Introduction to Apologetics: Why, Where, and When We Can & How We Should

Introduction

Previously, we took a preliminary look at the field of apologetics. I’d now like to zoom in a bit and consider at length why we do, why we can do, what we do, when we do it, and how we apologize.

The final prefatory remark I’ll make is that in planning this I felt it was fitting to put soft-skills before specifics. These considerations need to shape and discipline our use of the concrete, topical defenses that make up the remainder our this discussion. It would be foolhardy to leap into the inconsistencies of moral relativism or the inexplicable account of the consciousness in a strictly physical, material universe--both arguments to be addressed later--without constraining ourselves with Scripture’s moral imperatives.

Why We Apologize

In our first class, we started with a few reasons for why we practice apologetics. I’d like to add a few more to our list. I realize I risk redundancy here, but our reasons bear repeating because we need to ground ourselves. If we keep our reasons close at hand, we’re more likely to have the right kind of motives.

Our Duty

It follows from Jesus’ commandment to love God and others that we are supposed to go out into the world. It follows apologetics is a ministry of love, both love towards God through mindful effort, as we’ve discussed, and love towards our neighbor through bringing them to the truth. To add to how we love our nonChristian brothers and sisters: we do this by (1) wanting people to have access to the salvific truth of the Gospel, (2) bringing them closer to that point by removing obstacles to that destination, (3) and by spending time with and growing in understanding and compassion through forging new friendships. And, as with other ways we do as God commands us, there’s something in it for us and there’s something in it for those people we’re endeavoring to love.

Our Privilege

Apologetics, while appearing intellectual, is far from academic. It’s not just a way to satisfy our curiosity or to scratch a brain-itch. We’re not trying to build your rhetorical skills here so that you can take any side and win. We’re not training for the debate team. There is much more on the line than a trophy. Apologizing is an act of commitment. Loving God with your mind will bring you closer to Him. It will strengthen your relationship and He will bless you with greater intimacy whenever you pursue Him earnestly. I know that during the many hours I spent reading, writing, and meditating on various related texts, I felt many surges of joy. Literal joy. There is something so uplifting and awesome about being able to list the many reasons Christian belief makes good sense and to be able to explain them in detail. It is my prayer for us all that this material sinks in and stays with you. It will surely be a comfort to you in the future.

One of the great rewards in learning and practicing apologetics is that you come to understand your beliefs with more clarity. Perhaps there are issues where you’re unsure. I hope these writings will clarify them for you. If nothing else, I hope to inspire you to seek out answers for questions you overhear in your day-to-day interactions.

Others’ Benefit

Another great reward, the one we should primarily be seeking, is taking part in the sewing and reaping of God’s harvest. We know that we are not alone in our need for Christ. We need Him even after the Holy Spirit has entered our hearts, and we have come to know Jesus. How much more so do those who have withdrawn into themselves or who are trying to find their ultimate purpose in worldly pursuits? Put these people first as Christ put you first. Don’t rest with your own edification. Build up others. I hope that’s a large part of why you’ve come to read this.

Why We Can Apologize

It’s important to bear in mind why we can apologize as a framework through which we apply ourselves. It helps us guide our hearts by seeing others as special in the way the God does. He has given humanity many honors before they’ve come to faith. If God so values humankind, so should we.

General Revelation

Part of the reason we take apologetics seriously is we believe in general revelation. God gives everyone access to a portion of His truth. Proverbs 8 rhetorically asks, “Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice?” The Psalmist David writes, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge." (Psalm 19:1-2) From all these, we can see that God makes himself known to everyone.

Common Grace

God is generous in other ways to nonChristians besides offering them general revelation. God gives His good gifts to everyone in varying degrees, and wisdom is included. Everything that is good, true, and beautiful in anyone’s life comes from God. Because of this, we can try to lead people back to him. Acts 14:17 notes that God “did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” God has made us such that we can’t help but be interested in the truth, even some of us say there’s no such thing. We are knowledge seekers. We are naturally curious. What’s more, we can come to know certain facts with the natural lights God has given us. These aren’t limited to what we can see or smell or taste or touch either. The Apostle Paul refers to the law being written onto the hearts of gentiles in Romans chapter 2. People have consciences and a moral senses, even if they say that right and wrong are relative.

