How do I argue for something I don't believe in? (Quora)

I participated in the debating society when I was at school, and I ran a school debating society when I became a teacher. When I taught philosophy, one of my methods was to discover as quickly as possible which side of a question was favoured by the students, and then argue the opposite.

I cannot sufficiently stress how vital it is to be able to argue from your opponents’ position. To begin with, if you cannot anticipate their arguments, they will take you by surprise in the debate and embarrass you.If you cannot anticipate their arguments, you cannot prepare answers to their arguments in advance and have them ready when required.

And finally, how do you even know which side you are on, if you have never taken the trouble to learn why your opponents think differently? You will be incapable of rational decision because you have only ever heard one side of the case. You will have to resort to bluster and prejudice because you won’t be able to reason. This is not a good idea.

I draw your attention to the method by which Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, decided which side of the Brexit argument he would choose. He wrote two articles, one explaining why we should remain in the EU, and one explaining why we should leave, and then compared them in order to discover which was the more persuasive. Some people attacked him over this for having no convictions; I thought, here at least, he displayed a preference for reason over emotion.

You should try this approach. It will be of lasting benefit.

Treading on Dangerous Ground

Why is religion such a touchy subject? What's the problem with having a rational discussion of religious matters?

Maybe it's that religion is introduced to children before they're able to think. By the time they reach the age of reason they've lost sight of the fact that religion doesn't stand upon the same precautionary foundations as parental warnings that knives cut you or fire burns you. Neither is it in the category of practical advice such as encouraging you to obtaining a good education and a rewarding job if you want to support a family or achieve social status.

As a result, accustomed all his life to treat historical documents, newspapers, broadcast or social media and other purveyors of second-hand information with proper scepticism, the well-educated religious adherent may never even notice his inconsistency in failing to apply similar stringent appraisal to his chosen holy book or priestly dictum. (I certainly didn't until relatively recently.) If it should be brought to his attention, his instinctive reaction is often, at least initially, hostile. After all, what part of his world view is more fundamental than his faith?

Unquestioned certainties are rare and precious in a world full of shifting political, social and scientific sands. They are something firm to cling to, a source of support in time of trouble. Of all the stories he was told as a child, these religious stories alone have retained their power to cheer the adult. Their very familiarity is comforting.

Yet an outsider might see in the believer's antipathy to challenge or close scrutiny a subconscious insecurity. A good debater is always aware that to lose his temper is to lose the argument; anger can be an outward manifestation of an inner uncertainty. Can he marshal sufficient grounds of rebuttal to unwelcome questions?

He must know that what is accepted on authority rather than upon rational grounds would not be expected to stand up to examination in any sphere other than religion. Why in this one respect should critique not be allowed? It seems to me that a simple willingness to engage in discussion rather than resorting to angry denunciation and brute force would solve so many of the world's problems. What is there to be afraid of?

As J S Mill pointed out more than a century ago, if you're right you can't be proved wrong.