I have been accused many times of being strongly opinionated, to the degree that I have offended many people in my lifetime, many of whom I love and admire. I have often projected my opinions, beliefs, and knowledge as indisputable facts, based upon my research, experience, intuition, and sometimes even off-handed thought. I have never lacked for confidence in myself. I was raised that way. It has served me well. However, that self-confidence has often fostered in me an attitude of arrogance, even condescension toward ideas that run counter and sometimes even parallel to my own.
When I first began to recognize this, in my late teens, my attitude was essentially, “like it or lump it.” As I matured, I began to try not to be so abrasive when expressing my opinions or countering another’s assertions. I would “try to put it kindly,” while telling people they didn’t know what they were talking about. I became condescending in my arrogance. Some folks call that tact (Tact: The ability to tell someone to go to Hell, and have them thank you for it). Later in life (I hope not too late), I began to realize that I am not always right, and that even when I am right at the moment, that can change. I learned that there is something I can learn from everyone, and further, that I needed to learn from everyone. I began to place more value on what others thought, believed, and knew, not only for my own education, but to help them add to theirs, if I could. I try to listen to their thoughts, offer my own, then take from it what I will and let them do the same. I’m still not very good at it. Old habits are hard to change. I find it easier while writing than in actual conversation.
Now, in my late-fifties, I have developed this overwhelming humility…yeah, right!
Better said, I have learned a few things over the years about what I know and what others know.
“…Think it Possible that You May Be Mistaken“
I once heard a quote from Oliver Cromwell that greatly affected me and has helped me soften my arrogance. He wrote to the synod of the Church of Scotland in 1650, “…think it possible that you may be mistaken.” I have learned over the years that no matter what the evidence indicates, whether scientific, empirical evidence, eye-witness, or other circumstantial evidence, everything can change. Things seen in the dark may appear much different by the light of day. A thing related by one eye-witness, may be supported or contradicted by additional eye-witnesses. Conclusions reached by analysis of hard evidence may be altered by other evidence later discovered. Evidence interpreted in the light of limited knowledge may not produce the same conclusions with increased knowledge. Consider the three blind men disagreeing on the description of an elephant while groping its form: One described it as being like a long, flexible hose; the second described it as being like a huge tree trunk; the third described it as being like a wall. They were all correct…and they were all wrong.
People Change Their Own Minds
You can’t change a person’s mind. They must do it themselves. You can’t convince someone they are wrong, no matter how overwhelming the evidence may be. People have arrived at their conclusions, beliefs, etc., through a process of thought, discussion, experience, decision-making, and other means, and they don’t toss those things aside easily. No matter how illogical or ill-conceived their ideas may seem to you, they have developed those ideas through the best mental resources they have at their disposal, or at least the best they felt necessary to allocate to the process (note that I did not say the best information available, just the best mental resources). No matter how correct, convincing, and well-founded your arguments may be, people are not going to give up their conclusions just on your say-so. It is a personal pride thing and is directly related to the natural survival instincts in human beings. It is not necessarily a bad thing, as it keeps people from being too easily swayed…as the waves of the sea. If not disciplined, however, it will inhibit personal growth on all levels.
In the final analysis, direct contradictory argument seldom works to anyone’s benefit. However, people can be led to change their minds. For instance, John (fictitious) says gravity has no effect on his airplane. “See? It flies, therefore it defies gravity.” You ask him to explain how it flies. He carefully explains that as the airplane flies the shape of the wings causes the air to flow faster over the wings than under, causing lower pressure above the wing, which lifts the aircraft, defying gravity. You ask if that is why he ties it down when he is not flying it. He responds, “Well, maybe gravity does have some effect on it under some circumstances.” So, he has started to realize that it is possible that he may be mistaken. He is beginning to adjust his thoughts and change his own mind in light of new information he is considering. In order to lead someone to change their mind, one must present information in such a way that the person desires to consider it. No one likes a slap in the face, whereas “a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.” A wise man once framed the couplet:
A mind that’s changed against its will
Is of the same opinion still
The Competition
Being “right” is more important to many people, subconsciously, than being correct. Many times people really don’t care whether their conclusions are based in truth or not. They are simply expressing emotions and making conversation. When you tell them they are wrong, they begin the competition to see who will end up the winner. In order to win, they have to be “right”. And you know what? It seldom matters who wins. Neither side is likely to change their mind. If you wish to effect any change, you must first determine what motivates people to say things. If you can determine why they actually say what they say, you have a chance of leading them to change their mind…or not.
