Critiquing: How Can I Make Sure I Will Honestly Consider People’s Arguments?

February 26, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Open-Mindedness — Confirmation Bias — Non-Believers — Evidence — Critical Thinking

---

Overview

This analysis critiques the logical coherence of the content titled “How Can I Make Sure I Will Honestly Consider People’s Arguments?” by Greg Koukl and Amy Hall. The critique will identify and explain logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases. It will emphasize the importance of mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.

---

Introduction to Confirmation Bias

Definition and Awareness

The content defines confirmation bias as the tendency to favor information that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. Awareness of this bias is highlighted as a protective measure against close-mindedness:

“It’s called Confirmational Bias, and that is that you just want to keep believing what you believe. There’s a bias to believe it, and so therefore it’s easy to push out contrary evidence to what you believe” (Hall).

While the definition is accurate, the critique must consider if the content itself displays confirmation bias.

Practical Application

The advice to remain vigilant and open-minded is sound but lacks practical steps. It suggests that merely being aware of bias is sufficient, which is overly simplistic. Effective strategies to mitigate bias, such as actively seeking contrary evidence and engaging in structured critical thinking exercises, are not discussed.

Open-Mindedness and Critical Thinking

Distinguishing Between Narrow and Open-Mindedness

The content contrasts narrow-mindedness and open-mindedness, associating the former with unwillingness to consider alternative views:

“Narrow-minded doesn’t mean having a narrow view. It means you have a narrow mind about your views” (Koukl).

This distinction is valuable but somewhat tautological. The explanation would benefit from examples of narrow-minded behavior and concrete steps to foster open-mindedness.

Handling Alternative Views

Exposure to Diverse Perspectives

Koukl recounts an interaction implying that his convictions are not due to ignorance of alternatives:

“My convictions are not based on my lack of exposure to alternatives” (Koukl).

This anecdote aims to counter the stereotype that believers are uninformed. However, it assumes that exposure to alternatives automatically equates to adequate consideration, which is a non-sequitur. The quality and depth of engagement with alternative views matter significantly.

Claims and Evidence

Obligations to Substantiate Claims

The content often implies that certain truths are self-evident or sufficiently supported by existing evidence. For instance:

“What Paul says in Romans 1 is that the evidence is there, at least for God’s reality…But what do human beings do? They suppress or hold that truth down because of their unrighteous motives” (Koukl).

This argument is presented as a given, without providing specific evidence. The claim that non-believers suppress the truth due to unrighteous motives is a significant assertion requiring substantial evidence. The content fails to meet this obligation, undermining its logical coherence.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Ad Hominem

Koukl’s argument contains an ad hominem fallacy when he attributes non-belief to moral failings rather than intellectual conclusions:

“They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They don’t want God interfering” (Koukl).

This distracts from addressing the substantive reasons non-believers might have for their skepticism.

Straw Man

The depiction of non-believers’ motivations is also a straw man fallacy. Koukl oversimplifies and misrepresents the reasons for non-belief, making it easier to dismiss them.

Cognitive Biases

Projection

Koukl projects his understanding of evidence and belief onto non-believers, assuming they share the same cognitive processes and biases:

“Most of the time people who are non-believers that you’re talking with are not non-resistant. When they say, well, there’s not enough evidence. Really?” (Koukl).

This projection ignores the possibility of genuine intellectual disagreements and different epistemological frameworks.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

Need for Empirical Methods

The content discusses the frustration of not receiving clear evidence from God but does not propose empirical methods to test such promises. For instance, it could suggest controlled studies on the efficacy of prayer or the consistency of religious experiences across different cultures and religions.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

The critique emphasizes that one’s degree of belief should be proportional to the degree of evidence available. The content, however, often operates on the assumption that belief should be strong despite limited empirical evidence:

“The evidence is profound. And in any event, so that’s, I don’t take this nonresistant nonbeliever seriously, especially when it’s based on God hasn’t given us enough evidence. I’m seeking truth” (Koukl).

This approach is problematic from a critical thinking standpoint. Beliefs should be adjusted based on the strength and quality of the evidence supporting them.

Conclusion

In summary, while the content provides valuable insights into confirmation bias and the importance of open-mindedness, it suffers from several logical inconsistencies and biases. It makes unsubstantiated claims, employs logical fallacies, and lacks practical strategies to test and substantiate its assertions. A more rigorous approach to evidence and a genuine engagement with alternative viewpoints would enhance its logical coherence.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.