Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Debate, Dissent, and Dishonesty: What Makes a Good Argument, and What’s Just Embarrassing?

Debate, Dissent, and Dishonesty: What Makes a Good Argument, and What’s Just Embarrassing?

Last updated on: December 26, 2014 at 1:54 pm by Jennifer Fitz

Debate, Dissent, and Dishonesty: What Makes a Good Argument, and What’s Just Embarrassing? 2014-12-26T13:54:41-05:00 Jennifer Fitz

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In discussions surrounding Notre Dame’s staffing problem, a question was posed: When is an argument part of an honest debate, and when is it more like the intellectual equivalent of something stuck to the bottom of your shoe? Here’s a tutorial. It’s not a philosophical treatise, it’s written for ordinary arguers.

Debate

We can say that we are debating a question when two criteria are met:

We are discussing a matter that is open to discussion.
We are in fact trying to arrive at an improved understanding of the truth.

Let’s consider the second item first. If we are discussing whether to invade Iraq, and my argument consists of, “I hate Greek food and you look funny,” we aren’t debating. A debate requires a serious attempt to grapple with the facts at hand, consider the various viewpoints and possibilities, and draw closer to a definitive answer.

We will, in that process, sometimes determine that there can be no answer. We might realize, for example, that the question is, ultimately, merely one of taste or preference, and that there is no objective right answer. We cease, at that point, to be able to debate, because our subject is not up for debate.

There’s another reason a subject might not be up for debate, though, and it is the more serious reason: The case might be closed.

It could be closed because the question has been resolved definitively. For example, if Jane is trying to decide whether to marry Bill or Bob, once she marries Bill, there’s no further debate. It was open until she said “I do.” Now it’s closed. (At least, it’s closed until Bill meets his untimely demise and Jane has to decide whether Bob had anything to do with it. Or some other circumstance re-opens the question.)

It could also be closed within a certain context. So, for example, in nearly all mathematics departments, if you try to argue against the existence of fractions, or in favor of abolishing the number seven, you’ll be shown to the door. These questions are not up for debate. They have been settled. There are circles in which you might find an audience for your alternative viewpoint, but good luck getting that teaching job.

Some questions are closed only because the local authority has decreed it so, and some questions that are generally considered closed might be open to debate in certain circles. We could imagine, thus, a martial arts school that sets a very rigid doctrine concerning karate styles, but is entirely indifferent to the fate of the prime numbers.

Therefore, when asking, “Is this question open to debate?” we have to first determine within what set we find ourselves.

Dissent

If we argue against a position that has been settled, we are no longer debating, we are dissenting. Bob’s persistent arguments in favor of Jane marrying him cease to be debate, and become dissent, the moment she marries Bill. In the mathematics department, to argue against the existence of 57 is dissent; in the literature department such assertions are merely poetry, and late in the evening at the holiday party you might find takers for the argument.

Thus, in questions of religion, we can have debate among Catholics and Protestants about the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because in the wider set of “Christians who don’t all recognize the authority of the Catholic Church,” the matter isn’t settled. Whereas among Catholics themselves, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is firmly fixed as fact, and we have to move onto the not-entirely-settled question of, “What about everyone else?”

Nearly all social circles recognize a “hierarchy of truth.” This is a spectrum, ranging from matters that are entirely settled on one extreme, to matters that are completely open to conjecture on the other.

When we describe someone as dissenting, therefore, we are always speaking with respect to a particular social set, even regarding matters that are firmly established questions of objective truth. The set of “People who know what I had for dinner yesterday” will regard the question of what I ate as firmly established and not open for debate. They know the truth, and because they are sane, they will insist upon it. The set of “People who can only guess,” will consider the matter open to conjecture until some information comes along that establishes the facts.

Thus when we speak of dissent as being relative to a particular social set, we are not therefore implying that the topic of the dissent is a subjective question. If it were a subjective question, there could be neither debate nor dissent.

Dishonesty

Good debate is the mark of intellectual rigor; earnest dissent may or may not be. (Sometimes, after all, the social set is indeed wrong. Humans err.) But recall that debate is always ordered towards an improved understanding of the truth. Thus an essential element of all debate, and of all earnest dissent, is a rigorous adherence to the truth. One element of truth-telling is stating the opponent’s case as accurately as one is able.

We evaluate the honesty of an argument in part by asking ourselves, “Is this person likely to know better?” Thus a four-year old can be excused for skipping eleven when trying to count to twenty; it happens. We gently correct and move on. A math teacher who does the same is either senile, distracted, or dishonest.

A mark of honesty in debate is that someone who is corrected on a fact will acknowledge the error. A mark of honesty in dissent is that the dissenters will openly acknowledge they are opposing an established position.

Notre Dame’s Thinking Problems

Thus in the recent Notre Dame Theology scandals, the problem is not that Joel Baden, who makes no claim of being Catholic, and does not work for a Catholic institution, disagrees with the Catholic Church. We should hope as much: If he thought the Church were correct, he’d be Catholic. The problems are of another order:

1. Notre Dame, a Catholic university, has granted professorship in the Theology department to someone who openly dissents with the plain teaching of the Catholic faith. We are not speaking here of nuanced explorations among academics. We are speaking of outright dissent on clearly-established moral questions, which dissent Candida Moss published in the popular national press. Just as it is reasonable for students to expect all math professors to believe in mathematics, it is reasonable for students at a Catholic college to expect all professors in the theology department to believe in Catholic theology.

2. Baden and Moss both are guilty of outright dishonesty in their arguments. They represent their opponents’ positions using false definitions and characterizations. We cannot presume “honest error” on these matters, because we are speaking of two experts in religious studies, who are debating topics that are easily understood by a cursory review of readily-available documents written for laymen.

It is embarrassing. Pathetic.

The sad part is that they actually do have something important to say, hidden among all the nonsense. Bad arguments don’t just make you look ridiculous, they hurt the cause you are trying to promote.

Don’t do this.

Argue all you like. Argue vigorously, argue colorfully; but always argue honestly.

***

Links for review on the Notre Dame case, if you are not aware of the situation:

Ethika Politica and the Catholic World Report examine Baden’s and Moss’s assertions in the LA Times concerning Pope Francis’s statements on gender roles.
I walk you through their comments at Slate on an IVF-related lawsuit.

Image by Carlos Delgado [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Previous Post

December 10, 2014

Williams Sonoma has Nothing on this Combination Whiskey / Salad Dressing Container

Next Post

December 11, 2014 As Morning Breaks: 2015 Gospel Reflections for Every Day of the Year

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Books Catechesis Catholic Q&A Chastity Church Craziness Come See Me Talk Disability & Chronic Illness Economics Evangelization Facepalm Forgiveness Good Things History Homeschooling Human Rights It's All Catholic Listen to Me Survey Series Liturgical Living Marriage Modesty Not Satire. But almost. Rant-o-Rama Sacred Art & Music Satire South Carolina Spark Clutter Stick that Corner Suffering Thinking Topics Writing Stuff

Select a Month September 2026 July 2026 June 2026 January 2026 December 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 November 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the king of Israel known for his wisdom?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Hezekiah Saul Solomon