Should I Pretend to Have a Greater Degree of Conviction Than I Actually Have?

00:00

Should I Pretend to Have a Greater Degree of Conviction Than I Actually Have?

September 26, 2022

Questions about whether we should pretend to have a greater degree of conviction than we actually have in order to make our arguments more persuasive and whether the uptick in violence is a purely spiritual problem or is also related to other ideologies and practices in our society.

* Should I pretend to have a strong degree of conviction I do not actually have on a matter in order to make my arguments more persuasive?

* Is the uptick in violence and brutality in our society a purely spiritual problem with purely spiritual solutions, or do psychology, sociology, criminology, etc. have something to contribute to the solution?

Transcript

[Music] Welcome to the #STRSK podcast with Amy Hall and Greg Cocle. This is the podcast where we take your questions from Twitter with the #STRSK. And today, Greg, today we have a question from Johannes.

Oh, good. Even with a high degree of conviction of his opinion, often wins against deeply founded, well thought out arguments that are given insecurely with seemingly less conviction. This tempts me to pretend a strong degree of conviction that I do not actually have on a matter.

Is that wrong? Well, I've not had this question before, but I have thought about the issue. And I have actually counseled in talks, talking about public speaking. And I think if you are convinced, if you have a high level of conviction that something is true, and here we're talking about Christianity.

And if Johannes has a strong enough conviction that his beliefs are true to go up against critics in discussion, that's a pretty strong high level of conviction. And then I think he should reflect that, even if he's feeling a little bit nervous about it or something, that he should try to allow that level of conviction to be reflected in his manner in the way he engages. There are a number of things we can do that reflect confidence in our views.

One of them is we don't get in fights. We don't yell. We don't have to interrupt.

We don't have to be steam rollers. We don't have to use all these different techniques that have some rhetorical force to them that pushes a view on somebody more aggressively. If in fact we have a good case and when we act that way, it communicates more confidence in our view.

And I've always encouraged people to do that. I think that there are some aspects of our convictions that we don't hold as strongly as others. And these tend to be parochial theological issues.

That is within the pale, inside of Christianity, there are different views. I would just say, eschatology, so there are four or five different ways of understanding and time stuff. Some people have really strong opinions.

Some don't. And my view on those kinds of things is that you could speak with the confidence level that your own justification warrants. So I don't know, there's a lot of things in the revelation that are kind of hard to figure out.

I'm pretty confident that we win in the end. So I could be really strong about that in terms of what the book teaches. But a lot of the other things I'm not going to be so dogmatic about, which means I'm not going to be so confident about.

So I think the confidence level that you express doesn't necessarily mean that, back up and put it this way, if you have less confidence in something, that doesn't mean it's a weakness. Pardon me, especially if it's a parochial issue. If you are confident that Jesus rose from the dead, and this is a basis for your spirituality, or being a Christian, this is part of it, then I think you ought to express that clearly.

And sometimes, I don't know if that means faking it a little bit or kind of pumping yourself up. These are little maneuvers that may be helpful because sometimes it's environmental things that are pushing our confidence level down. We're talking to somebody who is stronger, more confident, more straightforward, more this, that, the other thing.

And therefore, it intimidates us a little bit. And now we don't feel as confident as we would have felt emotionally in another set of circumstances, all right? And that may be what he's referring to. And in those cases, I think we need to try to, regardless of how we feel, we still communicate with the same level of certainty and confidence that our convictions actually warrant.

And not be cowed because well, that person really is talking such and so and such and so. Man, they sound so confident. This is where the tactical approach is so helpful because I've mentioned this many times on stage, two audiences, I'll just say it here because I've seen it so frequently.

People come into conversations with their sales filled, so to speak, with their, the confidence of their convictions and themselves sometimes. They're just all bluster. And you think, oh, man, this person, how could I ever get through to a person like this? They seem so absolutely confident.

Then I ask a question, generally a clarification question about their view or maybe something that doesn't seem to work and it's just a question. And I can kind of visually see, in a sense, the wind go out of their sales because they don't know how to respond. They haven't been asked this before.

