The Rules

Anytime a community is established, it must be established around a set of common ideals, as well as a set of rules to help everyone in the community behave in such a way that upholds those ideals and cultivates the desired atmosphere of the community. So, let’s set some ground rules!

But here’s the thing: I don’t like being a rules-Nazi. If this is going to be a vibrant community where people can be free to discuss ideas and learn from others, then overzealous rules-enforcement can be more of a detriment than a boon. I would much prefer a “moderator-less” atmosphere, where each individual can take ownership of the ideals of this community — thus, we could become a self-moderating body, where newcomers and those not quite accustomed to our somewhat radical approach to religious discussion can be gently guided by the entire community, rather than becoming the target of top-down rebuke and retribution.

In the spirit of this, I would like our ground rules to be arrived at democratically; if everyone is expected to get behind these rules, then it makes sense that everyone would have a hand in creating them. I see the rules themselves being somewhat fluid and malleable, able to adapt as the atmosphere and nature of the group changes.  I’ll continue to update this post as readers continue to send their feedback.

The way I envision it, the rules should be simple, and should each uphold one of the following ideals (or others, as may be suggested in the future):

The Ideals of the Recovering Intellectual:

  1. Discussion is more important than domination.  If this were a debate, the goal would be simple: to win by outmaneuvering your opponent in argumentation.  However, this is not a debate, it is a discussion — thus, we have to redefine what a “win” looks like in our community: I call it a “win” when all parties of the discussion feel they’ve been adequately heard and understood, and have been given a forum where they may share their viewpoints without fear of prejudice or hate.
  2. People are more important than ideas.  This is where we intellectuals often tend to get it wrong: People are of the utmost importance, and are each possessors of intrinsic worth.  Thus, each individual is worthy of respect, even if you happen not to have any respect for their ideas.  When you disagree respectfully, you are saying, “I believe your ideas are wrong” — and that’s okay.  However, if you resort to name-calling and brow-beating, you are saying, “I believe you are wrong,” or “I believe there is something wrong with you” — and that’s not okay.
  3. Everyone here has something they can learn from the others.  Everyone is of course free to share their mind, but it becomes apparent quickly when someone is more interested in propagating their ideas than they are in discussing with others.  If you feel like you have all the answers already, and that it is your mission in life to school everyone else in your point of view, then perhaps this is not the group for you.
  4. No one has all the answers.  The only way a community like this can function is if it is characterized by humility.  If the answer to the God-question were really so cut-and-dry, there would be no need for debate.  I think we can all agree that, for the greater human population, the matter is far from being settled; just because you are thoroughly convinced of your viewpoint, it does not follow that your viewpoint is absolutely correct.  Which leads to the following:
  5. It takes faith to believe in anything — even atheism.  This one tends to be a bit controversial, but I think it’s because there’s a widespread misunderstanding of what “faith” is.  When some people think of “faith,” they think of what I would call “blind faith” — that is, believing in something contrary to evidence.  However, I believe that faith (or, at least, “reasonable faith”) should be defined in terms of a belief that is built upon evidence — in a phrase, “I believe thus-and-so (which cannot be definitively proven) because of thus-and-so (which can be proven).”  The reasonable theist and the reasonable atheist have both gotten to where they are by the same road: the road of induction.  Inductive reasoning is built upon evidence — but inherent within the inductive method is always, always a degree of uncertainty.  Induction, even at its best, always requires some sort of “leap of faith” — if it didn’t it would be called “deduction,” and no amount of deduction can tell you whether or not God exists.

So, I believe the following rules serve as a good starting-point to a practical embodiment of these ideals.  Everyone’s feedback and suggestions are, of course, most welcome:

The Rules of the “Weighing the Evidence” Community:

  1. No personal attacks or threats.  You can say that you believe what someone has said is wrong — but you cannot make a statement that implies that there is something inherently wrong with that person.  Threats of harm or harassment (sexual or otherwise) will not be tolerated.
  2. No hate-speech or trolling.  Statements that are intended to provoke a negative response or inflame others’ emotions are not allowed.
  3. No self-promotion or spamming.  We are here to discuss, not to hear about your latest project.

Perhaps there should also be a set of guidelines that are not as authoritative as rules, but could still help newcomers assimilate into our method of discussion:

  • If you make a statement of fact that is not self-evident, it is reasonable for the community to expect you to be able to back up that statement with evidence.
  • Speak courteously.  Personal frustration is no excuse for rudeness.  If you cannot continue a dialogue without being rude, there is no shame in simply walking away.  On the flip side:
  • Keep in mind the limitations of the written medium.  It’s easy to “read too much into” something that someone has written, and we can tend to impose snarkiness or hostility where none was intended.  When you can, give others the benefit of the doubt with regards to the tone of their comments.
  • Be as brief as possible.  People’s time is valuable, and needlessly long-winded comments tend to kill good discussion.  Brevity, after all, is the soul of wit.
  • Don’t pile-on.  If someone makes a comment that is relatively close to what you would say, consider holding back until more people weigh in.  Or, perhaps, post a short statement of agreement or clarification.

