Does dualistic thinking (right-wrong, straight-gay, victor-loser) limit theological discourse?

Question

Discussions on Y!A tend toward asserting one opinion as wholy correct and the other wholy incorrect. This goes for Christianity v. Islam, Atheist v. Theist, Episcopalian v. Baptist, joking responses v. serious responses.

Does forcing ourselves to see only two sides of an issue limit our ability to perceive other possibilities? Or are the GOOD v. EVIL discussions based on some immutable reality?

Thanks to RHSaunders. He pointed out that I have phrased this question in dualistic fashion. It can be salvaged by asking, "How does dualistic thinking limit theological discussion?"

Answer 1

One of the things that modern Western logic inherited from the Greeks is the "law of the excluded middle" - it states that a proposition is either true or false one thing or another - there is no third position possible.

This is the argument you run into all the time here, or rather, the *form* of the argument.

Here's the thing, though. In a lot of arguments, this form is incorrectly applied, because in reality (no, I don't mean what can be proved, but what can be logically argued) there exists at least one more option which hasn't been considered.



*************

What's so aggravating is when people use the "law of the excluded middle" inappropriately to set up a false dilemma. You'll see that a LOT in politics, and in religious arguments.

Examples:

If you don't vote for so-and-so candidate, you're voting for tax increases.

Are you with us, or with the gay agenda?

If you don't keep control of your wife, she'll end up controlling you.

If you're not with us, you're against us.



And so on.


It's pretty easy to see that there has been a FALSE dichotomy set up in the statements above, but it's MUCH more difficult when the argument is a heated one, and people have so much invested in it, like religious arguments.

Here's one that you'll hear sometimes on religious discussion boards: To the extent that evolutionary theory is disproved, Intelligent Design IS proved.

That's a false dichotomy, too.

*********

But to the meat of your question.

Being willing to examine other options is only going to appeal to people who don't have an axe to grind, to people for whom it's more important to understand others than to prove that they are right.

In my own opinion, as far as religious matters go, it's a lovely idea, and not gong to happen anytime soon, except among people *who don't have to make others wrong in order for their own choices to feel right to them*.

There are such folks, so don't give up hope.

But I think we are in the minority. And I suspect it's a waste of time to argue with people who must make others wrong. Therapy might help, but argument? Probably not.

Answer 2

To some degree there are things that are considered to be "good" or "evil" because they are universal in nature. These things do not tend to have any grey area, and generally are very much polarized. Other things are "good" or "evil" depending on where you are standing. And there is plenty of ground for arguing in the middle. (Religion is obviously one of these things.) They are subjective and completely personal. There is no dualism there, except in the most broad and simplistic of questions. (Do you believe in Jesus, which is very popular, gives only two options, and is therefore a dualistic question by nature.) Then people answer in a simplistic way, which would look like dualism due to the limits of the question. The best questions are specific and often draw a variety of responses that look at the "grey" area of an issue.

Answer 3

Good and evil are relative, just like opinnion. Because this is theological discourse Good and Evil and Right and wrong point of views is going to be an issue therefore making it an immutable reality. I can respect, as a human being, another persons point of view and in some cases can even relate, but I won't let that chage my point of views on beliefs and morals I have gained through my life from my own experiences which in a sense is my reality. And I won't try to force my point of view or my reality on anyone else. I'll merely share it.

G-flux
God bless

Answer 4

2 + 2 = 4
Now if you argue that saying 2 + 2 = 3 is 75% correct, it is ridiculous, because you still missed the correct answer. Shades of gray is a concept where people tend to go to make their own idea more acceptable. There is right and there is wrong. I do believe we need to look at things from all sides to reach this conclusion, but the conclusion must be specific.

Answer 5

I agree that some things are dualistic, correct or incorrect....The light is either off or on....But most things in philosophy and religion are not this simple....
It's more like arguing whether it's hot or cold....And nobody ever seems to ask, Can it just be warm, not hot? Maybe it's breezy but not cold? Hot accordian to who, you, me, thermometer? What day of the year is it?
I believe these questions will bring us closer to "the truth" rather than "See, in John 6:16 it says that it's hot" or "Don't be dumb, scientists have proved that it's cold."
Thanks for posting this question!

Answer 6

I understand what your saying, but when talking about religion, it deals with right and wrong. Anything in between is sitting on the fence and can be perceived as being wishy-washy.

Of course there are other possibilities. Those would still be either right or wrong at the exclusion of the other persuasions. Get my drift?

Answer 7

Excellent question...

am sick and tired of having to deal with the same kind of discourse and half of it arises from people asking GOOD VS EVIL questions.

So people should stop asking: IS JESUS RIGHT?? IS THE QURAN TRUE?? and etc.

That just shows u dont think much...and only linger on the outside of what it seems. Its definitely not an issue of good vs evil....evil is something totally different...like the man who raped a 5 year old girl in my country....THAT is evil. and everyone here ...would agree

Answer 8

Yes.

If find myself forever in trouble with my friends, because I never choose sides. I can see both sides, whether right or wrong, and try to see all things in between. (I know that's not exactly what you mean, but I understant what you're saying). When people ask me if it's right or wrong, I never say one or the other. I'll say "Well, it all depends on.....".

Answer 9

Dualistic thinking limits everything it touches.

Answer 10

I think too many people ignore the fact that not everything is black and white. Many issues have lots of gray areas.