Whose opinion is the most meaningful?

[Doran]

This morning, at the hotel where we met, my mother and I were awakened at 6:30 to the sound of a barking dog two rooms down. We were both too annoyed to go back to sleep, the yapping canine notwithstanding. So, we talked (a good thing).

 

We are *almost* opposites in our political views and with regard to numerous other stances that one might be able to measure on a liberal to conservative scale. I applaud my mother for asking questions and for appearing to seek explanations for things she feels she does not fully understand. Yet, when we have these discussions, I am keenly aware that, when she poses a question, what she really wants is a discussion of what she already believes. She wants justification, affirmation. The opinions she values most - those she says make the most sense to her - are those that come closest to her current beliefs.

 

On at least one occasion, the same was said of me regarding a post here. Yes! I am cognizant of the fact that I am not dissimilar. I think it's true for many of us. Maybe even most of us. Maybe it's human nature. Some might feel more certain of their beliefs because they have never wavered from them, or because they have questioned them and still come to the same decision. However, having changed some of my views, over the years, from those held in large part by my parents, I feel that I have had more opportunity to see (live) both sides of some equations and that I therefore have a more complete view. Isn't that ironic? :)

 

Anyhow, my conversation this morning coupled with some of the controversy here while I was away brings me to ponder how it is that we respond to opinions which differ from our own. How often do we come at a question truly ready to receive the answers that come? Conversely, how often do we simply want to hear what we already know? I suppose we are in the latter group quite often, especially as adults. Yet, if this is the case, how is it that our opinions are ever swayed? I'm not sure if it's possible to leave religion out of this discussion (I could say the same of politics), and it's not essential to do so. But, I don't know that it should be the primary focus. Your replies may prove me wrong. :D

 

Expound on this idea, if you would please. Be honest. Perhaps even cite an example of a time, preferably a recent time, when you found yourself changing your opinion on a subject. I'm interested to learn.

[Sharon H in IL]

There's the story of the man who comes to the monastery on the mountaintop to seek wisdom. The monk who answers the knock at the gate graciously invites him in, listens to his request, and serves him tea. The monk pours the seeker a cup of tea, but keeps pouring after the cup is full. The tea runs over the cup, the table, and onto the floor. The seeker is alarmed, and jumps up. "Why did you keep pouring when the cup was full?"

The monk calmly answered, "You are the cup. You come here asking for wisdom but you are already too full of answers. In order to gain wisdom, you must first empty yourself."

 

A lesson in the value of humility.

[Doran]

There's the story of the man who comes to the monastery on the mountaintop to seek wisdom. The monk who answers the knock at the gate graciously invites him in, listens to his request, and serves him tea. The monk pours the seeker a cup of tea, but keeps pouring after the cup is full. The tea runs over the cup, the table, and onto the floor. The seeker is alarmed, and jumps up. "Why did you keep pouring when the cup was full?"

The monk calmly answered, "You are the cup. You come here asking for wisdom but you are already too full of answers. In order to gain wisdom, you must first empty yourself."

 

A lesson in the value of humility.

 

 

 

It seems we've scared everyone away, fearing we'll pour hot tea in their laps!

 

:001_rolleyes:

[Tammy]

I really don't get that analogy...but I am probably just dense, LOL!

[3lilreds in NC]

Well, mine is, of course. :smilielol5:

 

When I come here, I *think* I am usually ready to hear the answers I get.

 

I think it's natural to ask questions looking for affirmation though - I know I do that a lot. I want to know someone else agrees with me, that what I think/how I feel is normal.

 

I would like to offer something more profound, but my brain isn't there tonight.

 

ETA: Over the weekend I asked a question about a friend of mine. I'd offered to have a little birthday party for her girls, because she couldn't afford it and I thought it would be nice. She had rescheduled so many times that I wanted to say something to her; I was getting irritated with the way she was acting. But, Pam reminded me that I'd already said what I needed to (told her we didn't have to have the party if she had so much to do) and that it would be better to offer some grace, that she sounded a little flaky but not like she was trying to jerk me around, which is how I was feeling.

 

I was ready for someone to say, "Yes! You need to have a talk with her!" Instead, I was told to be patient and gracious. I didn't really want to hear that, mind you. I was pretty annoyed. However, I kept my mouth shut, was able to discuss the situation with my friend later and all was well. I think her kids had a great time, and that's all that mattered.

 

If I know I'm not ready to hear that I need to change - I won't ask the question, I think. If I am *that* sure I'm right I probably don't feel the need to seek someone else's opinion.

 

I think I am missing an important part of your question.... but I will have to revisit this in the morning, I think.

[Kris]

It seems we've scared everyone away, fearing we'll pour hot tea in their laps!

 

:001_rolleyes:

 

Or maybe not. Looks like there's another "chat thread" somewhere because I've been getting "server is too busy" for quite awhile. It remains to be seen if this even goes through.

