Help, I’m an ideologue!
Hi, my name is Kim. I’m an ideologue.
At least, according to Boghosian and Lindsay, I think I might be. They define ideologue as “one who is unwilling or unable to revise their (moral) beliefs.”[1] And just to be clear, they portray an ideologue in, shall we say, less than complimentary terms.
I found How to Have Impossible Conversations to have three main strengths. Boghosian and Lindsay prioritize having the right attitude toward an impossible conversation. Examples of this include their counsel to “Model the behavior you want to see in your conversation partner,”[2] including building rapport [3]and avoiding “delivering a message”.[4] Secondly, the authentic conversations used throughout the book helped me understand more deeply how to put their various principles into practice. Thirdly, I found a number of their principles surprising (i.e., I wouldn’t have thought of them on my own) and immediately applicable. For example, the idea of tracking your effectiveness by asking, “On a scale from 1 to 10, how confident are you that X [the belief] is true?”[5]
However, As I read through How to Have Impossible Conversations, I began to feel some dissonance. I was often torn between appreciating their discussion of epistemology while also resonating with the “moral reasoning” that says my religion/faith/God teaches me this is true, so I believe it to be true.[6] I began to feel uncomfortable with the authors’ criticism of “the moral mind overriding the rational mind”[7] and a line of questioning designed to “disconfirm” a moral belief.[8] As I mentally dug down into why that made me uncomfortable, I was reminded of Matthew Petrusek’s book that we read last semester (I know, many of you are groaning. I seem to recall I was pretty much the only one in the cohort that liked that book.) Petrusek leaned on an “inside-out” approach to reasoning, illustrating how theological beliefs (on the outside of Petrusek’s circle) influence ontological, anthroplogical, epistemological, moral and finally political thinking, each layer influencing how one reasons through the next. [9] This was Petrusek’s way of explaining that whatever belief is most dearly held becomes the core and acts like a filter for all other knowledge, decisions, and beliefs. This is exactly what I see at play in Boghosian and Lindsay’s discussion. They seem to assume rationalism or scientism as their core.
This line of thinking helped me understand the dissonance I was feeling. While I, of course, value reason and science, they are not my core belief. (And to be clear, I am open to reevaluating my beliefs/moral stances within reason.) I’ve given this quite a bit of thought lately, especially as I was asked to speak recently about the constancy of God. As part of this process I mulled over the question, “What do I actually believe at my core and why?” I settled on two core beliefs: God is good/loving and he knows what is best for my life. As I shared with the church, thirty-six years ago, I decided to follow Jesus because I was convinced that he was good and loving and knew what was best for my life. Those are still the characteristics of God that I hold on to everyday. I can’t think of a single piece of evidence or any circumstance which would disconfirm that belief.
As Boghosian and Lindsay said, “Offering evidence—facts—almost never facilitates belief revision for any belief with moral, social, or identity-level salience.” Does this make me an ideologue?
[1] Boghossian, Peter G., and James A. Lindsay. How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide. First edition. New York, NY: Lifelong, 2019. 121.
[2] Ibid., 29.
[3] Ibid., 15.
[4] Ibid, 21.
[5] Ibid., 68.
[6] Ibid., 50.
[7] Ibid., 36.
[8] Ibid., 86.
[9] Petrusek, Matthew. Evangelisation and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. IL: Word on Fire, 2023. 58.
About the Author
Kim Sanford
12 responses to “Help, I’m an ideologue!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi, Kim,
You and Scott had me realize that I did too much inspectional reading here. I did not pick up on these ideological slants. It is interesting to see the tension between the thought of reason and science forming our core beliefs or our faith forming our core beliefs. Faith is not always about what is seen, but rather what is unseen. I imagine this would be something an atheist wouldn’t understand. I plan to read the book in greater depth this summer because it can lend itself to better listening skills for coaching so I plan to explore this more. So being an idealogue, how do you converse when someone confronts your core values?
Thanks Esther, yes the ideologue concept really got to me, so I concentrated on that. Maybe a bit too much. I guess my experience would agree with the author’s conclusions that logical arguments rarely (never?) move people who are grounded in their religious beliefs. Interestingly, Boghossian mentions identity as another anchor for an ideologue, which I think bears more exploring. But to answer your question, my approach to these conversations is to clearly state what I believe and then to tie that belief to the difference it makes in my life. Or alternatively a story from the Bible, so how that belief affected somebody’s life. Then turn that story back into a related question like, “How do you deal with loneliness?” or “Do you ever find it hard to forgive someone who has hurt you?” I’m thinking of many conversations I’ve had with Muslim friends, although it’s a framework I like for atheist friends too. The advantage is that it keeps the conversation moving, and it keeps it from disintegrating into a lose-lose debate.
