How to Disagree Well

to ask yourself the honest question am i pursuing the truth here or am i trying to win the argument you know I think for out a clue myself for a lot of us the thing will devolve into something like an intellectual prize fight so there's my opponent and I'm gonna win this fight and even if that means I got a you know a couple of sucker punches or cheat a little bit or a low blow or you know because the intellectual version of the low blow or a sucker punch or something is the misrepresentation I say here wittingly of your opponent's point of view welcome back to the word on fire show another episode here I'm Brandon Vaught the host and the content director at word on fire and we're delighted to be joined again by Bishop Robert Barron Bishop Baron always always good to see you hey Brandon good to see you how's life in Orlando oh it's good it's good we're still you know and phase one now of the roll out of the country Myers Florida is one of the first states to kind of open the doors and everyone's I think a little on edge to see if there's gonna be a second wave of cases so we're families still kind of hunkered down here in our little homestead yeah good good couple things I wanted to talk about before we get into the meat of today's episode one is you've mentioned a few episodes back that you were working on this book on the creed and we're gonna have a lot more to say about that when it comes out probably in 2021 but you just finished days so it's a big accomplishment I know it's still in your mind how did the book go are you happy with how it turns out well I say I finished it all Twiggy may as the French say meaning the basic kind of draft the first draft of it is is done but this is a book that I conceived oh I don't know maybe a year ago working on it and or dribs and drabs and then suddenly this coronavirus then came and it did open a window I must say to that I had more time and thinking about writing you know is for right II know this Brandon you need a lot of time because you just have to focus it's impossible I only got an appointment at you know 9:00 it's over at 10:00 another appointment 11:00 why don't you write in between those two that never works it just doesn't you can't do it you need like no I've got from 8:00 until noon you know so suddenly time like that open for me and I was able to get I'd say the bulk of it done I'm at the stage now of kind of reading through it one thing you also know authors know this when you're writing a book you're not reading it you're writing it and it can be a very different experience than to go back and actually read it the way another reader would and so you got to make adjustments so anyway I'm unhappy it's basically done I hope it can be used in different ways I wrote it in a pretty high level academically because I hate dumb down Catholicism so I didn't want to do that but it's also designed for nuns right it's designed for the unaffiliated it's designed for seekers and searchers and people that don't like religion it's designed for those that maybe are looking but you know they've wandered away etc so idea we'll see we'll see if it works you know after briefly reviewing the manuscript it to me it's in the same genre in the same category as Joseph Ratzinger's introduction to Christianity it's a very thoughtful theologically serious reflection on the basics of Christian belief and I can't help but think when it comes out it's gonna be the perfect book to give to a smart non Catholic whether they're agnostic or atheist or they think oh you know religion and philosophy has nothing smart to offer the world this book will will show them that Christianity is a thinking faith that's a smart faith so we'll talk more about that and develops yeah good good another thing I wanted to discuss with you is people have been so consoled by these daily masses that you and father Steve have been offering from your chapel there in Santa Barbara I think we started them on March 17th somewhere around I think Patrick's into that when it started it was and we've been offering it every single day since then and Bishop Pike I gotta tell you you don't receive all the emails that come into word on fire they're filtered through your team but every day we get dozens and dozens and dozens of emails from people explaining how meaningful and consoling it is that at a time when the parishes are closed they're still able to participate at this you know in a limited way in the liturgy but a lot of people have been asking you know hey this is great can you keep doing it even after the coronavirus goes away can you do it perpetually and offer these daily masses every day we've talked about that a little bit outward on fire but what's what's your thinking what do you think about that well first of all I'm very grateful to people who have responded well and and we're delighted that that we've been able to offer this service secondly we shouldn't continue it once the virus is over because we want people going back to Mass in their parishes we don't want them relying on this sort of virtual mess so I don't believe in that but here's what we're thinking about Brandon is um maybe if we do a program just dedicated to preaching so if I were to preach yeah I do the Sunday sermon for the for various outlets but maybe do that as a video the sunday sermons or even even more frequently than that so we'll see that might be a way of continuing some of the momentum from the masses where I would preach on a more regular basis video make that available through YouTube and Facebook and so on so we'll keep everybody updated as things develop but for the near future we plan to keep offering these daily masses as long as the restrictions on parishes are in place and then when they lift we'll see where we go down there okay today we are going to be talking about how to disagree well this is a skill and it's one not usually taught or developed for many people going through middle school or high school or college you know I'm thinking back to my college days and we were just never taught