So tonight in my
procrastination time, I spent two hours being captivated by this video:
For those that don't
know, the organisation called City Bible Forum organised a series of
debates/discussions between Prof William Lane Craig and Prof Laurence Krauss on
"Life, the Universe and Nothing". Bill Craig is a leading Christian
Philosopher; Laurence Krauss is a leading Atheistic theoretical physicist and
cosmologist. This was the second discussion of the series, and it was held in
Sydney. (The first one was in Brisbane, but that one's not worth watching; it
was merely a platform for Krauss to be rude and oblivious to actual
discussion).
While the topic of
discussion itself was quite fascinating, what I found particularly interesting
was how I was emotionally reacting to
the discussion, and how that affected
who I "wanted" to be right, and therefore whose opinion I favoured
more. In being aware of how that emotional component affected how I judged each
speaker's propositions, I tried to tease apart the emotional contributions to
that judgement from the rational contributions to that judgement. And it was
hard to do so!
But why?
And why is that
important?
Krauss came across as an arrogant, and sometimes downright rude, personality. From the word go he set out to undermine Craig's character and
reputability, rather than stick to the topic of the debate itself, as if that
made any difference to the substance of the argument. Sometimes he does it
subtly, or even jokes about it; other times (most times) he just rudely
interrupts or demeans and devalues whatever the other person says.
Craig on the other
hand comes across as a winsome, well-spoken gentleman. He rarely interrupted
Krauss, and even when he does he's almost apologetic about it. He's softly
spoken, and doesn't chase up flaws and fallacies in the other's arguments
vehemently if it's off topic and not within the boundaries of the discussion.
Now, Craig
outclassed Krauss with every single argument he made. Craig was clear and
concise, addressed every relevant question directly and coherently. Krauss on
the other hand often failed to address the topic itself, appeared blind to any
opinion but his own, denigrated his opponent continually (subtly or not), and
amusingly did not adhere to his prized "evidence" as much as he
claimed to, often blundering into obviously ignorant statements that even mere
laypeople could see are false (if they were looking).
But facts aside, who
would you decide to be more authoritative and correct? How would you choose
which one you listen to? Which person would you give the power to have
authority over directing your intellectual growth and direction?
I came to the
realisation that most of the time, if we're completely honest with ourselves,
the actual facts of the matter matter much less than the person who is presenting the facts to you. If
the person you view is trustworthy and authoritative, you'll be happy to go
with what they say; or at least you'll take longer to refute what they say that
you could rationalise to be wrong.
Why do teenagers
trust their friends' advice on relationships over their parents' advice, when
these friends have as little experience in this as the child asking the
question and the parents have so many
more years of firm committed relationship to back them up? Why do students
scorn the knowledge of a professor who does not know how to speak, but speak
highly of hip, young and cool tutors who relate to them easily? (All the
while not realising that these tutors
may only be a year or two ahead of them in their studies!) Why do patients fail
to place their trust in a grumpy old senior doctor's advice, but their hearts
melt in the hands of a warm, winsome junior doctor, despite the great disparity
in experience?
Who the person is matters at least as much as,
if not more than, what the person is
saying.
And so some people
will find themselves agreeing with Krauss more just because he's louder, speaks
more than (and often over the top of) Craig, and his verbal dance appears more
impressive. Some people will find Craig less convincing because he is more soft-spoken,
and does not "speak up for himself" (when there is no need to,
because Krauss' foolery would be obvious to the keen observer; but not everyone
is dissecting the thoughts with a sharp mind!)
Others will disagree
with Krauss merely because he's so rude, and they find themselves unable to
accept the words of such an abusive person. And some will accept Craig's words
simply because he is the nicer voice to listen to, the gentle, respectful, reasonable
one.
All these four
situations are technically wrong. One should not accept the validity of an
argument just because of a person's personality. It does not make sense! The
validity of the argument should be based on whether that argument actually
holds water.
Ah, but who can
override the power of the Heart? ;)
"The heart is
deceitful, above all things"
And so, the next
time you're entering or witnessing a discussion on controversial issues, think
about this: Where is your heart? And how is that affecting your thinking?
And for Christians,
it really brings home the adage, "Preach the Gospel at all times; use
words when necessary".
What you say may be
important, but nowhere near as important as WHO
YOU ARE.
(PS - I have spent a third hour procrastinating by writing this blog XD...)
