When I heard there was a book titled How to Argue with Fundamentalists without Losing Your Mind, my ears perked up. Unfortunately, the reviewer explained, the title was misleading.
It turns out that the book actually recommends avoiding arguments with religious fundamentalists and secular ideologues because ideologies cannot be refuted that way; their adherants find an answer to every objection. The author, Austrian philosopher Hubert Schleichert, who died in 2020, traces arguments among Christian thinkers about whether or not a variety of beliefs should be tolerated. This history provides evidence that many centuries of logical arguments have not settled this question and, therefore, probably never will. So he advises avoiding arguments with fanatics. My own experience as a recovering fanatic supports this thesis.
Ah, but Professor Schleichert’s book also has a subtitle: Introduction to Subversive Thinking. What he calls “subversive thinking” is his alternative to argument. Oversimplified, rather than saying the person is wrong or mistaken, gently point out that there are other ways to look at the matter. An example (from me, not Schleichert) might be:
Like you, I used to believe that scriptures had to be read literally, but my pastor helped me appreciate that there was cultural context that I didn’t know but that people in Bible times would have known. Knowing more about the ancient world has given me new perspectives on the scriptures.
This is less threatening than flatly saying the person is wrong because 1) It’s phrased as an I-statement rather than an ideological claim and 2) It’s an invitation to a richer understanding of scripture. While the person probably won’t accept the invitation at first, they may wonder what they are missing out on and someday start exploring.
In addition to subversive thinking, Schleichert urges diversity advocates to warn what fanatics actually believe, preferably in their own words. This is important because fanatics tend to downplay or conceal their most extreme opinions in order to sound reasonable. A word to listen for in today’s politics is “just.” “I’m just trying to protect children,” says a lawmaker while introducing bills to limit the rights of LGBTQ people. “I’m just asking questions,” says a famous conspiracy theorist. The word “just” is a clue they are lying; they know perfectly well that they are serving a political cause. So, reveal what their lie is trying to conceal.
In sum:
- Instead of arguing, gently point out that there are other ways to look at the matter.
- Proclaim what fanatics really believe at every opportunity, and don’t let them get away with pretending they don’t.
Reference
Schleichert, H. (2022). Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken (11th ed.). C. H. Beck.