Rational Persuasiveness and Religious Arguments (Part 2)

This post is part of a short series on Jennifer Faust's article "Do Religious Arguments Persuade?".

In the previous post, we discussed Faust's account of rational persuasion. We saw that when assessing the persuasiveness of an argument {P1...Pn/C} we need to keep in mind the subjective probabilities and antecedent beliefs of the person to whom the argument is addressed.

Specifically, we saw that if we wish to persuade someone through argument we need to ensure that (i) they attach positive probabilities to the premises of the argument; (ii) that the premises raise the probability of the conclusion; (iii) that the premises are more acceptable to the person than the conclusion; and (iv) that the conclusion does not clash wish some stronger antecedent belief.

We further distinguished between peripheral antecedent beliefs and core antecedent beliefs. The former have low subjective probabilities and low epistemic costs associated with them; the latter have high subjective probabilities and epistemic costs associated with them. It follows that persuasive arguments are more likely to work on peripheral beliefs.


1. The Nature of Religious Beliefs
The question we now have to ask is how this account of persuasion affects religious arguments. The first thing to do is to determine the locus of religious beliefs: do they lie at the core or at the periphery? As noted last time, Faust thinks they probably lie at the core.

I think this is broadly correct. I suspect most theists would say that their belief in God is foundational; that it shapes how the understand and interpret the world; that it is the filter through which all evidence and argument must pass. This means that giving up theism would have very high epistemic costs associated with it, which is why most arguments against the existence of God are likely to fail to persuade. I recommend listening to my podcast on Anthony Flew's paper "Theology and Falsification" with this in mind.

Two words of caution about this characterisation of religious beliefs. First, what is true for religion is also likely to be true for a belief in naturalism or some worldview. Second, it is unlikely that all religious beliefs lie at the core. For example, I doubt that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a serious deal-breaker for most Christians. Indeed, I know plenty of Catholics who would be happy to give it up (most of the time they don't even think about it).

The second point is important to bear in mind if one wishes to persuade or argue someone out of their beliefs. I would imagine that most success could be had be carefully planning one's strategy so as to begin by taking out beliefs at the periphery, which may slowly erode the confidence with which the beliefs at the core are held.

2. Begging the Doxastic Question
Having located religious beliefs at the core, Faust proceeds to identify a basic flaw that seems to be shared by most arguments in the philosophy of religion. She calls this flaw "begging the doxastic question" and it is to be distinguished from the classic logical error known as "begging the question" or petitio principii.

An argument begs the question (i.e. is guilty of petitio principii) whenever it explicitly or implicitly assumes what it tries to prove. Faust cites the following example coming from George W. Bush (I'd imagine the statement was primarily made for rhetorical effect):

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq... and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

This seems to be a straightforward example of the premise being equivalent to the conclusion, i.e. P&Q, therefore P&Q. There is no formal deductive error here because there is no real formal deduction taking place. Other times, arguments that beg the question can be more difficult to spot.

Anyway, Bush's error needs to be contrasted with the problem of begging the doxastic question. Faust argues that this takes place whenever the assignment of some positive degree of probability to one (or more) of the premise is conditional upon the pre-existing acceptance of the conclusion. So this is not straightforwardly circular reasoning. Faust cites the following example as being a classic instance of this phenomenon:

• (1) Republican lawmakers routinely devalue public welfare programs, education funding etc.
• (2) One ought to vote for candidates who value public welfare programs, education funding etc.
• (3) Therefore, one should vote for the Democrats.

Now this isn't even a complete argument since there is a hidden factual premise (namely, one stating that Democrats are more likely to value those things) but in any event Faust says it begs the doxastic question because one's assignment of positive probability to (2) is likely to be conditional on one's acceptance of (3) and not the other way round.

3. Do Religious Arguments Beg the Doxastic Question?

Finally, we come to the crux of the matter: do the types of arguments that are tossed back-and-forth in the philosophy of religion beg the doxastic question? Faust thinks they do and she gives a few examples of which I'll mention just two.

First, there is Anselm's ontological argument. On its face it does not seem to presuppose any beliefs because it is based purely on a conceptual analysis of value, perfection and so on. Presumably, the conceptual analysis should be acceptable to all. However, as Faust points out, assigning a positive probability to Anselm's premises concerning maximal perfection and value will depend on one's pre-existing acceptance of a universal, objective scale of value with a greatest being at the top. Only theist's are likely to accept that idea.

Second, there is the cosmological argument (in all its forms). This argument points to some abstract property of physical (or metaphysical) reality such as time, causality and so on; says that these properties need some explanation; and jumps from this need to the existence of God. The problem here is that accepting God as an explanation will depend on one's pre-existing acceptance of (i) the inadequacy of scientific explanations; and (ii) the plausibility of non-natural forms of explanation. And, of course, theists are the one's who are most likely to accept those premises.

I'm not sure how accurate this representation of religious argumentation is. I have a feeling that carefully-formulated versions of these arguments need not always beg the doxastic question. Nevertheless, I can concede that, at least sometimes, they do and that this can make arguments and dialogues in this area quite frustrating.

Rational Persuasiveness and Religious Arguments (Part 1)

Jennifer Faust's article "Can Religious Arguments Persuade?" has received some exposure on the internet already. A youtube user by the name of ProfMTH has a two-part video series on it which you can watch here.

