I Don't Get It. So Why Do I Argue About It?

This article is dedicated to the work of Mike Godwin. Also to everybody who ever lost an argument because they brought up the Nazis.

Once again I have come to the sudden realization that I am a hypocrite. It never doesn't suck when that happens.

If you rail against religions, philosophies or ideologies you don't understand, so are you. Especially if you rush to the defense of things you do understand.

Example: Since my realization 11 years ago that I no longer understood the Roman Catholic Liturgy & attending doctrines, I have been careful - when asked - to make it clear that I had no bitterness for Christians or Christianity. It has been my belief that many people require a certain communal & spiritual guidance to get through the day. For a lot of people, that's Christianity in a nutshell.

More recently I have uncovered deeper feelings of resentment towards Christianity. I'm slow like that. Leaving aside the obvious problems with indulging in resentment, a distinction is needed here. It isn't the effects of Christianity on my life that I resent. It is the effect of my interpretation of Christianity that I resent.

By extension, seeing manifestations in others of similar interpretations of the same or other religions and/or ideologies really pisses me off. I think, "If even I can outgrow such a puerile thing, what is stopping you?"

There are probably numerous ways that person could ask me the same question. Seriously. I don't want to list them here, but they're numerous and varied.

I used to use a dismissive and superior kind of humor to (a) make myself feel more secure in my religious convictions, and (b) convince others that I was right. When I saw others doing the same thing in dismissing my beliefs, I got very righteously indignant. Because - as the American Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia likes to say - my beliefs were correct.

I've been particularly unfair to guys like this. Yeah he's a brash, arrogant, boorish prick. And so am I.

Hypocrisy, right?

In my defense, I was ignorant. Which is no defense. Not really.

Of course, leaving my interpretation of Christianity behind has freed me up to pursue trains of thought that were taboo. This - coupled with a new respect for (and understanding of) the reasoning process - has brought about shifts in what I believe about the nature of the universe, humanity, life, immortality, righteousness, and my duties to others. I have some apologies to make. Hopefully I'll figure out who is I owe them to as we go along.

Still, I find myself arguing with people about the nature of the universe, life, immortality, righteousness and one's duties to others. I also catch myself dismissing reasonable arguments with the high-horse-riding flippancy of a cynical and unreasonable dipshit. Kind of nullifies any valid points I might have.

Or maybe the argument made me think of something else and I thought for a second it was connected... Thanks to E. Alanen.

My brain (or mind or whatever) knows the right way to argue. Can you guess what it is? Never mind. The answer is "very slowly."

You already know what you believe about any given topic. You don't know what anybody else believes, no matter how well they may have articulated it. All you have is your own interpretation of what they told you. Saying you understand it is like saying you know what's in the ocean because you went fishing once, and pulled out a boot. So the ocean is full of boots.

I haz PRoOOF! Cee? Bpootz!

So when somebody tries to tell you what they believe, it's stupid to immediately argue your own belief, even if it's on the same topic. All they're going to hear is "There aren't any boots in the ocean. I went fishing once too," or "I know a guy who went fishing once, and the ocean is full of tires. Not boots."

And by extension, "You're a liar."

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think the argument would be more productive if we listen first, rather than just hear stuff and react. Take their word for it that they pulled out a boot once, and synthesize that with your story about the tire. That's how scientists eventually agree, from what I hear.

I just re-read that, and it looks pretty silly. A played-out cliche. The thought is bigger than the words I have to describe it. Or maybe smaller, and that's why the words are clumsy. To continue with the clumsiness...

So my brain knows how to argue. What's getting in the way? What could possibly keep a reasonable mind checked & nonfunctional?

As usual, in my case, it's the egocentric need to be right, and therefore validated. After all the progress my brain has made, there are still chemical reactions in the same brain that make me an unreasonable asshole.

Or put another way, the foundations of what I believe to be reasonable - when challenged - undo their purpose. Because I'm an emotional being before I'm a reasonable one. God damn, what a bummer.

There's probably a lot more in the ocean than what you pulled out of it. My guess is there's more there than the totality of what everybody has pulled out so far.

So... Keep the nets open I guess.

Or you're Hitler. Haha.