On arguing with fence posts

In my last post, I explained why rational argumentation is often ineffective and may sometimes backfire. The gist of my argument against rational arguments is that people do not approach their religious and political beliefs from a position of rational neutrality. Rather, these belief systems are fundamentally rooted in our social identities, and they are buffered against contradictory evidence by numerous cognitive processes.

But does this mean that rational argumentation is never worthwhile? Should we tolerate ideas and policies that appear to us as absurd, irrational, or destructive simply because they are part of someone’s culture? Is the only alternative to cower in a state of impotent, politically correct accommodationism? No, no, and no. This post will outline a middle-of-the-road alternative to confrontation and passivity.

1. Be affirming – We too often assume that people disagree with us because they are ignorant, complacent, or just plain immoral. This is rarely the case. People have very good reasons for believing what they believe, since beliefs are nothing less than adaptations to experience. Since we are not experts on another person’s experience, we cannot be experts on their personal beliefs. Most pro-lifers are not against abortion because they thought, “The Bible says that an embryo is a fully living human being, so abortion is wrong.” Rather, you can bet their beliefs about abortion were framed around previous experience, e.g. feeling sadness for a relative who fell into a deep depression following her abortion or enduring humiliating criticism from a parent when doubting the future of her own pregnancy. There is a history behind beliefs, and that history rarely includes a systematic analysis of "empirical evidence." Finally, never, ever use the word “irrational.” It only communicates your sense of moral superiority and serves to alienate your opponent.

2. Be subtle – The New Atheist approach of “your belief is wrong, and here’s why” will almost certainly fail with most believers of any faith, political or religious. In order to tackle a morally offensive belief – say, bigoted policies against immigrants in Arizona – we need to be less direct in our criticism. For example, when confronting harsh laws against immigrants and minorities, rather than trying to convince people that all Americans descended from immigrants or that their views sound eerily similar to the Ku Klux Klan, we could appeal to their compassionate side by emphasizing the financial burden of immigrants, their need to provide for their families, or at the very least our obligation to protect minorities who are actually citizens of our country from discrimination or unfair treatment. And again, be ready to abandon your endless citations of “empirical evidence,” because more often than not, it’s a tactic that will convince only scientists, and even then it’s a crapshoot.

3. Be perceptive – Listen for the subtext of a person’s beliefs – people are often saying more than what they communicate verbally. I mentioned earlier that beliefs are adaptations to experience, i.e. they serve a purpose beyond logical coherence. These experiential reasons are far more persuasive than so-called rational arguments about concepts and abstractions because they are connected to a person’s strategies for maintaining his relatedness to others, negotiating conflict, understanding his place in the world, etc. We cannot sacrifice these functions so long as we are human, so we need to frame our arguments in a way that allows our opponents to discard their beliefs while also acknowledging the purpose that belief previously fulfilled. For example, someone who is compelled to believe in the literal truth of the Bible because his religious community ostracizes anyone who believes otherwise will never listen to your litany of Biblical contradictions. He will choose community over logic every time, guaranteed.

4. Be diplomatic – When you reach an impasse, accept that you are not the expert on the topic in question, communicate that acceptance, and defer any further discussion to someone who your opponent would be more likely to trust. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and plenty of conservatives who are against imperialistic warfare, and these culturally similar individuals are far more likely to persuade people who are both skeptical of your beliefs and acutely aware of your different sociocultural background. It’s unfortunate that tribal identities and us-and-them thinking are such a central part of human psychology, but if we hope to navigate the obstacles to collaborative discussion, we’ll have to start with people at their most primitive.

5. Be vulnerable – We need to communicate the human side of our beliefs by including examples from our own experience. If you meet someone who believes that atheists are amoral baby-eaters, offer to share your approach to ethics. Be sure to include some of the errors you’ve made over the years, and explain how you’ve struggled through sticky ethical questions that may not have had a clear answer. People need to believe that an alternative to their current belief system is possible, and they can only do so if you do not present yourself as a hyper-rational, emotionally-detached robot who has never suffered, failed, or fallen short of his ideals. They need to know, in essence, that you are human, not simply an expert on humanity.

This is only a rough sketch of ways we can make our dialogue more effective. I hope they’re enough to convince you that we can persuade people without alienating them or sacrificing our own values, but I’d also love for you to challenge me to defend them. I never turn down a good argument.