No Longer Necessary

In his recent article, "Why Liberal Religious Arguments Fail," Peter Laarman argues that it is not argumentation that changes people's minds but stories that change people's hearts. He suggests that endless argumentation is pointless because "hearts change before minds do. It rarely works the other way around." This is not a new position by any means. Rhetoricians have been making this claim for thousands of years. An argument should be constructed "to teach, to please, and to move" as Cicero stated. The issue here is how Laarman is making his point and framing his own argument.

I consider Laarman here to have adopted what Walter Fisher calls the narrative paradigm, and he further makes the assumption that we are meaning-making, story-telling animals, which is all correct. What he fails to do is make a more important connection to argumentative style. There are many different styles of argument, and Laarman lumps them all into one category and casually dismisses them...seemingly in the name of both religion and science. This is not inherently a weak position to take since stories are powerful persuasive tools, but many take this position while making certain other assumptions that are problematic.

Laarman suggests that endless argument gets us nowhere and that we don't even argue to find clarity. He suggests that it's all a win/lose scenario played out for the benefit of our own egos. I agree that this is often the case in our society. However, his own position is quite muddled. Most notably, he argues in the same paragraph that argumentation is an irrational "kink" in truth-seeking while at the same time lauding the defenders of rationality Rawls and Habermas as bastions of "small-scale forums." While this characterization of these two authors is somewhat accurate, it is certainly inconsistent with Laarman's own viewpoint since it is unlikely Rawls or Habermas would put much stock in either religion or story-telling.

The main issue is that Laarman is critiquing only a Western Greco-Roman form of argumentation that does prize a win/lose scenario; an honor/shame system. As we see from the sophistic tradition it is indeed true that humans will often fabricate information to win their case, and we have become quite good at it. On the other hand, argumentation in the more non-Western Jewish and even Eastern rhetorical tradition does not seek winners or losers. Flying directly in the face of Laarman's own argument, the endless argumentation within the Rabbinic tradition, for example, is supposed to bring clarity and, more importantly, wisdom. It will not bring it immediately, but the point is not to possess clarity. It is to keep the conversation open and moving towards a deeper wisdom about the reality of the situation.

I do realize that Laarman is operating within a Western argumentation paradigm, so I will move on. What he actually seems to be suggesting is not that we do away with argumentation outright but that we argue through stories. What he is suggesting is that we steer clear of making our arguments with cold hard facts and temper those with personal anecdotes. Here is where Laarman gets it right. As with Aristotle, Laarman suggests that emotion (pathos) champions logic (logos), which is what many rhetoricians and almost all sophists stated. The problem, however, is not logic, especially since logos is much more closely related to pathos than most people assume. The problem is that we no longer know how to argue. Although we may argue all the time, as Laarman offers, we don't necessarily know how to argue effectively or construct a well-reasoned, well-balanced argument.

The real crux of the issue, then, is that verbal back and forth is not necessarily arguing, which is why it is often unhelpful as Laarman suggests. It passes as arguing, e.g., in political discourse. It may even look like arguing, but it's likely not anything close. Shouting at each other isn't arguing, and neither is presenting a poorly constructed "argument," which leads to endless disagreement and dissatisfaction with a certain issue being addressed. The problem is that these "liberal religious arguments" are passing for arguments when they're actually just an amalgamation of words with facts thrown in to present the appearance of an argument. Yet, it takes skill to craft an argument. It takes the right balance of facts with anecdotes and examples. People's hearts may change before their minds, but their minds are certainly a large part of the equation. Perhaps what is no longer necessary is not argumentation but what is passing as an argument. What is no longer necessary is the appearance of a well-constructed argument that is actually, as Laarman suggests, a complete and utter failure.

Religious Illiteracy

Stephen Prothero has written many books now regarding religious literacy, and he is championing a good cause. Critically exploring the differences of different religious in a way that non-academic audiences can enjoy is impossible for some academics. I applaud Prothero for his efforts.

Why is it that we are so religiously illiterate? We are surrounded by religions. We are inundated with Christian symbols and phrases. We are well versed in what Prothero calls the "American Jesus," but we do not understand the intricacies of religious beliefs and doctrines. Indeed, I have often bemoaned the fact that everyone I have encountered uses belief and faith interchangeably, but they are quite distinct concepts - the one (belief) indicating an often vehement adherence to specific doctrines or even popularized dogma and the other (faith) indicating a struggle with doubt and mystery while attempting to reconcile religious devotion with secular advances. Having written this sentence I see at least four more problematic terms that are mis-used and misunderstood - dogma, doubt, religion and the sacred/secular dichotomy.

With so many terms being mis-used how can one possibly hope to engage an American public in the Public Square in a healthy debate? There are so many different premises buttressing everyone's different faith expressions, where does one begin to unpack all of this terminology? This is a significant question that I believe deserves extended attention, especially since the many people today tend to put their noses in the air while stating, "I'm spiritual but I'm not religious." What this statement signifies, however, is absolutely nothing. When you attempt to affirm everything, then you affirm nothing. What's the point of being spiritual if you aren't religious? The problem, again, is a breakdown in communication, i.e., terminology. I would in fact argue that it is impossible to be spiritual without being religious. As Mircea Eliade has argued extensively, we are religious beings. The problem is that we have no idea what that means, so rather than thinking seriously about religion we are able to dismiss it under the guise of spirituality. The diverse American public doesn't typically like to think too critically about their "beliefs." It is easier not to investigate religious institutions and rail against them and opt out of the conversation by claiming "spirituality."

Until we can seriously approach the mysteries of faith and the struggle with theology we will be almost entirely unable to engage in meaningful efforts at inter-faith exchanges and dialogue. One step further, I would add intra-faith dialogue as well. Until we understand the multiplicity and heterogeneity of religious expressions in all of their fascinating differences we will continually undermine ourselves in the quagmire of homogeneity. Homogenizing differences might seem to solve the issues of difference, but it will only exacerbate the issue and result in further ignorance; even frustration and violence. We must embrace Martin Buber's I-Thou conceptual premise and Levinas's ethical alterity. That is, we cannot see the otherness of a "Thou" if all we see is the sameness of "I" in everything we explore.

Understanding religion is too important not to explore in depth. Communicating religious literacy is a challenge, as Prothero also highlights, and it does not matter if you believe in "God" or not. "God" is a powerful conceptual force in our society, and it is important to try to understand the how and the why of everyone's connection to the concept because it will always influence what they do and how they interact with those around them. If humanity is anything it's a religious species. Even atheists have "beliefs" and "faith." They share a common terminology and certain rituals. Without getting into a definition of "religion," isn't the fact that we have been shaped for thousands of years by religious forces enough of a reason to take religious illiteracy seriously? If not, then how about the fact that it's wielded as a political tool today and that it affects us all on a daily basis both inside and outside the political arena?