Tried With Fire

Every time there's a fight lively discussion among Christians on social media, I am reminded of this quote from Mark Foreman. So for your edification, I am sharing it again.  Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth.  In fact, if you can show me that ...

Megan Phelps-Roper grew up in Westboro Baptist Church, and Fred Phelps was her grandfather. This was the only mindset she knew, and she believed it. She picketed and protested and used her social media account to denigrate anyone who would try to challenge her brand of hate. However, she interacted with one young man, a Jew in fact, who did not trade fire for fire but engaged her in respectful conversation, as best as Twitter could provide. Through these dialogues, Megan began to question what she believed. She eventually rejected what she had known all her life and now "is a social media activist, lobbying to overcome divisions and hatred between religious and political divides." ( Wikipedia ) Quite a transformation. If you are like me, my first reaction was "I am so glad she started to think for herself ." But did she? In How to Think , Alan Jacobs argues that it wasn't so much thinking by herself as beginning to think with different people.   He als...

I read Prelude to Philosophy several years ago. At that time, the Trinity wasn't on my radar, probably not on many people's radar which reveals how low the doctrine was on the totem pole. One of the good outcomes of the Trinity debate is that it is getting us thinking about how we do theology. Author Mark Foreman uses the Trinity as an examples of how sound thinking AKA philosophy helps theological understanding. "Another way philosophy aids theology is in helping Christians to draw out and express important theological concepts. For example, a cardinal belief for Christians is the doctrine of the Trinity: God in three persons. It is often surprising to many Christians to find out that not only is the word trinity not located in the Bible, but there is not even a straightforward, clear statement of the doctrine. This does not mean the doctrine is not in Scripture, for it can be inferred through bringing together a number of passages However, the main problem is that t...

I posted this quote a year ago, but in the light of the Trinity debate, it's worth repeating. Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth. In fact, if you can show me that a belief I had thought was true is actually false, I have not lost but have won, because, I do not ...

Social media can be a rather rude place at times. There are moments of thoughtful give-and-take, but there are moments when the interaction consists of name calling those in the opposition. Maybe I'm becoming an old fuddy-duddy, but I'm not impressed with the latter. Rather than strengthening a person's position, it seems to weaken it, in my opinion. Any reasonable debate about an idea is lost in the rapid exchange of derogatory comments, and maybe that's the point. Maybe we've lost the whole concept of debating ideas for the sake of the truth in the desire to have the last word, even if that last word is an insult. In With Good Reason , the author gives details of several fallacies of presumption. Here's what he has to say about the fallacy of begging-the-question epithets: [T]he error lies in the use of stated language that reaffirms what we wish to prove but have not yet proved. An epithet is a descriptive word or phrase used to characterize a person,...

Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends. The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth. In fact, if you can show me that a belief I had thought was true is actually false, I have not lost but have won, because, I do not want to hold a false belief and am now closer to the truth. 1 It's easy to become proud when on...