Taxonomy of Conversation: Debating
Debating is the second of four types of conversation. How do we experience each type online?
Here is what I wrote two Wednesdays ago:
Debating is where we listen from outside, dispassionately weighing evidence. It is a marked improvement on downloading. It requires debaters to think about what they are saying and what the other person is saying. It is a gateway to types three and four because it requires listening to others and marshaling our arguments to meet theirs. The problem is that like downloading it admits of nothing new. This is why so many debates go on for years because neither side can ultimately hear what the other is saying.
I am a part-time theologian and enjoy debating with other theologians.
I find debates about God increasingly frustrating. This started some years ago, when Richard Dawkins and others stirred up the debate with books such as “The God Delusion” and of course the atheist bus campaign.
What tends to happen is the new atheists pick debates with fundamentalist Christians. I’ve found they share a concept of God I do not share. I don’t believe in the God of the fundamentalists and so agree with the atheists about that.
But the god they don’t believe in is the same god I don’t believe in. I find both fundamentalists and atheists tell me I am a liberal and not a proper Christian!
Well, thanks for that it’s as well to know where you stand!
What is Going on Here?
It is a good example of debate, where neither side need back down because they depend on the other for the integrity of their own view. Neither side can see the immense amount of common ground between them. The only thing they disagree about is whether they believe in this false god.
The God delusion is on both sides. This is common where debates reinforce both sides. It is very seductive. I’m sure friendships develop, sometimes people change sides but the debate never moves on. Debates reinforce both sides of the argument.
Instead of downloading material that supports my worldview, debating is about listening to your opponents to respond to their points in support of your own worldview. The opposing view therefore reinforces your view. Both sides become entrenched.
Debating online can be exciting and educational. But is it possible to go deeper? Have you been involved in an online conversation that has gone beyond debate?