 

I am pretty set in my ways, but I really enjoy discussing things with people who don't agree with me -- and yes, I have changed my mind at times. Especially when it comes to religion and politics, I love to hear what other people are thinking and why -- as long as the discussion is civil, I'm a willing participant. I haven't been able to find much of that around here, though -- except when my Sweetie and I are talking. We agree on quite a bit, but there are some things that we're so opposite on, I'm surprised we get along as well as we do. But my neighbors seem to think that they need to "fix me" and when it doesn't work, they start yelling and calling me names. So much for the civil discussion. :D

[8filltheheart]

I really like hearing and learning about other people's perspectives simply b/c it helps me understand how other people think/believe. I guess I don't normally enter into conversations in the mindset of changing their minds or their changing mine. I see it more as an opportunity to learn to understand eachother's views.....whether they are similiar or opposing.

 

I have learned a lot and have had to question myself and go in search of more answers in order to educate myself as to why and what I believe.

 

Honestly, very few people I know IRL (or virtually) have perspectives that parallel mine. I guess I have learned to be very comfortable being different.

 

Anyway, there are always nuggets I take away with me from fruitful discussion. The person that I had the discussion with may never know that......it is like the old analogy of planting a seed.

[Kathleen in VA]

Doran,

 

I think you are right when you suppose that it is human nature to want to hear an affirmation of what you already believe is true. I know I do this. As I was reading your post I was reminded of something I read (I think it was in Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth) about our beliefs being consistent what we experience in our lives.

 

An example might be when someone believes that the universe makes no sense because there are so many senseless tragedies. Their experience leads them to draw this conclusion. Of course, others are sensible of senseless tragedies as well and draw different conclusions. Perhaps those folks have experienced enough order and goodness in the world to believe there must be some sense to it in spite of the tragedies.

 

I also think that we enjoy finding "kindred spirits" - those people who see the world with much the same perspective we do. It's a cozy feeling:D. And it validates our conclusions - we feel like we must have evaluated correctly if someone else agrees.

 

When we come across a person who does not agree with us it requires energy to process why they don't agree and lay it side by side with what we have believed to that point (and may or may not go on believing). Again, I think that occurs within the context of our own personal experience. What we accept as truth must be consistent with what we live each day.

 

As far as being willing to receive differing viewpoints, I think it may be uncomfortable to hear something that challenges your deeply held beliefs because that would bring a great deal of instability to your life. It is unsettling to hear someone say they do not agree with you pov - really unsettling and I think people absolutely dislike that feeling.

 

It is the same sort of feeling one has during an earthquake. Your foundation, what you trust to remain solid and unchanged, is rumbling beneath your feet, perhaps tossing you to and fro, and your mind has trouble processing it. I've had that sensation when I was in a car accident. You expect to reach your destination when you get in your car and begin driving. Your mind cannot support the notion that you are spinning across a 4-lane highway after having been hit from behind by a drunk driver at 95mph. When that happened to me I distinctly remember thinking, "This isn't happening to me. I am dreaming. I will wake up."

 

I do think, though, that if what the other person is saying lines up better with your daily experience of life than your current beliefs you may actually be open to changing your mind (it's happened to me). If you can listen carefully, weigh the other person's opinion, but then think that it doesn't fit your daily life you will just dismiss it as a false idea.

 

For me, I was one confused person for the first 24 or so years of my life. Nothing seemed to make sense. I was abused as a child, my parents were divorced - I was very confused! I went to church (Baptist) during high school and that didn't even make sense to me. I heard so many different versions of Christianity, some of them at odds with the others, that I couldn't make sense of any of it. I had a friend in high school who was studying Zen and he took me to downtown DC to meet his Zen master and I even tried meditating there. I was really searching for a world view that answered ALL my questions.

 

It wasn't until after I graduated from college and tried several other religious avenues that I finally came to believe that Christianity was the truth about the world - not the Christianity I had been exposed to in all the churches (there were many) I had been to up to that point but Christianity that includes belief in The Doctrines of Grace (often referred to as Calvinism, but inaccurately so, since Calvin held many beliefs I reject. The Doctrines of Grace are also called The Five Points of Calvinism and are known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.) For me, this worldview was the only one that made sense and was consistent with what I had experienced in my life (and still is).

 

If someone presents a pov that doesn't line up with what I accept as truth now, I often can *understand* how they reached that conclusion because through my life I remember having come to the same conclusion, but I still am able to see how my present beliefs make more sense (to me, at least:D).

 

Your question is very probing and I'm not sure I understood it correctly, but that is my conclusion on the matter, fwiw.

[SFP]

I've been reading a Hilary Mantel article on reading/writing. She asks, "How do you live life without stories - live in just a single narrative, and that one your own?"

 

Refusing to consider life from someone else's perspective, seeking only opinions that mirror your own is just as limiting. Who'd want to live that way?

[Stacia]

when she poses a question, what she really wants is a discussion of what she already believes. She wants justification, affirmation. The opinions she values most - those she says make the most sense to her - are those that come closest to her current beliefs.

 

....

 

Expound on this idea, if you would please. Be honest. Perhaps even cite an example of a time, preferably a recent time, when you found yourself changing your opinion on a subject. I'm interested to learn.

