Post by furor on Jun 17, 2008 23:55:52 GMT
What place, if any, do scorn and name-calling have in debates with atheists and other non-Christians?
It is certainly often the case that in such debates the subject being evangelized might offer objections or counter-arguments that could broadly be described as "completely stupid," but the evangelist is not preserved from such folly either so he need hardly consider himself superior in this matter. Is there any merit whatever to making that stupidity a triumphal focus of the debate rather than just refuting what's being said in a calm and orderly fashion? In doing so one only gives one's opponent free points, as it were, by allowing him to quite reasonably protest such treatment and to dismiss such insults as irrelevant and childish. It certainly doesn't make one's opponent better disposed towards listening.
There's a particular Christian apologist whose work in all other areas is excellent but who seems to me especially and nauseatingly guilty of this. His defences of such behaviour put it in the context of ancient near east challenge/riposte systems and the value in antiquity of the art of the insult, but these are not especially helpful given that in no sense do such systems or such an art meaningfully persist in the modern west. It is my opinion that his extensive contributions to apologetics - and especially his detailed refutations of various false prophets, wrong-footed scholars and outright charlatans - are more or less undercut by this tendency.
Now, it's important to note that the disgust I feel at this might be some entirely subjective quirk with no basis in scripture, tradition or history, fit only to be rebuked or ignored. I'm aware of the examples of men like St. Jerome and Tertullian, but I simply do not see why their particular flaw should be admired or emulated as though their personal greatness makes virtue out of vice. I am aware also of the example of our Lord Himself, who offered many nakedly insulting sayings to those who so foolishly stood against Him. The difference between Him and us is that we do not have a perfect knowledge of the interior life of those with whom we are debating. We do not - indeed, cannot - know that our opponent is actually determinedly evil, even demonic, and will flatly and forever refuse to see the light of truth. Making statements that would presuppose such knowledge on our part seems foolish.
It seems facile to conclude that "be nice" is the approach towards which one should strive, but to do so is not to abnegate one's duty to the speaking of truth. Indeed, call error error; call lies lies. But mocking someone as stupid or persisting in labelling them with childish nicknames when they may rather in fact simply be wrong hardly seems as though it falls among the duties of the apologist.
It is certainly often the case that in such debates the subject being evangelized might offer objections or counter-arguments that could broadly be described as "completely stupid," but the evangelist is not preserved from such folly either so he need hardly consider himself superior in this matter. Is there any merit whatever to making that stupidity a triumphal focus of the debate rather than just refuting what's being said in a calm and orderly fashion? In doing so one only gives one's opponent free points, as it were, by allowing him to quite reasonably protest such treatment and to dismiss such insults as irrelevant and childish. It certainly doesn't make one's opponent better disposed towards listening.
There's a particular Christian apologist whose work in all other areas is excellent but who seems to me especially and nauseatingly guilty of this. His defences of such behaviour put it in the context of ancient near east challenge/riposte systems and the value in antiquity of the art of the insult, but these are not especially helpful given that in no sense do such systems or such an art meaningfully persist in the modern west. It is my opinion that his extensive contributions to apologetics - and especially his detailed refutations of various false prophets, wrong-footed scholars and outright charlatans - are more or less undercut by this tendency.
Now, it's important to note that the disgust I feel at this might be some entirely subjective quirk with no basis in scripture, tradition or history, fit only to be rebuked or ignored. I'm aware of the examples of men like St. Jerome and Tertullian, but I simply do not see why their particular flaw should be admired or emulated as though their personal greatness makes virtue out of vice. I am aware also of the example of our Lord Himself, who offered many nakedly insulting sayings to those who so foolishly stood against Him. The difference between Him and us is that we do not have a perfect knowledge of the interior life of those with whom we are debating. We do not - indeed, cannot - know that our opponent is actually determinedly evil, even demonic, and will flatly and forever refuse to see the light of truth. Making statements that would presuppose such knowledge on our part seems foolish.
It seems facile to conclude that "be nice" is the approach towards which one should strive, but to do so is not to abnegate one's duty to the speaking of truth. Indeed, call error error; call lies lies. But mocking someone as stupid or persisting in labelling them with childish nicknames when they may rather in fact simply be wrong hardly seems as though it falls among the duties of the apologist.
