“Non in dialectica placuit Deo salvum facere populum suum (It is not by arguing that God chose to save His people”). —St. Ambrose
INTRODUCTION
Some recent comments on an article in The American Catholic have disturbed me enough (even when I agreed with them) for me to repost a piece about the futility of arguing on the internet.
It’s my view that comments should seek to persuade, rather than to vent. This rarely seems to be the case. Most of the time we’re “preaching to the choir,” addressing those who agree with us. And when people do disagree, it’s rarely by means of rational discourse. Sadly, I’m as guilty of venting as some whom I criticize.
My constraint in commenting or replying to comments should be to not insult the motives, intelligence, or morality of others. Most of the time I’m successful, but I’m sure some reader will be able to cite instances where I’m not. (I can think of several myself.)
Here’s the problem: at present there appears to be no middle ground, in politics or Catholic teaching. In my own case, I’ve changed from an agnostic, secular Jew, liberal Democrat to a Catholic, conservative (whatever that means!) Republican over the last 26 years, and I did so by listening to what people on the other side said. I wonder whether now anybody listens or tries to understand what the opposing person is trying to convey.
At any rate, here’s what I wrote seven years ago. I think it’s still applicable.
IT DOESN’T PAY TO ARGUE ON THE INTERNET—WHAT THE PRIESTS SAID
Seven years ago when I read an article in Crisis magazine by James Kalb, it reminded me of two homilies I had heard and of the lessons I should have learned from these. The homilies were given by two foreign-born priests: Fr. X, Vietnamese, one of the boat people who escaped the Communists at an early age; Fr. Y, Nigerian, a Dominican. (Aren’t we fortunate as a missioned nation, that bread cast upon the waters has returned?)
The Crisis magazine article is about the futility of argumentation on the internet, a conclusion with which I heartily concur. As the quote above suggests, argumentation is not the way to evangelize.
This was the lesson of the two homilies. It’s been a while since I heard them, so forgive me, Fr. X and Fr. Y, if I don’t recast them exactly as you spoke.
THE LESSONS FROM TWO HOMILIES
Fr. X’s homily took off from the moving paean on the great gift of love in First Corinthians,“…If I have not love…” Fr X said we have to love our enemies and those who contest with us, otherwise we are not Christians. We cannot disparage them or wish ill for them.
Fr. Y was discoursing on the Gospel, Matthew 10, in which Jesus sends the apostles out and tells them
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (Matt 10:14)
In his homily, Fr. Y said that one should not contest with those—family members, friends, etc.—who dispute your faith. You should state what you believe and show, by the example of your life, what your faith means to you. And my own family experience has shown this to be true. Discourse intended to be rational winds up in name-calling and hurt feelings. So, we have to learn that sometimes rational arguments aren’t accepted.
WHERE I SUCCEED AND WHERE I FAIL
Here’s how I try to follow these teaching in my responses to those contending on the internet, even though I sometimes fail.
If a Geocentrist, or a believer in the Young Earth, refuses to debate honestly the scientific premises of their beliefs, I should do no more than point out where they might seek other opinions.
If someone advocates AGW (Anthropic Global Warming) I should do no more than give him data refuting that hypothesis and references amplifying these contraindicators. I should not impugn his/her intelligence, integrity or motives.
If someone gives false claims (misinformation) about the Wuhan-flu or vaccines, I should refer them to articles and statistics that correct this.
If an atheist refuses to read the books refuting Dawkins that I recommend—I cannot, as with giving my dog medicine, coat the pill with peanut butter and slip it into his/her mouth. (One of our dogs was very adept at licking off the peanut butter and spitting out the pill.)
If someone says that everything Pope Francis has said is in accord with Catholic teaching, I should do no more than cite specific contraindications to that and, again, give references. I should also (and I do) note wherein I agree with Pope Francis and show my respect for him as the Vicar of Christ.
So, the only thing to do is to love these people (even if I don’t like them) and pray for them. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will imbue them with grace, as it did one fervent atheist, Anthony Flew, who came to believe There is a God. And this is all I can hope and pray for.
Meet logos with logos, pathos with pathos, ethos with ethos.
If someone argues based on his supposed ethical high ground, there is nothing wrong in undermining his moral authority. If someone makes false emotional appeals to justify an atrocity, there is nothing wrong with drawing a reader’s attention to the true emotional horror of his atrocities. Each response involves more than logic and each response is personal, but neither response is wrong.
In fact you can see Saint Paul making use of all of these techniques through the epistles. Sometimes he can be quite brutal in taking down his opponents, though this is done (as he states) as a matter of love.
Does this mean that every personal response is justified? Of course not. But it’s just as much of a mistake to suppose that no argument can be personal.
I cannot agree with the idea that it is a true expression of love to refrain, in all cases, from using truthful words that are harsh.
It’s become a running gag almost on par with “What would Jesus do? Remember flipping tables is an option-” but Jesus Himself did not refuse to use harsh language, when it was warranted. Thing is, He told the truth in doing so.
He very much argued– yeah, Him arguing was a sign that He knew there was a chance, either to reach those He was speaking to, or those who would listen, that doesn’t change that He argued, and quite harshly.