Pick your battles well. If they are motivated by emotion or simply to show folks how intelligent they are, you are not going to win. The more absurd their argument and evidence, the less likely you are to win. And the more you argue such a point, the more absurd it will become, because people tend to present their best evidence first, and it goes downhill from there. It has little to do with truth, or knowledge, or any other rational matter. It has to do with winning the argument, being “right”, and thereby protecting themselves.
Condescension in Arrogance
For those who have, in fact, received evidence from outside the mortal realm, there is no conflict with science, insofar as science itself is concerned. There is a realization, however, that science is scratching a very small part of the mere surface of a very large sphere. For those who have not received such spiritual revelation, it is foolishness to disregard an entire category of evidence simply because they have not received it and arrogance to assume that all who say they have received such are gullible, uneducated, deceived, mistaken, or dishonest. There are some pretty smart and pretty good folks out there who are believers. Just look around. They are easy to find.
I remember something about a short story I was once told. It was about a young boy who learned, as he grew up, to talk to the animals and they would talk to him. When this became known among his friends and kinfolk they, at first, tried to convince him it could not be so, believing themselves to be helpful and charitable. Animals cannot talk to people, they said. Yet, as he maintained that he, in fact, could talk to them and they to him, their concern turned to rejection and they shunned and persecuted him. In his loneliness and wonder at this, the boy lamented, “How can you know that animals can’t talk, just because they haven’t spoken to you?”
What I think the person mentioned above was expressing, was his feeling that one who argues in favor of a religious ideology has no means to prove his argument and, therefore, no accountability, because the evidence is not real, whereas he must contend with evidence that has meaning in the real world. His statement was intended to distinguish between the making of a scientific argument and the responsibility one has to support his argument with true, factual information, as opposed to a religious argument that deals with evidence and conclusions he sees as simply ethereal, emotional, unprovable. He feels the entire religious argument and conclusion is, therefore, meaningless, except in ways which science has proven it to be beneficial to the human psyche and related health issues. He therefore feels there is no true responsibility or accountability associated with it. Although he tries to hide it, so as not to offend, it is often quite clear that he believes his superior intelligence allows him to see above and beyond religion. He believes that those who profess faith in God have closed their minds to science. I submit that the truth is quite the opposite. While most educated religionists with whom I am acquainted accept science wholeheartedly, my friend the scientist closes his mind to the infinite possibilities that lie outside what has been discovered by human kind. He prefers to wait until a scientist discovers things before he will believe them.
One simple definition of faith might be this: To believe in and act on things that are true, but have yet to be proven by science.
To properly evaluate the validity of an argument, one must properly evaluate and test the evidence and the application of the evidence to the conclusion. The proper evaluation, testing, and analysis of any scientific evidence requires adherence to very specific and restrictive protocols in order for the results to be deemed valid in the scientific community. Is it consistent for one to apply a lesser standard to test religious argument? No. One cannot simply make up his own rules and expect results consistent with those who have, in fact, followed the prescribed protocols and procedures, whether in science or religion.
The simple fact is, with regard to scientific and religious information, most of us must rely on information discovered by someone else. Proponents of neither discipline can legitimately disparage the arguments and evidence put forward by proponents of the other without having first conducted research of their own that is consistent with proper evaluation, testing, and analytical procedures and protocols pertinent to that discipline. Applying scientific analytical process to religious matters will produce no better results than the application of religious analytical process to science. They are not entirely unrelated, but science deals with that which has been discovered and can be quantified in this world. Religion deals with that which has yet to be discovered and may not be quantifiable in this world at this time. While science requires knowledge, religion requires faith. Both require comprehension and understanding.
Sometimes we believe our evidence, argument, and conclusions, and even intelligence, to be superior to someone else’s, when, in fact, they may simply be different, and all may change with further light and knowledge. To proclaim the evidences and/or conclusions put forth by anyone to be faulty without properly affording them the evaluation, testing, and analysis they require is simply arrogant. To attempt to be inoffensive and helpful while dismissing them as such, is condescendingly arrogant.
Conclusion
Things I try to remember: Always try to learn something from others. Accept and remember that no matter who they are and regardless of their circumstances, education, or their beliefs, everyone knows something I can learn from them. If I try to find out what that is I may be led to change my mind. Don’t be arrogant. And, above all,
“Think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
I believe in everything you said. Do you remember how many times I quoted that very same thing to you and your brother? I wish you well Tony and you are a wonderful man. I love you Mom