Okay. So this shows the impact that bluster from someone else is going to have on us and our confidence in a conversation. So I just want all our listeners, Johannes, especially here to be aware of that, that bluster sometimes cows us.

I get it. I understand that. Questions at this point will buy us time, especially clarification questions that are easy.

Say, what did you mean by that? You know, actually there was a portion of this question here that I had a question about because of lack of clarity and I was thinking, what does he actually mean? And so there are in most cases when somebody makes a statement or holds a view or expresses an opinion, there are ambiguities. And even if there's no clear ambiguity, you can say, well, tell me more, explain that a little bit more. That buy you time puts the ball in the other court and it gives you an opportunity for you to look for weaknesses.

But I don't have any problem with somebody backing out of a conversation where they feel overmatched or they're out of their kin or whatever. I don't have any problem with that. I've done the same myself.

Okay. I think we have to be shrewd. Wise.

We have to be careful. Okay. But I don't want people to be cowed simply by bluster when we have a good case.

And one, if we're not able to kind of make that case so well, maybe just asking questions will give us some maneuvering room for a time and buy some time for a time until we either find some productive way to pursue this conversation or realize this is not a good situation for me where I'm at with the Lord and I'm just going to graciously bow out, ask questions, take it as an opportunity for education. Greg. Greg, I think there are two ways that a person could, quote, pretend a strong degree of conviction they don't actually have.

And one of them, I think, is legitimate and one of them, I think, is not legitimate. The first way would be to have a manner of strength, of calmness, a manner where you have no fear, where you're saying things plainly and openly, you're not acting as if you're afraid of what they're going to say or as if you're unsure of yourself. That I think is completely legitimate.

Act in a manner that shows that you are not afraid of the truth. I think we should be speaking that way. The second way would be to ask, to act in the way that you were describing Greg where it's more a bluster, where you're acting condescending or you're just dismissing everything they say as a way of increasing the value of your arguments.

Now I will say that does not work for me. When I see somebody doing that... I mean, we have bluster. When I see somebody who does that, I immediately think their arguments are weak.

So don't do it that way. Make sure you understand the difference between your manner and your case. Oh, that's good.

So what you want to do is you want to be honest. You want to project honesty. So be strong in what you have to say and to the extent you have to say it and then acknowledge the weaknesses.

Acknowledge that, hey, this is what I think. Here are the ways that I could be wrong and I'm still working through this. I could be convinced otherwise.

If that's all true, say it. That conveys strength and a trust in truth and a love for truth and a lack of fear. And I think all those things will help your case, even if you're not entirely convinced of something.

What you just described is a component of what we talk about at Standor Reason as the character element to being a good ambassador. The willingness to say, you know, I could be mistaken. I don't think I am at my reasons.

Some things I've worked out better than other things, but I'm open to listen to what you have to say and we can talk about it. So don't overstate your case and make a, instead of trying to project confidence, maybe when you don't have it, try to project a sense of honesty. So be strong in what you know and be open about what you don't know.

And that is actually very persuasive, I think, to people. At least it is for me. Like that makes much more of an impression on me than somebody who is blustering.

Well, and you said that with such calmness and confidence. Now you never know. Now I'm persuaded.

No, it's very compelling. Okay. Let's go on to a question from Russell Spradlin.

Are you as concerned as I am about the measurable uptick in violence and brutality in our society? Is the problem purely spiritual with purely spiritual solutions or do psychology, sociology, criminology and other disciplines have something to contribute to the solution? Yeah, I think they're all connected personally, you know, but I was just, I wrote last year a piece in a solid ground called the Primal heresy. And last year's that would be 2021 solid ground. Read the first one from January and go all the way back to November.

That's six in a row. I'm not sure if you haven't done so because they're all connected. And it is a way of expressing, talking about my concern about a rise of totalitarianism in this country and not just top down hard totalitarianism like Soviet style, but also horizontally soft totalitarianism to use a Rod Druher's language from live not by lies.

Coming from cultural elements like big business and tech and stuff like that who have the ability to deeply influence your lives and punish you for not complying. So I'm actually losing my place a little bit here. What's causing that uptick in violence? Oh yeah, okay.

So thank you. We're just talking about my dad. My dad used to call this old timers disease.

