Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

[coberst]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

[Izdaari]

This is my post from the argument from personal experience thread. It seems very relevant to your thesis.

I don't find the argument from personal experience to be useful for convincing atheists. Personal experience with God has confirmed my own faith in countless ways. But in my experience, there is no argument that's useful for convincing atheists.

Oh, there is evidence in abundance, but none of it will ever be good enough for them. IMO, taken as a whole, the evidence is strong enough that it would likely prevail with a jury in a civil court case, based as they are on the standard of "a preponderance of the evidence", but in the end the decision to believe or not is an act of will. Convinced skeptics have decided not, and generally are impervious until their will changes. That change comes by God calling them, and until they hear Him, argument is utterly useless except as an amusement or an intellectual exercise... and I don't care for argument for the mere sake of argument. If I want to play games, I prefer chess or role playing games.
I agree with your thesis, if that isn't obvious. :D

[coberst]

Izdaari

It appears to me that religious people have two sources of truth: God and reason. Non-believers have only reason to provide their truth. For a religious person to change the mind of a non-religious person the religious person must know a lot about CT (Critical Thinking). I suggest that you learn CT and thereby develop a means to cange the minds of others.


“The religious believer assigns dignity to whatever his religion holds sacred—a set of moral laws, a way of life, or particular objects of worship. He grows angry when the dignity of what he holds sacred is violated.” Quote from “The End of History and the Last Man”.

To what does the non believer assign dignity? If the non believer does not assign dignity to rationality, upon what foundation does s/he stand? If the non believer does depend upon rationality for dignity how is it possible that so few know anything about rationality?

Our schools and colleges are beginning to introduce our young people to the domain of knowledge called Critical Thinking. CT is taught because our educators have begun to recognize that teaching a young person what to think is not sufficient for the citizens of a democracy in an age of high technology. CT is an attempt to teach young people how to think. Like the adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish, a youngster who knows how to think is prepared for a lifetime rather than for a day.

What about today’s adult? Today’s adult was educated in a time when schools and colleges never gave universal instruction in the art and science of thinking—rationality.

If today’s adult wishes to learn CT s/he must learn it on their own nickel. I think a good read to begin with is this one
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[Izdaari]

Thank you, coberst. I'll take that as meant to be an earnest and helpful suggestion. However, the reason I don't like to like to argue the existence of God with non-believers has little to do with a lack of the necessary thinking or reasoning skills. I'm familiar enough with all that Russell places under the heading of CT, and I think I have a good understanding of at least most of it, though I could use improvement as could nearly all of us. No, it has more to do with my having more productive uses for my time than long-winded discussions on message boards. CT or no, I am not a person who finds argument for the sake of argument to be entertaining.

[coberst]

Isdaari

You are correct, such disputes are worthless.

It appears that often neither side recognizes that the existence of God is a matter of faith and not of reason. It seems to me that the religious person must find a rational purpose for religion and then argue that in a rational manner to the non-believer.

It appears to me that one can make such a rational argument but it requires that both sides have a confidence in reason, which is seldom the case.

[Izdaari]

Isdaari

You are correct, such disputes are worthless.

It appears that often neither side recognizes that the existence of God is a matter of faith and not of reason. It seems to me that the religious person must find a rational purpose for religion and then argue that in a rational manner to the non-believer.

It appears to me that one can make such a rational argument but it requires that both sides have a confidence in reason, which is seldom the case.
I agree. But I'm not sure that ability to reason and confidence in reason is sufficient. It is also necessary to have sufficient shared premises about the nature of the universe. Reason can only take you where your premises allow. I've found that committed atheists are generally stubbornly dedicated to reductive materialism, and therefore tend to automatically dismiss all claims of the supernatural... but the case for Christ cannot be made without them.

If Christ was not resurrected, a very supernatural thing, Christianity might still have some moral value but it's main point would be untrue, and there would be no good reason to prefer it to, say, Buddhism. Now, I think the case for Christ being resurrected, and for being exactly who he claimed to be is strong, but with such prejudice against the possibility, it's still very much an uphill battle, so much so as to not be a productive use of my time.