Taken from FROM Part I
KAN’s opening
First of all I want to thank you for taking the time to dialogue with your fellow searchers. I sincerely hope that your participation in this discussion is in the spirit of genuine openness, integrity, and humility. In this regard, I think it is very important for us to keep in mind that we are not advocates for a particular position - - which is apologetics, but seekers of truth, and that such a mindset is a prerequisite for any true and honest dialogue. I also think it is important before we proceed to highlight what I think are the fundamental differences between apologetics and genuine dialogue.
[The following two paragraphs are a rewording of blogger - - Minds Meaning Morals’ post on the prerequisites for any good faith discussion:
Engaging in dialogue consists of implicitly accepting the risk of being shown wrong or having to alter one’s belief system, and it is the mutual recognition that such risks have been assumed that gives dialogue its cooperative nature. It is the cooperative rather than the adversarial nature of this which makes it a good thing for people to engage in. Apologetics, however, is not a cooperative endeavor. The apologist has not assumed the risk of changing his belief system.
The key difference is that those engaging in honest dialogue are willing to be wrong and adjust their beliefs accordingly while the other is not. In a dialogue there exists equal ground, not between the positions but between the interlocutors. This equal ground consists in the mutual acceptance of the risks mentioned above, but such equal ground does not exist in the case of apologetics, for while both parties are convinced that their position is the correct one, at least one of the parties does not even acknowledge that his position might actually be wrong in the end. He is not cooperatively striving to find the truth of the matter, for he “knows” that he already has the truth in the matter.]
The bottom line is this; if you have integrity, you must be willing to shift your initial position in conformity with the evidence. After all, how can you have integrity when you expect people to be open to your persuasion, an influence which may result in an individual making momentous and sometimes irreversible life changes, when you your self will not reciprocate the openness. With this in mind, I ask you - - BeyondBT, are you willing to consider the fact that you could have made a major life decision based on error or is it already a forgone conclusion that this could not be the case? If it is already a forgone conclusion that you are correct, why are we even having a discussion? Wouldn’t it be the height of hypocrisy and dishonesty for you to engage myself and others when you fail to extend courtesy and decency with regard to disclosing your intransigency?
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
KAN
