Thursday, October 27, 2011

In favour of (some) discrimination ... (Teaching our kids to think: Part III)

I believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong. - Ms Lara Giddings, Premier of Tasmania, 21 Sept 2011, 12:18 p.m.
With respect, Ms Giddings, is that true? Do you really believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong? For instance:
  • Are we wrong to give smarter or more diligent students better grades than lazy ones (intellectual capacity)? 
  • Are we wrong to provide separate toilet and change facilities for men and women at public pools (sex dscrimination)? 
  • Are we wrong to condemn a sexual relationship between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old (age discrimination)? 
  • Are we wrong to prevent a convicted paedophile from working with children (sexual orientation discrimination)?
Of course not. These forms of discrimination are entirely appropriate and necessary in our society.

But what is discrimination? The Macquarie dictionary defines it as (amongst other things) "the making of a difference in particular cases, as in favour of or against a person or thing". It carries implications of "noting or observing a difference". So I think a useful working definition in this debate is that of treating a person differently on the basis of some characteristic or other.

The big issue is to distinguish between wrongful discrimination and appropriate discrimination. I suspect that Ms Giddings really means "all forms of wrongful discrimination are wrong" - which of course begs the question: "How do you decide what forms of discrimination are wrongful? by what standard or criteria?"

It should be clear from this that it is not enough to claim that the current social norms of marriage are discriminatory, as if that is a reason for change. Of course they are discriminatory. They should be. With no discrimination at all, people would be free to marry multiple spouses, to marry near relatives, to marry children. No-one in the current debate is arguing for no discrimination in marriage norms and laws - the debate is about where to draw the line. The onus rests on those promoting change to present reasons and evidence for the change.

And using the word "discrimination" as magical incantation is neither evidence nor reason.


Update note: the definition paragraph was inserted after my admirable wife pointed out to me that I hadn't included one!

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Opinion polls (Teaching kids to think: Part II)


So apparently some significant proportion of people are in favour of same-sex marriage. Or the same significant proportion are against. Or 3/4 of people surveyed think it's inevitable. What does it all mean?

In our democracy, public opinion polls are tempting and persuasive, I think because of our democratic basis of government. The numbers matter, because we are meant to make decisions based on what the majority wants.

But in another sense, the numbers don't matter. A position can be irrational, even when many people favour it. A decision can be a bad decision, even when the majority votes for it. Reality does not respect democracy.

We should demand some answers before we accept the results of any opinion polls. Who commissioned the poll? Do they have a bias that is more likely to skew results? (Rarely, some biases may lead to a more open mind about results) Who conducted the poll? Were they operating according to accepted statistical methods, or was it a "just click here" newspaper-type poll? What questions were asked?

If we're satisfied about these issues, the poll might be a reasonably accurate reflection of public opinion. If so, it can be helpful in the democratic guidance sense. But even if this is so, they cannot help us determine if a position is rational or a decision is sound. Why do respondents support a position? Are they worried about how they'll look if they don't support the position? Do they just not care, and will run with the majority? Are they scared or intimidated into support? Have they thought through the issue and come to a reasoned conclusion, or are they parroting slogans?

What matters are the reasons behind the opinion poll answers - if we can possibly get at those reasons, and assess whether they are sound and rational (or not!), then we are getting some way towards good decision-making.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Whaddya mean? (Teaching our kids to think: Part I)




"An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a proposition!""Argument's an intellectual process, contradiction's just an automatic gainsaying of what the other person says!"


The "debate" on same-sex marriage in the House of Assembly reminded me of this Monty Python sketch. Slogans, contradictions, name-calling, and a failure to really engage with the positions taken by opposing sides.

It would have been far better, far more honest and far more polite for those in favour of same-sex marriage to have outlined a reasoned position, rather than having resort to the slogans that are trotted out at these occasions. Failing that, perhaps Mr Hodgman* could have asked some simple questions of Mr McKim, inviting him to say clearly what he supports and why. 


With a few fairly simple questions, it is possible to get a firm idea of what someone thinks, and why. Sometimes this is enough to show that their position has no reasonable basis, or no evidence to support it. Sometimes it will reveal a useful line of enquiry or attack. Sometimes it will compel us to rethink our own position or beliefs. Any of these outcomes is a potentially useful one! Let's spend a little bit of time looking at what Mr Hodgman might have asked.

There are three sorts of questions that are really helpful here - questions of clarification, questions of justification/substantiation, and questions of challenge**.

Clarification, self-evidently, is about clarifying what a person means by the words they use when they set out their position. Justification or substantiation is about getting to the reasons and evidence that support a person's viewpoint. Challenge questions are a tool for testing a viewpoint against other viewpoints and/or real life situations. Let's look at how this might run in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. We'll do what we can to follow one particular line of argument, rather than covering the whole field.

