God

David Dudrick, a Catholic philosopher at Colgate University, shared his religious commitments with a colleague only to have his beliefs utterly dismissed. Despite being initially cast as foolish by his colleague, their disagreement about religion and philosophy evolved into a productive, respectful intellectual partnership. Through candid debates, they learned to engage with opposing views without compromising their beliefs. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments. How we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Circular reasoning is like a Netflix series that never ends. It loops back on itself, repeating the same plot, without ever really setting up any tension or resolving any problem.

Michael Lee: You've probably seen it in debates, online, in politics, even in personal conversations. The fallacy pops up when the conclusion is assumed to be true. It's the argument that goes in circles, offering no new insights or evidence to move the claim forward. Circular fallacies make for great comedy. Take a classic example from the show The Office.

Michael Lee: In Season 5, Michael Scott is in a fight with his employees and he declares, I'm not a great boss because I'm a great boss. I'm a great boss because I'm a great boss. The loop here is obvious. Michael's essentially saying that his greatness is [00:01:00] the reason for his greatness. There's no explanation of how or why he's great.

Michael Lee: Just the assumption that he is because he says he is. It's a great joke because it makes for good dramatic irony. The audience, us, as well as Michael's colleagues, are the only ones aware of the fact that he's trapped in a fallacy of his own making. Circular reasoning is baked into some of our everyday talk as well.

Michael Lee: Say you're checking out at the grocery store and the cashier looks frustrated. You ask, Tough day? The cashier says, It is what it is. You know what the cashier means. But that doesn't mean it's not a fallacy. A circular argument. A person's whole reasoning is that their view is valid because they hold it.

Michael Lee: Circular reasoning is a trap. It sounds convincing at first, but once you start breaking it down, there's no real foundation. It's a bit like a bad plot twist. When you figure it out, it's just frustrating because you realize it was all smoke and mirrors the whole time. And just like a bad movie [00:02:00] script.

Michael Lee: The issue is that the writer hasn't examined the why behind the what. They have a strong feeling that something is true, that something is right, that something must be. But when pushed as to why they feel that way, they don't offer any evidence. They restate that something is true, that something is right, or that something must be.

Michael Lee: I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative. Our guest today on When We Disagree is David Dudrick. David is a professor of philosophy at Colgate University. He researches and teaches Nietzsche, Foucault, and he's Catholic. David, tell us an argument story. 

David Dudrick: Well, my argument story has to do with my, uh, my, My Catholic city and my teaching of Nietzsche.

David Dudrick: Um, you know, I grew up in a working class, very Catholic area in northeastern Pennsylvania and discovered philosophy when I went to [00:03:00] college, not even really knowing what it was. And when I told my, my parents that that's what I wanted to major in, they. They were, uh, aghast. And, uh, you know, my mother asked me, why not English?

David Dudrick: At least then you could write greeting cards. Um, but, uh, I assured her that, uh, that things would be, be okay. And I went off to Notre Dame for graduate school, where, uh, surprisingly, I sort of got interested in, in Nietzsche and Foucault. And, um, I really, I really enjoyed Nietzsche because Nietzsche really took, uh, he, he takes, uh, Christianity very seriously, um, very negative view, but, um, he certainly thinks it's, it's important.

David Dudrick: And, um, uh, when I got to Colgate, um, I remember having drinks with, with two senior members of the, of the department and, um, One said something about about religion, religious belief, and, uh, the other said, Oh, careful, uh, you know, David is, uh, David might be [00:04:00] religious. And the first, uh, she said to me, um, she said, Oh, David, you don't believe that bullshit, do you?

David Dudrick: And, uh, I assured her that, uh, that I did, although not under that description, uh, not the way that I would describe it. Uh, and we, we had an interesting evening, uh, an interesting conversation that night. It was, uh, it was an argument that I, I will not forget. 

Michael Lee: Um, set this up a little bit of, of biography first, if you don't mind, and then we'll come to the evening.

Michael Lee: So you're raised Catholic, still a believing Catholic, go to Notre Dame, a Catholic institution. You become interested in a series of philosophers, Nietzsche especially, who very much oppose the thing, the very things you believe. They take them seriously as social and intellectual forces, but at the same time come to conclusions that you yourself don't accept.

