On the usefulness of debating fundamentalists

In reference to this topic: Natural selection like triangular circles can’t exist, I find it interesting that some people who appear to have the capacity for going through articles and comprehend what it tries to say, can still be so selective in what they take from those articles.

The reasons for this can be any of the following:

  • The person does not understand what the article is trying to say.
  • The person understands the arguments, but does not agree with it.
  • The person does not even read the articles.

Theres not much you can do about the last one, but the first two is what forums like this is all about.

The problem with debating with fundamentalists though, is that they are unwilling or unable to seriously enter these discussions because of their beliefs. You can argue that it is futile to even try. Especially when the arguments they use are clearly flawed and usually based on what they read or heard somewhere else.

It’s easy to ridicule someone for his/her lack of comprehension or ridiculous attempts at counter arguments. And it’s sometimes necessary, but I find rarely useful.

My take on debating fundamentalists – and I’m assuming religious fundamentalists are meant – is that the reasons for doing so are often misunderstood. But before examining these in more detail, it is perhaps worthwhile to shed some light on what the term “fundamentalist” might mean and to whom it can rightfully be applied.

I think that the most prominent defining feature of a fundamentalist is an automatic and fanatical rejection of any alternative to the one the fundamentalist holds to be absolutely true concerning some issue, regardless of how untenable that position may actually be. In the case of religious fundamentalists, the position they hold as true usually derives, according to their doctrines, from a combination of the authority of, and revelations by, a supernatural god or gods.

Any fact or observation that raises questions about or conflicts with the actuality or supposed nature of these entities is ascribed to an evil being, possibly the caprices of the human mind. In many cases it is even taken as further indirect evidence for the god’s or gods’ existence. The glue that holds these cognitively dissonant fragments together is of course fear of the consequences of defying these supposed supernatural entities, which also need regular placating because they are thought to get a bit shirty when people forget about them. In this way the stage is set for fending off any and all challenges. In particular, it opens the door for a whole host of fallacies of reasoning, selectivity, rhetoric, assorted biases, and so on. At a more basic level, there’s also the “losing face” angle associated with being shown to be wrong.

If the picture painted above is in any way accurate, it would seem then that there’s no point in debating them because they simply won’t be swayed. The unstated assumption here is that the objective of debating fundamentalists is to persuade them of other ideas that run counter to their beliefs. But this assumption is, I think, wrong and is the misunderstanding that I alluded to earlier. It is also one reason why such debates can appear so frustrating, even infuriating, especially those who are new to this game.

To my mind, the most important reasons why fundamentalists should be vigorously debated is to point out exactly where their reasoning is faulty and, more significantly, why their reasoning is faulty. Thus, the benefits are much more for those who oppose the fundamentalists in that these opponents get to exercise their critical faculties and also in that they learn something new when researching an argument put forward by the fundamentalist. Moreover, where a debate is conducted in a public forum such as this, there is a potential spinoff for any casual observers who happens by: such an observer’s interest may be piqued to the extent where s/he investigates the topic under discussion for him- or herself with an open mind because there is no overt pressure of having a specific stance to defend.

'Luthon64

LOL. You must be a Pratchett fan. This vividly reminded me of the personalities of the gods of the Discworld. Anyway …

I agree with absolutely everything that you said. I think that it is often the sceptic who runs out of steam before the believer, not because of right versus wrong, but simply because of the tactics of the believer in changing the goal posts. The believer is driven by the belief that he/she is always doing righteous work; the believer who is arguing is “facing demons” or “fighting infidels” or “battling satan” and the longer it is drawn-out the better (that is; the better for the story of “In my day I fought satan”) … after all there are stories of the righteous within his/her mythology who fought demons for many days (at least I’m aware of it in Christianity, perhaps I shouldn’t generalise too much). It doesn’t matter that the individual arguments are being lost, it matters that the time is being spent in defense of the faith.

Yeah, Luthon beat me.
A fundamentalist will never be swayed. The only benefit of debating one is if there is the potential to show the faulty reasoning, but an even bigger benefit if you show what an ass-hat the typical fundamentalist is. In order to do this, there usually should be formal rules for the debate. Casual debate like you will often find on forums do not achieve this because the whole topic is wide open. The fundamentalist can dodge/ignore questions, make machine gun claims so that it is impossible to respond to each, quotemine, etc…