Despite this pre-existing coverage, I've decided to do two quick blog posts on her article. I do so because, at its heart, it contains an interesting and useful account of rational persuasion. She applies this account specifically to the topic of religious argumentation, but it clearly has a much broader application. Indeed, I think her account could be an important part of everyone's philosophical toolkit. It can help in understanding how we respond to argumentation and in formulating strategies when trying to persuade others.

In this post, I will outline Faust's account of rational persuasion. In the next post, I will see how she applies it to religious argumentation.


1. Persuasion and the Naive Account
I am sure that everybody reading this has had the opportunity to engage in linguistic exchanges with their fellow human beings. These exchanges can be called dialogues. Dialogues come in several distinct forms. The argumentation theorist Douglas Walton distinguishes six forms of dialogue:

• Persuasive: The participants have conflicting opinions, and each participant tries to persuade the others to accept their opinions.

• Inquiry: The participants lack evidence relating to the proof or disproof of certain hypotheses and ideas. The goal of the dialogue is to find that evidence.

• Negotiation: The interests of the participants are misaligned and the try to reach some resolution that resolves or settles this misalignment.

• Information-Seeking: The participants lack information which is shared and acquired through dialogue.

• Deliberation: The participants face some dilemma or practical choice. The dialogue helps them to decide the best course of action.

• Eristic: The participants are in some deep personal or emotional conflict and the dialogue merely serves to deepen that conflict.

Although awareness of these six types of dialogue is not essential to understanding Faust's account of rational persuasion (she doesn't mention them at all) I think it will be useful to keep them in mind. Primarily because an awareness of the type of dialogue one is engaged in can help one to formulate an effective argumentative strategy as some styles of argument are more appropriate in certain types of dialogue.

Anyway, arguments play an important part in all of these dialogues. Arguments are used to change opinions, prove hypotheses, resolve dilemmas and settle negotiations. An argument can be defined as a set of premises leading to a conclusion or set of conclusions {P1...Pn/C}. In order to be effective, an argument will need to be rationally persuasive. This means that the person to whom the argument is directed must be obligated to accept the conclusion. (Note: persuasive arguments are distinct from persuasive dialogues).

The naive, traditional account of rational persuasion -- the one to which Faust objects -- is that an argument is persuasive whenever it is (i) valid and (ii) true. In other words, whenever the conclusion actually follows from the premises and whenever those premises are true.

Faust thinks that this account is naive because it fails to acknowledge the role of antecedently held beliefs. So she proposes an alternative.

2. Faust's Account of Rational Persuasion

In developing her alternative, Faust first asks us to bear in mind the subject S to whom the argument is being directed. She then formulates the following three conditions of persuasion:

• (1) The subject S must attach some positive degree of subjective probability to each of the premises (P1....Pn) of the argument. This would appear to stand to reason. After all, how can one accept a conclusion if one does have any confidence in the premises.

• (2) S must recognise the logical strength of argument. In other words, they must attach a greater degree of probability to the conclusion after being confronted with the argument than they would attach to the conclusion by itself. In formal terms, the Pr(C | P1....Pn) > Pr(C).

• (3) The premises must be more acceptable to S than the conclusion. This really just fleshes out (2): one is unlikely to accept the logical strength of an argument if one does not have confidence in its premises.

This account improves upon the naive one by acknowledging the impact of subjective probabilities and antecedent beliefs on the persuasiveness of an argument.

3. Barriers to Persuasion

However, this account is still incomplete because the three conditions, while necessary for persuasion, are not sufficient. There are two additional factors to bear in mind when assessing the persuasiveness of an argument. They are (i) non-epistemic mental states; and (ii) contradictory antecedent beliefs.

Non-epistemic mental states are things like desires, hopes and fears. We can easily imagine how such states might impede one's acceptance of an otherwise persuasive argument. For example, a patient who has recently received a diagnosis of cancer, based on some medical tests to which they assign a high degree of subjective probability, might nevertheless fail to be persuaded of their diagnosis due to some deep emotional reluctance to come to terms with their circumstances.

Although non-epistemic mental states are important, it is safe to say that they do not really affect the account of rational persuasion that is being developed. After all, when considering the reluctant cancer patient we would not say that their failure to accept the diagnosis is rational, rather it is an irrational reaction to an otherwise persuasive argument.

Contradictory antecedent beliefs are beliefs that are inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument. Such beliefs may lead one to completely disregard the argument or lessen the impact of the argument on one's overall web of belief. The precise nature of the impact will depend on how strong the antecedent beliefs actually are.

Faust suggests that we can distinguish between core beliefs and peripheral beliefs. Core beliefs are the ones to which we attach a very high degree of subjective probability and which have high epistemic costs associated with giving them up. Peripheral beliefs have much lower probabilities and costs associated with them.

Faust goes on to argue, obviously enough, that beliefs at the periphery are more likely to undergo readjustment or revision in the face of a persuasive argument. Conversely, beliefs at the core are less likely to undergo readjustment or revision.

Now the obvious question is which kinds of beliefs are found in the core? The most obvious candidates are beliefs that form the basis of one's overall worldview, such as a belief in the existence of God. Indeed, it is the fact that such beliefs lie at the core that makes persuasive religious argument so difficult to formulate and so difficult to accept. We will consider this issue in part 2.