So and I'm getting it. Well, so this goes back though to the Primal heresy, which is a relativism. And I talk about how this goes back to the garden.

It's no God, no, no to the outside ethic or the outside rules or outside reality, objective world. Yes to everything that's inside of me. Okay.

Now when you have a culture, but that was the Primal heresy. You let us core to the temptation the devil used then. And that is to establish individual autonomy that is apart from God and being under God in his kingdom.

That's the rebellion. And that has continued on ever since. And now we have it in spades where you do you is the is the slogan of the era.

Now when you have when you keep telling people that they're going to do it. Okay. And so when they there's something that they want that they don't have, they're inclined, more inclined to take it.

When they're when they're angry, they're going to be true to their feelings and act that anger out. Okay. Because what's most important is you do you.

So instead of having external objective morality being a constraint on human sinful behavior, more and more, that is being removed. Okay. And by the by the cultural ethos of the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age as it were.

And it's actually that word, the German word is meant somewhat metaphorically. But I do think that there's clearly a spiritual element here, clearly a spiritual element. And and that it it actually in this new book that I'm almost done with the main manuscript.

Now I talk about this so that people are aware of what's going on when they go out on the street as it were to engage the world in the marketplace in the Agura. And so can in a certain sense, secular enterprises have an influence? Of course they can. God has ordained government for the punishment of people, doers in the praise of those who do right.

And if good, and if the government does what God wants them to do, even if they don't believe in God, then this is going to have a a salutory effect on the culture. But when the cub government itself does not follow the rule of law. And there are lots of examples in the last few years, especially where that's the case.

And where as some people have pointed out, even agencies of government have been weaponized against against people who are not kind of walking in step with the ruling class, as it were. Well, then you don't, then you have not the pun, you have the opposite going on. The government isn't praising people who do good and punishing those who do evil.

You have a punishment of the good and a praising of the evil de facto in actual practice. So when these agencies or psychologists, you know, say, look, human, because we're human beings made the image of God, we have the ability to discover what it means to be human beings made the image of God. And we have an understanding what human flourishing looks like and how we can pursue human flourishing, even if we don't have the Bible.

Okay, it's the book of nature. God has built these things into us. All right.

And so in principle, people who are are not Christians or reading out of the Bible can see when somebody else's behavior is self destructive to their flourishing. Well, how do they know about flourishing? Because it's built in. We have an understanding that humans are made for purpose.

Even our worldview doesn't allow for that. And so this is why, say, psychology, in my view, now there are people who totally disagree with this, but in my view, psychology can offer benefits and it has offered benefits in the past. I'm just using one example because it was brought up psychology.

I already mentioned law. But now psychology is ruled by a false ethic that denies human flourishing affirms individual autonomy and narcissism. And so now a lot of that stuff coming from the world is going to do more harm than good.

Okay. But that's because the, in a certain sense, the native understanding of how human beings operated is being overridden by a false philosophy that is demonic. And so I guess to answer the question, it's not an either/or.

These things are all connected. And when culture is operating well, not buying into lies, not living by lies, then even so-called secular enterprises can serve the purpose of human flourishing, which is what God intended at the first. The creation mandates were meant to set up the way the world operates so that those made the image of God might flourish as image bearers.

Okay. The devil doesn't like that. So he's trying to destroy all of those institutions that lead to flourishing by tempting narcissism and self-centeredness and human autonomy, which is the essence of the fall, the primal heresy.

And so it's a little bit of a, I mean, it's not an either/or. These things are all tied together. And secular enterprises, when functioning in ways that are consistent with the way the God made the world, can help human flourishing.

But if they are operating according to the rebellious lies of the enemy, which they are now, especially in spades more than ever before in our culture, well, then they serve, then they work against human flourishing. I just want to add a little more onto the topic of relativism, Greg. About 15 years ago, I wrote a post.

This is back when the emerging church was getting popular and all these postmodern ideas were entering into the church. And I made the point, look, if it's true that we are just all creating our own meaning by our language and there's no objective standard that we can know and that we can acknowledge is above both of us so that we can have arguments, and by arguments, I mean rational discussion about issues and look at that standard and see which one of them meets that standard of truth. If you don't have that kind of background knowledge, what is left? All that is left is power.

