A louder voice in the middle

[MehYam]

http://fora.tv/2009/02/17/Michael_Ruse_ ... ral_Debate

We don't need yet another debate on evolution or creationism. But I'm curious - what are people thinking when they reply to threads like that? Is anyone thinking \"okay, THIS is the reply that's finally going to settle the debate!\", or is there something else going on?

[Spidey]

I’m not arrogant enuf to think I could ever settle this type of argument when I post, I’m simply voicing my opinions.

I gave up a long time ago, trying to have something “deep” to say.

All I heard that guy do was criticize one side, so I can’t see him doing much for the “Honest” debate.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I realize that the debate as a whole will not be settled (although according to popular thought naturalism already seems to be a given). We are not all scientists, and even scientists only specialize in a limited number of fields. I think it is very safe to say that no one person on the face of the earth has a complete enough understanding of our world or our universe to conclusively settle the matter, scientifically (and even if through some miracle they did, people make mistakes). Therefore it ends up really being largely based in the underlying philosophies, and even more-so for the average person/non-specialist (someone who doesn't have first-hand knowledge of applicable science). Ever since I realized that, my primary goal has been to point it out--it doesn't matter if people believe they have science on their side, because the truly indisputable fact is that the majority believes that they have science on their side--they are, indisputably, subscribers. Secondary goal is trying to get the facts straight. We aren't going to change the world from this BB, and we're not going to settle the dispute for everyone, but we can correct inaccuracy or misunderstanding in order to have a more accurate picture of the facts that real science has given us (that would be the ideal, thought it may not be the case as often as it should).

[Lothar]

I don't ever think \"THIS is the thing that will settle the debate\", whether it's evolution, abortion, religion, economics, global warming, or any of those other issues. (And I certainly don't think Michael Ruse's rather arrogant and dismissive view of his opponents is a good way to end a debate.)

Instead, I think that whatever I say is an opportunity to influence some people to at least think more seriously about some particular idea or position. I think of it as creating an opportunity for others to enhance their own understanding, and to escape certain \"traps\" that are out there. Moving even a few people away from a wrong position (whether a wrong extreme or a wrong middle) can be significant in a larger sense.

I also think of it as a learning opportunity for myself. I'm not just in the thread to say \"everyone STFU and listen to me, I'm the best\"; I'm there to see if anyone else has anything to say that makes me reconsider, reformulate, revise, or reframe an idea. Even little kids, if they're taking a discussion seriously, can say things that are worth consideration. (Of course, I only get the maximum value out of a discussion if I'm going for \"honest\" debate -- if I'm putting my real ideas out there and exposing my real positions to consideration and criticism. Putting forth some fake BS, obfuscating, or making personal attacks might be effective for one debate, but it means my ideas don't get better for the next one.)

[Kilarin]

I also think of it as a learning opportunity for myself. I'm not just in the thread to say "everyone STFU and listen to me, I'm the best"; I'm there to see if anyone else has anything to say that makes me reconsider, reformulate, revise, or reframe an idea

Amen!

[SilverFJ]

I've found the best way to end a debate is to strangle your opponant.

[flip]

LOL works for me

[MehYam]

Moving even a few people away from a wrong position...

I think you just nailed it. I think that's what these debates are all about - the subject matter is secondary. Convincing someone that our idea is right strengthens our own belief in that idea, and helps quelch our own nagging doubts. Because you distance yourself from your own internal naysaying, project it onto someone else ("it's not me, it's THEM thinking this dumb idea"), and beat the hell out of them for it, figuratively. Plus, it's just fun to argue.

At least, this is true for me. My own stance on many of the above listed issues has done a complete 180 in my lifetime. Actually, more like a 360. At one point I'd have argued a literal, biblical damnation against a particular point of view. At a different point in my life, I'd argue the complete opposite (but still, with a healthy dose of secular-equivalent damnation for the obviously wrong party). Either way, I'm a salivating, rabid extremist, and fundamentalist.

I'm not saying we're all like that, but there's at least a grain of universality here. We like to root at sports games ("take him down, kill him!"), even though the teams are arbitrary.

[Spidey]

So you are saying we argue to convince ourselves?

[Lothar]

Moving even a few people away from a wrong position...

I think that's what these debates are all about.... strengthens our own belief in that idea, and helps quelch our own nagging doubts

You say I "nailed" it, yet I was arguing the opposite, at least for myself.

I don't think unjustified self-convincing is nearly so universal as you suppose -- there are those who approach debates in good faith, who are interested in learning and growing and testing their own ideas. It is a sign of maturity, I think, when one moves away from the "rabid, salivating fundamentalist" mentality and toward the "thinking, arguing, seeking improvement" mentality. It's a sign of maturity to move from "making me hold my current belief more strongly" to "changing my belief into one which is stronger".

In a meta-sense, I argue in all of these debates to try to get people to move from the immature to the mature mentality. Regardless of the subject matter, one of my goals is to show people that they can in fact approach the subject with reason (including a healthy dose of skepticism), honesty, and humility, and they can develop and take ownership of their own beliefs. In the decade I've been here, I've watched a lot of people (including myself) move from the "fundy" mentality to a more mature mentality, and I think that's far more valuable than convincing people to agree with me on any particular topic.

[Insurrectionist]

Before we ask the question \"Does God exist?\" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question \"does God exist?\" would be pointless. My answer would be \"No, He doesn't,\" regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist!

If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an \"a priori adherence\" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question \"does God really exist?\" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.

[Duper]

I also think of it as a learning opportunity for myself. I'm not just in the thread to say "everyone STFU and listen to me, I'm the best";

...no...

Your Wife is.

[Ferno]

I've found the best way to end a debate is to strangle your opponant.

or make them look ridiculous by taunting them incessantly.

[MehYam]

So you are saying we argue to convince ourselves?

Yup.

[MehYam]

You say I "nailed" it, yet I was arguing the opposite, at least for myself.

I know what you were intending to argue.

[MehYam]

I don't think unjustified self-convincing is nearly so universal as you suppose -- there are those who approach debates in good faith, who are interested in learning and growing and testing their own ideas.

That's a small minority. For just about everyone, their agenda comes first. It's unconscious, it can't be helped.

[Ferno]

BTW, it's nice to see you again MehYam

[Foil]

Insurrectionist, next time give credit for your source. An easy way to do this is with the [ quote ] BBCode.

[SilverFJ]

I've found the best way to end a debate is to strangle your opponant.

or make them look ridiculous by taunting them incessantly.

/me pokes Ferno with a sharp stick.

[Foil]

In the decade I've been here, I've watched a lot of people (including myself) move from the "fundy" mentality to a more mature mentality, and I think that's far more valuable than convincing people to agree with me on any particular topic.

Agreed. Of course, it's not simple or easy to break out of a blind unchangeable mentality (they exist on both ends of the debate). From my own experience, it was difficult when I finally had to admit that some of the theological and scientific positions I held were flawed.

As Thorne and others have said, this debate is deeply rooted in philosophical worldviews. Of course, both ends of the debate claim to be unbiased about empirical data, but are quick to point out the 'skewed' perspective of the opposite side.

[Spidey]

I haven’t seen any empirical data from either side of this debate, other than the purely observed type.

[Insurrectionist]

Insurrectionist, next time give credit for your source. An easy way to do this is with the [ quote ] BBCode.

Aye