An obvious but important note: costs can be quite high to do the right thing; if you are dealing with one of those folks who very much loves to have creative interpretations of the Bible which somehow always support their desires, and they tell you that you should never have a harsh word for anyone, you are going to very much piss them off when you quote Jesus Christ speaking to His friend:
Get you behind Me, Satan: for you savor not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
All the more so if she* was behaving in an underhanded, disgraceful manner to manipulate people into behavior she desired.
*Five points to those who guessed beloved grandmother or great aunt. Didn’t undo the damage she had already done, but did prevent ongoing and future damage. Among the damage was how very few of those under her authority remained in the Church, and of those how few have more than a hint of catechesis.
RH, I can’t disagree with what you said. My point is that one should not denigrate, impugn (whatever), the motives, character or intelligence of those whom you’re arguing against.
Forxfier, I don’t have the insight of Jesus, so I can’t trust myself to use harsh words. And, please, I’m not trying to imply you don’t have that judgment.
No worries!
I’m a big believer in a bunch of different routes being the best way to reach the most people– Jagi Lamplighter reaches folks who’d never listen to me, I reach folks that run over the top of her.
Group effort!
Dr. Kurland.
Please accept my intrusion on your thread but I had to express my disappointment at a collaborate effort to put lipstick on the pig;
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/sneak-peek-the-fbi-declassified-enemy-of-the-state/
How repulsive.
Enemy Of The State?
After what was uncovered within the organization during the witch hunt of witch hunts. Trump. Collusion.
The “Dossier.”
Again….please excuse my interruption into your well timed thread.
Trying not to come unglued as CBS honors the FBI on this Enemy of the State series.
To bad they don’t have any mirrors at the FBI. If they did…..
well you know…enemies of the state.
smdh.
@Philip, we are all Enemies of the State now, it seems.
Argument on the internet is NOT futile. Think of a candidates’ debate. Are they arguing? Yes. Do they think they will convince their opponent of the rightness of their views? Of course not; such is not their purpose. Their goal is to convince the audience of their positions and why to vote for them. Have in mind all the silent readers who will glean some truth to what you say. That is our real goal.
I used to argue on the internet about the catastrophe of Vatican II for the Church and the world. Now, no longer, as the evidence speaks for itself to those with eyes to see. To those whose eyes do not see, I pray.
Many years ago, Ann Coulter issued advice on how to talk with a liberal [ick] if you must.
Simply stick with three questions. One, What data, facts, principles, . . . do you have? Two, Compared to what? Three, How much will it cost? The typical lib runs on feelings, logical fallacies, myths, superstitions, and can’t stand such rationality.
My own personal test these days is; how peaceful am I in continuing a dialogue (or debate if you will), with someone online? I have no doubt squandered much peace of mind by engaging with another, long past the time that any useful purpose would be served.
It can be an act of charity to engage, debate, even rebuke someone. But only if and until my peace of mind is placed at risk. Not sure if it’s a perfect test, but I can think of none better since when my own peace of mind is gone, my patience will soon be gone as well. At that point, things can only go downhill.
I do think venting serves a purpose.
There are the things that people want to hear and there are the things that people need to hear. Ezekiel 3:17-21 talks about prophetic responsibility. The duty of the prophet is to tell people the things that they need to hear. Being a prophet is hazardous duty. When Christ preached His woes in Matthew 23 he pointed out the deaths of the prophets. The killing of St. John the Baptist, Christ, and St. Stephen (in chronological order) showed the truth of Christ’s woes. That the people were no different than their ancestors.
*
Unrepentant sinners are every bit as much evangelists as anyone else. The serpent had a 100% success rate in converting Adam and Eve to Original Sin. Adam was silent when Eve was being tempted by the serpent. How many of the “nones” are the result of people having the view that the faith is not worth fighting for? How appealing are lukewarm, fair weather Christians? St. Stephen used very harsh words in his discourse that preceded his stoning.
What would Jesus do?
– Never confuse religion and politics.
– Never state anything factually inaccurate.
– Never talk to someone without knowing for certain how they’d respond.
I know I mess up on the first two. The third one is the toughest for me to understand. There are times I feel like a scalpel, or a club, or a pat on the back might be the right move, but I honestly don’t know. Just like the wars of Israel tell us that sometimes violence is necessary, so the words of the prophets tell us that rebuke is sometimes necessary. It doesn’t make every rebuke prudent though.
I think a lot of the most strident online comments are just being lazy. It could take me days or months to bring someone around to understanding a point, but if I throw a fit and burn all my bridges I can call it a day.
I always figure that there are three recipients of any online message. The person I’m talking to, the others observing the conversation, and maybe most importantly the back of the mind of the person I’m talking to. That’s where you can plant a seed that can bring someone around. Does it work though? I don’t know.
– Never talk to someone without knowing for certain how they’d respond.
That’s an inane principle of action.
thanks all for comments, but it’s clear i didn’t make my point clear. I’m not against rebutting lies, misinformation, illogic, by pointing out what’s correct. What I do decry is demeaning someone’s motive’s or intelligence in what they say. For example, I could say you’re all dense and stupid since you didn’t understand what I was trying to convery, but that would neither be true nor effective. I agree that Jesus did some name calling to the Pharisees and others, but his over-riding command was love your enemies. And love is not a fuzzy warm feeling of affection, it’s an act of will wishing good for those who oppose you. but that’s deserving of another article.
Art, I’m describing what Jesus did. The fact that we can’t duplicate that was part of my point.
Art, I’m describing what Jesus did. The fact that we can’t duplicate that was part of my point.
What point?