6 comments
Avatar
Hunter
Since I've starting listening and following ERI, I've seen my views on abortion become more and more complex and more understanding of the pro-choice side than where pro-life-me was 2 years ago. Thank you so much for being incredibly intellectually honest, I wish there were so many more groups like you for a variety of other subjects.

I'm curious, if someone here at ERI were to genuinely change their mind about abortion, what would the course of action be for ERI? I would think that even if you were to change your minds on abortion, it would probably be only in certain circumstances and you would still disagree with pro-choicers 98% of the time, so you might still consider yourself pro-life. But I guess that disagreement with like-minded people is something you're already used to. :)

Another semi-related question: if you were to run into a definition of personhood that makes more sense than humanness from a secular perspective and doesn't include the fetus, would this necessarily change your mind? I'm thinking specially about how according to the Imago Dei syllogism, abortion would still be wrong, but according to the best secular position, it would not be. Would you continue defending abortion using the Equal Rights Argument since it's so effective, even if you believed it isn't entirely correct (arguably not intellectually honest), or change gears to talk about justifying morality and bring Christianity into almost every conversation (arguably not the most persuasive)? Or do something else?
Hide Replies 5
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
Thank you, Hunter! We are honored to have helped you; it is our goal to be incredibly intellectually honest and spread clear thinking about abortion. It is so uplifting to know that our efforts are making an impact!

That's an interesting question. If someone at ERI were to genuinely change their mind on abortion, I think we would be incredibly transparent about that. Just as we try to think through things clearly and publish content that honestly explains and argues for our views, we would invite that person to publish something explaining why they changed their mind on abortion. We are dedicated to following the truth where it leads, and that means genuinely exploring opposing viewpoints, not censoring them or disregarding them.

I'm not sure if you've completed the Equipped for Life Course, but we delve more into your second question there in Module 10. We don't believe that the Equal Rights Argument is entirely precise; we use it to talk about equality in a way that doesn't get into the weeds of philosophy with people who aren't philosophers. But "something like our human nature" granting personhood isn't the most precise answer for what grants personhood. Module 10 of the Equipped for Life Course is where we get into our much more advanced explanation of what we think grounds personhood: a higher-order capacity for moral agency. I'm not going to get into explaining what that means here, but I encourage you to complete the Equipped for Life Course for more on that! If we were to revisit Module 10 and discover an even better definition of personhood that ends up not including the fetus, we would have to be intellectually honest and say that there is no secular way to justify personhood for the fetus, which I think would force us into arguing from solely a religious perspective. I think that is unlikely to happen, however, because we have spent significant time on the content of Module 10 in order to find the most precise definition of personhood possible in the secular philosophy arena.
Hide Replies 4
Avatar
Hunter
Emily, thanks so much! No, I haven't gotten the Equipped course yet, although I definitely plan on it! Going off of what you said about having to be honest about arguing from a religious standpoint if the best secular definition of personhood excluded the unborn, I'm somewhat at a crossroads about using arguments that I believe are false to convince someone of something I believe is true.

On one hand, I think I'm against using arguments that use bad logic both from an moral standpoint (intellectual honesty) and also from a practical standpoint (they could point out the faulty logic either right then or realize later). But when it comes to arguments that are logically sound but start from worldview premises that I disagree with, I think they could be helpful to point out to people that their worldview, however wrong I think it is, would support the pro-life position. (I'm thinking about Don Marquis' Future of Value argument, which I know you guys have talked about as being a helpful tool in some cases). But there's still the part of me that feels dishonest making arguments that I believe are wrong. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on this.

