I’m just saying there are likely people who have “attractions” to practices that are out of step with Scripture and those are not typically grounds to disassociate. And these things are certainly not attractions that put them out of the reach of the gospel. Same goes with same-sex attraction issues.

But we also have to make clear that Scripture teaches a particular way of living one’s life. There are some things (a lot of things, in fact!) that are generally accepted, but are morally prohibited by Scripture. There’s of course room for lots of discussion. It’s not always obvious how to apply the claims of Scripture with the thorny issues of politics, economics, business, and morality. By and large, it seems to me that Scripture is clear on sexual ethics. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament epistles seemed to see how crucially important it was to live sexually pure lives and in God intended ways. It’s, by definition, an intimate issue and one that can have effect on the rest of our lives. In a word, the biblical view is that sex is intended for marriage and marriage is in its very essence is a man/woman union.

There are many things in the Christian way of life that is difficult. I have an exceedingly difficult time loving and serving my wife as Jesus loved and served the church (Eph. 5:25). I also rarely succeed as loving my neighbor as myself (Matt. 22:39). Likewise, the sexual ethic is not easy. I imagine those who take themselves to be polyamorous (non-monogamous) will find it burdensome. It is difficult for almost everyone in the post-adolescent years. And it is going to be a hard word for those who are same-sex attracted. Virtue is not easy and we shouldn’t expect it to be. But I remain convinced living a life according to biblical teaching is the way of human flourishing.

So I don’t know what Peterson has in mind on these issues. I have a very deep respect for the man. He’s a really thoughtful guy and suspect what comes next will be good and we’ll be led to love others better in light of the way of Jesus. Perhaps the author of The Message will lead us towards how to message loving acceptance with biblical conviction.

Related post:

Bono and Eugene: Learning to Cuss without Cussing

[1] I won’t argue for this here, but a wide majority of Bible scholars see the Bible as clearly prohibiting any same-sex sexual relationship, which precludes affirmation of same-sex marriage.

""/
Christianity, Dialogue

You need community (including those who disagree)

July 10, 2017

Christianity was never meant to be lived in isolation. Though there are ways in which Christianity concerns the individual (e.g., each of us must choose this day whom we will serve), the call has always been a call to community.

The need for community is especially pronounced when it comes to grappling with the deep and difficult questions of the faith. We need community. We need people in our lives with whom we share and think about our ideas on a deep level.

But not all community is equally good. A community full of folks exactly alike is not going to sufficiently challenge one to think carefully. Of course a community that is extremely hostile can also make it difficult since everything is under attack.

The best situation is to have community that is diverse.

Likeminded community

I think everyone needs a community of likeminded folks where we can together explore the implications of our view and think about it rationally. For the Christian, this is often a church community. When I go to church on a Sunday morning, I expect to be challenged in how to live my life in light of the gospel and the claims of the Bible (its implications). I don’t expect a defense of the Bible every single Sunday before my pastor preaches from the Bible. He doesn’t need to. Most everyone there already believes that the Bible is source of divine authority. It is typically appropriate for him to simply preach assuming its truth. But we should also, as Christians, think carefully about Christianity, including what evidence there is for believing it is true. It is okay for this to be a community of likeminded individuals with shared assumptions working together in this intellectual pursuit.

Friends who disagree

We should also have a variety of people with whom we disagree but are friends. It is ideal when these are genuine friends. In other words, it is a great blessing to have people in our lives who really do care about us, but take a very different view on matters. This way, discussions don’t reduce to mere spitting matches of who can best the other with wit and well placed zingers. There is trust and the discussion is charitable.

Disagreement in community is a very good thing. But of these two types of community, this is typically the sort we lack. Christians may know some unbelievers, for example, but the relationship is often hostile (that is, there isn’t that mutual trust and charity). Or we are only “friends” with that person insofar as there is openness to be evangelized. But once this option is foreclosed on, so goes the friendship. I think this is at our own detriment. We of course need to have people with whom we agree, but we also desperately need those with whom we disagree in order to grapple with the deep and difficult issues of the faith.

2 Payoffs

This sort of community of diversity has at least two payoffs.

First, having a diverse community helps us to not go off the deep end intellectually. It is much more difficult, though not impossible, to have crazy beliefs while in this sort of community. The reason why this is so is that those who come at the things very differently will almost certainly push on the weakest and wildest parts of our views. So if we’ve got something crazy and we are in genuine dialogue with those who believe differently, they will likely push us to have good rational reasons for those beliefs or drop them because they are, well, crazy.

Second, having a diverse community will help us not give up our core beliefs too quickly. What I mean is that some bit of intellectual tenacity is a good thing. This tenacity comes when we know that we have friends who share our beliefs and (hopefully) have good reasons for them. It’s almost a certainty that at some point we will get into a discussion and realize that we really don’t have a good reason for some belief. We may find we need to drop the belief. However, being able to pose the challenge to our likeminded friends, we may find there is plenty of good evidence for the belief. If we had dropped it simply because we failed to muster much in terms of evidence on the spot, this would have been much too soon.

Don’t go at it alone

In short, don’t go at it alone. Embed yourself with likeminded folks as well as folks with whom you disagree.

Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta
Welcome to my blog! ~Travis Dickinson, PhD
Recent Posts
Top Posts