Logic is like Aikido?

Follow this thread of conversation on facebook. 

 

Wall Photos

 

• Person A: I think this teaches a great lesson. God cannot control, nor should we allow those ideas to be taught in schools.

  Person Y: I believe Christians have just as much a right to have God in schools as other religions.
• Person B: Including Atheism. Which dispute their best efforts, Atheists have become exactly what they despise. Ironic, isn't it? :)
• Person A: I repeat, no religion in schools.
• Person Y: That would make the muslims angry.
• Person B: Ah, but by forcing out Christianity, and enforcing secularism, you accidentally enforce Athiesm. Ironic still.
• Person A: How do you plan on supporting ALL types of religiion in the public school system?
• Person B: So why does Atheism win when 75 of America is Christian to some degree?
• Or why does the magical explosion that randomly happened and tossed matter all around that Los magically formed Earth that just magically created water tat magically created Bacteria that magically transformed into complex creatures that magically created legs that magically got smarter that magically became monkeys that magically became humans? All of course due to some really lucky mutations. Right. That one wins.
• Person A: How does Atheism win? If you remove religion from schools, that idea alone does not teach Atheism.
• Person B: That's a nice story, but you may have left out a few scientific details.
• No. I simplified it. In the end, there is a lot of luck involved. So much luck that it requires some... Faith... To believe in it.
• Person A: Which idea of creation do you support?
• Person B: Instead of that direction, Alex, answer this. Do you hate theists? I am asking honestly.
• And follow that with do you like Richard Dawkins?
• Person A: I will answer that with, I have a bible, and I do not own a Richard Dawkins book. Do you have to use the word hate? Why would I hate someone because of their beliefs?
• Person B: You seem to hate theism. You want it stamped out of your life. You want your angry minority to get its way while the majority bends to our will. Take Christmas. It has a unifiying energy that people used to come together as a community and ...celebrate. There is a secular and spiritual aspect. But Athiesm wants to smash tradition and silence the religious, forcing us to remove all indications of it from the Schools... But a pagan holiday, like Halloween, which most Christians enjoy cause they made it fun for them too, is ok..... Do you get the hypocrisy that is felt by us and how some of us feel bullied?
• That was "your" will.
• Person A: Dude, I think you're making quite a few assumptions about my belief system. Not only that, you're telling me how I feel about religion. If you give me a chance to defend myself from the judgements you've created, we could have a productive debate.
• Person B: Defining yourself as an Athiest sets the tone. Like it or not, after reading hundreds of articles and listening to a few dozen lectures from Athiests, there has been a consistent pattern. Heck, the term "freethinker" alone starts a pattern ...of nsult, indicating that I, as a believer in a God, do not come to such a conclusion through rational thought. But Alex, I am all ears. I would be delighted for a fresh non-judgemental, non-hateful viewpoint. One that isn't trying to bully me into submission and call me stupid for believing in God. I might die of shock, especially after hearing he prominent Athiest Dawkins say that religious parents should be charged with Child Abuse for teaching heir kids religion... But I'll be glad to hear your views :)
• Person A: After hearing your consistent attacks on everything non-religious, and judgments of atheism, I will decline your offer.  Just remember, nothing has been proven on either side.
• Person X: Violence in schools has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with shitty, irresponsible parents that allow, if not encourage their students to be anti-social.
• Person B: So I present what I see, and instead of manning up and showing your side, you throw up some feel sorry for me comments and run off? Really? That certainly is your loss I guess. So I will only hear from bullies I guess.
• Person B: BTW, you call me attacking. How is telling you I feel bullied and attacked by Atheism an attack on Atheism? Isn't that a bit of a logical fallacy?
• Me: I teach logic at Humboldt State University and there are all sorts of fallacies going on here: the whole section on simplifying the big bang theory and referring to it all as magic is a straw man; "by forcing out Christianity, and enforcing... secularism, you accidentally enforce atheism" is begging the question and it equivocates because secularism in schools doesn't entail atheism necessarily; "do you hate theists?" is a complex question because, given that his answer, to the negative, was followed with "You seem to hate theists," it seems that you were really asking, "Why do you hate theists?" which is a complex question fallacy; "But Athiesm wants to smash tradition and silence the religious, forcing us to remove all indications of it from the Schools" is a straw man and a slippery slope; As Alex never described himself in this thread as an atheist, "Defining yourself as an Athiest sets the tone" is an attack against the person fallacy. Fallacious arguing like this, unfortunately, makes for an emotional impact but doesn't do well in changing minds.
• Person A: Finally, a voice of reason.
• Person B: Awww, look. Someone came and ran to your defense. :) How cute!
• You do know though, by starting with "I teach logic..." Oh never mind... You might not get the irony :D
• Me: These last two comments: Red Herring Fallacy

