The “God” Stepladder to Argumentation
Worked this up last night in a couple of hours. I've wanted to draft up something like this for a while. It isn't very confrontational (at least, I tried to pander to the other side as much as possible), and in fairly simple terms elucidates why most "debates" fail. I would contest that 99% of people would fail by step #1c. Once people start talking about a "Creator" and "omnipotence", it becomes exceedingly easy to refute.
The “God” Stepladder to Argumentation
A Project by Sean Brower, © 2011
0. Prior to any argumentation:
a. You should have a comprehensive understanding of: cause-and-effect relationships, especially an awareness of the burden of proof; logical fallacies, and why they are detrimental to any line of reasoning; the distinction between description and explanation, and the values and purposes of each; the degrees and validity of evidence; the rhetorical triangle and the means by which people are persuaded, and how rhetoric does not necessarily deal with truth; and finally, one should approach any claim with all possible skepticism.
b. You should also understand that interrogating reality is about seeking truth. If you are willing to accept something, not on its truth-value, but on some other (usually emotional) value, then you have no business arguing in the first place. You are “wrong” before you begin.
1. Prior to initiating your claim:
a. Remember that as your claim is in its infancy, it should not include any religious language as yet; you should first be working from a purely philosophical stance.
b. Define all relevant terms, paying special attention to what you mean by “god”.
c. Be able to show how that definition of “god” is a sound, valid, and possible one.
d. Be able to show why that “god” is probable (i.e. why you believe it exists).
e. Be able to demonstrate that this “god” actually does exist.
f. Steps 1c-1e should include logically sound arguments that are well-reasoned, and have realistic foundations, conclusions, and implications. Material evidence is less likely to be helpful at this philosophical stage, but should never be dismissed out of hand.
2. Make your claim that a “god” exists, using your foundation from #1.
a. If anyone challenges your basic claim, and you completed step #1 soundly and correctly, you should have no problem in defeating any counter-arguments. If you are defeated, then you must go back and revise your step #1.
b. Realize that you may not have necessarily made a theistic claim just yet. If you wish to claim that your religion’s specific “god” is real, you have more to do. However, do not move on to step #3 until you are sure your #2 claim is impeccable and irrefutable. Otherwise, you will simply waste your time with theological and doctrinal nonsense.
3. Prior to initiating your claim that this “god” is the “god” of a specific religion:
a. Remember that your claim is becoming more complex, and issues are likely to get out of hand. You should make every effort to be as specific as possible, and not get sidetracked. “Complete” and argue a single issue at a time.
b. Define all specific religious terms and have a thorough understanding of all of the pertinent materials, evidence, and arguments associated with your explicit religion. A detailed knowledge of the history of your religion and a fair view of the greater political, social, economic, geographic, militaristic, and legal factors would also be exceedingly helpful.
c. Understand that using a “holy book” to defend a proposed “god” treads deeply upon the logical fallacy of “begging the question”; remember that if a book-by simple virtue of being written-could stand as indisputable truth, then the Greek gods would exist because of the Iliad, and hobbits would be running around because of J.R.R. Tolkien. Be prepared to offer outside evidence that is logically and rationally convincing.
d. Be able to show completely-from general properties to specific features-how the “god” of #2 is not only compatible with, but intrinsically identical to, your religion’s “god”.
e. Be able to show completely-from general properties to specific features-how your religion’s ideology, teachings, dogma, and tenets are not only true and compatible with your #2 “god”, but that they are a necessary part of that “god”.
f. Be able to show that the history and followers of your religion have not “corrupted” any part of the basic principles necessary to the existence of this “god” or to the tenets of the religion itself.
g. Demonstrate that this religious “god” actually exists based upon your combination of #1 and #3.
4. Make your claim that a “god” exists, and that the “god” that exists is your specific religion’s “god”.
a. If anyone challenges your more complex claim, you should be able to draw up a fairly convincing argument, provided the arguments have proceeded from step #1 soundly and correctly. If, however, you are defeated, you MUST retreat back to #3 and rework your arguments, evidence, and conclusion. If a deeper problem was found, fall back to #1.
5. Prior to your claim that the “god” of your specific religion should be worshiped:
a. Remember, this is a complex claim not simply relating to the philosophical stances on morality, value, justice, compassion, truth, and others, but an “ought” claim that dictates the necessity of someone actively praising such a “god”. Just because a specific “god” has been shown to exist, does not automatically mean anyone should particularly care. You must give a rationally argued and logically sound explanation as to why this “god” matters to humanity as a whole and to individuals, and then show why praise should be the free and favorable action humans take.
b. Define all relevant terms, such as the aforementioned philosophical expressions, paying special attention to what you mean by “worthy of worship”.
c. Establish, and then show, that your “god” has the inherent qualities of something worthy of worship. Logic and rationality work here.
d. Establish, and then show, that your “god” has exhibited and demonstrated the explicit qualities of something worthy of worship. Material evidence is essential here.
e. Explicitly show that the choice to worship this “god” would be a free decision without any sort of duress, and that, if followed through a logical and rational progression, anyone would find the worship of this “god” favorable.
6. Make your claim that a “god” exists, that the “god” that exists is your specific religion’s “god”, and that your religion’s “god” should be worshiped.
a. The complexity of this issue shows itself once this claim has been made. There is a possibility, however small, that you would be forced back to #3 or to #1; then there is the possibility that someone challenges something in your #5, which would force you back there; yet another possibility is that someone accepts your #6 claim, but still refuses to worship your “god”, regardless of how favorable it would seem.
b. This last point is the greater point that I entered into this stepladder with: even if, by some ridiculous feat of human ingenuity, rhetoric, and evidence, a specific worshipful “god” was shown to exist, THERE WOULD STILL BE PEOPLE UNWILLING TO JOIN YOUR CULT.