I mean, there are definitely things I am right about and am no longer entertaining opposing viewpoints. Covid is real and dangerous. Vaccines do not cause autism. My same sex marriage to my husband is good and valid.
Too true! I think the big difference is that you are so justifiably confident about those truths that you’d never feel the need to say “and no one will ever convince me otherwise”. 🙂
No, I do not think that ignorance is only a problem when people disagree with me (or you or anybody else). Ignorance is a problem when people disagree with reality.
And yes we all have different perceptions of reality. But there are still genuine provable facts out there. COVID-19 is a good example. It is an easy-to-confirm fact that it is real and dangerous. People are dying and continue to die. Choosing to believe that this fact is untrue is a distortion of reality, not an expression of opinion. And saying “no one will ever convince me otherwise” is an easy way to make sure that your perception of reality can never be challenged by actual reality.
We are all ignorant about something. In this comic, I mean to make fun of the people who want to stay that way.
What you describe is better called pigheadedness — a useful term, precisely because it is out of fashion. A good working definition of “ignorance” AS PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE IT is, “what you have and I don’t that makes me better than you”. Calling your opponent “ignorant” is usually no more than a cheap alternative to defending your own beliefs or choices. It marks the point in a conversation at which you need Proverbs 26:4 more than Proverbs 26:5.
I think this is a perfect test of character. And quite timely. It could be appropriate about just about anything, since nobody really knows for sure about all the facts. Time may bear out the facts on any given situation, or it may not. To be so certain of anything, based on available information, is true willing stupidity. Reality may not be what we think it is. The only absolute, is that there are no absolutes. Don’t be the angry chicken.
It’s not quite that simple. Consider these three statements.
1: “The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.”
2: “If the United States had not dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, WW2 would have been prolonged, leading to even more Japanese civilian deaths.”
3: “The United States was justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Statement 1 is the only one that can be proved by simple, observable facts. Statement 2 deals with “what might have been”, which requires creative thinking and demands the acceptance of free will, which is by no means easy to prove. Statement 3 requires reference to an ethical system to define what “justified” means.
Maybe it is better just to say, “Be honest, even with yourself.”
From the Jesuit spiritual writer Anthony de Mello’s “One Minute Wisdom” (New York: Doubleday, 1986), p. 70:
To a visitor who described himself as a seeker after Truth the Master said, “If what you seek is Truth, there is one thing you must have above all else.”
“I know. An overwhelming passion for it.”
“No. An unremitting readiness to admit you may be wrong.”
I really like the message in this chicken cartoon. It made me think of a number of people who parrot a media source convinced it is the absolute truth. Personally, I like what was inscribed on the zippo lighter of that guy from the X-files: “Trust no one”. In getting through life, I use some (not so common anymore) sense, and an innate sense of right and wrong. Maybe it’s a special gift I have. I have only love in my heart. Evil is not welcome in my life.
I mean, there are definitely things I am right about and am no longer entertaining opposing viewpoints. Covid is real and dangerous. Vaccines do not cause autism. My same sex marriage to my husband is good and valid.
Too true! I think the big difference is that you are so justifiably confident about those truths that you’d never feel the need to say “and no one will ever convince me otherwise”. 🙂
And yet that is precisely what he did.
You’re just displaying a case of “Ignorance: It’s only a problem for those who disagree with ME.”
No, I do not think that ignorance is only a problem when people disagree with me (or you or anybody else). Ignorance is a problem when people disagree with reality.
And yes we all have different perceptions of reality. But there are still genuine provable facts out there. COVID-19 is a good example. It is an easy-to-confirm fact that it is real and dangerous. People are dying and continue to die. Choosing to believe that this fact is untrue is a distortion of reality, not an expression of opinion. And saying “no one will ever convince me otherwise” is an easy way to make sure that your perception of reality can never be challenged by actual reality.
We are all ignorant about something. In this comic, I mean to make fun of the people who want to stay that way.
What you describe is better called pigheadedness — a useful term, precisely because it is out of fashion. A good working definition of “ignorance” AS PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE IT is, “what you have and I don’t that makes me better than you”. Calling your opponent “ignorant” is usually no more than a cheap alternative to defending your own beliefs or choices. It marks the point in a conversation at which you need Proverbs 26:4 more than Proverbs 26:5.
I think this is a perfect test of character. And quite timely. It could be appropriate about just about anything, since nobody really knows for sure about all the facts. Time may bear out the facts on any given situation, or it may not. To be so certain of anything, based on available information, is true willing stupidity. Reality may not be what we think it is. The only absolute, is that there are no absolutes. Don’t be the angry chicken.
It’s not quite that simple. Consider these three statements.
1: “The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.”
2: “If the United States had not dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, WW2 would have been prolonged, leading to even more Japanese civilian deaths.”
3: “The United States was justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Statement 1 is the only one that can be proved by simple, observable facts. Statement 2 deals with “what might have been”, which requires creative thinking and demands the acceptance of free will, which is by no means easy to prove. Statement 3 requires reference to an ethical system to define what “justified” means.
Maybe it is better just to say, “Be honest, even with yourself.”
“The only absolute, is that there are no absolutes.”
Tongue-in-cheek, I hope.
(Agnosticism is not self-consistent, obviously.)
From the Jesuit spiritual writer Anthony de Mello’s “One Minute Wisdom” (New York: Doubleday, 1986), p. 70:
To a visitor who described himself as a seeker after Truth the Master said, “If what you seek is Truth, there is one thing you must have above all else.”
“I know. An overwhelming passion for it.”
“No. An unremitting readiness to admit you may be wrong.”
I really like the message in this chicken cartoon. It made me think of a number of people who parrot a media source convinced it is the absolute truth. Personally, I like what was inscribed on the zippo lighter of that guy from the X-files: “Trust no one”. In getting through life, I use some (not so common anymore) sense, and an innate sense of right and wrong. Maybe it’s a special gift I have. I have only love in my heart. Evil is not welcome in my life.