The first example you give doesn’t sound to me like exploring multiple sides of the question “Does God exist?” so much as exploring multiple questions I might ask instead: is what humans experience when they claim to experience God’s presence interesting? Should it be studied more? Do faith-based institutions do more good than harm? Can I empathize with a believer? Can belief in God make one stronger, and if so under what circumstances? Etc.
You’re right, they aren’t the same question–but that’s what my brain brought up when queried with “what would you say if asked to debate the existence of God?” Somehow just saying that “no, I think that God doesn’t exist for reasons X, Y, Z” doesn’t seem to be enough. I think this may be because of the “arguments as soldiers” approach–if I tell someone I’m an atheist, but don’t go on to clarify my beliefs on all those other questions, the assumption tends to be that I must think theists are stupid, stupid people.
I think it also might be a strategy I use to increase the feeling of “being on the same side” when talking to people who I know are theists, since not clarifying might lead them to believe that I’m, in some sense, their intellectual enemy.
Oh, absolutely. Answering a different question than the one I’m asked is often a useful rhetorical technique, for lots of reasons, including the ones you list.
The first example you give doesn’t sound to me like exploring multiple sides of the question “Does God exist?” so much as exploring multiple questions I might ask instead: is what humans experience when they claim to experience God’s presence interesting? Should it be studied more? Do faith-based institutions do more good than harm? Can I empathize with a believer? Can belief in God make one stronger, and if so under what circumstances? Etc.
You’re right, they aren’t the same question–but that’s what my brain brought up when queried with “what would you say if asked to debate the existence of God?” Somehow just saying that “no, I think that God doesn’t exist for reasons X, Y, Z” doesn’t seem to be enough. I think this may be because of the “arguments as soldiers” approach–if I tell someone I’m an atheist, but don’t go on to clarify my beliefs on all those other questions, the assumption tends to be that I must think theists are stupid, stupid people.
I think it also might be a strategy I use to increase the feeling of “being on the same side” when talking to people who I know are theists, since not clarifying might lead them to believe that I’m, in some sense, their intellectual enemy.
Oh, absolutely. Answering a different question than the one I’m asked is often a useful rhetorical technique, for lots of reasons, including the ones you list.