We need to respect others’ intelligence. Most objections to Christian faith contain truth in them, though often only partially. We should listen closely to find where a Christian can agree with nonbelievers. For example, the people who are outraged by the suffering of the infirm are right to decry it. What they miss, however, is the fuller picture of the causes and purposes of suffering that Scripture gives us. Through defending the faith, we aim to educate the atheist or agnostic and bring them to recognize the fuller truth they conceive imperfectly.

The Divine Image

Another reason to debate these topics is because it honors the divine image in all people. God has given each of us a part of His glory. We can say with David in Psalm 8, “what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” That’s true of all people, Christian and nonChristian. Beyond our own desserts, God cares for us all. He made us special.

God, the omnipotent Being who ordered the universe, shared a portion of His intellect with us. He has left His testimony in the hearts and lives of all men and women. As I’ll discuss at greater depth later, we have many other innate attributes that mimic God’s character. To take just one, our sense of responsibility for our children or our obligation to our parents shows God’s imprint upon us.

Along these lines, I’d advise you look for the dignity in people first, not their fallenness. Where are they unwittingly following God? You can praise them with a clear conscience on that account. Don’t highlight others’ faults. In the first place, Christ rebuked that approach in elsewhere in Matthew 7. Rather than fault-finding, when you see sin in an unbeliever, repent of the grave sins you’ve committed even after having a relationship with Jesus. Correcting a person too early in the relationship is likely to kill the relationship before it begins. Many Christians are Pharisaic when they interact with those outside of the faith. We have unfortunately earned that reputation. This turns many would-be Christians away by making Christianity seem too legalistic. If you cannot find anything to respect in them, it will show. In turn, they’ll not be likely to find anything to respect in you.

Where we apologize

Moving on to the “where” of apologizing,

Forge Relationships

Jerram Barrs, a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, teaches a course on apologetics and outreach. In that course, he exhorts his students to purposefully enter into relationships with nonbelievers. One of the reasons he advocates for this approach, secondary to its Biblical validation, is also its empirical validation. He states that within secular societies such as ours has increasingly become that those who go from nonbelief to faith say they are drawn through the friendship of a local congregation and its members. That’s us.

Get to know nonChristians. Open up your homes to them. Ask them about their past. Seek out where and how God has been working in their lives, without necessarily making explicit reference to God in doing so. Through our invitations and conversations, the Gospel is more fruitfully shared. The influence of Christians’ lives, the sorts of lives we pray the Spirit helps us lead, may open atheists and agnostics up to hear the truth. The beauty of the Christ-like holiness we strive to imitate can attract the unbeliever.

That’s why Peter in his first epistle, Chapter 2, verse 12 says, “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” This command establishes a baseline of our behavior. We are being watched, especially when we’ve public professed our faith. However unfair it may be, people will judge God in light of the impressions we leave on them. Our lives should be non-verbal responses to some of the objections our culture has towards Christianity.

My own spiritual biography will be present throughout some of these writings as I intend to occasionally share of my experience as an agnostic. I spent many years of my life doubting and remember well the times when I was confronted with belief. Concerning the integral need for relationship-building in our approach to defending the faith, I confess if someone came on too strong too quickly with me while I was searching, I discounted what that person said. I suspected the person had more of an agenda than he or she had a legitimate interest in who I was. I never wanted to be a stranger’s project. I still don’t.