I am looking forward to hearing everyone’s feedback with regard to these ideals, rules and guidelines.  Thank you all for your input — in doing so, you are making this community a better place!



  1. You claim you wish to encourage discussion pertaining to god.
    First and foremost – Which god are you referring to?

    Any discussion , no matter how open and well intentioned will move past the start line unless we establish which god you mean.

    Not to do so is disingenuous. How would you have open dialogue on this topic with a Hindu for instance?

    Please clarify without any ambiguity.


    1. Hm, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this point — that I must thoroughly and clearly define my God before a discussion of theology is possible — and I still disagree with it, for not only do I fail to see what makes it compelling, I have on experience that it is entirely possible (and often fruitful) to have theological discussion about all kinds of things without establishing at the onset the myriad qualities of the God in which I happen to believe.

      To answer your question about the Hindu, that’s simple: I have a metaphysical theory that I believe best accounts for the evidence I have seen, and the Hindu has another such theory — I would hope that we could discuss the particulars of our respective theories and discuss which one is better.

      Discussing such things with an atheist, however — well, that’s not as simple, is it? Especially if the atheist insists on not bring any positive claims to the table, and only on picking apart and ridiculing mine. I’d much rather have a metaphysical discussion with a materialist, or a naturalist, or a humanist — then at least there’s something to discuss.

      All that being said, if you must know — I am just a garden-variety, Bible-believing Protestant Christian, so the God I defend is the Christian God.


        1. Just logged on, so perfect timing. Evening , Seth ( it’s 18:35 down here in Johannesburg.)
          I have a question I have been itching to ask.

          Firstly, can you/we now please refer to your god as Yahweh during further discussions – makes it easier and clears up any ambiguity?
          and second …
          Why do you believe?

          I just have to attend to something ”off camera” as it were. Be back in a few moments.


        2. Hello to you! I’m going to level with you: I’m not going to do that — I think “God” is clear enough for now 🙂 I can’t think of many situations where I would refer to “God” and mean someone else.

          And yes, I saw that you asked that question in the “Suggest a Topic” section — thanks for that! It’s my first request, so I’m excited 😀 I’ll definitely devote a post to that in the near future.


        3. Well, it suggests an unwarranted confidence that your god is the only one – a claim every other religion would flatly dispute – as do I, naturally.

          On the other issue:
          Although it could be tackled as a post, is there not a concise/single paragraph answer you could provide? Some of your posts are rather long!


        4. Haha yeah I hear you, I’ve been trying to keep my posts shorter — but I’m sure you understand the climate, being under the microscope all the time, people waiting to jump on any trivial inconsistency, looking for excuses to write me off as the crazy fanatic of a dead god, etc. I’ve noticed that people generally feel more comfortable attacking the weaker, more marginal ideas than addressing the bulk of my arguments themselves, so sometimes it pays to be thorough so as to minimize low-hanging fruit, so to speak 😉

          But sure, I’ll bite — but I’ll meet you halfway: I’ll write a post, and I’ll keep it short. It’s too important a question, I think, to be buried in the comments of the “Rules” section 🙂 Sound like a good compromise?


        5. Your blog … your rules.
          It may interest others as well, but if it has a lot of metaphysics, and stuff, and words like Kant, Voltaire and especially <em words such as William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas my brain has a tendency to switch off automatically. This is a curse, I know, but what can one do?
          Will we be kept on tenterhooks for long?
          (I find this aspect of belief fascinating, so a ''promptish'' reply will keep me glued to your blog. Otherwise I might drift off to read cake recipes and stuff.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. Hey, I can’t compete with cake — I’d thoroughly understand! 😉 It will be short, it will be prompt, and it won’t be metaphysical at all — I promise 🙂


  2. Hey Seth! Again, thanks for your response to my blog post entitled “Sexy Questions (What To Ask A Theist) #1”. I’m just going admit flat out that I think you’ve had many more of these online discussions than I have. I also very much appreciate the wealth of knowledge and sincerity that you bring to the table. I welcome your critiques anytime just from one thinker/writer to another. If you choose to respond to my post again I look forward to it, if not I understand. Either way you’ve got my attention as one worthy of learning from and discussing these interesting topics with. Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hello there! Thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words — you’re welcome anytime! I’ll certainly keep an eye on yours as well and pop in if I feel like I have something intelligent to say (which will be seldom I think) 🙂

      I like your approach and hope you stick around here! Cheers.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s