how to have a serious respectful conversation with people with whom we disagree but it's a skill set that needs to be encouraged and taught and developed I found an article recently from the popular Protestant pastor Tim Keller he outlined what he described as six principles for how to argue when you disagree and so I thought for this episode we we talk through these principles and unpack each of them there's a lot of good crossover here with what you've previously written in your book arguing religion which in some ways yeah so these principles and applied them specifically to religious disagreements but these are broader principles that will apply to any topic so here's the first one number one take full responsibility for even unwitting unintended misrepresentations of other people's views and Tim Keller says this means to avoid rash judgment to assume blame for misunderstanding if you say something the other person says well that's not what I mean or what I believe then you say oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood you and talked about this principle take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentations of others views we know Brandon I would put that and all the other principles under this rubric to ask yourself the honest question am i pursuing the truth here or am i trying to win the argument you know I think for a clue myself for a lot of us the thing will devolve into something like an intellectual prize fight so there's my opponent and I'm gonna win this fight and even if that means I got a you know a couple of sucker punches or cheat a little bit or a low blow or you know because the intellectual version of the low blow or a sucker punch or something is the misrepresentation I say here wittingly of your opponent's point of view so you'll take advantage of perhaps a little in the armor or the slight weakness in the argument or I can exploit that because what he just said there is ambiguous enough to make me you know say here's what you really are saying so what am i interested in the truth that both of us are trying to find together or winning the argument if it's winning the argument then I'm in a bad space and I should get out of the get out of the ring I mean you've created a kind of boxing ring you shouldn't do that at all it's rather the image of two friends having a conversation and pursuing the truth together now it doesn't mean for a second that it's all just sort of wimpy and agreeable no no I mean you're having a good conversation you know you'll disagree and you'll say no no I don't think that's the right way to put it so I don't say you can't be edgy but are you trying to win are you seeking the truth and I think that's a master principle behind all of these when I think of this principle the first person that comes to mind is Socrates you know the first great philosopher we find him in Plato's dialogues interacting with all sorts of people with whom he disagrees and every time he meets one of these intellectual opponents almost the whole conversation is him asking questions he's really making affirmative statements he's asking questions and in there all of the form like well do you mean this or do you mean that or what do you mean by that you know explain a little more give me a little more understanding you get the sense through the whole thing that he has intellectual humility that he really cares about understanding what the other person's view is before responding it it's only like at the end of the dialogues well he'll then respond and offer his own take and I've always seen that as the model of making sure you understand the other person's view before you respond to it yeah and it's the combination of the epistemic and and the ethical of you one you know if we forget our ethics as we go about the business of looking for truth and what's the point maybe even you won the argument maybe if there was a group of a jury of your peers and you won nine of them said you know yeah you won the argument so what if you've lost the person and you've lost the truth you haven't really come to greater truth you just happen to win the argument that wouldn't get you very far and as you say Socrates is in many ways the master figure behind the whole Western intellectual tradition because we say all philosophies a footnote to Plato as whitehead put it but you know plato's hero was Socrates so in a way he does positively haunt the whole Western tradition that he's a sort of asymptotically approached ideal of how to engage in intellectual conversation and even even the model of conversation rather than pugilism you know we're conversing were were both in love with a transcendent third namely the truth and we're trying to find it together that's a better way to approach it then I'm in a boxing match with my opponent I'm glad you raised that distinction between conversation and pugilism because I found often today people associate disagreement on the level of ideas with hatred on the level of persons that if you disagree with me you're fighting against me and Who I am as a person we've lost even the conception of being able to disagree healthily respectfully charitably how do we recover that how do we recover the idea that you can disagree with my ideas but still love me and respect me one thing is to make sure that when you're disagreeing you're doing it in a way that's that's loving that you're signaling your interest in the truth and in that person you know I look out this I'm a a cool boy I'll go back sometimes over things that I've said on the Internet okay so when you know either in the heat of the moment or even like hey I think I could say something really clever here that will undermine what the person saying one way to do it is and this is okay I think to use a little bit humorous on the right word but use humor a bit to make your point because you want a signal I'm in love with the truth and I mean I'm in love with you I'm interested in in you as a person when we lose that it does devolve into into a boxing match all right let's move on to Tim Keller's