Maintain Relationships

More than the sorts of shallow relationships our culture spawns, the kinds of relationships we should strive to build around our apologizing are vital, vibrant, and long-lasting. Christ walks with us for our whole lives, even when we’re wayward. We need to be prepared to invest in others in that same way. There’s a great opportunity for companionship. One of the great scourges in our culture is isolation. Secularists will agree with this point. People are lonely. They don’t know their neighbors. They aren’t known by anyone. Facebook tends to makes this worse. The time is ripe to commit ourselves to being with others, to support them. I know it sounds corny, but if you’ve ever wondered what you can do to further God’s kingdom, start with being an nonbeliever’s friend.

Don’t be discouraged if your efforts bear no immediate fruit. If there’s prolonged silence after you mention God or ask about a person’s objections, don’t force the issue. Act in such a way that manifests hope for further discussion and willingness to respect a person’s boundaries. Make it clear you want to be there when the door opens up. We never know where another person is in the long process of conversion. You could be speaking with someone who’s never given God an earnest bit of consideration. You could be speaking with someone who has been wrestling with God for years. Don’t presume to know.

When We Apologize

Discerning Spirit

Understanding when to defend the faith demonstrates that apologetics is an art, not a science. There’s not a lot of advice I can give you in this because each relationship is going to be unique. It’s something you’ll need to feel your way through and can improve with practice. You’ll develop a sense for when to broach a topic. Knowing when to apologize varies in difficulty. Sometimes a prompt occurs naturally. A particular news item may have an obvious segue to an apologetic topic. You could ask a general question on that topic and see where it heads. If and when your turn comes around, you could offer Biblical insights humbly. At another time, the other person may directly ask you why you believe as you do. So it’s important to prepare yourself through study such as the one you’re in right now for those moments.

Remember, Jesus didn’t share the Gospel with people before they were ready. Some people need to hear something else first. Now especially, because of the touchy nature of religion, we’re going to have to lay a lot of groundwork before we can effectively apologize. Building and maintaining relationships and modelling Christ-like behavior in those relationships is in keeping with the Apostle Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 for the spouses of unbelievers. None of us knows whether a given person will be converted, so we can’t quit on them.

It’s possible that the time may never come without your instigation. Many nonChristians try very hard not to think about God or anything spiritual at all. If that’s the case, you need to rely on a discerning spirit. Where has this person shown openness to Christian beliefs already? Can you bring this comes up again and take the conversation a step further? How are you received? If you face no opposition, take another step.

Once the conversation is underway, find the crux of a person’s objections. Few people will have just one reason they don’t believe in God, let alone Jesus as their savior. Ask, if I can defend that objection, would that change your mind on Christianity? If not, it may be best to return to that objection later.

Check Your Heart

But before you do, check your heart. Check your heart before rebutting an objection. Don’t bring God up for conversation if you aren’t passionately concerned for their well-being. If a clear, present interest in others’ destiny is moving you, you’ll have the most appropriate demeanor for engaging others. If you’re angry with someone for insulting Jesus or denigrating Christians, don’t try to tear them apart. It would be better to turn the other cheek than to strike back in the heat of the moment. Alternatively, if you are interested in another notch in your missionary belt, it is not the right time to speak. The other person is likely to see through your agenda and be unfavorably inclined against you and the truth you wish to communicate.

How We Apologize

With Compassion

Whatever we do, as Christians we can always start by applying the golden rule. As Jesus said, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12. Think of defending the faith as an application of the Golden Rule to conversations. Be mindful of your speech. Listen closely. Consider how you would like to be challenged. If you have been on the receiving end of evangelism at some point in your life, recall what if anything made you uncomfortable about it. Some of you no doubt have been approached by Jehovah’s Witnesses or answered the door for Mormon missionaries. How did that go? Were they pushy? Off-putting? Don’t do that. Be sure not to repeat those mistakes. Likewise, reflect on the times in life where you resisted correction or continued in disagreement because of the way the correction or alternative was delivered. Take a different tact in your speech.

In all that you say, be careful not to denigrate or speak ill of others. Even when matters of faith are not the topic of conversation, a skeptic may be repulsed by your defamatory speech and may not feel safe being frank or open with you when matters of faith are raised. This is one of the many ways transgressing the golden rule destroys trust.

