Anger, Argument, and Logic

by Dedric

As pagans, we are followers of a spiritual path that is considered “fringe” in this country. This means that we can expect those ignorant of paganism occasionally to challenge our beliefs. Are debates with such people a waste of time? For cases where they aren’t, what is the best way to proceed? The first part of this article will be an examination of why people may not wish to learn or reconcile in an argument – a situation in which you can save yourself time by avoiding arguing. The second part will consist of ways to make yourself understood in the type of debates where both participants are listening to each other.

Why would someone purposefully ignore reason? Why would someone dislike those they have never met before? One possibility lies in the biology of anger. Anger produces a set of definite physical responses, one of which is the release of adrenaline. Adrenaline can be exciting; it’s one of the major reasons people choose to go bungee jumping and play football, for example. This is an important point to realize when deciding whether or not to argue with someone upset with the fact you are a pagan. If someone is coming from a space of anger, making peace could mean the end of his or her adrenaline fun. Don’t expect mere reason to stand in the face of this!

There’s power in realizing that provoking such situations can be a biological urge – a game the body plays to get what it wants. But in the face of this, there’s power in realizing that you are not your emotions. Comprehending this lets you come from a space of clarity, experiencing and letting pass these emotions the same way you can any other body function.

As a side note, let me tell you something that just might change your life: You can get high off being angry with yourself as easily as you can get off being angry at someone else. Many segments of our culture teach that hating yourself is “right,” while hating someone else is “wrong.” Give that some thought the next time you decide you are despicable and wrong because of your looks, weight, job or status.

Insofar as it is possible, try to look at the sources for an emotion such as anger when you experience it, and decide how much of it is due to a real issue in present time. For example, many pagans seem to justify their hatred for Christians based on the Burning Times. Are any of the Christians who were alive during the Inquisition alive now? Is it fair to hold people accountable for things their ancestors did? It’s worth a little thought.

I find it helpful to separate what actually happened in any given situation from any interpretations I have made of it. What actually happened is something one can state in physical terms. For example, when I was studying to become a massage therapist last year, I had a practice client who would drop by once a week for a massage and leave me a tip in the form of a contribution to my massage school tuition. One week, he didn’t leave anything. My interpretation, which ran through much of the next week, was “I didn’t do a good job” and “He didn’t like my work.” What actually happened was that he didn’t give me a check. It turns out that he just forgot, and he gave me two checks on his next appointment. Realizing, even in a deeper sense than I’ve suggested with this example, that our interpretations are not reality might save us all a little anguish. This seems to be especially true with regard to interpretations of the actions of parents, the government and other figures of authority. But we do derive enjoyment from making up stories about our lives, so don’t be surprised if you do it too.

So far, we’ve been examining anger and why it can produce situations and arguments that will be unyielding to reason. Now, let us examine arguments of another kind – arguments where anger isn’t the driving factor and where the participants disagree but are still listening to each other. In situations like this, persuasion is indeed possible.

The key to persuasion is listening. This is especially true with issues as sensitive as spirituality. Few members of groups that have been historically at odds have ever had the experience of hearing the “enemy” truly listen to them. If you don’t understand something, ask a question or two; this demonstrates that you are listening in a concrete way.

Very literally, try to see the world from the other person’s point of view. This is your best hope of convincing people about anything, or getting them to see your point of view. After all, people need to see the connections between what they already know and any new information to assimilate the new information. Also, since we most commonly come from spaces of self-interest, we’re most open to new ideas when we can see how they would benefit our lives. Being able to understand and frame issues in the other person’s language is essential for real communication to take place. This sort of active listening forms the bulk of a fruitful debate.

Many people are accustomed to using logically faulty arguments, often without being aware of it. If you are familiar with the most common errors, you will have an easier time mentally dismissing them. This will free you to listen for any real information in what a person has to say. Students of debate, rhetoric and logic refer to such logical errors as fallacies, and books are available that discuss them in detail.

Good luck in all your endeavors, and blessed be!

Common logical fallacies

Argumentum ad antiquitatum

Asserting that something is good just because it is old or traditional: “Billy Graham is a great human being because he’s been around forever.”

Argumentum ad hominem

Attacking the arguer instead of the assertion: “Paganism is not a healthy religion! The fact that you are pagan and smoke cigarettes proves it!”

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Arguing that something must be true because it has not been proved false: “The Bible is true because nobody has proved otherwise.”

Argumentum ad numerum

Arguing that the more people believe something, the more likely it is to be correct: “Christianity must be more accurate than paganism. More people practice it!”

Non causa pro causa

Identifying something as the cause of an event when it hasn’t been shown to be the cause: “My friend took up paganism and then started having lots of great sex with gorgeous supermodels. Therefore, paganism causes promiscuity.”

Begging the question

Arguing from questionable premises.

Shifting the burden of proof

Putting the burden of proof on the person who questions an assertion. A special case of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Slippery slope

Stating that should one event occur, so will other harmful events, when there is no proof made that the other harmful events are caused by the first event.

Straw man

Misrepresenting someone’s position so that it can be attacked more easily.