second principle again six principles on how to disagree well the second principle is this never attribute an opinion to your opponent's that they themselves do not own and the specific example he gives is the fallacy of guilt by association that you shouldn't assume that if person a quotes a particular author favorably at any point then person a must agree with everything that that author has ever said in in every context we find that all the time especially on the internet don't you see the same constantly and and I agree with them it's a it's almost like I don't know it's a weird mental tick that people have because the thing is I I love the whole tradition of thought and conversation I've been around for a while I've read a lot of people and so yeah I know something that you know Origen said this and TR de Chardin said this and and I might cite those people when making a particular point and what I'm citing it's typically something that you know is pretty innocuous or yeah that's helpful that does throw light on it yes but Origen also said or but TR was also condemned for well yeah man I know I know but I'm not making a global claim about everything they've ever said are done I said the people especially when they go after after your references morally you know how could you refer to that person who live such a terrible life well if that's our principle I would only cite Jesus and his mother the only two people like it ever sight because everyone you cites a sinner morally and everyone's a sinner intellectually meaning everyone I know in the great tradition has said something stupid and Thomas Aquinas is my hero do I think Thomas is right about absolutely everything oh absolutely not I think Thomas made some egregious mistakes sorted Agustin I mean so what that's just the way it goes no my model here is Thomas Aquinas himself who cites a range of figures Christian Jewish non-believers scientists pagans heretics even look at look at Origen whom he cites frequently very positively even as Thomas fully knows that Origen took some weird positions with which he disagrees but yet he's very happy to cite him positively so I just wish it's a tick it's a it's a it's a dysfunction and we just get over that tendency because it gets us nowhere you know you want to say look I'm not arguing that he said everything right in his whole life I'm saying this particular point he's making a valid observation so yeah it's it's just a it's a conversation stopper you know if our model is conversation let's keep this conversation alive we're looking for the truth together that's a conversation stopper and therefore it's something we should avoid you know to me it's always a litmus test of whether the other person is genuinely interested in fruitful productive right honest respectful conversation or not if they played the card that you quoted this person that person's heretical or unorthodox there for you you know went off the deep end or something like that it's almost inevitably a sign that they're not interested in in a serious conversation you wish brain we're both the lovers of sports you know when you're playing a game a serious game what do you absolutely need you need a referee or the game is gonna devolve very quickly right you're playing basketball you're playing baseball you're playing golf whatever there's got to be somebody rules official to say nope nope no no you just did there you guys have a great game but you know that move no no that's not basketball anymore you can't go out of bounds and run around you can't stop dribbling you can't you know if there there could be referees with an intellectual conversation to blow the whistle and say like what we'll call this this problem like you know the globalization of your citation or something just throw up throw a flag flag up I'll stop everybody you know and little penalty like come on don't do that but we don't have referees so we have to kind of muddle through so I encourage listeners to visit the word unfired jobs page will now be accepting applicants for YouTube comm box referees if you feel like everybody was it's good like that Amy blowing the whistle all the time alright let's move on to Tim Keller's third recommendation he says take your opponent's view in their entirety not selectively and I want to read a quote here it's a few sentences long he applies it specifically to theological disagreement and says a host of Christian doctrines have a sort of on the one hand on the other hand to mention about them and without both emphases we can fall into heresy what if we find mr. a making what appears to be an unqualified statement that sounds very unbalanced if that is all mr. a has ever said about the subject it would be right to conclude something about his position but what if mr. a has been speaking or writing about these statements to an audience that already believed certain things and therefore he was assuming those points of doctrine without stating them at a minimum we must realize that mr. a simply can't say everything that he believes about a subject every time he speaks so we should not pull out certain statements by mr. a while overlooking or actually concealing explanations qualifications or balancing statements that he have made a elsewhere I mean this is this is persistent every day on the internet I see this all the time I'm assuming you do too oh my gosh yeah but you didn't say bishop you know yeah the point you're making that's Mel but you didn't say yes I know I had a comm box like that you know or yeah I know it was a 900 word article or even yeah I know it was a it was a 25 page article but I'm dealing with a topic that's so multivalent that I I couldn't possibly say everything that you have to say which is why I've always found that criticism sort of cheap and therefore sort of annoying it home someone says oh yeah that's great bishop but you know you didn't all right why don't we just stay with what I did say and let's analyze that and stay with it and if I have time you know then we'll look at another side one thing Ivor is Brandon