Is it important to try to argue for the opposite of what you believe?

G

grayure

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Points
6
If you believe something, it seems to be a sign of insecurity to try to find arguments in favour of what you believe alone, and also possibly disrespectful to others, and poor strategy in the sense that one needs to know one's enemy. Therefore, if you're an atheist, is it useful to try to come up with arguments for the existence of God, and i mean really good ones rather than straw men, and as a Christian, might it not be important both to try to prove that God doesn't exist, that atonement is impossible and that Christ never rose from the dead and so on?

If you're not doing that, fair enough, but why? Might it not be that you don't feel convinced enough that your beliefs are in fact true? If you don't, why believe them at all?
 
I'd have to say that establishing a sort of internal dialectic is a great practice. I do it often, and every now and then it leads me to change my mind on things. Some people may find that prospect threatening, but I say the only thing worse than being wrong on an issue is to deliberately stay wrong.

But you're right - if nothing else, it certainly helps you to anticipate your opponents' arguments and construct better ones in your defense. Not to mention that it is a key part of good, old-fashioned critical thinking.
 
Yes and it's good philosophical practice. I suspect most religious believers don't want to try that exercise as they might end up convincing themselves that they're wrong.
 
I consider it part of learning why I believe as I do. It's also how I find out what truly tempts me. Mr. Heinlein wrote something to the effect that to truly hate something, you have to make it part of yourself. In the process of doing this I have held most political opinions and positions at one time or another. It helps me now when I wish to try to lead someone to change their mind. I can put myself in their shoes and then show them why I changed my mind. If I did.
 
Those people are usually called trolls here. the people playing devil's advocate and such. Trolling does lead to insights at times. Yes I do believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Yes I do believe that there is knowledge to be gained from other perspectives besides my own I spend quite a bit of time trying to make sense out of some of these questions and answers. I don't have to agree with it to try to understand it. I'll admit sometimes I just take the easy way out and sometimes I get angry and lash out. Sometimes I just say stuff for the lulz. I think most if not all us have these issues. Hey, I can't take everything seriously all the time.

Added:

I thought about this one quite a bit and here is a bit more on the subject:

No, I don't think it's necessarily important to argue for the opposite of what you believe. On the other hand there is knowledge to be gained by taking a position for the sake of argument that is contrary to your beliefs in order to gain insight. I do think it's important that viewpoints other than my own are expressed. It may be rude to belittle someone's opinions, but that is certainly not the same thing as preventing them from expressing their opinion. I give thumbs up to people with good arguments even if I don't necessarily believe in what they are saying. Granted, it's nowhere near the amount that I give to people that do share my opinion. There are limits that should be considered when taking the the position of devil's advocate. Constantly taking the diametrically opposing argument can and should be viewed as being dishonest and I do think some people can take this too far.

I suppose I am beginning (or possibly continuing) to ramble but let me close with this example. The question "Can God's existence be proven?" This question is rarely asked by a true seeker. Usually it's asked by someone who has made their mind up one way or the other. On the surface it seems like a pretty sophomoric attempt to get your desired answer. And think of the number of times this question has appeared on this site. Yet, it's still allowed to be posted over and over again because of the fact that a small percentage of the answers will actually contain some subtance and give a well thought out argument regardless of whether it can actually be proven or not.

thanks for the question!
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Is it important to try to argue for the opposite of what you believe?

***
I see no harm in it if you are strongly grounded in God's word to be discerning. The apostle Paul did as much when he entertained that "if the resurrection were not true that we (Christians) are to be pitied above all men". Better yet, let me give it to you straight out of 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

***
Did Paul argue the opposite of what he believed? Yes. How so? He did believe in the resurrection and then he went on to entertain what truth would be IF the resurrection were not true.

Many biblical writers have covered opposite scenarios to uncover truths that would be otherwise very difficult for us to find.
 
I considered myself an agnostic for a long time. Bouncing back and forth between what could be true and false on both sides. So yes, I think it is important to look at both sides. I chose atheism, because I couldn't find anything convincing me of god's existence.
 
I did try that... but everything I came up with got countered (LOGICALLY, mind) by the belief God doesn't exist.
 
I don't know if it's important. In my experience it is either something you can do or you can't.

I have always played devil's advocate because it was the way I was raised and then I was on the debate team in high school and college. I'm used to arguing just for the sake of arguing - if I'm in the mood and with people who also understand it and enjoy it. It can be helpful if understood. But for people who just can't wrap their head's around it, it is just frustrating and irritating.
 
You may have trouble understanding the other side of the argument
 
yes, it is important, i do feel the need to teach everyone about the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
This is one of the wisest questions that I have ever read in this section. Good job, and keep up the good work.

I can understand why people believe there isn't a God, and I even have argued for evolution and for science in many of the classes I have attended. If everyone could see the wisdom of this, the world would be a better place.
 
Back
Top