
People love to debate theological differences. Members of different Christian denominations argue the fine points of their faith, members of different religions argue about the true nature of God, and members of different belief systems will argue about the nature of reality or whether there even is a God at all.
It’s a bit of an interesting concept, given that all of these are truth claims, and the truth is immutable. It cannot be defined or changed by the debate; it just is what it is. Truth is unassailable. Even if someone wins a debate arguing against the truth, the truth remains the same and the debater still remains wrong.
Thus, debates about the truth are merely an exercise in opinion, with nothing of substance altered by the outcome. So, what truly is being contested in these sorts of debates? What really is at stake? Only the image and ego of its participants.
Is it any wonder than that these debates so often become emotional and heated? The passion with which many argue suggests that they realize that in reality is their own intelligence and reason that are on the line, that if they cannot prove their point then they have been beaten personally, even if their stance was the correct one.
For this reason, I believe that much of debate is a vain and shallow exercise, one that says much about the participants, and little about the underlying truth.