when people read me on a given topic and they say yo but what about I'll say why don't you take a little bit time a little bit time and go through the archive of my videos or articles or books for me I said I'll be willing to bet you're gonna find the balancing perspective that you're looking for but maybe just give me the benefit of the doubt but I can't say everything necessary you're they joke about that it's like the way the Germans write it a German scholar will write a 19 volume work called das la font you know like the absolutely exhaustive study of an elephant even there someone's gonna say oh yeah but you didn't so now imagine a little article or a video or even a small book there's no way that you can say everything that has to be said so it's a it's a kind of cheap easy to easy you know you put in Thomas de clases language there's always a said contra right so when Thomas sino makes his argument and he or she lays out the the opposite point of view than those a said contra but on the other hand no matter what you say there's always a said contra ok good so the conversation goes on but what the problem is the sort of aggressive attack on someone because they haven't said everything they can possibly say you know another reason to Brandon why I like the the wonderful sort of eclecticism of the Catholic conversation so yeah there are things I'm able to say given my background and my interest in my experience okay good I can't say every that's why I need you and I need everybody else who will bring light from their perspective good good let's all have this lively conversation all right let's move on to principle number four these are ten Tim Keller's principles on how to disagree well number four is to represent and engage your opponent's position in its very strongest form not in a weak straw man form say something about this yeah and I think we talked about maybe sometime before I first heard the term steel man in this debate between Jordan Peterson and sam Harris so we all know straw man which is you set up a kind of very weak flimsy version of your opponent's argument and then you easily knock it down and someone says well come on man that's not fair I'm making a far more substantial point here and you're just knocking down a flimsy simulacrum of my argument okay we all know that and that's bad form but people do it all the time so what's the opposite of that and and I heard I know it was Pierson himself or the moderator use the term well now steel man Sam's argument I thought wasn't me steal it and then I know so the opposite of straw man make your opponent's argument as strong as you can it accomplishes a lot of things one it convinces your opponent or your interlocutor oh he's really listening to me he really has heard my point of view he really has thought it through you know he really knows what I'm arguing and now we can really make some progress because otherwise we're just shadowboxing we're we're playing with with these straw men and we're getting nowhere so I love that principle one thing like you know we both know about this in Internet forms and stuff is instead of leaping toward thee let me refute you as humiliatingly as I can an opening move like now if I understand you properly what you're saying here is and then even make it stronger than the person did there's my Thomas Aquinas model right Thomas when he lists the objectors to a position given that the the rapier quality of his own mind he was able to formulate them far more persuasively than the opponents themselves he steel steel manned the argument good that's a good technique all right the fifth principle is to seek to persuade not antagonize and then he adds the caveat but watch your motives and he explains we must take care that our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents we should seek to win them as Paul did Peter when they had their disagreement not to be rid of them I think this kind of echoes something you said earlier the purpose is to is to win the other person to persuade them not to just win the battle and win the day oh gosh you know I again maiya culpa when I think I hear my priest I'm a bishop I'm involved in in the work of evangelization and I can catch myself if I you know go back to a calm box and think like what was I doing how would that statement or that comment have landed in that person's heart in mind and maybe I was right and I was making a valid you know comeback but if it just alienated the person what's the point of that now again I don't think it means we just turn all namby-pamby and I think you can be sharp and you can be clear and you can even you know I think you correct someone if someone has really gone overboard like just the other night there was somebody and I just said no that's really overdramatic like they were making this super strong hyper dramatic claim I just said no no that that's way too you know hyper dramatic I think that's okay keep in mind behind those words there's a person somewhere typing them with feelings and with a history and a background aspirations fears etc but it's hard Brandi no we're creatures who evolved from tens of thousands of years of Fighters okay we're here because our ancestors survived often in this really tough environment so that's deep in us and transpose it now from the physical order to the intellectual order same thing kicks in you know some of the attacking me well but you know Dukes are up and let's have a fight about this so I get it it's deep in us it's deep in our in our DNA but I think we got to resist it alright here's the sixth and final principle from Tim Keller he says remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology because only God sees the heart and he clarifies don't attack the person or their motivations just their ideas so don't say well you just believe that because X Y Z or you know you got that idea from this person or that source so it's discredited talk about the need to just sticking to the theology or the ideas and not their motivations or their heart and it's relate to what we've been