Religion and the App wars

The New York Times this morning, July 3, has a piece by Paul Vitello called “A War of Apps for and Against Belief.” The “war” for and against “belief” is not news, of course. A “war of apps” is another thing entirely.

As the U. S. has gotten more viciously partisan, more books have come out advising conservatives how to “talk to” liberals, and vice versa. These several settings for “talk to” are not likely to add up to civil discourse. They are occasions for opponent-bashing and the books are supposed to help the bashers do the job better.

For people who want something a little more current than the books and/or who are connected to a party or movement that values uniformity, there are the “talking points.” Talking points are the group’s device for assuring that everyone in the group--not just everyone “representing” the group, but every member of the group--is emphasizing the same things and using the same words. This practice, also, is not likely to contribute to civil discourse.

Now transfer this structured incivility to religion and put the resources for making war onto your iPhone. For people Vitello calls “religious skeptics,” there is an app called “Bible Thumper.” I love the title. This app in right in your pocket, “always ready to confront fundamentalist Christians or have a little fun among friends.” For Christians, there is a much less imaginatively titled "Fast Facts, Challenges & Tactics” by LifeWay Christian Resources. From this app, you can learn that the vast diverse collection [of biblical books] has “a unified story line and no contradictions.”

When I finished reading the piece, I was hesitating between mirth and disgust. And while I hesitated, I remembered an old cartoon. In the first picture, a classroom of students dutifully took notes as they listened to the tape recorder the professor had thoughtfully sent to class rather than coming himself. In the second picture, there were no students, but a tape recorder was sitting on every desktop. This is the picture of the kind of civic discourse we are moving toward.

How would one have to imagine the essential nature of the discourse between “believers” and “skeptics?” Would each say, “This is how I can show you how fundamentally misguided your arguments are.”? Does anyone think minds are changed that way?

Would they say, “This is how I can defend myself against the unfair attacks of my opponents.”? But if these are defenses you read off the screen (if you can find them fast enough) will you really feel safe from the attacks? Will you remember that if for any reason you lose the signal to your iPhone, you will have no idea what to say?

Two considerations are worth keeping in mind. The first is what I call, in my public policy courses (where it is the first major topic) the question of salience. Leaving pro and con aside, is this the topic you want to be spending your time on? Is the question of whether the Bible is good science the question you really want to spend your time on? Even if you are a skeptic and the Bible is bad science and you can show that it is (using your killer app), why do you want to spend your time that way? If you push your view effectively, two things will happen: 1) your position will triumph over your opponent’s position, and 2) the salience of the topic as a whole will be strengthened. “Salience” here refers to the likelihood that the subject will come up again and again and that people will be willing to spend more and more resources on it. This point applies in the same way to “believers,” of course. That’s good news for the app developers. I don’t know who else will benefit.

What would it look like if we were doing it right? I’m closing my eyes and imagining, at this point, because I am not sure I have ever seen it done right. I think the participants would have to begin with their own views. If the views are not their own, it would be nice to hear “I don’t really understand this, but my pastor says...” or “I don’t really understand this, but my biology professor used to say...” The skeptic has the advantage here. He can say “I don’t really remember” instead of “I don’t really understand.”

The support each would adduce in support of the “convictions” would be connected in ways each understands. This is the same as the case for convictions, extended to evidence. And each would point to the “flaws” in the argument of the other that either can not be derived from the premises or that fail at the point where evidence is adduced.

If, bizarre as it may seem, the two were colleagues in the pursuit of truth, rather than opponents lusting for an easy win, they could clarify each other’s arguments, making each one more available to the logic and the evidence they, themselves, bring to the pursuit. This has, also, the salience effect. Whatever the outcome of this particular discussion, further such discussions would be more likely to occur and to be enjoyed.

If they had an app for that, I would already have an iPhone.