Kim, this is such a great post. It made me pause and think — I wish I had the opportunity to re-write my blogpost. Ha! Nonetheless, I thought about the reality that everyone has some ultimate allegiance/belief. Everyone has something that they are unwilling to bend on, whether that is rationalism, liberalism, conservatism, agnosticism, science over faith, faith over science, comfort, security, reputation…it could be anything. I guess that also makes me an idealogue — and I suppose I could be wrong — but I am unwilling to bend on how I would answer the question “What is your only comfort in life and death?” Answer: “That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.” (See question and answer from the Heidelberg Catechism – https://www.heidelberg-catechism.com/pdf/lords-days/Heidelberg-Catechism.pdf).
Thanks Travis. You make a good point that everyone has a core belief that they’re unwilling to bend on. I also love that you brought a catechism into the conversation. I’m familiar with several, but have never used any of them consistently. But I love the concept.
Kim, don’t be dismayed, you aren’t the only ideologue in the room.
And I’m not just talking about myself (though I include myself). I came to the conclusion that for all their criticism of ideologues, the authors fall squarely into that category.
The deeper I got into this book, the more I thought “Yeah, they wouldn’t change their opinions, either, they’re just interested in winning the argument”
I’m more interested in having respectful, listening, humble conversations with others that help them see the truth in my perspective, if it is in fact true. Manipulating them to “see” how right I am doens’t seem to be a great strategy.
Thanks Tim, it took you actually saying it for me to realize the authors are ideologues in their own right. As Travis pointed out in his comment, aren’t we all ideologues to some extent? Doesn’t everyone have some foundational belief they are unwilling to give up? So, as you said, figuring out how to engage in genuine conversation is key.
I will jump in here and say before I read all the comments to your post, I was composing in my head basically the same thoughts: yes, we are all have immovable opinions! Perhaps taking this on a tangent:
There seems to be an unspoken view (with which I disagree) that its ok to be intolerant of people we deem to be intolerant. Peter Boghossian, has basically done this when he has deemed all religious beliefs as “delusions,” You can get into quite the circular argument, here. Someone posted on a social media post this week about a “tolerance paradox,” which seems to be the same thing, and it is chilling to me.
Hi Kim
Idealogue or “good and faithful servant?”
I think you are the latter. We all want to be that servant.
Your core beliefs shape your character, and when lived out, is the light that draws people to HIM.
Brava!
Shalom
Well, thank you Russ for your kind words. That’s very much the encouragement I needed this week! It’s true, what the authors criticize as being an ideologue, we could also call being anchored in Christ and persevering in faith. Blessings to you!
I can appreciate your critiques on the authors intent, and you are right in your assessment and it’s sad he is so harsh on those of faith. I had to set that aside and when thinking of all the other absolutes (other than faith) I hold to be true or feel others hold to be true, their book was really helpful. If we set aside his personal criticism of faith, do find this work helpful?
Hi Kim,
Thank you for your inspiration on the constancy of belief, especially in how you explain your knowledge of God. You write: “(And to be clear, I am open to reevaluating my beliefs/moral stances within reason.) I’ve given this quite a bit of thought lately, especially as I was asked to speak recently about the constancy of God. As part of this process I mulled over the question, “What do I actually believe at my core and why?” I settled on two core beliefs: God is good/loving and he knows what is best for my life.” In my view, there are things that cannot be changed ideologically, or we force others to change their ideologies. In our context here, in interfaith encounters and dialogues, we agree to disagree on the core of our beliefs. That means that we should not cross that line. However, we can do what we did in that encounter, namely finding values of goodness to be realized in various real actions such as planting mangrove trees on the beach, cleaning dirty environments, and social actions in slum areas, which interfaith communities can carry out.
Blessings.
You used Petrusik as well! I also used him in my post and yes, it was before I read yours! It was fascinating that both encouraged the Socratic method to lead people to a logical conclusion. However, one is faith, and the other is atheism. I’ve watched one of Peter B.’s interviews, and his non-negotiable seems to be reason and the scientific method (both things I love), I just don’t think they can explain everything about our universe.
I love that your have been uncovering your personal epistemology of God. That is one of my favorite things about the book. Some of the questions to ask to help uncover our worldviews and how they are based was helpful for me. Great posts!