Dear Michael P.

Thank you for our continuing conversation. 

I first note that in your most recent post you do not defend Jean Porter's Commonweal essay.  Instead, you suggest that I write Jean and ask her directly for her reasons.  I have done this, and I hope she will reply so we all have the benefit of her argument. 

Now, to the main point of your post and my response to it.  You say:  “Is everyone who rejects the argument unreasonable?  What do we gain, Michael, by accusing those who disagree with us of being not merely wrong or mistaken (in our view) but unreasonable?”  Michael P., why did you write this?  Are you accusing me of trying to stifle conversation by suggesting that anyone who holds a contrary view is unreasonable?  If this was your intent, please point out where I have done this and if guilty, I will offer mea culpa’s.  And, if this was your intent, and you can’t back it up, I ask you to offer an apology.  I don’t think I am guilty, but I await your fraternal correction. 

In fact, I agree with you that it is “more productive just to state our reasons as carefully and clearly as we can in explaining why we think that our position is the right (correct) one and, therefore, why we think that it is wrong (incorrect, mistaken) to reject our position?”  I would add that we should insist on reciprocity - that our dialogue partner provide an analytically rigorous case for rejecting our arguments and in favor of her arguments.  When either side fails (as Jean Porter did in her Commonweal essay) to provide an analytically rigorous case, the other side ought to be free (acting civily) to expose the shortcomings of the other.

My post responding to Lisa’s post was devoid of any talk of Jean Porter, the destruction of embryo’s, or any other controversial substantive issue.  And, in that post, I never suggest that we should accuse someone of being unreasonable.  My sole claim in that post was that “often times human beings (myself included) will hold on to a set of very dearly held beliefs (or desires) long after the unreasonableness of those beliefs has been exposed.”  Here is what I was thinking:  Suppose that as part of his core belief system, “A” believes that the moon is made of cheese.  If the moon is not made out of cheese his world will fall apart because “A” cannot harmonize this new finding with his belief system.  In this hypothetical, “A” believes something to be true that is untrue.  “B” argues with “A” demonstrating by scientific fact that the moon is not made out of cheese.  Maybe “B” even lets “A” hold a moon rock in his hand, touching and feeling this thing that is not cheese.  My point is that often times “A” will continue to hold onto his unreasonable position long after he can grasp intellectually that it is unreasonable because the cost of conceding is too great to bear.  There is no use in calling “A” names by saying that his position is unreasonable.  Other measures, including pray and love, as Lisa suggested, are in order.  Obviously, in this hypothetical, “A” holds a patently unreasonable position.  In the more nuanced real world, a mix of reasons, intuition, unreasoned belief, emotional commitment, etc. provide the stuff of our opinions.  Therefore, I argue that reason is essential but often not sufficient to persuade someone to a claim you hold as true.  And again, to make it crystal clear, Michael P., I am discussing only cheese and moons here, I am not making any claim concerning the reasonableness or unreasonableness of anything else.

Respectfully yours,

Michael S.