Reading Time: 3 minutes

I used to hold some beliefs that ended up being rather wrong. Upon investigation, I found out that what I had been taught relied on weak, sloppy arguments, and more than that, it was critical that I not do a lot of my own research, as I would likely not be firmly persuaded by the very tepid “evidence.” Having poor arguments for one’s beliefs can not only damage one’s credibility, but can also make one seem intellectually dishonest. The worst knock-on effect is that presenting such arguments also undermines the beliefs you hold which are solid. People see the snow job and become so turned off that they want nothing to do with the rest of the bundle.

In my Christian heritage (I prefer to pick on myself), I found that I was able to argue some beliefs, but only if I was trying to somewhat shadily explain away evidence which solidly undermined my position. This was not just deceptive toward others, but deceptive toward myself. I have seen this occur with others, too. I once asked a preacher (aside, not in public) if we could discuss a position that, while broadly traditional for the movement I’m in, seemed not to have much scriptural basis. The conversation went something like this:

Him: “Well you’re just wrong. And we’re not discussing it. You’re just argumentative.”
Me: “Here’s my quick [understanding of topic] as found in the Bible:” *talks for 25 seconds*.
Him: “See! Wrong! Wrong again.”
Me: “Ok, but that’s just an assertion, not an argument. Can you just give me a quick snippet of what you believe [on the topic] so that I can understand? I’m open to being persuaded.”
Him: “I won’t! You need to learn.”
Me: “Can we study it? Maybe I can take you out to eat, my treat?”
Him: “If you want to ‘study,’ you can request a time to meet me in my office, alone.”
Me: “Ok. I can send you some of my notes so you know I’m not trying to pull a gotcha move.”
Him: “No offense, but I’m not going to read your library of notes. I’m too busy for that.”

When we are confronted with contrary evidence, it is important that we look into it. Each time I have done so, my own faith has skyrocketed higher. After all, the truth does not fear examination, and emblematic of this in a slightly different context was the instruction to the Thessalonian Christians to test everything and to hold fast what is good. However, sometimes we can choose instead to ignore it, hide it, or make our argument somewhat, and I say this with no disrespect to our mustilid friends, weasely. At times this is done because we hold the false belief that it preserves our position of authority. In reality, it does not, and only causes suspicion and resentment. I know, as I have been guilty of this in the past, and pray that I am not in the future.

If you do have an argument that you believe, but which you think seems perhaps a bit weak, add a caveat explaining how you understand the topic, and the degree of certainty you hold. After all, it is still more rational to believe something that has, say, a 51% likelihood of being true, than to ditch it in favor of the 49% flip-side. Doing this will enhance your credibility and sincerity, and can make others show more appreciation for the weightier matters that you might discuss.

Lastly, as a practical matter, we have so many tools available to us that certain positions which were easy to put forth in the 40s and 50s when research tools for what is effectively the laity consisted of self-confirming tracts, are now much more difficult to pass off as being accurate if someone chooses to investigate. Proverbs reminds us that the first person to state a case seems right, at least until he is cross-examined. We should expect and welcome this examination, and we should be open to more accurately understanding the word of God when it is called for.