Moreover, many people don’t come to faith because they’ve been hurt or vilified by Christians.

With Graciousness

Earlier, I emphasized the notion of gentleness in 1 Peter 3:15. A related concept is graciousness. As Scripture says, “Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” Colossians 4:6 Paul’s advice is in keeping with the commandment to love others as we already mentioned. Gracious speech is the bedrock of relationships. It elicits honest feedback and makes intimacy possible. From being honored with candid knowledge of others, you are prepared to speak with them uniquely.

Also consider Paul’s words in Corinthians, at the end of a long list of how love influences actions, he says “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” 1 Corininthians 13:1. Feelings and beliefs are closely entwined. We must be careful when questioning others’ beliefs that we do so with love so apparent it can’t be missed. It’s possible here, as elsewhere, to say the right things in the wrong ways. When people are hurt by insensitive speech, they’re defenses go up. The truth you have to speak won’t get through to them. Part of speaking in love means using language others can understand. Avoid using theological terms or other words with uniquely Christian meanings as that would confuse and possibly alienate your audience at the outset.

Strive not to undercut your efforts through self-righteousness. Don’t miss an opportunity to admit your own frailties. Be open to admitting you’re unsure or don’t know. No harm comes from humility. We should never feign knowledge greater than we have. We shouldn’t be embarrassed by mystery nor think we’ve failed when we can’t explain everything. Were the tables turned, we would find the atheist or agnostic has unjustifiable beliefs or assumptions as well. That sort of faith is inescapable. It’s a consequence of being human for which, by the way, Christianity accounts. In that spirit, we should strive to show that the choice isn’t between one worldview that’s committed to beliefs that are unverifiable and the others, represented by atheistic and agnostic ways of thinking, that are committed to only those beliefs that are verifiable.

With Patience

I foreshadowed this earlier, but I want to reiterate the centrality of patience: I bring to your attention this passage from Acts “..for three Sabbaths (he) reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.’” Acts 17:2-3. The Apostle Paul, gifted though we was, needed weeks to engage with the Romans. We should be prepared for our efforts to require many discussions. We have all been damaged and degenerated by the effects of sin. Getting beyond these deficiencies often requires repetition and always requires the Holy Spirit. We may have to sacrifice great amounts of our time to be honored with the opportunity to speak with a distant person in an intimate, likely convicting, way.

Be prepared to be frustrated. Christianly understood, love is costly. It entails self-sacrifice. Loving real, broken people means being emotionally broken yourself. Follow Christ in that way and pour yourself out for the needs of the world. Don’t succumb to the ways of our Post-Christian world, which individualistic and is quick to cut ties in the pursuit of happiness.

There may come a time when it is necessary to agree to disagree. Once you have stated your case clearly and articulated the truth as best you can, you’ll hopefully leave the other person with a case that challenges his or her own. If a person so desires, they can find loopholes or alter their existing beliefs such that they can accommodate damaging truths. Don’t leave in anger or sever ties because you haven’t succeeded. You’re still called to love these people, even if their animosity rises to the level of enmity. These are the people for whom we’re called to pray. Remember Saul, that zealous persecutor of the early Christians, who was so outwardly hardened against Jesus, was being courted by the Spirit before Christ came to him on the road to Damascus. We know our God can win someone like Saul over, so shouldn’t we pray for those among us who only cut us with their words?

Moreover, realize that if you completely dissociate from a person because he or she persists to be skeptical, he or she may no longer have any ties to faithful Christians. At that point, it becomes far less likely he or she will be converted. Love them still, despite their obstinate. God loves us despite our sin.

