One of my good friends recently posted a quote from famous US comedian Bill Maher. In this long quote, Bill lambasts all religion without qualification. A Christian responded very defensively. I responded by saying, "Note
to Bill. Bill, Why should I care the least about your views on
religion? You're a comedian, not a philosopher, not a wise man, not a
humanitarian, not a credible critic of anything!!! Just asking."
Another person responded, "Phil: ad hominem." "Ad hominem" is a logic fallacy that means "of the man" and is an erroneous argument that simply attacks the person on the other side of the debate, without addressing the real issue.
I replied, "True enough, an ad hominem argument does NOT discount what he says. On the other hand, just because a prominent person with a microphone and camera says something silly, doesn't mean we have to take it seriously. My point is, I don't take Bill too seriously." And, this brings us to this post.
There are people whose arguments I respect, and those with whom I refuse to engage. Some folks really are interested in hearing different viewpoints, and others who mindlessly quote others, and are never open to considering what is being said.
I enjoy arguing as much as anyone, but there are three kinds of arguments:
1) Sincere disagreements where all parties are willing to debate, consider, and change.
2) Sport arguments, where no one has a strong investment, they simply argue for the sport of it.
3) Arguments where one or both parties are not interested in hearing, but only in speaking; they are proud of their points, and care little whether their points have merit. They are not open to change.
Argument #3 accomplishes nothing and isn't usually fun. The trick is to distinguish among the three types, and sometimes I get it wrong. But I'm pretty sure Bill Maher's argument is a #3. And I don't have the time.
I think that is what Jesus was telling us, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt 7:6).
I just don't want to be torn up by a heard of swine.
Another person responded, "Phil: ad hominem." "Ad hominem" is a logic fallacy that means "of the man" and is an erroneous argument that simply attacks the person on the other side of the debate, without addressing the real issue.
I replied, "True enough, an ad hominem argument does NOT discount what he says. On the other hand, just because a prominent person with a microphone and camera says something silly, doesn't mean we have to take it seriously. My point is, I don't take Bill too seriously." And, this brings us to this post.
There are people whose arguments I respect, and those with whom I refuse to engage. Some folks really are interested in hearing different viewpoints, and others who mindlessly quote others, and are never open to considering what is being said.
I enjoy arguing as much as anyone, but there are three kinds of arguments:
1) Sincere disagreements where all parties are willing to debate, consider, and change.
2) Sport arguments, where no one has a strong investment, they simply argue for the sport of it.
3) Arguments where one or both parties are not interested in hearing, but only in speaking; they are proud of their points, and care little whether their points have merit. They are not open to change.
Argument #3 accomplishes nothing and isn't usually fun. The trick is to distinguish among the three types, and sometimes I get it wrong. But I'm pretty sure Bill Maher's argument is a #3. And I don't have the time.
I think that is what Jesus was telling us, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt 7:6).
I just don't want to be torn up by a heard of swine.
About five years ago, I got really worked up over something Paul Finebaum said on his sports radio show one afternoon. Not my brightest moment.
ReplyDeleteI dialed his show's number and began mentally organizing my argument. Then a paraphrased version of Proverbs 20:3 passed through my mind: "It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel." This led to thinking about the great rewards of answering a fool according to his folly (Pr. 26:4).
So, being uber-righteous, I hung up the phone and argued with him in my car. Later I was convicted of hanging out--via media--with fools all the time. I still haven't fully walked away from sports radio, but that may be one of the hazards of my job. :-)