I followed the “Natural selection like triangular circles can’t exist” thread with interest and frustration. I was studying for exams and had to stop reading because I got so worked up over some of the nonsense that was being put forward as an argument.
I caught up on the tail end of the debate today, and was glad to see ‘Luthon64s’ last post on the subject - he finally said what I was longing to say, but in a much nicer way. But I do agree that we do need to debate these topics, no matter how frustrating or asinine it gets.
As for ArgumentumAdHominem, I am in awe of your debating skills and knowledge, you deserve an award for the patience you displayed while trying to explain your point of view to someone who just wouldn’t take the time to read and actually THINK about what you were saying. :slight_smile:

Thanks mdg, the cheque’s in the post :wink:

I really enjoyed this because it has given me an opportunity to learn more about evolution. I really don’t think that I’m knowledgeable about the subject, I defer to the work of the more informed by quoting, and internet access to research a reply is a great help. In conversational debates I can often seem vague by saying “There’s … this scientist who discovered … can’t remember the word … but it shows blah” which just sounds ill-informed and probably sounds made-up too.

I rely too heavily on extelligence, I’m not that intelligent. :-[

AAH:
It is necessary to research anyway. I have studied evolution much more than the average person, but there is so much new research papers etc. that are written about and subsequently quote mined that to respond properly, you must do some homework.
I agree with mdg: you do a thorough job of getting your facts straight and making clear points, so keep up the good work. :wink:

AAH:
Oh yeah, and a rant from time to time is perfectly acceptable.

Okay, so to bring this topic back on track, let me ask; is it really acceptable to rant?

In my opinion; no. Indeed in a formal debate it is certainly not a good move, but even informally the appearance of losing your cool or dropping the occasional snide comeback will give the opposition the opportunity to say “see, I touched a nerve, there must be truth in what I said”. After all, when we see woo-woo nuts losing their cool we’re tempted to label them as “tilting at windmills” simply because we’re of the opinion that the opposition (being a follower of woo) is generally prone to more fantasy in the first place.

And is there a need for ranting anyway? I agree that it is entertaining for fellow sceptics to read these comments, but where did the “flare-up” come from? Is this the defensive mechanism of the meme? After all, our position is no less a memeplex than the oppositions position? Is the disdain you feel for a challenger, the gut-reaction of anger or the “he just will never get it” rolling-of-the-eyes just a common feature of all memes? Even the physiological effects (like the bubbling of the gut when force to listen to this tripe from the other side) common to all sides?

My question is why we need to react to it in such a predictable way?

Thanks mdg, the cheque's in the post
Thanks, but the cynic in me knows it will disappear along with my other snail mail. ;)

I agree with you that it isn’t acceptable to rant for all the reasons you’ve given, although sometimes it is very difficult not to get angry, as I admitted to when reading metari1’s arguments against evolution. Actually, what angered me more was that he/she obviously was not reading or listening to the evidence you presented.

Although I’ve been a sceptic and non-believer all my life, it’s only recently that I’ve stood up for my lack of faith or belief in any religion - it’s also meant I’ve had to defend my stance to friends and family, most of whom a very religious. What has been most interesting is that they are the ones that end up ranting, and that onus is on me to “prove” the non-existence of their god.
There are two of my friends, who are very involved within their respective churches, who will sit and have a good discussion about it with me and we usually agree to disagree on our points of view, without resorting to screaming matches.
The ones who do end up ranting at me are the fundamentalists who don’t really know much about science or even their own religion for that matter, and will resort to “splitting hairs” on the terminology of ape like ancestors, much like metari1 did. These are the ones that it’s just better to walk away from and give up trying to make them see reason, it’s a no win situation.

Hold on guys.
I didn’t say anything about anger or screaming. A rant or ranting:

Main Entry: 1rant
Pronunciation: \ˈrant\
Function: verb
Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen
Date: 1601
intransitive verb
1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2 : to scold vehemently
transitive verb
: to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

I think of it as a rhetorical device. Rather than calmly discussing someone’s points as if they have any merit whatsoever, it is important sometimes to show just how preposterous a position is.
A rant can work well for this without coming across as angry, hysterical, etc… I’ve seen bloggers use it effectively many times over.

Yes, I agree, ranting is not equivalent to screaming. But what you are looking for is something which can be as succinct as a well selected Reductio ad Absurdum

Ranting can be more neutral than screaming, but so can sarcasm. Often the real intent (sorry, I’m borrowing metari1’s favourite word here; “intent”) with sarcasm or ranting is missed and it doesn’t communicate your point effectively to the opponent.