With Inquisitiveness

If you wish to be heard, you must be willing to hear others. A great example of this is in Tim Keller’s DVD companion to his book The Reason for God. In those unscripted conversations, Keller asks a question of a group of nonbelievers and then lets them speak at length. Only in the last two minutes of the conversation does he offer a rejoinder to the issues that arose. He does so gently, usually opting to pose more questions rather than to assert answers. This is always a good way to start. Repeatedly throughout the Gospel, Jesus learns about people before he says what they need to hear.

You cannot begin to get to know them, to discern their needs and doubts without first listening to them. Clarify as much as possible. Ask questions until you are confident you have a full understanding of their issues. See if you can restate their position in terms they would recognize. Proving yourself to be a committed, engaged listener builds trust and respect, which of course is a cornerstone of relationships.

This knowledge will be indispensable to bringing people closer to faith. Use it to point to God’s providence in their lives. God uses many means to bring people to Himself. Is this person athletically gifted? God made the body and designed it to accomplish great feats. Is this person hospitable? God created the universe and invites all of us to partake of its bounty. Being able to speak to the specific way God has been at work in this person’s life is a wonderful supplement to apologizing.

Likewise, getting to know someone inevitably involves getting to know where their idols lie. Be observant. Does he or she have a noteworthy career? How might you present the problem of identifying with it in the future? Make note of where you might need to challenge someone when the time comes. Nearly everyone you meet, for instance, will believe in his or her sovereign right over his or her own life. You’ll need to address that at some point. Of course, as with all outreach attempts, you must do this humbly, recognizing all the while that you are just as prone to worship yourself as well were not the Spirit pushing against that bent in you.

With Prayerfulness

Before I draw this a close, I’d be remiss without mentioning the need for prayer. As with any serious undertaking, when possible, pray before you enter into a discussion on these topics. Ask for the Holy Spirit to guide your tongue and fill your heart with compassion. Remember you aren’t doing this alone. Pray also for discernment about the primary area where a person needs to be addressed.

(return to Apologetics page)

Digital Technology's Influence on the Way We Talk to and Think about Each Other

[The exchange below was born out of a discussion about whether or not our current American culture is primarily ironic. My friend Josiah crafted one of the two perspectives. You can follow him on Tumblr here.]

A: Digital technology (which is bar-none the most ascendant bundle of consumer goods out there), I'd offer, is more conducive to irony than sincerity. Most of the subcultures made possible by digital technology foster/encourage/require impulsive, hyperbolic language (e.g., the difference between friends and Facebook Friends) and communication. This both (1) garners attention (which is what every isolated individual, i.e. technology user, is after) in the midst of the rising tide of proliferating language and (2) precludes linguistic accuracy. What is irony but strategic linguistic inaccuracy, not saying what one means to serve an alterior purpose? And, yes, it trades in simulcra, not unmediated reality.

B: When you say the that mediation through digital communication technologies is more conducive to irony as opposed to upbuilding sincerity, I think that what maybe you should be saying is that in a network of communication where a person has multiple anonymous identities and can switch between them at will there is a leveraged incentive for acting out one’s lowest and most powerful impulses without the tempering factor of real world accountability (reputation). So that the tendency towards corrosion is not an inherent quality of the technology itself but of the developmental stage of that technology. In other words, that it could be changed, and probably will be, through the integrating of simulated communication with one real world person. So, that an effective reputation mechanism could dissipate that concentration of irony?

A: I must have spoken inarticulately somewhere along the way. You have interpreted my wariness re: digital technologies as being rooted in anonymity. I agree anonymity brings with it dangers (I agree with your formulation), specifically the ability to dissociate from a reputation and being ostracized by a group for poor behavior. (It also has potential—less frequently performed—positives, as when donors give charitably on the condition of anonymity.)  As to whether identities will become less flexible in the future as a technological corrective, I grant it could happen. Facebook strives to ensure you are a real person, just one, with a real name. Increasingly, web forums force you to identify yourself when commenting by signing in through Facebook. Administrators are empowered to keep things clean (although this can just remove the discussion a level, since, who watches the watchmen?). But, as a vocal faction of the the Reddit community made clear in the post-Violentacrez fallout, anonymity is seen as essential to the uniquely pure freedom inherent in the internet's freedom of speech. So, there's going to be push back to any attempt censorship.

