In Which I Lecture My Readers Endlessly While Using Lots Of Capital Letters

I'm fully aware that one of the most pretentious things one can do when publishing one's thoughts online (apart from using the word "one" as a pronoun) is to mistake the personal for the universally resonant. Specifically, it's a very bad idea to take your own experiences and present them as if everyone goes through exactly the same thing.

Well, in this post I'm going to avoid that in a very clever way - I'm going to use experiences that aren't even mine and present them as universally resonant while addressing my readers in a patronising tone. Clever, eh?

To be fair, it is probably true that everyone will, at some point, have to face a challenge to their beliefs. These beliefs may be of any kind, religious, political, more generally ideological, even beliefs about the best way to run a business. There are several strategies that can be used when faced with these challenges, and I'm going to go through a few of them here.

La La La I'm Not Listening
The simplest way of dealing with a challenge is to dismiss it outright. I hardly need to say that this is not a very good method. Even if you don't have to think about the challenge for a while, it will come back eventually, and it will probably bring a few friends. If you've used it more than once on a single issue, it's time to move on to a new strategy. Even worse is to use this method in a debate - unless you're debating a complete moron, and if you are then for goodness' sake get a hobby, you will be demolished and your opinion will hold no weight whatsoever. Beware the variants of this method, Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad (repetition of the basis of your original belief even if this repetition has absolutely nothing to do with the challenge) and Let Me Get Back To You On That One (getting rid of the challenge with no intention of ever addressing it), as they are surprisingly easy to use without realising you're doing it.

Corollary: The "That's Not Even Worth My Time" Approach
If a challenge is so obviously wrong that it would be a waste of your time to even consider it, then it is probably OK to dismiss it outright. The problem with this approach is that an argument that sounds like complete rubbish might turn out to be valid after all - you can bet that a lot of scientists said "Continents? Drifting around? Yeah, right," or words to that effect. In general, only use this approach if the challenge is not even coherent (along the lines of "turkey cabbage gizzards ate my brain").

Yeah, Well, Yo Momma's Fat
I really hope that will be the first and last time I ever type those words in this blog. Anyway, this method of dealing with a challenge is more formally called an Ad Hominem attack. It involves rejecting a challenge on the grounds that the source of the challenge is unreliable. This is another poor method to use, as it again doesn't address the underlying challenge, although it may be suitable in the extremely short term because it will at least make you feel better. (Possibly.) This method is much more commonly used than you might think, and is particularly insidious in that even if your reason for thinking the source of the challenge unreliable is entirely accurate, you still haven't adequately defended your belief. For example, suppose you read something by Richard Dawkins claiming that Christianity is a Bad Thing because of the Crusades. You can dismiss this by saying that Richard Dawkins is an utterly useless theologian and should go back to biology where he can, you know, actually make a contribution. And you'd be absolutely right to say so. However, you need to address the claim itself, for example by pointing out that the Crusades were an example of the misuse of religion in the name of force in the same way that the forced sterilisation of over 64,000 people in the United States between 1907 and 1963 was a misuse of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, not a direct outgrowing of the beliefs themselves.

Hah! They Didn't Close This Parenthetical Statement And This Invalidates The Argument!
If your gut feeling is that the challenge made to your beliefs is wrong, a more useful approach is to go through the challenge until you find an aspect of it that's wrong. Given that arguments with wrong elements in one place are likely to have wrong elements in other places, it's very possible that the first mistake you find will invalidate the whole challenge. Be wary, though, of dismissing arguments too quickly. To use the previous example, although it's true that the Crusades can't be used as proof that Christianity has been a force for evil throughout history, the Crusades themselves must be faced as evidence that Christianity can be dangerously misused, and steps must be taken to ensure that that kind of thing doesn't happen again.

Yes, I Do Require This Library Desk Until October, Thank You
By far the best approach to take when faced with a challenge is to exhaustively study it. Take it to pieces, look at every element, and compare it to your current beliefs honestly. Although this process will be pretty quick for some beliefs ("playing tennis is more fun than playing badminton", for instance, can be verified or knocked down in a couple of hours), for big and complicated beliefs (political philosophies and religious beliefs, especially) you're probably looking at a much longer process. Researching the background of each element, or talking to people who have researched it, is always a very good strategy. It's also worth noting that you don't need to come to a decision on all elements simultaneously - putting off decisions until later is fine, provided you're willing to face them eventually.

I Don't Agree With This So I'm Going To Invade Iraq Hit Someone To Create A Diversion
No, this is not a good strategy.

Maybe You've Got A Point
If, after going through the above options, you find that the challenge to your beliefs was valid, change them. It is not a sign of weakness to change your mind. Make sure that it's the right thing to do, though - what's more, it is not a bad idea to leave off making wholesale changes in attitudes or beliefs until you're sure on all elements, rather than switching beliefs as soon as you reach a tipping point one way or another. The reason for this is that long-held beliefs are often comforting, and it can be painful leaving them. (For me, realising that I should not be supporting the Conservative Party's goals was not especially painful. For you, maybe.) That said, if you realise that your current beliefs are so wrong that they're actively damaging you or someone else, that's probably a good opportunity to change them sharpish.

Hold On A Moment
Yes, changing back again is also fine, but if you're doing that without any new information coming to light it's probably a sign that you didn't go through the research stage properly. Try it again.

If all of this sounds too much like hard work, then OK, try to forget about the challenge to your beliefs and get on with your life. It is worth remembering, though, that even though a ship might be huge and beautiful and comforting, recommended by thousands, if it's got a huge hole in it then running from end to end will not help you. The only safe place to stand is what we technical sailor people call "not on the ship".