Michael Lee: Trace that out for me. Why are you interested in the things that don't seem interested in you back? [00:05:00] 

David Dudrick: Well, let's see that. Yeah, it's a good question. You know, I think that, um, in, in much of my study of philosophy, I found that while, uh, there were a number of philosophers and topics that seem to be, you know, sort of orthogonal to my religious faith, they seem to run alongside in some way, but, um, didn't really engage it.

David Dudrick: And, and as a result, I, I sort of, because My faith was sort of, uh, central to my, uh, my thinking about the world and myself. Um, it just sort of fell flat for me, and, um, You know, because Nietzsche was so passionate about it, it, it really, um, I could argue with him. You know, I could, I could sort of, uh, you know, read him and, and learn some things even about, um, about my own faith.

David Dudrick: I remember having a professor in graduate school who was himself a Christian and who said that, uh, Nietzsche was good Lenten reading. Um, by which I think he meant that, uh, it's sort of good to, good to [00:06:00] reflect on these criticisms of Christianity because, uh, you know, there, there are times when, when the criticisms are true, or at least true in, of, of some believers at some times, and, and, um, that Nietzsche may well have, may well have a point, and I think that, um, while I didn't come to the conclusion that Nietzsche was right about nearly everything, I certainly have learned A lot from, from, uh, from reading Nietzsche.

Michael Lee: Well, I'm sure most listeners of this show are, are deeply read in Nietzsche's corpus, but I'm not. So can you summarize at a high level what he's up to in terms of Christianity? 

Well, 

David Dudrick: goodness, Nietzsche, um, uh, this will tell you a lot of what you might need to know. He wrote a book called The Antichrist that, um, or The Antichristian.

David Dudrick: And he sort of considered himself to be the Antichristian. And at the end of that book, he says that, uh, Christianity is the one, the one [00:07:00] unforgivable curse on, on humanity. It's, it's, um, Of all the things that have, uh, that humanity has undergone, he thinks that Christianity is, is the worst. And he thinks that because he thinks that it has sort of sapped our, our will to a kind of greatness.

David Dudrick: Now, I don't think that Nietzsche is a proto Nazi. I, I don't read him that way. I think he's a much more subtle thinker than that. And, um, He, uh, his, his criticisms as a result are, are not simply those of like a raving proto Nazi lunatic, but, but rather of somebody who, um, genuinely cares about the future of, of humanity and thinks that, that Christianity has, has imperiled it by, by stifling greatness, by stifling people who might otherwise do great things.

David Dudrick: He, Nietzsche doesn't want Beethoven, uh, working at a soup kitchen. You know, or Beethoven to be, uh, St. Francis. He [00:08:00] wants, he wants the, the, he wants there to be cultural greatness and thinks that, uh, Christianity is a. is a force that works against it. 

Michael Lee: Got you. He, he thinks it's a religion for, for the guilty, for people supplicating, for people denying their own self efficacy, for people who aren't going to dream very big and so forth.

Michael Lee: Precisely. If we can, are these sort of getting back to the, the evening in question at Colgate with the, um, one of your colleagues or bosses who, who wasn't super fond of, your faith. Is there a species of arguments that this person made that are similar to Nietzsche? Or was she going for a different argument against you?

David Dudrick: Oh, so interesting. I think that she basically, along with Nietzsche, thought that, that, um, Christian faith wasn't something to be engaged intellectually, exactly. It wasn't, um, it was something rather to be kind of, uh, You know, dismissed out of hand that it was it was something that that was beneath [00:09:00] almost beneath contempt, uh, and yet she herself was somebody who, you know, had had at one time, um, had had a kind of religious faith.

David Dudrick: And I think that probably. Um, both made her, made her somewhat in the course of the argument and conversation, more understanding of where I was, but also, um, more aggressively against it. I think that she thought that, you know, that, that one who had thought about these things. Uh, should have, should have outgrown it 

Michael Lee: by this time.

Michael Lee: This is a juvenile, um, intellectual enterprise that anybody who's thought seriously about this after high school should have, should have shed like a snakeskin, right? And it almost sounds like, if I'm reading you correctly, like an accidental argument. She made an aspersion about religion in general, if I take it, not Catholicism or Christianity, but just all religious belief.