The launching point for my wariness is not on the internet's Petri dish of vice. No, I'm more concerned with the way our interactions with and thinking about technology alters the way we interact with and think about people. I contend the devices/mediums tend to make us view others as being more interchangeable/less individually dignified or important. Starting with the cult of upgrades and updates (1.0, 2.0, 2.5, etc.), we are becoming accustomed to viewing what we want most as coming with expiration dates.

But that's innocuous (and not all that new—consumerism relies upon obsolescence) when compared to this: we are able to get what we want at all-time low prices. I can garner the attention of innumerable others easier than ever. Plus, I can walk away from an interaction more easily than ever. We relate On Demand. Textual (including old-fashioned pen and paper, I cede) exchanges offer much more power to the isolated writer and reader. I can respond if and when I want; you can read if and when you want. There are less stringent demands than if the exchange is vocal. This is easier, less confrontational, and so, naturally, preferable. How many people wish a happy B-day on Facebook instead of calling? I can fit a post into my schedule, but a phone call may involve what? 5 minutes at least? And who knows when I'll be ready for that. We are being conditioned by the ascendant modes of communication to be brief and uninvested.

Just like the creeping disintegration of sexual mores in light of technologies (i.e., contraceptives)--sex without the children and usually without diseases—we are able to get approval, acceptance, and interpersonal gratification without the hard work of relationship maintenance and discipline. Approval and acceptance available in digital forms are usually going to be ranked lower on the emotional intensity scale than those received in more physical forms (e.g., smiles, ink on paper written by a teacher, etc.), but they're still rank. That ranking, those blips on the pleasure graph, are completely and utterly necessary for human health, social creatures that we are. And if it's easier to count hits, Likes, retweets, etc. than to converse, challenge, and love--well, that's a new and powerful form of temptation. Temptation reveals what's already in the heart (which is where the techno-neutrality types stand such as yourself, I believe), but more temptation can skew the revelation. Give me an apple and I may not eat it because I'm not hungry at the time. But pile apples all around me and sooner or later I'll take a bite.

The amount and frequency of positive internet feedback can keep you from seeking offline feedback. (This tendency is similar to the damaging effects of pornography, specifically chronic masturbation leading to disinterest in copulation, even among married/involved humans.)

Some people are going to benefit from this feedback because they are marginalized in the 3-D world. That goes in the Pro side of the Pro/Con table. Acknowledging this proves me rational and not a doom-and-gloom Luddite. The larger, more "normal" majority of people, though, relies on and is going to increasingly rely on that feedback in lieu of committed 3-D world relationships and the intense pain they can occasion.

(Confession: I have a fundamental belief that capitalism needs to disintegrate us. Fractured, isolated people are inherently more needy. Needy people buy more goods.)

B: I don't think that you were inarticulate. But, I do think that the argument you are making is a type of literary argument that is attempting to establish a sort of empirical and scientific conclusion which makes some of the juice behind the way that you reach the conclusion elusive.  

Emphatically, I do not disagree with your conclusion, or at least the content of your conclusion, but I think that its more probable that the problem is not contingent upon any recent development.

Quick thoughts:

1. Why would you stop at a telephone call over a fb shout out? Then again, why stop at calling? Calls take slightly more effort but still are far less difficult than making a trip to be with that person, wouldn't it be an even more fraternal gesture to not just call the person on their birthday but make every conceivable effort to see that person and share your greetings face to face? Why does the telephone not meet the criteria? Or the telegraph, or the printing press, or the actual act of writing itself? I think that there is not a reasonable criteria that would give a satisfying answer to this question. Neither is there a necessary link between effort made in communication and the sense of the humanity of others. The attempt to solidify the link is an understandable leap but far too simplistic. For instance it discounts the instance of a liar who augments his powers through adopting the most effort heavy forms of communication to engender a sense of trust and affection but it is a mere set up for its exact opposite.