And, it might not look like it but I do rant. I just take a long time to get there. :wink:

A rant can work well for this without coming across as angry, hysterical, etc..
I'm a parent to teenagers, I find it difficult to rant without being angry or hysterical. ;)

Seriously though, I think one can calmly discuss different opinions on religion and still point out how preposterous an opinion is {difficult as it may be to do so sometimes} - ArgumentumAdHominem did it very well in his debate with metari1.
Agreed ranting and screaming are not the same thing, in my experience with religious friends and family our “discussions” have degraded into screaming matches. However, I would say that a rant is spurred on by irritation or anger at something that has been said

I agree 100%. This is why I try to limit my response to the factual information required and then be as helpful as I can. I’ve seen too many threads degenerate into useless drivel that an outside observer will not find useful at all. But it is necessary to show in a short and civilized manner just how ridiculous the counter arguments are, otherwise both arguments might seem to deserve the same merit. Something you are a master of I might add :wink:

I’m glad you mention the two separately. I know many skeptics who are not necessarily non-believers ;D

I think it’s natural when dealing with issues that you care about deeply that people will get angry and let their emotions get the better of them. And it’s sometimes difficult to know what a proper response should be. So I try to err on the cautious side and give the opponent the benefit of the doubt, he might actually truly believe his argument is not as insane as I perceive it to be.

And as someone mentioned earlier, it keeps you sharp. Reaffirming why you believe certain things to be true. Over time this also makes you less insecure and feeling you have to defend yourself.

Hmm, I’ve never read any Pratchett – an obvious deficiency, even a character defect, that I will remedy shortly. :smiley:

Yup, there’s that, too. It seems to me that sloppy reasoning and religious fundamentalism are symbiotic.

Er, actually I’m a she, but thanks nonetheless for the vote of confidence. I think it was curt and perhaps even confrontational – much as intended, actually – so I’m not sure that “nicer way” necessarily applies.

I agree without any reservations!

As long as ranting doesn’t become one’s stock-in-trade behaviour. A well-reasoned rant, done with zesty tongue-in-cheekiness, can be as amusing as it can be informative to read. While there is no strict need for ranting, it serves to indicates that one is passionate about the topic under discussion, something it is at times difficult not to be.

Thanks, you do flatter me … I hope? 8)

Yes, more usually irritation rather than anger at the silliness of what has been posited, I think. I myself often get just a little twitchy when confronted with blatant baloney, especially when it smacks of an over-flogged equine.

An admirable approach, and one that I try, not always successfully, to live up to. One lives and learns.

That’s often the handiwork of trolls and more’s the pity. I’m not sure whether fundamentalists themselves deliberately aim for such degeneration possibly in order to declare a by-default victory, or whether it’s the inevitable product of their erratic and erroneous hopscotch that they usually pass off as argumentation.

The possible ambiguity aside, thanks, I think… :slight_smile: Is today my day for receiving unsolicited praise or is christmas a bit early this year? :wink:

'Luthon64

I don’t know which blogs everyone reads, but the ones that I read (various, but science, skeptisism, denialism, culture war mostly).
In my experience, when a troll chimes in, it tends to be a diatribe. Even when others choose to engage a troll, the troll’s posts tend to be longer (much longer) than anyone else’s.
I think most of the time this is to throw so many quotes, arguments etc. out there that nobody can possibly respond to everything or even verify the information. This is similar to the “machine gun” claims I spoke about earlier. You will also find that these trolls have written their screed ahead of time, and cruise the blogs pasting it in wherever they want to stir.
Most of the time, the best approach is “Don’t feed the trolls”.
I have also found that while the blogs I read are very lenient with people who have opposing views and trolls alike (though there are limits to what one can suffer), I have had my comments struck and been barred from some blogs with religious and denialist themes for simply pointing out errors of logic.

I’m sure we’re all getting thoroughly weary of Metari1’s frenetic semantics and obvious failure to read any of the extensive replies to his hysterics. I was tempted to ask that this thread be terminated; but then I realised, on the other hand, that it is rather illuminating to track the reasoning processes of a full-blooded creationist. So please, BluegrayV and Anacoluthon, humour him/her/it a little longer — I’m both amused and being educated.

I will lock the topic if it gets any worse. But discussions like this is after all why this forum exists. Although you can never be sure, I do believe that metari1 is seriously trying to debate the issues as he sees it, and that everyone can benefit from the discussion. Remember that just because the arguments seem obvious to me or you, does not mean it should be obvious to other people. I know it took me a long time to let go of my own beliefs, and at first I did not accept different views from the ones I was comfortable with. It was only by trying to find fault in new ideas and people pointing out errors in my own beliefs that I came to the conclusions that I stand by now.

Also, please consider that it must not be easy for him/her to argue against so many able opponents :wink:
Alienating people because of different beliefs is not what I want.

I appreciate your attitude and fully agree.

Go to the following site for a mirror image of this argument:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Should_the_first_story_of_creation_be_read_allegorically_or_literally%3F