Many would suppose that the proper title for this article should be: Know Your Enemy. In fact, Bertrand Russell advises us to use reason when dealing with those we hate, whilst “safely leaving” emotion and intuition for those we love. Often this is forgotten, as sceptics (or “skeptics”, depending whether you speak proper English or Americanese), nonbelievers and scientists are protracted against a wall of emotion, their ideas and personalities the target of incessant emotive attacks. But scientists and skeptics themselves are guilty of being angry, hostile and patronizing to those who disagree with them.

This tells us something, namely: It’s very horribly human.

But, consider the maxim of leaving reason for antagonists and intuition for loved ones – and surely a balance could be struck. An ideal no less for being asserted. I do not think it’s perfect – however this idea is not meant to be. I view it as a foundation from which thought may spring, reason may flow and truth may prosper.

You would never rest a building on a single brick, but many bricks like it! Similarly, if we find other ideas, catering for reason and emotion we have an advantage of advancing our investigations into the supernatural, the non-science and the plain stupid (you can decide which category to slot creationism, Tarot cards and astrology).

The central way I believe we can promote reason in this Discourse of Difference is through the interaction of intelligent antagonists. For example, I am a big fan of the work of Alister McGrath – except for his The  Dawkins Delusion? Reza Aslan’s book, No God but God, provides a beautiful history of Islam for the average person. Reading these books, gives one a sense of the numinous and transcendent, longed for by nearly all of us. We are beings capable of the greatest usage of reason, of galvanizing truth into a spurious waft of beauty. We should never limit our approach to using only confirmatory writings, but be willing to test our reasoning against those who are equally charged in their own defenses.

This is why I enjoy public debates and gladly participate in them. I do not like saying “know your enemy” as being central to this piece because they are not our enemy. I hate the label of “enemy”.  It retracts from the position of making them into friends, allies or, at the very worst, acquaintances. Be not afraid to read why Francis Collins is able to bifurcate the need for evidence in one area, yet gladly give over to a frozen waterfall for the belief in the monotheist god. Sure, you might laugh at this – but I believe Collins believes (with bad reasoning, but nonetheless I can tell you why only after reading his book The Language of God: A Scienist Presents Evidence for Belief. He does not.) Perhaps my interest in people’s minds disposes me to be interested in difference and needing to quantify world-views into singular paradigms. Regardless of this, I do think that it important for us to read antagonists’ books, no matter how silly they may initially appear.

Be secure: There is no such thing as too much knowledge, too much information and, when reading a book, NO information. You might pick up a copy of John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker and be able to refute all his arguments – but it doesn’t stop you from enjoying his writing style, his explanations of mathematical concepts and his knowledge of David Hume. As a book reviewer for Skeptic magazine, I have to read books that I do not necessarily want to but have often had my mind changed.

And yes there is quite a lot of nonsense, set as an affront to sensibilities; Sylvia Browne comes to mind. This should not stop you from investigating her, finding out why she’s a fraud, a hypocrite, a morbid pestilential old bat^*. Nonetheless, find out why people love/hate her. This is my appeal to everyone, believer or none, psychic or Truther, astrologer or mediums – to investigate all claims surrounding your views. The best defenders and communicators of atheism, scepticism, science, humanism and naturalism (like Michael Shermer, for instance), are always those who know the antagonist’s viewpoints as well as their own. Sometimes, the very reason why you are an atheist, for example, is because of how well you know your opponent’s minds and points. But never stop investigating.

We have entered and engaged in a dialogue, not a shouting match. The yelling from pulpits is dying, the choirs are becoming silenced and belief without evidence is not standing up to the scrutiny of avid investigators. The point is to end this shouting match and begin a conversation, based on the long abandoned fragile animal called “reason”. Let us begin that conversation now…

_________________________

*I am aware this is namecalling, but it was done deliberately