2. We are at the point where we each need to briefly summarize what we  believe to be the others argument. And then have the other critique that summarization. That way we can better get a grasp on what we're talking about.

A: QT1: The Facebook post, text, phone call, card, and personal visit provide a rough scale of investment. I usually think of personal investment as temporally measured, since time is our most personal and most common resource. (Giving time is a sacrifice. This segues into my contention about the temptation of solely/especially relating through digital technologies and its capitalizing on the typical pain-avoidance by which people live.) Why the scale is "rough" is because certain examples of posts, texts, calls, cards, etc. can be outside of their normal/average range of time-investment. For example, I could write you one hell of a thoughtful/time-intensive Facebook post and I could do nothing more than have my secretary sign a generic birthday card. In those instances, the post and card are flipped. So, here as elsewhere, accurate analysis of specific actions requires a survey of the context, not just a priori judgments about the quality of interactions.

Now, where you rejoined was here: because of the increased personal availability made possible by the internet, cell phones, etc., I can keep connections intact that would have otherwise dissolved. I can wish more people a happy birthday as a result of being notified by Facebook of their special day. Since I can afford a 30 seconds or less act, I can type those 13 characters. Without Facebook Friendships and Notifications, our contact would have been severed after, say, high school graduation.

It seems the debate is won or lost is on whether or not digital technologies encourage or inhibit relationships. This, in turn, relies upon the definition of relationship, and so transitions to an age-old quantity v. quality debate. If a relationship is a state of exchange between two people, then DTs encourages. If a relationship is a state of meaningful exchange between two people, then a good case can be made that it discourages. So, to win, I have to convince you that "meaningful" is a real and important category, not how I so happen to prefer relate to people. I think meaning is a product of human nature’s relation to the Real (which is shorthand for all existent beings). Basically, I need to convincingly argue that human needs are underserved by the types of brief transactional exchanges DTs best foster.

Note: I am fighting against both the position the DTs encourage relationships (a common position) and have no effect upon relationships (closer to yours, perhaps).

QT2: B’s brief (presumed) position - Digital technologies, like all artifacts, are morally inert. There is nothing uniquely corrosive about digital technologies. They are advancements of previous communication mediums that were designed to facilitate the same ends (e.g., transmitting information between people). Criticizing DTs without criticizing their analog forebearers is inconsistent. The telephone, telegram, cassette tape, written word, etc. are no more noble vehicles than smart phones, Twitter, etc. Preferences towards "old-fashioned" modes are prejudicial/nostalgic.

B: B's response to A's summary of B's position – Spot on, except that I think that we need to go even further than analog all the way to the deeper biological developments of language, gestures etc. which serve the similar end of making interpersonal communication as easy as possible (still not very!) and would therefore fall under your criticism. Also, I would not stress the relative de facto nobility of any medium of communication because such classification is based on the assumption that we are disagreeing about. Whether or not new mediums mostly cultivate new space for communication or cannibalize and change the old space.

A’s brief (presumed) position - Digital technology, which is the Titan of our age, is the sort of thing that gets inside of its users and alters them. Specifically, it changes the way in which its users think about and act towards other people. It does this by taking the users’ perception of others as dignified and uniquely important and rendering less powerful, which reinforces the latent tendency to treat others as interchangeable objects. This is not due to the new levels of anonymity that DT makes possible, but to the unprecedented ease of access to human to human communication and the unprecedented ease of the discontinuation of that human to human interaction. This ubiquity of access and interaction create an on demand market of relationship which follows the laws of all such markets and seeks to find the most satisfying interactions for the least possible investment. The cost benefit analysis of DT's average user highly favors the cheap-to-play-big-win-pay-out stakes of DT over traditional biological interface. Thus, inevitably, more and more of human interaction that would have normally taken place in a traditional high investment biological interface is now being mediated by low investment virtual realities and succumbing to its inherent limitations. Convenience is king and his decrees are as whimsical and as wise as any fatuous toddler on a tooth decimating post-Halloween bender. There is a necessary inverse link between the value of an action and the level of that action's ease: the easier the thing the less valuable. Getting to be in relationship with other humans is now easier than ever, and therefore, in a real way, it is becoming less valued.

