Escaping Dispute

The Gratification of Dispute

How often do you engage in disputes over your views and opinions? Dispute and argument are an integral part of many secular philosophies, maybe even their most prized practice.

Science itself functions around the adversarial methods of dispute, debate, and peer review. The difference between “natural philosophy” and what we consider the science of today depended upon the institutionalization of these practices. Perhaps the greatest development of modern science is what we might call “institutional adversarialism”. While Galileo had to deal with political and religious pressure, and Newton had his intellectual detractors, there was nothing prior to the twentieth century quite like the process of peer-review, whereby the publication of a new result required the assent of unknown, adversarial peers.

This process stems from the ferment of the European Enlightenment, but traces its roots back to the arguments and debates of ancient Greece.

The benefit of debate, argument, and dispute is that it provides a layer of objectivity to what might otherwise amount to mere opinion. I claim that my argument settles the case for my conclusion, but an unaffiliated or adversarial peer may see holes in my argument of which I was unaware. They may see that I did not consider alternative conclusions. They may uncover weaknesses in my method. All this would not be so important if we could be certain of our own objectivity, but unfortunately experience tells us we cannot. If anything, experience tells us again and again how readily we fool ourselves into believing things which are false, usually because for some reason they make us feel better, at least temporarily.

Perhaps the most obvious case of this within more theoretical pursuits is that we become attached to our own pet theories: we identify with what we produce. We identify particularly strongly with claims which we have expressed publicly. Psychologist Robert Cialdini calls this “Commitment and consistency.”

A study done by a pair of Canadian psychologists uncovered something fascinating about people at the racetrack: Just after placing a bet, they are much more confident of their horse’s chances of winning than they are immediately before laying down that bet. … Although a bit puzzling at first glance, the reason for the dramatic change has to do with a common weapon of social influence. … It is, quite simply, our nearly obsessive desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we have already done. Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. (p. 57).

After taking a public stand on something, we express more confidence in it than we would have done before taking our stand. This only compounds the problem of our own fallibility in judgment. It is a rare person who will relinquish their view based on evidence to the contrary. As Max Planck famously said,

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

This is overly cynical; one of Richard Dawkins’s favorite tropes is that of an eminent scientist he knew who responded to a talk in a conference by saying that his own theory had just been proven false. And I daresay it is the sort of thing that would happen more in the context of scientific discovery, where evidence is relatively plain and unproblematic, than in other human contexts, where evidence is often unstable or contested.

The Danger of Dispute

Although argument has many advantages, and many positive outcomes in helping us overcome our own biases and reach a better understanding of the world, it also has drawbacks. One of these is the so-called “backfire effect” whereby people, when presented with facts contrary to their beliefs, respond by holding those beliefs even more strongly.

I think we have all seen this happen, even perhaps (if we are able to be honest) with our own beliefs. We feel attacked, threatened, perhaps even disrespected, and our defensive response is to hold on even tighter to whatever it was that caused the problem. After all, now that we are publicly identified with whatever this thing is, if it goes down, so do we. Or at least so we tell ourselves.

Along with getting us to cling to our own views more strongly, arguments bring about a kind of greed: the greed of needing to be right, of needing to win. Also, arguments almost inevitably cause anger, hatred, and distrust. So argument is associated with two of the three key defilements (kilesas): greed and hatred.

For this reason, the Buddha disparaged argument, for example in the Aṭṭhakavagga:

Those who, adhering to their views, dispute ‘this only is the truth’, either bring blame upon themselves or obtain praise thereby.

The result of the praise is trifling and not enough to bring about tranquility. I say there are two results of dispute [victory or defeat]; having seen this, let no one dispute, realizing Nibbāna where there is no dispute. (Sutta Nipāta 895-896).

We tend to argue in order to win: that is, in order to obtain praise, and perhaps even fame and fortune. Within a worldly context this makes sense. It is through arguing and disputing that we “get our way”, which might mean obtaining a promotion, a raise, even a Nobel Prize.

But praise, fame, and fortune are not fit ends for the good life. Indeed, often as not lives of the famous and wealthy are lives filled with the dukkha of striving, competition, and enmity. And worldly success all too often leads to self-righteous egoism.

Just because one who thinks another is a fool and therefore calls himself an expert, such a person who calls himself an expert insults himself and others.

The one who is full of rigid, fixed views, puffed up with pride and arrogance, who deems himself ‘perfect’, becomes anointed in his own opinion because he holds firmly to his own view. …

Standing rigidly to his own view and depending on his own criteria, he enters into dispute in the world. Desisting from all theories the wise one does not enter into dispute in the world. (SNip 888-894).

This approach parallels the one we saw before in the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta, treating so-called “mental proliferation” (papañca): there the Buddha replied to the provocations of an arrogant questioner by saying blandly that he taught “in such a way that one does not quarrel with anyone in the world”. (Majjhima Nikāya 18.4).

Now, to be fair, there are in fact very many places in the Nikāyas where the Buddha argues with or debates those with whom he disagrees, be they believers in other traditions or his own wayward monks. Here however for some reason he felt it wasn’t worth the candle.

Why did the Buddha feel that argument and disputation were so problematic? Fortunately there is a place where his reasons are stated clearly:

Bhikkhus, do not engage in disputatious talk, saying: ‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline. I understand this Dhamma and Discipline. … You’re practicing wrongly, I’m practicing rightly. … I’m consistent, you’re inconsistent. What you took so long to think out has been overturned. Your thesis has been refuted. Go off to rescue your thesis, for you’re defeated, or disentangle yourself if you can.’ For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.

When you talk, bhikkhus, you should talk about: ‘This is suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; …. (Saṃyutta Nikāya 56.9).

