How Does One Actually Win an Argument?

Its a good question. We talk all day and (as the theory goes) almost everything we say contains some form of argument.

Think about that. Consider anything over five words that you've said in the past couple days and see if it contains assumptions, truth, argumentation. Most of what we say contains a small, visible piece of our believe and it is rooted in this larger system that is beneath. Because of this, we often find ourselves uttering more than five words and attempting to create tangible arguments.

If you're trying to convince yourself of something (at least on the surface) the persuastion remains somewhat linear. Yes, we argue with ourselves and we have different parts of our psychology fighting with each other - but the truth is, we don't have time for that. We normally, at any one time, believe what we believe. In contrast, trying to convince another of something, say that God exists, is a real discussion. If there is any potential for doing this thing, debating, arguing, there must be a potential for success or progress.

Or maybe we should not do it. Try it. Never make any statement that contains a persuastive element. I don't know, but I think it can't be done.

What makes one person believe in God and the other not? I don't mean the evidence, we've gone over that a thousand times. We know that the types of evidence on each side are different, they don't match, there is no potential for success. I mean the action of belief. What is it?

What is the action of belief? For one, it's something we don't talk about. It exists, dare I say, on a philosophical level that does not interest us. Philosphers have discussed it, there are titles of books and lectures, like "The Will to Believe," by William James, that bring this up, that ring of this kind of deeper question. What is the actual step during which one person psychologically moves from a commitment to one thing over to another?

This question can only begin, as things do, with fundamental clarity. Historically my favorite clowns (one of course is my favorite) debated on a deeper level the substance of what becomes this argument. It is this: belief is a choice or belief is automatic. Those are the possibilities.

David Hume, inspired by new science, suggested, implicitly, that when presented with evidence, a thinker can choose to believe that reality and the self are not real. He did not mean for sure they were not real. He meant that we could question them.

Thomas Reid, inspired by the new science and inspired by his conviction that what Hume was saying was impractical and uncomplex, suggested that belief came automatically by nature. Ultimately, what he was saying is that even if we question reality and play games with ourselves and others intellectually, when we walk out our door we "believe" the rules and take caution not to jump off a cliff because gravity would kill us.

This is an important and often disregarded point made by Reid. We have no choice, he says, to accept reality, because our lives depend on it and because in our nature we have an automatic belief that is commonsensical and directs us toward our main goal, which is staying alive. This point was made by Aristotle before Reid and by Ayn Rand after Reid (though these three might take issue with being linked at times, certainly Rand with Reid if she was to read him), and becomes a "hidden root" of Western Philosophy and of a branch known as natural philosophy (though because this term and phrase have so many meaning, it may not be helpful).

When someone believes in God (to go back) what is the active process that makes them come to this belief? An atheist would say fear. The believer would say evidence even though this evidence could only turn out to be intuitive. I have said when younger that what makes people believe truth about something that clearly contradicts other beliefs that they old is memory; or for that matter, a lack of memory. Forgetting allows one to believe one thing one minute and a contradictory thing another minute. This is very true about positive (for) religious evidence arguments. These believers (religion) suggest that evidence is not necessary one minute and then, in almost any other argument, they demand it. This sort of believe, at best, is not natural. Can we then say that if a belief is not natural, if we are not compelled to believe it, it is less likely to be true? If so, it should seem obvious, the religious person would say that it does in fact (the belief) come to them automatically. This is why Reid suggested (even though he continued his own religous charade) that when that automatic believe effected all people it was of use.

And what of Pascal's Wager. What is the psychology behind this thing? It states that one has nothing to lose by "betting" that God exists and everything to gain. This circular position assumes everything already that it set out to prove. To a Christian the existence of God would, of course, if true, be a good thing. But to an atheist it would not. I heard an atheist once say, "I wish God would show up ... so I could punch him in the face." The idea behind Pascal's Wager is the assumption that religion and God are good. So once proved, all people would agree. But they wouldn't. The argument from evil (non-believers mainstay) suggests that even if the bet turns out that God exists, the problems of evil would persists.

In addition, with the Wager, the bet that God exists assumes the existence of God is possible. It is like Freud's idea about the difference between illusion and delusion. It is an illusion that I could marry a prince (its not gonna happen) but its a delusion that I could marry a prince and not marry one at the same time. If God is not possible (if it is like the contradiction between marrying and not marrying, or being in one place an another simultaneously) than the Wager ended before it began.

I talk about this stuff because when one argues with another it makes sense to have some idea what belief is, rational, irrational, illusionary, delusionary, etc. Without an agreement about what belief is, say volitional or automatic, the argument has no potential. If belief is automatic, you might ask, then what is the point. Glad you asked. This is perhaps what Socrates meant at the beginning of this mess. He suggested that we all contain the knowledge we need and that philosophy is the social process by which this is awakened.