Is "What would change your mind?" a valid question in discussions?

[St_Francis]

You know how some people say that if you hold a position that you need to be able to state what would cause you to change your mind?

First, it seems like a trick on the part of the opponent to find out in what direction they should argue! Kind of asking someone to do their work for them.

And it’s a red herring. Then instead of discussing the question, they discuss the opposite of the question.

Finally, it seems like if a person holds a position, it’s because they believe their position to be *true. *How can someone come up with what wouod change their mind?

 

[seagal]

Have you ever listened to the CA radio shows where they have only non-Catholics call in? I notice that quite often they’ll ask what is the caller’s biggest objection to becoming Catholic, and sometimes they even ask what would change the caller’s mind. I think it’s a good way to get to the nub of the question, especially if they’ve been throwing out one objection after another.

I don’t know if I’d ask that question right at the beginning of a discussion, but maybe if we’ve been going round and round without going anywhere.

I remember seeing an panel discussion with William Lane Craig where the moderator asked him what would make him change his mind about Christianity. He said if it could be proved that Jesus had never resurrected, that would change his mind. After all the resurrection is the foundation of our faith. My answer would be the same.

 

[TARRAT]

Often times people believe something because they have false information as seagal has indicated. So I believe that it is a valid question and one that should be asked. It shouldn’t sidetrack the discussion. It actually may sidetrack you because if it’s proof they want it will then be up to you to come up with that proof. You may have to research the answer and get back to them.FWIW.

God bless.

 

[AttendeDomine]

I think it’s valid.

It can be asking someone to defend the reasonableness and consistency of their standard of evidence.

Sometimes, a person might want to see something demonstrated in a way which is impossible (unless I can go back in time and watch it for myself, I won’t believe it!) or even irrelevant (I won’t believe in Santa Claus unless you can show me a naturally occurring black apple).

Obviously, those are extreme examples, but helping a person to realize that their standard of evidence is unreasonable can be quite useful while dialoguing with them.

 

[rinnie]

You know how some people say that if you hold a position that you need to be able to state what would cause you to change your mind?

First, it seems like a trick on the part of the opponent to find out in what direction they should argue! Kind of asking someone to do their work for them.

And it’s a red herring. Then instead of discussing the question, they discuss the opposite of the question.

Finally, it seems like if a person holds a position, it’s because they believe their position to be *true. *How can someone come up with what wouod change their mind?

Truth. What we believe to be true is not always what truth is. Truth is something that even at times if it cannot be shown 100% something about that truth lets you know inside that your truth was wrong.

 

[Rhubarb]

I think it’s an important question. We should always be critical of our beliefs. That’s what both science and philosophy - any sort of inquiry is based on.

 

[Sandlot]

You know how some people say that if you hold a position that you need to be able to state what would cause you to change your mind?

First, it seems like a trick on the part of the opponent to find out in what direction they should argue! Kind of asking someone to do their work for them.

And it’s a red herring. Then instead of discussing the question, they discuss the opposite of the question.

Finally, it seems like if a person holds a position, it’s because they believe their position to be *true. *How can someone come up with what wouod change their mind?

It’s a completely valid question to ask someone, and I can’t see why someone would have difficulty answering it. I believe the Earth is round - but it’s no trouble at all to suggest something that might have me change my mind.

 

[St_Francis]

Before I was able to respond to everyone’s great answers, thank you all I had a bunch of stuff to do so was able to reflect.

You know how some people say that if you hold a position that you need to be able to state what would cause you to change your mind?

My idea is that if someone knew of some part of his thinking which would result in his changing his mind, he would investigate that. For example, SeaGal’s allusion to St Paul’s saying that if Christ had not been resurrected, his faith would be in vain… well, the thing is that Christ did in fact resurrect, so that point is already taken care of.

So, if I am investigating some issue, and there is a point which would cause me to change my mind, then I would investigate that before I decided on my opinion, wouldn’t I? So if I would deciding whether I agreed that widgets should be outlawed, and the danger of widgets was what would change my mind, then I would check the dangers and risks associated with widgets *before *I made up my mind, no?

So to add to my problems with this question, I think it is insulting to the person expressing an opinion.

 

[St_Francis]

Have you ever listened to the CA radio shows where they have only non-Catholics call in? I notice that quite often they’ll ask what is the caller’s biggest objection to becoming Catholic, and sometimes they even ask what would change the caller’s mind. I think it’s a good way to get to the nub of the question, especially if they’ve been throwing out one objection after another.

