Fundamental questions solved ($1.99)
Should we be happy we can buy arguments?
Yesterday Han linked to the NYT piece that discussed the strange increase in theist vs. atheist iPhone apps. The upside to these programs is that at least some people who use them will be exposed to the first time to a more sophisticated level of debate. (That’s in theory; the word-play trickery referred to in the NYT article sounded more a clever child challenging a befuddled teacher).
Han argued that the apps eliminate the role of arguement in coming to a superior conclusion than either party had brought to the discussion. On a high level, I think Han is correct. In a debate between Nietzsche and Aquinas we’d hope that there would be some kind of synthesis, some new insight created. But in the kind of dorm room arguments these apps are directed towards, I don’t think our expectation is really for world-shattering insight.
I have a slightly different objection, which is that the ability to rely on ready-made arguments eliminates what I would see to be the role of theological arguments — to force participants to rethink assumptions. The challenged interlocutor now has no reason to actually consider or re-consider an argument as long as there is a pithy and self-satisfied response waiting. If debate isn’t there to advance the peaks of human knowledge, as I argue contra Han, it’s function must be something else. I’d argue that the function should be to give the interlocutors practice in reasoning out positions, being constructively critical of other viewpoints, and accepting limited concessions to their initial position. Pre-scripted debates provide none of these benefits.
There is an important distinction in the article. The nominally pro-atheism app seems like it provides more raw material than actual arguments. In a debate about the veracity of the bible, it certainly would be good to be able to bring in contradictions and irrationality; whether contradictions provide a good reason to reject a given arguemnt is another story. More data should be good for debates, and technology that can provide it is to the good. When pre-scripted advocacy replaces actual arguments, however, we’ve lost a major component in the socialization of democratic citizens.
-John
Image courtesy TWcollins under a Creative Commons License.
Related posts:
- Democrats not public philosophizing, say critics
- Healthcare reform raises tough moral questions
- We can work it out?
- What’s new about the new atheists?
- Pray, do tell
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