This is perhaps the same reason the Buddha refused to answer Vachagotta’s questions about whether there was or was not a self. (SN 44.10). That is, doing so would not benefit him.

Now, in the case of “disputatious talk” the Buddha was advising monks, in a specifically monastic context. In a lay context, where one may be trying to gain fame or fortune, argument may be useful. But insofar as one is after the calming of greed and hatred, argument is beside the point, and may in fact be detrimental. It does not lead to dispassion and peace, instead it leads to passion and conflict. It does not lead to non-attachment, instead it leads to clinging to views.

Argument is most often a form of mental proliferation (papañca): obsessive, self-directed or self-involved thinking, based upon sense data. In this case the sense data involves prior arguments or claims put forward by other people. “They said that? Well, then I will have to say this! But what if they reply that way? Well, then …” And so it goes.

Intellectual pursuits such as these become forms of mental proliferation particularly when they involve spinning defensive or self-justifying stories, or when they become self-righteous. As we saw above, when we become “puffed up with pride and arrogance”.

The root problem in all this is the delusion of a fixed self which is fully responsible for and in ownership of these views. Based upon this delusion we act to protect what amounts to a form of mental construct, one that arises, changes, and passes due to causes and conditions. In acting to protect this self, we foment hatred. In acting to gain victory for this self, we foment greed. So it is that “disputatious talk” is “unbeneficial to the fundamentals of the holy life”.

The Escape from Dispute

Instead of seeing views as produced and owned by a fixed self, we have another option. We can come to see views as arising due to causes and conditions, as not under our own control, and so not properly “ours”. What we believe is not something we can change by force of will: our beliefs are as much part of the furniture of our world as are the moon and the sun. They arise within us due to our experiences, what we have been told, perhaps even to our genetic makeup. To that extent we are not even responsible for them.

Although we cannot change our views by force of will, if we look back in our lives we will find that our views are far from fixed. We learn, experience new things, and change. We hope that our trajectory brings us more into harmony with the world, but although wisdom does count for something, it is often slow to arrive and hard-won. And at its base, wisdom comes from seeing through the delusion of egoism. While certain views may be correct and others incorrect, or certain skillful and others not, all views must be held with dispassion and equanimity, without clinging, if we are to gain peace.

Some may say that in this case we lose all conviction; as though one needed the spur of greed or hatred in order to act at all. I would argue this gets things backward. Although greed and hatred can be spurs, they are spurs only to unskillful action: to hoarding and to harming. Wise action requires us to overcome these impulses.

Interestingly, once views are held with equanimity, it is as though argument ceases to be disputatious. We can discuss more fully the merits of a case rather than arguing from our own egoistic convictions. I think we all know people who are able to step back from a dispute and argue with cordiality, without becoming self-involved or indulging in personal attack. Surely this is due to a measure of wisdom, stemming from holding views more lightly.

I know that my own ability to assess and respond to arguments has suffered by my becoming personally involved in them. I have typically overlooked counterarguments because I refused to see the other side. And after years of administering an online forum for open discussion, it continues to amaze me how arguments break down when they become personalized. It is difficult to hold back the tide of vituperation when certain topics arise, but every once in awhile there will be someone who is able to focus solely on the matters at hand rather than on personalities, either their own or their disputants’. Only in those cases does discussion really advance.

In general the internet has proven itself to be an amplifier of noise more than signal. And for all their good work, atheist, skeptic, and secular communities have produced their fair share of noise: egoism and hatred. Self-righteous arrogance. I’ve engaged in it from time to time myself. It’s a hard habit to break, particularly when in discussion with someone using those same tactics. Perhaps in that case the Buddha’s response was most apt: “I don’t quarrel with anyone”. Or in other words, don’t feed the trolls.

In Conclusion, Practice

Greed, hatred, and egoism are poor motivators of action. They are also problematic methods of persuasion. Any polemicist knows that they can rally people to a cause by fomenting nastiness, but then once rallied, the horde needs constant feeding or it dissipates. Thus the rise of so-called “resentment news”.

The Buddha came out against argument and dispute because all too often it ended up only strengthening the defilements of greed and hatred, and reinforced clinging to views. None of this is beneficial to overcoming dukkha.

Can we see a way to discuss, and even to argue, without becoming self-involved? Without argument becoming conflict? Insofar as we are after a fuller awareness of the truth, the result of honest debate can only produce victors. We can also look to promote the concepts of discussion and negotiation rather than dispute, argument, and debate, since a discussion by its very nature is cooperative rather than antagonistic.

That said, we will not always be able to avoid deep differences of opinion. Within secularism itself there are rifts between people of different political and philosophical persuasions. Then there are differences between secular and traditional Buddhists, as well as between secular Buddhists and other forms of secularism. Buddhist dhamma provides tools that can be useful in these discussions: the practice of loving kindness and the other Brahmaviharas, and the practice of non-attachment to views. In the heat of argument, referring back to a half-remembered concept is not likely to be of much use, so I would advise those of us who are interested in such matters to actively practice non-attachment: views should be seen and understood as “not I, not mine, not myself”. We should practice awareness of the dangers of dispute, the dangers of clinging to views, and the escape from danger in non-attachment. In practicing non-attachment we are not saying that certain views aren’t true and others false, or that certain views aren’t skillful and others unskillful. We are saying that views should not be identified with, but instead employed to their proper end as tools to further awakening into wisdom.

———————————

Bhikkhu Bodhi. Various Nikāyas (Wisdom).

Robert Cialdini. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Quill, 1984).

Max Planck. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (Philosophical Library, 1968).

H. Saddhatissa. The Sutta-Nipāta (Curzon Press, 1985).