saying but it's the classic ad hominem issue here right an ad hominem argument when you're attacking the person not the ideas and man is attempting as I people do it they've done it for thousands of years they still do it today and as we've said before branded the internet which I love in so many ways but it's a it's a dangerous space because it awakens this very deeply in people and enables it it's so easy to attack a person when you can't see him he can't see you all he can see or your words it's very tempting to say but what an idiot you are what a jerk you are and what a clearly you know mixed up person you are so yeah it's just the pet the penalty flag has got to be thrown when it turns out homing them we're talking about ideas and let me let me tell you why I think your idea is not right that's okay but leave the person occupied like let me tell you why I think you're not right now we're in bad space well it's time now for our question from one of our listeners today we're hearing from Michael here in my state of Florida is a question for Bishop Baron about prayer here's this question by Bishop Baron my name is Michaels I'm from Deerfield Beach Florida and my question is about prayer I'm wondering as a priest if you ever get bored or it becomes rote or if you're ever not in the mood to pray I'm wondering what you do about that and maybe you can give us some guidance and some awkward observations and feedback that can help then in my own prayer life so thank you yeah good question and it's one that echoes up and down the centuries listen to people as they address the great spiritual teachers you'll often hear that question about dryness boredom distraction and prayer I'll answer directly the first part of it yeah sure sometimes I get bored or distracted during prayer sometimes I'm not in the mood to pray but let me let me add this I think here like anything else this improves with practice so you know when I first started playing baseball as a little kid I know what I was doing and but by doing it over and over again by submitting myself to certain teachers and masters that taught me by playing a lot I reached a point where I I got pretty good at it and and I really enjoyed it now even at that level were there times when practice was kind of tiresome yeah sure or basketball I wasn't as good at that I was better baseball player but you know I'm learning the game learning how to dribble I remember the coach putting I definitely still have those Branden like these little weird glasses that come out like this so that you can't see the ball it forced you to dribble without looking right well it's a pretty hard I first started that and then he had us dribbling between the legs like this just to work on you know the rhythm and stuff well yeah it's hard hack in the beginning is very hard and I get I get frustrated with it in time staying with it yeah I was able to do those things and then to play better and then it became much more natural and a joy prayer I remember distinctly when I first started praying the office the the Liturgy of the hours I wasn't a priest yet I was a seminarian a Catholic you I was 19 and it was Robert Sokolowski it one day in class who kind of signaled to us the importance of that prayer so I went out and bought the little one volume I didn't know how to use it I'm trying to figure out the ribbons and I didn't know what I was doing and it was kind of like tiresome or what is the point of this and just kind of going through but now I've been at that for a long time I've been praying that and since I was ordained a priest or deacon I've been obliged to pray it now I can tell you honestly my holy hour in the morning where I pray a good deal of the office is my favorite time of the day it's a time I savor I love it am i bored hardly ever I would say yeah I spend an hour does it seem tiresome no honestly not now used to if you like even like thirty years ago if you said no do a holy hour every day I would have found that hard I know that thirty years ago 25 years ago even now I don't I love it and and it's come I'm not claiming what a saint I am it just it's coming from a long long practice of Prayer so here's my out closer here's my advice to you is just do it you know it's like when I was a little kid and I find it's really hard to dribble with these things on uh look man just do it and I know you're not gonna get a thrill from it yet but trust me do it trust the discipline trust the process here's the Liturgy of the hours I don't know how did this thing works and the Psalms and buying look just do it just do it get a rhythm of Prayer hang in there and even when you find it tiresome do it day in and day out I think you'll find that your ability to pray without ornament destroy dryness will increase well thanks for the question Michael if you have a question for Bishop Aaron send it in to us at ask Bishop Baron comm that's where you can record the question on any device before we go here I want to emphasize one more time that our new film series and study program titled the sacraments is now available Bishop Baron has given six electric beautiful talks on each of the seven sacraments some of the episodes combined the sacraments together but you can watch the entire episode one for free by visiting word on fire show.com slash sacraments and if you want to watch the whole series the best way to do that is to join the word on fire Institute if you sign up for the Institute today you'll get immediate access to all six episodes of this new film series so sign up today at word on fire Institute join over 10,000 other Catholics and evangelists and learning how to spread the faith well thanks so much for listening we'll see you next week on the word on fire show thanks so much for watching if you enjoyed this video I encourage you to share it and be sure to subscribe to my youtube channel [Music]

Channel: Bishop Robert Barron

Views: 73,557

Rating: 4.9184432 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: SaKbY0axWd0

Length: 33min 16sec (1996 seconds)

Published: Mon May 25 2020