A: I can’t quibble with your summation of my position. At least now we can say we understand each other.

Digital technologies are changing the way we interact with and think about other human beings. These changes tend to be dissipative given the technology's ease of use and built-in curtailing of content (e.g., max character limits, tiny keyboards, etc.). With increased access to others, both from a duration standpoint (always being available to communication) and a population standpoint (having ever-widening social nets), there is a decreased need to commit or invest in friendship as traditionally conceived. Traditional friendship is built on intimacy.  Intimacy involves knowledge of the other through which both meaningful acceptance of the other and as compassionate guidance takes place. DTs are not conducive to more than trivial knowledge of others or rarely facilitate correction (since correction in public makes the corrector look like a jerk).

Intimate contact is being crowded out by superficial contact. Intimacy, however, is a core human need. DTs supplement our relational diets like sugar supplements our bodily diets. It is harmless when used as a treat or a dessert, but it’s not harmless when used as the main course. People can feel more connected without nourishing friendships because of the volume of DT-based feedback.

Artifacts, I contend, are not created equal. Some are sloped, which is to say especially conducive to moral or immoral behavior. For instance, a graham cracker is not going to be used for murder as successfully as a loaded gun. While it is not the gun's fault, more graham crackers and less guns in the world would dampen murder rates.

I do not think the blame inheres in the technologies. The fault lies in us. But the environment shapes/limits our options. This is how artifacts can corral their users. Our environment is saturated with tools that foster brief, superficial exchanges between people. Their prevalence is unique in the history of technology. We have had phones but not phones in our pockets. We could send morse code but we didn't spend our days with our hands on a straight key (the thing that taps the code out according to Wikipedia). We could send letters but rarely had pen and paper or typewriter splayed out before us. Older Technologies, like DTs, dissociated agency of the writer/reader capturing information and being a courier. Unlike OTs, DTs dissociate even further. Previously, if I wanted to communicate, I needed to direct it to a specific person/group. Now, I can announce myself into the open auditorium of the internet. While this boosts our expressive outlets, it also allows us to find out about others without asking questions. We can fool ourselves into relational knowledge by the simulcra of statuses, for instance. Unlike DTs, however, older technologies required more intentional action from the communicators.

I submit the more accidental nature of our communication causes more superficial exchanges and, thereby, degrades the notion of friendship or other relationships. Unfortunately for us, changed concepts don't change our nature. New norms of relating don't change human requirements. Mercifully and profitably, DTs have an answer for our unmet needs: meeting other requirements. Humans are also knowledge-seekers. DTs satiate, whet, and satiate again our natural curiosity so effectively we are less apt to notice other, neglected needs.

B: The ways that we talk to each other are continually developing. This development is part of the criteria which contributes to the outline of a still new generation of developments. This is not a new process and the current phase is not unusually different from the previous phase. The economy of communication is not mercantile. There is not a set amount of space that new communication mediums have to fight for, nor is there a set amount of mental bandwidth in which ways of communicating have to be crammed. We live in a complex ecosystem of highly mutable communication styles and mediums. Adding new more accidental modes of communication does not reduce one's capacity to enter into deeper forms but adds texture dimension and accessibility. Gestural communication cannot supplant speech because it occupies another realms. And, moreover, in cases where it it required, gestures can bear the weight of far more than what one would initially believe.

[An irony: this debate over the side-effects of DTs has taken place primarily via email. This is proof that DTs do not necessitate low-quality exchanges. Most email, as with texting, however, is short/micro-form. What the participants bring to the exchange is a factor in the results.]