I don’t know if I’d ask that question right at the beginning of a discussion, but maybe if we’ve been going round and round without going anywhere.

I remember seeing an panel discussion with William Lane Craig where the moderator asked him what would make him change his mind about Christianity. He said if it could be proved that Jesus had never resurrected, that would change his mind. After all the resurrection is the foundation of our faith. My answer would be the same.

Thanks, Seagal, I think that you bring out the point that the question may be asked in more than one way: that is can be a question in and of itself, or it can be a different way to word another question about the person’s main concern or objection. I have certainly discussed issues with people who keep changing the subtopic, which does make a coherent conversation difficult, and bringing the focus on one specific topic is very helpful.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s a completely valid question to ask someone, and I can’t see why someone would have difficulty answering it. I believe the Earth is round - but it’s no trouble at all to suggest something that might have me change my mind.

So what would convince you that the Earth is not round?

 

[St_Francis]

.
This is what I don’t understand about that question:

Why would Craig (and others with the same answer) stop believing in Christianity if the resurrection was proven false…

Instead of–

…believing in Christianity if the resurrection is proven true?

Most people’s belief works the other way, I think…believing something is true* after* it’s been proven to be true.

Do he and others start off at square one with the assumption/belief that the resurrection is true unless proven otherwise?

Or, do he and others actually think it’s already* been* proven to be true?

.

I would say that they believe the resurrection has been proven true and they bring it ip because of what St Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, which is actually a side-note to his discussion on the general resurrection.:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. **14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. **15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

 

[St_Francis]

I think the most important part of that question-answer is that it shows a person is indeed open to new information, and a change of mind if need be.
I don’t think most people ask that question as a trick because most of the answers given anyway aren’t usually an “argument” the opponent can attempt to manufacture or produce.
I don’t agree that is is a red herring, either. For me anyway, I’m curious about those answers because they explain more about the person’s perspective.
I think people come up with answers basing them on how they form their beliefs in the first place. If someone is forming their belief on fact, then they usually say they would change their mind if new facts are discovered.
If someone bases their belief more on feeling or faith…then it may take an emotional experience to change their mind.

The time to worry is if someone says they would NEVER change their mind, no matter what. That, of course, is closeminded-ness and ego…and it gets us nowhere.

The most staunchest of Atheist like Dawkins and Hitchens have often said they would change their mind and become believers if new information led them there.

.

So you think that the main type of answer being requested is the *type *of thing that would cause them to change their minds? Not something specific?

 

[St_Francis]

I think it’s an important question. We should always be critical of our beliefs. That’s what both science and philosophy - any sort of inquiry is based on.

I had an incredibly long discussion with someone about this very issue (I think it deserves its own thread!) but I have to say I don’t really agree with this. Perhaps it applies to some topics and not to others?

 

[TARRAT]

Isn’t your question just another way of posing the question about the question.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Let’s take it the discussion is about the Resurrection.

Many of us believed in Christ to some extent then found that prayer was a sort of communicating that we couldn’t undersand, fellowship with other Christians (maybe when we were young, our parents) was something we didn’t understand but it sort of worked. God did seem to be a real person in a way. I assume we were familiar with Scriptures and well catechised as well. If serious trials intervened we found that He proved Himself which strengthened our faith which in turn impacted our state of belief, and vice versa. Or He delayed and we explored the questions more deeply.

“Our hearts were strangely warmed” because when they met Him on the road He embodied the fulfilment of Old Testament Scriptures that they were previously familiar with but had only understood shallowly.

That’s the sort of thing that might get through to atheistic agnostics, not winning an argument with them. It engages all our faculties and not just our logic bone. It’s like a creature that walks with all its legs in turn and not just one leg only.

Hence this gambit is probably a valid gambit in many situations - and ought to have lots of surprising answers!

 

[St_Francis]

Not exactly.
The poser of the question might ask for “type” of proof needed and/or/also “specifics”…or just pose their question in a general way…any and all of the above (if I was asking, I’d ask every which way).

But I do think the answers that come reveal a lot about the person and how their belief mechanics work.

.

Isn’t your question just another way of posing the question about the question.