Michael Lee: The [00:10:00] third colleague says, Hey, careful, David might actually be one of those people. And then, and then she maybe takes it back, maybe doesn't, how much does the argument actually takes place from there? Or is it hedged and careful because she realizes she's stepped in it. 

David Dudrick: You know, uh, it's, it's to her great credit that she is not somebody who has hedged and careful, um, you know, she, she's ready to jump in.

David Dudrick: And, uh, that's something that I, that I, um, I loved and I love about, about her that, um, he wasn't content at that moment to tell me to sort of say, Oh yeah, you know, and that, that's fine. And sort of pat me on the head and send me on my way. Um, there, there was something both, uh, um, Bracing and full of, um, I don't know, in some ways it's a strange thing to say, but full of promise in her response.

David Dudrick: I mean, it was, it was, I found it to be almost comical, you know, what, what a thing to say to a, to a junior colleague. It's not [00:11:00] something that I would, I would say, um, uh, Yeah, I think that we, we, we did, um, sort of 

through 

David Dudrick: after that night after, after I think she, um, saw that I was, I was, you know, pretty serious about, about what I was thinking about, but not in a way that was self serious.

David Dudrick: Um, I think our relationship. You know, ended up sort of blossoming from there, ironically. 

Michael Lee: Let's get to the blossoming part in one second. And I'm going to ask one more question, which is a difference between her approach to this and her approach to you and Nietzsche's approach to the religion, which is, if I'm hearing you correctly, and tell me if I'm wrong, Nietzsche, as you characterize him, treats Christianity with the utmost seriousness and affords it a level of respect, even though he is deeply suspicious of the project.

Michael Lee: I'm hearing phrase like head padding. This is almost beneath contempt. It's not even [00:12:00] worthy of serious criticism and time. A kind of subtle, dismissive, contemptuousness, comical even, as you described her response to you, those strike me as very different approaches to Christianity or to the possibility of religious belief.

David Dudrick: It's a really good point. And I think that I'm, I, I think that her initial response to my, to my belief, was different than her eventual response. I think eventually, sorry, initially, I think that she was sort of treating it as though it was just sort of comical and ridiculous. But, um, you know, as, as we talked about it, um, even that very night, I think that, you know, she, due to her sort of deep commitment to Nietzsche, you know, was, was willing to take it, to take it seriously.

David Dudrick: Um, 

she was, um, I mean, I think that, that she understood. I understood that religion [00:13:00] and Christianity plays an important 

David Dudrick: role for, for many people. And though I guess I could have felt patronized by, by that, I, I, um, I sort of didn't. And the fact that she called it bullshit, the fact that she was, she was ready to see it, ready to tell me that she thought that it was false.

David Dudrick: At least that she thought it was false did bespeak a kind of, um, respect for me, if not for that, that particular belief, I mean, that she wasn't, she wasn't going to simply pass over it. 

Michael Lee: And she's honest about who she is and how she feels. There is something respectful about that as well, affording you the honesty of her convictions and in turn receiving the honesty of your convictions in an authentic conversation.

David Dudrick: That's just right. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. 

David Dudrick: That's just right. 

Michael Lee: Will you say more about the productive, the relationally productive, um, outcome from this collision of ideas? You said your relationship [00:14:00] blossomed, how so? 

David Dudrick: It's not long after that, that we, we started talking about Nietzsche and, and about our, our views of Nietzsche and how to understand Nietzsche and, um.

David Dudrick: She and I ended up, we ended up writing a book review together about a book that we had, uh, had both read. And, um, eventually we, we, we, uh, wrote not just a book review, but a book together. We wrote a book on Nietzsche, on, uh, on Nietzsche's beyond good and evil. Um, a book that, that tried to interpret what Nietzsche was saying and to try to do it in a charitable, a charitable way.

David Dudrick: Um, And, you know, she and I have been been co authors, um, and I'd say sort of, um, close friends, uh, since though, neither of our, uh, neither of our, uh, commitments with respect to Christianity has changed in any sort of fundamental way. 

Michael Lee: Does, does your difference in your respective [00:15:00] faiths, for lack of a better word, um, show or suggest any difference in the way that you approach Nietzsche or interpret Nietzsche?

Michael Lee: I know that the philosopher is one of the great misunderstood, as you mentioned, characters of our time. And so to find two people of radically different faiths and ideas who can co author a book on beyond good and evil or whatever else, and find a lot of symmetry between your ideas is kind of impressive.