 

I present this thread in order to argue that pointing out logical fallacies is a bit like Aikido.  Aikido is a Japanese martial art that is designed to help practitioners defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury.  Click here and you will be directed to an official Aikido site.  Now, I am not a practitioner of Aikido.  Thanks to the generosity of the Northcoast Aikido dojo, I will be learning soon.  So, I say that to make sure it's noted that I am writing this article according to a crude understanding of Aikido.  I have been to one training session, I've witnessed a number of demonstrations, and I've talked to close friends who've been practicing a long time about it.

 

My idea, though, is this: pointing out logical fallacies is a bit like Aikido.  It's a way of defending yourself, to move with the motion of an agressor, while affording that aggressor the best opportunity possible for redemption.  In this scenario, Person B has entered a debate that he feels passionately about.  You can feel it in his comments - the fact that the Big Bang Theory is taught it schools and the Christian Creation Story is not makes him very angry.   He feels that scientific theories base themselves on as much faith as any theory, and the fact that they are favored in schools is the result of dogmatism and bullying.  In a general sense, Asian Philosophy does justice to such feelings.  In Buddhism, the anger and passion associated with Person B's ideas about how science should be taught can be located in a general craving and desiring of the mind.   His frustration stems from his wanting so badly for his religious views to be taken seriously in scientific circles, and they are not.  He grasps for explanations and justifications for his unmet desire.  He lashes out with aggression - so much aggression that Person A is stopped cold of interacting with him.  Person B has beat him down, ended their dialogue, and in so doing, abruptly ended any chance at redemption.  Any semblance of healthy conversation is over.  Person A is left abused, Person B is left alone.

 

The idea behind Aikido is that you recognize the suffering endured by your attacker.  It is such suffering that has led him to resort to violence in the first place.  You stand up for yourself - if you bend to the will of Person B, you will be left broken, and he will be left alone.  The idea is to meet your aggressor, to mold the yang of his attack with the yin of your peacefulness.  Upon meeting, you give your attacker respect by taking seriously his attack, you block his punch, you bend his wrist, you throw him off balance, and you force him to roll away from you.  When he gets up, he is not injured, and he is not alone.  You are still there, ready to do it again if necessary.  He now has seen his attack wound up, combined with a different kind of energy, and displaced with care.  He has been taken care of - you did not break his wrist.  You also demonstrated that his attack is not constructive.  You will not take it, you will take care of it.  Ego bruised, perhaps, he now has the chance to be redeemed.

 

Pointing out logical fallacies is a lot like this.  I recognize the pain in Person B.  The way his argument escalated and the way it turned abusive and irrational so quickly indicates a deep-seeded anger, which is of course not a pleasant feeling.  To point out such irrationality is to take his arguments seriously, to block them, bend them, throw them off balance, and force them to roll away.  He might come back and bring on another attack.  You are still there with an arsenal of tools.  You mean no ill-will.  You demand a reasonable, respectful conversation.  Until it's provided, you will demonstrate the flaws, and you will remain there with him - a skilled adversary, but also a friend.  You can not force a reasonable discourse onto Person B, but through pointing out the illogic of the discourse as it is, you afford him the best possible way to redeem himself and his ideas.  If he is to proceed, he will need to defend himself with reason.  The attack will no longer suffice, for your energy is now co-present, and you mean him no harm.