Well, one thing I am finding is that the question means different things to others. I guess that since my first encounter with the question was in a challenging way, one which indicated that any inability to answer it would imply bad things about me, that I had a bad impression of it. Now I can treat it as more a request for information than a sort of veiled insult

 

[St_Francis]

Let’s take it the discussion is about the Resurrection.

Many of us believed in Christ to some extent then found that prayer was a sort of communicating that we couldn’t undersand, fellowship with other Christians (maybe when we were young, our parents) was something we didn’t understand but it sort of worked. God did seem to be a real person in a way. I assume we were familiar with Scriptures and well catechised as well. If serious trials intervened we found that He proved Himself which strengthened our faith which in turn impacted our state of belief, and vice versa. Or He delayed and we explored the questions more deeply.

“Our hearts were strangely warmed” because when they met Him on the road He embodied the fulfilment of Old Testament Scriptures that they were previously familiar with but had only understood shallowly.

That’s the sort of thing that might get through to atheistic agnostics, not winning an argument with them. It engages all our faculties and not just our logic bone. It’s like a creature that walks with all its legs in turn and not just one leg only.

Hence this gambit is probably a valid gambit in many situations - and ought to have lots of surprising answers!

I like what you have written here because it’s very expansive rather than sticking to what people often say in discussions on these topics. You are showing different types of evidence which have convinced you and the interplay between them.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think it’s an important question. We should always be critical of our beliefs. That’s what both science and philosophy - any sort of inquiry is based on.

That is true for science but not for love. Should you remain critical and skeptical about your spouse? At some point one has to believe that the other person really does love you. Even though you can not prove it with science. The same is true with belief in God. Skepticism works in science because it is based on the scientific method. But you can’t use the scientific method to for instance determine if Christ is divine. This is why faith is required. This is something critical Skepticism can never have. Skepticism is there to protect the person from error. Its a self protection mechanism. But too much self protection with no risk means not only missing out on what is false but also what is true.

Peter Kreeft asks us do we doubt our own doubts? Because if we are going to be skeptical of everything shouldn’t we then be skeptical of skepticism itself?

 

[seagal]

That is true for science but not for love. Should you remain critical and skeptical about your spouse? At some point one has to believe that the other person really does love you. Even though you can not prove it with science. The same is true with belief in God. Skepticism works in science because it is based on the scientific method. But you can’t use the scientific method to for instance determine if Christ is divine. This is why faith is required. This is something critical Skepticism can never have. Skepticism is there to protect the person from error. Its a self protection mechanism. But too much self protection with no risk means not only missing out on what is false but also what is true.

Peter Kreeft asks us do we doubt our own doubts? Because if we are going to be skeptical of everything shouldn’t we then be skeptical of skepticism itself?

You can’t love someone before you know them and you can’t know them without some kind of investigation. You have to keep asking questions, is this person who I think he/she is, do they hold the same values as me, do they have any bad habits or morals? The same is true with God. We can’t love God if we don’t know him. Some of us grew up knowing about God but not really knowing Him. Some of us grew up without knowing anything about God at all. Have you’ve ever seen The Journey Home on EWTN, featuring guests who either converted or reverted to the Catholic faith? Many of the guests, especially former atheists of agnostics, had to do some investigative work to come to better knowledge of God. It was only after coming to know God could they love him.

 

[carn]

You know how some people say that if you hold a position that you need to be able to state what would cause you to change your mind?

First, it seems like a trick on the part of the opponent to find out in what direction they should argue! Kind of asking someone to do their work for them.

And it’s a red herring. Then instead of discussing the question, they discuss the opposite of the question.

Finally, it seems like if a person holds a position, it’s because they believe their position to be *true. *How can someone come up with what wouod change their mind?

I do not see it that negatively.

Idealy, ever single of our opinions and so on can be traced back to certain beliefs/assumptions. Logically, if such a belief/assumption turns out to be wrong, a change in the dependent opinion should or is at least likely to occur.

Therefore, such a question might be a legitimate attempt to identify the actual relevant issue.

For example for me one crucial point is that killing innocent and defenseless humans is usually/always immoral; therefore, for example, i can dismiss a lot of philosophical/religious opinions, which are simply wrong on this issue.

If i would ever change my opinion, e.g. for example that i would no longer consider killing innocent and defenseless humans usually or always immoral, a lot of my positions would change.

Anyone wanting me to stop praying, quit church, hail abortion, same-sex marriage and communism just needs to convince me that its ok to kill inoocent and defenseless humans.