Criticisms vs. Attacks: Where's the line?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@littledoweknow

Again, these aren’t mere passing blog comments. These were carefully chosen words that were put into a book for the general public (and a paper in a Christian journal). Where’s the high level of civility that BioLogos claims to uphold? Dennis Venema is welcome to argue against intelligent design and creationism, but does he owe an apology to his fellow Christians whose competency and honesty he has repeatedly attacked publicly?

I homeschool my kids, and coincidentally, today we went over ad hominem attacks in a book for kids on learning to detect logical fallacies. The book went out of its way to point out that saying you had caught someone repeatedly being deceptive in the past and therefore no longer trusted their credibility was not ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you try to undermine someone’s credibility by bringing up things that have no bearing on the issue at hand, but negatively affect people’s perception of the person making a statement. A person’s history of evaluating science correctly without making obvious errors is a pertinent topic when you are discussing their credibility. It seems like you are implying that at no point could anyone justifiably assert that someone from DI was untrustworthy based on a history of documented errors. It is always just an example of incivility or condescension. Do you think everyone should be automatically granted the same degree of credibility just because they are fellow Christians?

@littledoweknow

We even see it right here, openly tolerated by BioLogos on its discussion board.

You are allowed to “attack” ideas here and people are allowed to hold their opposing ideas passionately. If people automatically interpret someone attacking their idea as a personal insult, then maybe an internet discussion with strangers is not the best place for them. Feel free to flag anything you see that is genuinely insulting a person and moderators will deal with it. But, yes, we do openly tolerate people not liking each other’s ideas, finding people unconvincing, or questioning some other ‘team’s’ research or credentials or facts. That is not incivility and it is kind of necessary we allow it on an open forum dedicated to discussing diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Also ‘tone’ is often the voice I read someone else’s words with in my head. It is often not the voice the person who typed the words heard in their own head. Sometimes I force myself to read other people’s posts in the ‘tone’ of Mr. Rogers, and I find I hear their words a lot better. Anyone can sound mean if you insist on reading their words in the voice of a shrieking harpie.

Which is why our number one gracious dialogue guideline is:

@system

Focus on discussing other people’s ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived “tone.” Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.

Nothing makes conversations go down the tubes faster than everyone deciding to take offense because they read all sorts of ‘tone’ into someone else’s words.