Arguing for the sake of heaven: Why we need curious conversations…

I wonder if you, like me, are finding the polarising conversations taking place in the public square shrill, tiresome and destructive. We have lost the art of disagreeing with one another politely or constructively, and have forgotten than ad hominem attacks (attacks directed against a person rather than the position they hold) have traditionally been seen to weaken an argument, not strengthen it.

It genuinely is a pity, because there are so many important discussions that need to take place, and take place well. No matter how angrily we screech against our opponents, the truth is that there is so much we do not yet know about gender, sexuality, our changing climate, overcoming poverty, the impact of technology on our humanity and indeed, on what it means to be human. The quickest way to gain knowledge is to have the humility to realise that we don’t know it all, to be genuinely curious and to listen deeply and well. These three ingredients – humility, curiosity and deep listening – are in short supply, but there is no fundamental reason why they should be, so hope remains.

What does a curious conversation look like?

A curious conversation, surprisingly enough, starts with curiosity! It is a conversation where we intentionally explore and ask questions about views we are not immediately drawn towards and might even feel negative about. It requires us to ask the question “why” and to ask it repeatedly, and always in a thoughtful, respectful manner. Curiosity opens discussion up, disrespect shuts it down. It is not a hostile conversation. It defers judgement. It listens and tries to understand before evaluating, and even when it does evaluate, it then asks the other party if they agree with the assessment, and if not, why.

In his 2020 book Morality, Jonathan Sacks explores the idea of arguing for the sake of heaven. Sacks explores two ways of disputing – arguing for the sake of victory versus arguing for the sake of truth. He suggests that when we argue for victory, we get caught up in an endless cycle of cheap compromises so that we can win. We hide facts, overlook important evidence that discredits our view, and do whatever it takes to be considered the victor. In such exchanges, truth is often the victim.

By contrast, Sacks notes the long standing biblical tradition of “arguing for the sake of heaven” – and records a principle from the Jewish Midrash that there are 70 “faces” or interpretations of every text – and that we should therefore “argue” over them to ensure we have explored them in sufficient depth. One interpretation does not threaten another, but simply invites further exploration. The goal of the argument is not to win – but to gain deeper understanding and insight. Sacks makes the fascinating point that when we adopt this attitude, we gladly “lose” arguments, because it is when we lose that we have incorrect understandings rectified and gain new knowledge. By contrast, when we win, we simply have our old views reinforced, which is not nearly as enriching. 

This is a refreshing take, and one worth exploring in our own day where we are often inclined to shut discussion down rather than to welcome questions. 

It can be a little like introducing a bit of chaos into an otherwise settled work environment. We can get so used to doing things one way that we stop being curious and don’t explore if there is a richer way of doing it – and then a new staff member might come along and question everything. They aren’t convinced when we say things must be the way they are. They see the situation with different eyes, and perhaps dare to introduce the “change” word. The best workplaces have a creative dance between long standing orderly practices and innovative new approaches. We could call this the order- chaos dance. Too much order and we stagnate, too much chaos and we explode.

Like introducing a little chaos into situations that have become too complacent, hosting curious conversations – where nothing is off limits, but all matters can be carefully explored – can be deeply enriching. 

Perhaps you are part of a workplace or a home or a church that has at its heart a void – a deep sense of a missing conversation that has not been allowed to occur, or which has not been hosted well. Hosting curious conversations can reignite hope and genuinely lessen conflict for if ideas are honestly explored, it stops them having a subversive life underground, where they get confused and sometimes do great harm. 

At a time when we simultaneously know so much and know so little, it could help us all if we started to argue for the sake of heaven, carefully exploring the 70 faces of every argument, and doing so because the issues we face are serious, and hiding behind caricatures is not good enough.

As always, nice chatting…