David Dudrick: Well, you know, there is this temptation. I mean, I, I think that I have suffered from the temptation in the past of, um, of reading Nietzsche in such a way that. He, uh, he becomes kind of a, he becomes kind of a bogeyman or something like that so that, you know, he, he ends up, um, uh, being this like cautionary figure and I, I think in some ways I, I still think that he is, but, but there was a sense in which I, I had to, to really try and understand Nietzsche on his own, on his own terms [00:16:00] and in terms that, You know, we're, we're charitable and that, that was challenging to be honest.

David Dudrick: I mean, that, that, um, that was a shift, but it was, it was in part, I think, due to, to, um, To her brilliance and, and ability to sort of see things in Nietzsche that I came to see those things in, in Nietzsche as well. But I think there were other aspects of Nietzsche where, where I was able to contribute things that she hadn't seen.

David Dudrick: I mean, it did take us a long time to write this book. I mean, it was a nine year, nine year project. So it was, it was a long time and, and a lot of writing and rewriting, but, um, but I think it was worth it. 

Michael Lee: What do you think about, and this can be true of any kind of fighting faith, um, a secular fighting faith or religious fighting faith, but think about those who say, you know, believers shouldn't really associate with those who are, whether it's sinful or doubtful or people who associate themselves with unbelieving, right?

Michael Lee: [00:17:00] With, with a lack of piousness. 

You know, I, I, 

David Dudrick: I actually, I, I get it because when, when I was invited. You know, when, when she invited me to coauthor this 

book, um, I hadn't tenure yet and I had serious reservations about, about setting my 

David Dudrick: course working on, on Nietzsche. And I actually spoke to a, to a, uh, senior colleague at another institution who is himself a Christian and said, I don't know if I, you know, should I be doing this?

David Dudrick: Should I be, you know, sort of thrown in my lot here on trying to understand Nietzsche in the most charitable way possible? And, uh, and he said, absolutely, you absolutely should, because it's, it's important to see, it's important for all of us to be able to sort of represent those. with whom we disagree in the most positive light, not in order to come to agree with them.

David Dudrick: Um, but, but in order to, um, maybe to disagree with them more [00:18:00] effectively, um, even. And so I think that, I mean, I hope that that's, that that's right. Um, and I understand this idea of, of not, of not sort of, uh, being yoked with unbelievers in some, in some sense or another, but I don't know that, uh, that this quite counts for, uh, for such a yolking.

Michael Lee: I'm kind of I'm fascinated as I hear your story and I'm glad you began with your childhood and growing up in the church and then moving off to Notre Dame and then studying philosophy as a young undergraduate and then really dedicating your life to it and getting in debates like this with people who don't share your faith.

Michael Lee: And what I'm interested in is not on a necessarily you do this because it's productive that you engage with alternative points of view because it leads to blossoming of relationships and it really helps you reflect, but you seem fascinated by it, compelled by the possibility of. Let's say debate [00:19:00] of collision of ideas because it gives you and I'm gonna put words in your mouth But there's a literary critic named Kenneth Burke who talked about the value of perspective by incongruity And so you seem to have if I'm reading this a kind of magnetic charge, um, to this perspective by incongruity.

Michael Lee: Talk about that in, in your life. Why do you think that is? Do you agree with my characterization of this conversation? 

David Dudrick: Well, I, I do, although I think you're much too kind, but I, but I, but I, I hope that that's true. I hope it's true because I, I do feel this, um, You know, it's funny that you're able to suss that out.

David Dudrick: I do feel almost this compulsion to try to understand these different perspectives that are perspectives that I don't share and to try and to try and understand them from the inside. I mean, I think it's just, um, it really is one of the, one of the just. Remarkable things about human beings that, that we can, um, we, we [00:20:00] can to some extent at least transcend our own, our own perspective and, and see the world not completely, but, but to see the world to some extent as someone else does, um, or, or at least from a different, a different perspective, as you say, and, um, Nietzsche himself was, was, um, really thought that that was, yeah.

David Dudrick: You know, terribly important to be able to, uh, to do that, but he's not the only one. I think that Thomas Aquinas thought that that was important. And so did many other, um, uh, people in the, in the Christian tradition. And I think it's, I think, as you say, it's not even so much, it would almost be giving me too much credit to think that it was a moral, I mean, I think it's, it can be morally good, but my, but my desire to do it is.