All that's left is violence. When I wrote 15 years ago, I said we are going to see an increase in violence because there is, what are you going to do? Obviously, our country is very divided right now. Now if there's nothing that, if there's no standard agreed upon standard that we can appeal to and have rational discussion according to, what is left? All that's left is power.

And so I think that is playing a huge part in this. And also, Greg, you mentioned this, the idea that, you know, this is, it's the expressive individualism, this idea that as I become myself by expressing what's inside me, therefore anyone who disagrees with me or tries to change me, that's a personal affront against my identity and who I am. But that's the case, no one can be corrected.

Every argument will be taken as an insult rather than as a rational means of coming to truth. When there is no love of truth, again, there's nothing you can do except turn to squashing other ideas because it doesn't matter to you what's true, it only matters to you what you like and what you want to do. We have got to return to a love of truth.

Now, how do we do that? I think this is where it comes down to what we're doing as apologists because it's changed hearts. We can try to convince people about these things and to a certain extent, I think you can convince people who still care about truth. But ultimately, as we are ambassadors for Christ and people's hearts are changed and they come to love the truth because God loves truth because God is truth, that makes a huge difference in society.

And so I hope as apologists, all of you listening out there understand that we have a role that may not look like it's directly connected to certain things that are happening in the society. And it's great to go after those certain things that are happening specifically. But at the root, this is a spiritual issue and this is something that's happening because people do not love God, they do not love truth.

The fear of God is beginning of wisdom. What we're seeing right now is a profound lack of wisdom. So never think that what you are doing, I mean, obviously this is the most important thing we do as Christians is share the gospel and pray for people's salvation.

And so when you make that your priority, all these other things get thrown in because as hearts are changed and minds are changed, that will change the culture. All you have to do is look at history to see that that's the case. Yeah.

By the way, in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, there is a demonic attack on the church in the culture that Paul describes. It's talking about the man of lawlessness and it says there that God sends upon them a deluding influence because they did not love the truth. So people are vulnerable to being deluded by demonic strategies that God allows because they don't love truth.

They love pleasure, you know, not truth. That's characteristic of our culture right now. And so there's another point of connection there between what you're seeing, Amy, and the demonic impact it has on cultures and people.

Ironically, what I've been seeing out there is kind of a coming together with atheists who in the past were our sworn enemies. But a lot of atheists are not postmodernists. They care about truth.

They care about rationality. They care about argument. So what you're seeing now is that they're actually turning against this postmodern culture.

And I'm starting to see atheists working with Christians to fight some of these things happening in the culture. It's a very interesting thing that's slowly happened over the last 20 years. Well, Peter Bogosian has been going on the right road with Corey.

What's the Corey's last name? Is it Miller, I think? He's the president of Gratio-Chrycy. And they've been doing these things, working together. The Christian and the atheist trying to expose all of this leftist nonsense because we do share an epistemology and an understanding of human flourishing.

Even though they were in an atheistic worldview, there are certainly no grounds for human flourishing because human flourishing entails the idea that humans have a purpose. And when they fulfill the purpose, they flourish. In other words, there's a particular end to being human.

And even Sam Harris talks about human flourishing as the foundation of morality. But what does it look like to flourish? That's something that atheists can't make sense out of because they don't have a, there's no grand design. But nevertheless, I'm glad for the partnership at the moment.

And I wonder how long- It's funny, common animal. Enemy. I wonder how long it's going to last.

So it could be that together we're able to convince people that their, that objective reality is something to be desired and truth is something to be desired. I don't know. It could be that they're all swept up in this since they have no grounding for their beliefs and rationality and objective truth.

I don't know what's going to happen. It's just been a very interesting thing to watch, I think. You're right, Corey Miller.

Okay. Sorry, Corey, I forgot your last name. All right.

Well, thank you so much for listening. Thank you, Johannes and Russell. We appreciate hearing from you.

If you'd like to send us a question, send it in on Twitter with the hashtag #STRAsk. This is Amy Hall and Greg Cockel for Stand to Reason.

[MUSIC]