It has occurred to me, after reflecting (and resonating) over a recent post by Mike Russell at Eternal Perspectives that the biggest problem in our age (perhaps setting aside the whole preoccupation with sex thing) is all about our understanding and misunderstandings and how we deal with them. Here is exactly what we don’t do but should:
I suspect (but don’t know) that Phil learned at Moody at least one of the things I learned at Denver Seminary about discussing theological issues: make sure that you have fairly and clearly explained – as much as you are able – the position(s) with which you disagree before explaining why you disagree and then present your own position. For a practical demonstration of this, watch some of the lessons available at The Theology Program of Stonebriar Church. One of its guiding and fundamental principles is to accurately represent the “opponent” before explaining its own belief.
Now Mr Russell is talking about theology but I think this applies equally well to other walks of life. For a first example, imagine for a moment if this were the practice in our hallowed halls of government and by those arguing over the other schisms in our society. Can you imagine those questioning one’s position on issues to be forced first to explain their opponents views. Wouldn’t the ID/”Darwin” debate be more interesting if the pro-”Darwin” proponents like Mr Meyers in their debates with those like Mr Dembski (who I’ll admit I’ve never read) instead framed their debates by primarily identifying the position held by those they debate with then most of the debate would consist of gentle corrections of misunderstandings between people than polemic.
Would it not be better if, in this example, Mr Meyers would be expounding the ID position and Mr Dembski correcting him when he incorrectly explains his position and the reverse, Mr Dembski detailing natural selection and Mr Meyers correcting his misunderstandings. Then and only then when both have understood the other point of view they might explain why the other is wrong. The ID/Natural Selection dialog might be replaced with any of the other issues we debate.
For another example, Mr Schraub (The Debate Link and followup) points out the most likely execrable Iranian sponsored Holocaust denial-fest. However … it might be an interesting exercise for Mr Schraub to explain President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s understanding of this matter. It is far easier to call Mr Ahmadinejad (or Mr Chomsky) a anti-Semitic nutcase, but explaining and understanding his point of view is not being attempted. And don’t misunderstand, I’m not a wilting peacenik who says “understanding” will melt our differences, but just the opposite. I seek useful confrontation. But nobody can confront mistaken points of view. You must argue against the viewpoint actually held by those with whom we disagree.
Another example, recently from the NYTimes, I was emailed an article by a ((way) left of center) friend entitled Judicial Gag Rule by Bob Herbert. In it Mr Herbert writes speaking of Mr Alito:
I can understand why the Republican Party – the party of Bush, Cheney, Frist, Abramoff and DeLay – would want such a man. But why the general public would want him is beyond me.
Well, my response is, Mr Herbert … your job and all of ours in any of the so-called media is to not say understanding a point of view “is beyond me”, but to figure out why they hold that view, and explain it. This is not done by assuming that those who disagree with you are misguided morons.
The point is if you find yourself thinking “boy that’s a dumb (or bigoted) thing to think” about a person you disagree with … you are more than likely wrong about the motives and beliefs the other person holds. That doesn’t mean he is right or even justified. Just that you don’t understand and more likely than not your arguments about why he is wrong will fall on deaf ears. After you’ve finished explaining how it is just moronic to think the moon is made of green cheese he won’t really care about your polemic because he agrees that’s wrong, but he however continues merrily believing that Mars is made of tofu.
Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics back in the Medieval period wrote discourse by making a statement, then bringing forth all the arguments they could muster against their point of view. Finally they showed why the opposing arguments were faulty. It might benefit us if our debating tactics took this tack. Make your point, explain the opponents arguments against it. Query your opponent until you have his argument correctly stated. Then explain the flaws in his thinking.
If I can, I’m going to try to emulate something more like this style for a while in my policitical musings. It will be more work, so please chide me for my laziness if I fall back on my “old” ways. 
The problem is, at some point you run into a brick wall. When my opponent starts denying gravity exists, I’m just at a loss. The massive amount of historical literature confirming the Holocaust is available to all but those who willfully deny it–my protestations that it exist are not likely to be helpful.
But also, at some point arguing fringe morally reprehensible viewpoints does less to defeat them and does more to ratify them. I don’t want to perpetuate (or get started) the notion that there is a “scholarly debate” on the existence of the Holocaust, because there isn’t–its just history versus lunatics. On issues which are disputed, I do bac myself up (like with my structual analysis of anti-Semitism). But where it’s just rabid bigots spouting off, I don’t think I do good to treat them like mature, adult scholars.
David,
The problem with Mr Ahmadinejad is that his peers in his circle feel he is an estimable persumabely bright, wise, and worthy person. Dismissing him as a wacko means there is no possible dialog on that subject with him (which alas may in fact be true regardless).
It also occurred to me that an interesting and possibly more constructive method of dialog between right/left (and any opposing parties) might be more constructive is each party at the onset had to describe in detail the others position. Only after each side can correctly state the others thesis then debate might commence.