The first point in the motion introduced by Mr McKim into the Tasmanian House of Assembly reads: "That the House supports marriage equality". Immediately that begs the question - "what do you mean by equality? Equal to what? Equality with what?" Equality is a word that requires context for its meaning. It is meaningful to say that two plus three equals five. It is meaningless to say that two plus three equals. In the same way, it is meaningless to say "I support marriage equality". Do you mean

  • you support the same access for all to the status of marriage? 
  • that all marriages deserve the same degree of respect and legal protection? 
  • that all relationships deserve the same degree of respect and legal protection? 
Mr McKim expressly talks about providing "access to one of the most fundamental civil institutions in our society, the institution of marriage", it appears that he means at least the first of the dot-points above. (He may also mean the others, as there is some overlap). Mr McKim spoke about "removing legally entrenched discrimination". When we ask what he means by discrimination, it is clear that he objects to the existing position where a heterosexual couple can choose to marry (or not), while a homosexual couple does not have that choice. Equality of access is the same as allowing equal choice to a couple to marry or not, regardless of the sex of the couple.

The next type of question we want to ask is: "why?" Why should the law be changed to allow this? On the face of it, the nature of the couples is evidently different, in a number of ways:

  1. a heterosexual couple has a member of each sex; a homosexual couple consists entirely of men or of women. 
  2. a heterosexual couple is capable of producing children naturally (with some exceptions); a homosexual couple cannot produce children naturally. 
  3. a heterosexual couple naturally models adult male and adult female behaviour to any children in the household; a homosexual couple cannot.
There are probably other obvious distinctions too. The question remains - why should the law be changed?

The answer provided by proponents of same-sex marriage is "love" - that love doesn't discriminate, so neither should the Marriage Act. but that begs other questions - why is love a sufficient ground to permit a couple to marry? What of other "loves" - adults for children, parent for child, siblings for each other? Why not permit them to marry too?  

There must be some additional ground that justifies state recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Something common to both, but not a feature of other close and loving relationships. I have not seen anything in the parliamentary debates, nor in the material on the Marriage Equality website that expressly states what it is, and there is no-one I can ask "what" or "why". So I'll have to guess, and I guess it's sex. That the argument is that the state should, for some reason, acknowledge and approve sexual relations between two people of the same sex in the same way that it does between a married couple. 

But why? Wasn't the argument of the homosexual lobby for so many decades that the state has no business enquiring into what is done in private between two consenting adults? Certainly that was the argument that saw Tasmania's criminal law changed in 1997, following challenges in the Human Rights Committee (UN) and the High Court of Australia. And now the argument is that the state should take note of those private sexual relations for the purpose of approval and celebration of them? And why is sex a basis for state recognition?

I haven't yet heard any compelling answer to these questions from those supporting same-sex marriage. That could just be a sign of the paucity of the debate here, and the narrowness of my reading on the issue. If you are aware of anything that answers my questions, do let me know.

But what of my original purpose? How can I act now to prevent my children learning to debate like a member of parliament?
Do you see someone who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
Proverbs 29:20
Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.
Proverbs 13:3

Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry
James 1:19

As hard as it is, I have to try to encourage my kids to ask questions - particularly "what?" and "why?" (although preferably without the whining voices!) I will try to teach my children to listen well to what others say, and what they mean.





*Please don't think I'm being hard on Mr Hodgman. I admire the fact that he was willing to take a stand for the cause of real marriage in a room full of his opponents, that he weathered personal slights honourably, and that he did it with good grace. I doubt that any questions he asked would have been answered by anyone on the other side of the chamber.

**I'm indebted to Rev. Andrew Osborne, as well as to Mr Gregory Koukl's book Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions, for the organisation and description of these questions.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Teaching our kids to think: Introduction

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.Matt 22:37
I sometimes think that there was a gap in my Christian discipleship. I had great teaching from my parents, my church and my youth group about God, Jesus, the gospel and the bible. In my teens, I started to learn about the evidence and reasoning that supports faith in Jesus. But there was still a substantial gap.

Would I attribute my reticence to talk about faith to this gap in my knowledge? Perhaps (although there were probably larger obstacles, like pride and a desire to run with the crowd!)  

Do I think that my Christian witness was less effective? Yes. 

Do I want my kids to grow up with a similar knowledge gap? Absolutely not.

Now I didn't miss out on anything crucial (like the crucifixion or resurrection).  I understood the basics of my own faith and worldview.  The big gap was in understanding how others see the world, and in having the skill to expose the contradictions and fallacies in those worldviews. Unlike Paul, I hadn't learnt to: 
... demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and ... take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.2 Cor 10:5
Nor was I properly equipped to:
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.Col 2:8
Lately, my education has been greatly improved by two books - they are both very readable and worth the time and cost. A Spectator's guide to Worldviews (Simon Smart) gives a great introduction to about 10 ways of viewing the world. It is written with a Christian audience in mind, and highlights common ground as well as points of departure. 

The second book is the knockout: Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian Convictions (Greg Koukl). This is a simple introduction to the art of inserting a stone in someone's shoe - pointing out weaknesses in someone's worldview that will hopefully lead to questions and, ultimately, the truth of Christ.

So at the moment I'm thinking through some of the implications for this new area of knowledge, and setting myself a challenge: how can I train my children up in this skill? How can I help them to identify error and illogicality? How can I help them learn to ask the gentle questions that expose folly and falsehood?

The next series of posts will start to unpack some of the ideas. For subject matter we'll be looking at the current debates around gay marriage (who's scared of an argument, huh?). I've chosen that because it's timely, because the issue is the hot point of a clash between western secularism and Christianity, and because so much of the argument (including in the Tasmanian House of Assembly!) provides examples of poor reasoning, overblown hyperbole, and rhetoric without evidence.