It also ties into whether we are obligated to have rational reasons for all our beliefs or if it's acceptable to believe some things for emotional, non-rational (as opposed to irrational) reasons or by default. Obviously, no one has enough time to spend time researching every big issue, and sometimes we settle for arguments that are "good enough," even if we know they might not stand up to hard scrutiny. Or we have an emotional experience that cements our belief even if it isn't something that would persuade anyone in a debate setting. But we could easily be wrong and I'm not convinced whether this is really the best way to think about important issues for a truth-seeker. Thoughts?
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
I'm definitely against using arguments that use bad logic, both from a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint as you said. But when it comes to arguments that are logically sound but start from worldview premises that I disagree with, I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing them out to people without endorsing them myself. In the case of Dom Marquis' Future of Value argument, I don't mind bringing it up because I'm not making the argument myself. It's Don Marquis' argument, not mine. I might say something like, "there's this pro-life, atheist philosopher who has this argument you might find interesting" and then tell the person what the argument is. I'm simply regurgitating it and citing it as this other person's argument. I might even add "I don't personally subscribe to Marquis' argument because..., but it's interesting to consider it if you're atheist or subscribe to part of Marquis' worldview." I would feel dishonest making arguments that I believe are wrong, but not pointing people to those arguments for them to consider on their own merit.

I do think that we should have rational reasons for all our beliefs, but it's not very realistic to actually "require that." We're human, and we don't have the time to research everything, and we do have the emotional experiences that cause us to believe things for non-rational reasons. It don't think that's the best way to think about important issues for a truth-seeker, but there is some level of inevitability to it. As an analogy, as a religious person, I think that there is an inevitability to sin, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do better and not sin even though we know that we'll fall again. Similarly, I think we will inevitably not be able to believe absolutely everything for rational reasons, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to think about things better and be the best truth-seekers that we can be. I think we have an obligation to try!
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
Hunter
Emily, thanks for sharing your thoughts, that makes a lot of sense. That definitely solves my problem of feeling guilty for being dishonest, as you are simply helping them see different reasons for thinking abortion is wrong, even if you don't agree with all of them. You are honest about stating your opinion while leaving it up to them to make up their mind. I like your analogy about how even though sin is inevitable, we should be constantly striving to not succumb to temptation. I think this would also apply to justifying one's faith. As a Christian, I want to make sure what I am basing my life on is true and not myths, so I've done a ton of research on an intellectual level. Add to that the fact that when sharing the Gospel, Christians should be "prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." But I know for many people, rational arguments are not the reason they are a Christian.

Imagine two hypothetical people: Person A, a Christian, and Person B, a Mormon. They both are strong believers in their faith for the same reason: it has brought them out of the sinful life they were living, changed who they were for the better, and increased their sense of purpose. They have heard a bit about the intellectual arguments in favor of their faiths, maybe even used it to share their faith with others, but for them the evidence of God changing their life is enough to believe. The only difference seems to be that Person A happened to "stumble" into the correct, salvation-giving belief whereas Person B, having done nothing different, is wrong. Now, I believe that God does indeed work in people's lives, and using that to justify one's belief isn't in any way irrational. However, the case could also be made that other religions provide people with some sort of purpose, or change in lifestyle, or happiness, which I also think is true. What are your thoughts on believing in something right for arguably non-compelling reasons, especially when something like one's eternal life hangs in the balance?

And to make things more complicated, imagine a Person C who spends years considering arguments for and against every belief system and, truly seeking God, becomes a devout Jew. I trust that God will judge everyone with grace and justice (I hesitate to say fairly because if He were fair, no one would recieve salvation), but it still nags me that depending on a person's circumstances, no matter how hard they are trying to find God, it can seem that not everyone has the same chance of recieving that grace.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
I am not a theologian, so I admit to feeling unqualified to answer your questions. I agree that, for myself and many other Christians I know, rational arguments are not the reason I am a Christian, but I have also done significant research so that I have reason behind what I believe and feel prepared to answer other people's questions.

To your hypothetical situation: I certainly agree that other religions provide people with a sense of purpose, happiness, change in lifestyle, etc. But, as we have established before, I believe we have an obligation to try to believe things for compelling reasons. I'm glad that Person A "stumbled" into the correct belief, but they should still seek out compelling reasons for that belief, especially so that they can share the Gospel with others. I obviously won't pretend to have a complete understanding of God and His ways, and so my understanding of how Person C will be judged is woefully inadequate. Your question is one that has been pondered by centuries of theologians!