David Dudrick: you know, sort of doesn't stem at least initially from some obligation or something like that. It's more like a fascination. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. [00:21:00] It's all, there's a desire and then we can have, I think the desire and I share it too. So maybe that's why I was able to kind of sniff it out, but the desire is one thing and then it's productive characteristics and why curiosity is good and the kinds of relationships that can enable and yada, yada, yada.

Michael Lee: That's another thing. So it's one thing to, to do the thing, to do the perspective taking Because it's just good, right? Like eating broccoli is good. I don't necessarily love broccoli, but I should eat more cruciferous vegetables or whatever they're called. And I might also just like, really like broccoli.

Michael Lee: And it just so happens that it's good simultaneously. And that latter seems more like, like the case here. And so. You can offer these post hoc rationalizations for why you do it, because it's good, but there's some, there's some kind of ineffable desire, right? Why does the cat want to sit in the box?

Michael Lee: You're like, I don't know, cats just like to sit in boxes sometimes. 

David Dudrick: Michael, I have to say, I find this a little discomforting, because, uh, [00:22:00] you know, I'm, I'm, I'm just surprised you sort of got this, because I, I, I say to people, you know, that I, um, I do think it's a good thing. And I think I can give a, I can give like a philosophical rationale and a moral rationale, but really it's, it's just that I, I just find it like, I just love doing it.

David Dudrick: It's, it's so interesting to think about how does Foucault see the world? I mean, my goodness, that's, that's, uh, that's, uh, uh, you know, another bridge, uh, you know, that I, that I can, I can cross and it's just a remarkable. I don't think, I don't think I thereby imperil my, um, my, my belief. It's, it's funny. I don't, I don't feel that way.

David Dudrick: I mean, I have, I have doubts. They're more, they're more about myself or something with respect to my faith, but, but not about the object of my faith that that makes any sense. I, I, um, I only find, uh, I don't know. I just, I, I, I find it almost to be somewhat, uh, you know, sort of [00:23:00] boosts my faith to be able to think this way.

David Dudrick: It's, it's just a remarkable fact about us. 

Michael Lee: And as we close, it reminds me a little bit of the way that we can respond to things that feel stressful to us as sort of enter a fight or flight or fall on a freeze scenario, or approach it with curiosity, with the idea that stress can be productive, or maybe we just have sort of a natural constitution or individual constitution that allows us to have a pretty wide window.

Michael Lee: As it comes to stress tolerance. And so many of us, when we find our faith, our belief, our relationship, whatever it is to be stressed, right. To feel stressed in that capacity, then we run from it or we try to fight it or we fawn over it, or we freeze about it. We don't approach it with charity. And with curiosity, it sounds a little bit like that's what you're doing.

Michael Lee: You're not necessarily threatened by these things. You're curious about why they believe the way they believe. And also perhaps see the possibility of one, learning something about the world, which you're deeply curious in. But two, perhaps there's an outcome in which the very thing you already believe is [00:24:00] strengthened by encroaching on things that are not it.

Michael Lee: And by things that deny it, 

David Dudrick: it's, uh, you know, I, I just want to say, uh, for the record, I have very little stress tolerance. Uh, it's just that I do have stress tolerance, I guess, with respect to this or something like that. Anything else in my life, though, I'm a mess. But when it comes to these, uh, you know, these other, these other perspectives on, on the world, they, They, that, that doesn't provide me with stress, but I do think you're right that, that, um, while I hate to counsel anybody to do it, I, I am sort of counseling people to do it.

David Dudrick: We're, we're trying to help people to be able to enjoy this kind of thinking rather than, as you say, you know, and to, and to, to engage with their, their curiosity rather than to feel, to feel threatened. But I know that that's a, that's a heavier lift for some people than for others as. As many other things are for me.

David Dudrick: So, 

Michael Lee: well, David, I really appreciate you bringing your infinite stress tolerance on when we disagree. 

David Dudrick: You know, thanks. Uh, I don't [00:25:00] know that anybody who knows me, I don't believe that last part, but it really has been a pleasure, Michael. 

Michael Lee: Thank you very much. Have a good one. Thanks, you too. When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee.

Michael Lee: Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. com