‘If we hold our beliefs so passionately, with such certainty that we are right and with such absence of “doubt”, how can we ever hope to enlighten and change the minds of those with opposing views?’
____
Not long ago on the weekly conference call moderated by the publisher of The Good Men’s Project, participants engaged in a conversation about how to discuss passionately held beliefs with people who hold conflicting beliefs with equal passion. Perhaps that complex sentence calls for examples to crystallize the issue.
- How should someone who believes that abortion is a woman’s right to control her body discuss the issue with someone who believes abortion is the murder of an innocent child?
- How should someone who believes that Israel is unnecessarily oppressing the Palestinians discuss the occupation (even that word is disputed) with someone who believes that Israel is protecting its very existence against terrorists who would use a Palestinian State to attack or to terrorize Israelis?
- How should someone who believes that police brutalize and kill blacks with guns and choke holds because police believe that blacks are generally thugs, discuss the question with someone who believes that police act reasonably to protect themselves in situations fraught with danger that require split-second decisions which can’t be second guessed?
- How should someone who believes that humans are causing climate change that endangers the planet discuss the issue with someone who believes that there is no evidence to support that claim and that climate change is the inevitable result of natural causes?
- How can we discuss evolution with someone who believes in revelation?
♦◊♦
These are a few of many issues that create so much heat in the minds of believers that light from opposing views rarely enters our minds to allow rational analysis. On the conference call referred to above, some participants readily admitted that they could not discuss one or more of these issues with opposing believers because they felt there was no rational support for opposing beliefs.
However, one participant pointed out something that should have been obvious, but which I found enlightening. If we hold our beliefs so passionately, with such certainty that we are right and (the opposite side of the coin) with such absence of “doubt”, how can we ever hope to enlighten and change the minds of those with opposing views? Isn’t the essence of debate the hope of changing the mind of someone we believe is wrong?
♦◊♦
Perhaps equally compelling; if, as many liberal minded people believe, “doubt frees the mind, faith chains it to unprovable belief,” how can we justify our own absence of doubt?
The answer proposed by the enlightened participant was that we should practice putting ourselves in the minds of the “others” — try to silently adopt their point of view without preconceiving it as wrong, and then find non-judgmental, non-threatening ways to discuss the beliefs.
Perhaps I am mis-paraphrasing the participant. I hope he comments below and continues to enlighten us.
Join the conversation by commenting below.
♦◊♦
Photo—Vic/Flickr
♦◊♦
The problem with most people I observe is they don’t possess the right attitude when it comes to discussing ideas and making intellectual progress. People are more interested in finding others that share the same beliefs, pushing their own beliefs onto others, or boosting their own egos. This is something that I’ve noticed for quite a while and with such severity that it harms our ability to progress as a society. In that respect, it’s very rare to find who I’d call a “truth seeker”, but as written up in one of the posts on my site, these are the… Read more »
“We should practice putting ourselves in the minds of others….”
Isn’t that Debate Team 101? One of the first assignments is you are supposed to take up a stand on an issue that may be conflicted with your true convictions and defend it to others who may be doing the same…
Don’t lawyers do this all the time depending on who their clients are?
I would also caution against the idea of false equivalence. Not all arguments have two valid sides.
Oh Bob, what a difficult thing to tackle. On those five specific issues though, 2, 4, and 5 seem to have largely empirical bodies of evidence leading to specific conclusions. And even if folks don’t want to look at the numbers, world opinion has largely congealed around specific conclusions that are supported by the numbers. Abortion? I won’t touch it here. As far as institutional racism in our criminal justice system, the numbers don’t lie. That said, every cop is a human being and every situation unique. Thanks for the provocative questions.
Ben
My work is focused on beliefs, and changing the beliefs that no longer work for you. All beliefs should have an “expiration date” like food. After 2 or 3 years, your belief (in anything), is probably in need of improvement, just like updating your software. Even something as big as belief in God could use some refinement, some sharpening, some new experiential verification. The problem is this: ALL beliefs are self-verifying. Since our beliefs act like filters in front of our eyes, we see verification of our beliefs everywhere we look – regardless of the belief. If you believe “people… Read more »