One of my most basic axioms is that there can only be one truth and one standardof right and wrong as far as empirical facts as well as ethical standards go, but that the limited vision and knowledge of human beings makes us unable to know absolutely what that truth or thatethical standard is; we can only approximate it in our minds. If this is true, how does one explain the incredible diversity of opinions regarding what is true as well as what is ethical? Why the clash between Creation and evolution, between various religions, and between supporters and opponents of the death penalty, abortion rights, or other political and moral issues?
I believe that we humans, for all our intelligence, are still limited in our minds as well as our preceptions of reality. We can only know so much or sense so much and thus when we form opinions based on our knowledge and preceptions, we are prone to error. The problem comes when clashes between people with different opinions occur. Often, debates result in which efforts are made by both sides to show that the other side is in error. Usually, however, most supporters of both sides refuse to budge in their positions, and so the debates prove fruitless. Why is that,if we all live in the same universe, use the same senses, and sometimescommunicate the same ways? What's stopping us from reaching the same conclusions?
I think the primary factor in people stubbornly clinging to an opinion, even if it is highly questionable, is that a community has formed among holders of that opinion, and there is the ever present fear that being willing to change your opinion to fit all the facts you know would lead to one being ostracized by that community. To reinforce the social bonds of that community, its leadership will put out propaganda, distorting the facts and the issues to demonize the ones opposed to the goals and beliefs of the community, even going so far as to accuse the opponents of being dishonest and unfair, without any clear evidence for this. This gives doubting members of the community all the excuses they need to put aside their doubts and remain in the community.
As an Honorable Skeptic, I find that totally unacceptable. Over the course of my life, I've been in and out of several communities, having been a Southern Baptist, an agnostic, a Baha'i and an agnostic once more. Sure, leaving those religious communities when I became disillusioned with their teachings was painful, but in the end I felt being liberated from unfounded dogmas was worth the agony. Sadly, most people seem unable to make that transition. I consider them weak. Meanwhile, they consider me disloyal and without firm principles, which only shows the depths of their own delusions. It was BECAUSE of my principles that I abandoned them and I had more to lose socially than gain from doing so.
Whatever.
©2009 Dale Husband, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, January 16, 2009
Last modified: Friday, January 16, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Dale Husband only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dale Husband is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Dale Husband of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Dale Husband |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-17 14:47:16
Speaking as a member of a community that is very much in the minority, does not live in a particular region of the country, and which rarely has more than a handful of members in any given regional community, I can assure you that your hypothesis is 100% wrong where I am concerned. If you are correct that there is only one truth, then your hypothesis must therefore be 100% wrong.
The notion that I hold onto my libertarian beliefs because I'm afraid of ostracization if it abandon them can only be described as laughable. The pressure to confirm is very much in the opposite direction from the one I travel in.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2009-01-18 19:16:42
Thanks for commenting, Walt.
The fact remains you are a member of a well established community (libertarians) within the larger community of the United States. Often, a smaller community will maintain itself by an attitude of opposition to the larger community and reinforce that attitude through separation of some kind, even if that separation is more psychological than physical. I've noticed that the Libertarian Party, while running many people for public office since it was founded in the early 1970s, has not yet succeeded in actually electing anyone to a federal office, not even a single member of Congress. Even Bob Barr, who ran for President as a Libertarian last year, was a Republican when he served in Congress. And Ron Paul is someone who ran for President as a Republican last year, but is also libertarian in his views. There seems to be a barrier to actual Libertarian Party members serving in Congress, and that concerns me.
When I look at the positions of the "libertarian" members of the Nolan Chart web community, they seem to be mostly at the far corner at the top. Of course, the chances of Libertarians gaining power would increase if their party would moderate most of its positions and open itself to a more diverse membership, but those who favor this may be accused by some hardcore members of "selling out" and that the dissenters are not "real" Libertarians. You don't call that ostracism? When friendships end within a smaller community, it can be painful for the one rejected, even if he is accepted by a larger community. Change is always painful, as I have understood from my own life's experiences.
When I speak of absolute truth or absolute rightness, I do not refer to any one position of the Nolan Chart. Obviously, most Libertarians think the uppermost part of the chart is right and the others are wrong. But how do they know this? History shows that even in democratic societies, absolute freedom appeals to very few and that people naturally turn to government for enforcement of laws, providing of services, and acheivement of some of our greatest accomplishments. Would we have achieved putting men on the moon in 1969 through private means? I don't think so. There was no material profit in that.
So I consider political dogmatism, in the form of assuming any one part of the Nolan chart is right for all societies, to be destructive. Rejection of dogmatism of all kinds is an absolute of mine. I regard truth as being found through empirical means, not through rationalist methods.
Posted By: Larry Brown
Date: 2009-03-30 12:00:54
>" Rejection of dogmatism of all kinds is an absolute of mine. I regard truth as being found through empirical means, not through rationalist methods."<
I have to go along with you on this Dale. Actually I think we come closer to truth when we weed out those things that are false, rather then looking for things that support our beliefs. I always question the methods used to arrive at a conclusion. Usually what I see is a positive methodology which simply reinforces a belief adding more fuel to the believers dogmatic assertions. But it doesn't demonstrate the assertion as being true.
I consider political dogmatism to be in the same vein as religious dogmatism. I find this mostly with conservatives who live by a set of canons put forth by Russell Kirk in the 1950's. He gave the movement it's name. Now we see another would be conservative evangelist in Mark Levin putting out a "conservative manifesto". Canon's?...manifesto's? These are dogmatic belief systems no different than any religion. In order to call oneself a conservative, those principles of belief must be followed, like being a catholic, or a fundamentalist of one kind or another. But the problem with them is that none of them can be demonstrated as being true. When put to the task of defending them, the argument becomes circular, and the methodology is used to justify itself, which of course is illogical. It's like saying, "how do I know the Bible is true? Because God says so. How do I know God says so? Because it's in the Bible". In the end the argument faces the delemma of dogma vs infinite regression. Ultimately the conservative or justificationist must say, "Here I stand!". The rationale for that stand isn't based on anything more then an emotional connection to a principle which cannot be demonstrated as true.
I find Libertarians holding positions that I don't understand. The basic premise is the privatization of virtually everything. I'm waiting for the suggestion of privatizing the air that we breath to be the best answer for a cleaner environment.