Resolved: that discussion and debate are good things.
I think there's
something about communicating in type instead of voice that promotes logical
exploration. Or at least, it drags discussions out long enough that you can
realize what's going on. Last week I had a fascinating (to me, at least) email
discussion with M'ris about the
experience of reading that had me stepping outside myself to examine what is going
on when I read a book. I concluded that part of the fascination is that it lets me
step into a different world and see through the mind of a different sort of
person. I also came to the conclusion that I am a very biddable reader, prone to
identify with whoever the author thinks I should identify with.
Some
of that I knew, but I also realized that sometimes I don't read for that reason,
but just to learn something new. Otherwise I don't think I could read nonfiction
except when set in the first person, or fiction that didn't look well inside
someone's head.. Oddly, even that sort of reading can have a lot of influence on
my moods and wishes; I would expect the experience of "being" another person to do
that, but apparently I'm suggestible to the printed word in
general.
This morning I was enjoying a argument on the subject of gay
marriage, carried on the comments of a LiveJournal, until the party of the other
part asked me please to stop. (I am not linking to her journal in case that
qualifies as further argument.) I never quite understand why some people think
debate is useless if neither party will convince the other. I assure you all I was
being as polite and respectful as I could manage.
One possible
problem is that I think the other person was probably a literal Bible believer. I
am willing to be convinced otherwise but I confess I can't understand how an lBb
can be anything but a sloppy thinker. Even if you take as granted that God's word
was handed down to Moses and the various Gospel writers (obviously I don't), how
could you discount translation and copying errors? Even if you think all later
translations were divinely inspired and thus accurate, how can you look around at
all the translations available now and not notice the disagreements? Even getting
back to the original source and neglecting translation errors, the two versions of
Creation in Genesis disagree, so there are errors from the very start. How do you
logically reconcile that with any kind of divine infallibility?
That
wasn't really my po in there, though. My point is that for a logical thinker,
debate can be valuable even without either person convincing the other. As I wrote
in the original argument, I find debating a point politely has some value; for me
it ensures I have considered various points I might otherwise have missed. And for
a religious person, well... can an unexamined reflex faith as strong as one that
has been examined and has stood the test? Also, there are certainly at least some
Christian traditions (like the Jesuits) as well as mainstream Jewish tradition
that between in study and debate not to disprove G-d's role in the world but to
determine as much as possible about it.
I don't wuite know if
it's a sign of bias or what that most of the people I think of as very smart and
logical agree with me on most divisive issues. Maybe what I need is a smart debate
buddy on the other side.