 

Well, to a certain extent, I think everyone has times like that (when you want to hear a confirmation of what you already believe). Especially when you're ready to head out to a nice event & want to know if you look nice, lol!

 

However, I like to think & hope that I am open-minded to other opinions & ideas. Often, I will hear things that I had never, ever thought of it in that way -- and I love having those a-ha moments where I get to see & learn a new way to see things. Times like that often expand my possibilities, give me new ways to see or experience things, and so on.

 

The first memory I have of seeing something that had never occured to me: I was a very obedient, well-behaved child. My sister came along (5 yrs. younger than me) & I remember the day I saw her arguing back to my dad. LOL! It had never occured to me to even do that, kwim???? Not that I followed her example, but I didn't consider her right or wrong either. It was just different & opened my mind to a lot of possibilities that I had never even considered previously. I guess I'm one of the observer types who takes in loads of info & constantly processes it, adopting change as needed or wanted.

 

Remember when Myers-Briggs personality types were all the rage (lol)? I love stuff like that. I can remember reading all the things about my type (INTJ) & there was a particular part that really resonated w/ me because I felt that it really expressed an often misunderstood part of me:

 

"INTJs present a calm, decisive, and assured face to the world, though they may find it difficult to engage in social conversation. They usually don't directly express their most valued and valuable part: their creative insights. Instead, they translate them into logical decisions, opinions, and plans, which they often express clearly. Because of this, other sometimes experience INTJs as intractable, much to the surprise of the INTJ, who is very willing to change an opinion when new evidence emerges."

 

I do think of myself that way -- totally willing to change my opinion on something when new evidence emerges. I guess I'm one of the 'gray' people who rarely sees things as black & white. I'm usually willing to consider different possibilities. In the end, I may or may not change my actual stance, but I always like pondering the possibilities, having my mind opened to things I may never have even considered or heard about previously, seeing if the change (or a variation of the change) might work for me & my life, then either altering what I do/say/think or continuing on my same path.

 

Not sure any of that really helped your line of discussion, but those are my thoughts for now, lol.

[Sophia]

A couple years ago, some friends of mine started a home church.

Knowing nothing about home churches, I immediately dismissed it as radical and doubted it's authenticity.

 

Fast forward to a series of events this past summer that have led me to the book Eklessia, and suffice it to say, my opinions have changed.

 

The authors of the book build their case on scripture, history, and the original Greek words used to describe the early church.

 

I am dying to talk about this book with with an impartial party~alas! Not one to be found!

 

Traditional pastors I know are alarmed and convinced I've fallen prey to bad teaching.

The arguments they bring up are so weak even I, a non bible scholar can poke a hole in it within minutes.

I don't want to really discuss it with someone who's already in a home church, because I know they agree with the authors (well, I did call someone to tell her how much I'm enjoying the book.)

 

So, I guess I'm looking for someone who's not threatened and can discuss a new (old) idea intelligently-not emotionally or defensively, y'know?

 

And it's hard to find that person, because to agree some points in the book are valid would ...I don't know...make them feel they had to change in a way they don't want to?

To be honest, there are some points in the book I question and wonder if: it's biblically sound but needs to be developed further, or...it's not.

But I find myself defending the whole thing because others are ready to dismiss it so easily!

Argh!

So; what was your question?:D

Ah, yes....some of my views have changed over the years (I was a diehard liberal in college-not anymore), and I believe I am still learning and therefore prone to change in some areas-not those that would compromise my faith.

[Doran]

I guess I don't normally enter into conversations in the mindset of changing their minds or their changing mine. I see it more as an opportunity to learn to understand eachother's views.....whether they are similiar or opposing.

 

 

I really like this. And, I agree. I also don't enter into conversation with the idea that I'll change a mind or have mine changed (well, most of the time I don't ;)), and I truly enjoy learning about others' views.

 

In terms of a personal dilemma or question, though, I know I'm inclined (moreso than you and others, probably) to ask for or to read others' opinions as I allow my own to coalesce. I realize this isn't everybody's style, and I occasionally see it as a weakness in myself. But, for those who are similar to me or in the times that we are truly asking, not just conversing, I wonder how easy it is for us to really listen or to act on the answers given if our minds are more made up than we admit.

[umarider]

I have difficulty handling situations where someone comes at me w/ the "I think you should do ____" approach. It really gets my back up and my initial reaction is to shut out the non-confirming opinion. But late at night, when my world is quiet, I can't help considering those opposing opinions/ideas and weighing the truth in them. It's late at night that my mind can be changed.

[Amy in Orlando]

I really like hearing and learning about other people's perspectives simply b/c it helps me understand how other people think/believe. I guess I don't normally enter into conversations in the mindset of changing their minds or their changing mine. I see it more as an opportunity to learn to understand eachother's views.....whether they are similiar or opposing.

 

I have learned a lot and have had to question myself and go in search of more answers in order to educate myself as to why and what I believe.

 

Honestly, very few people I know IRL (or virtually) have perspectives that parallel mine. I guess I have learned to be very comfortable being different.

 

Anyway, there are always nuggets I take away with me from fruitful discussion. The person that I had the discussion with may never know that......it is like the old analogy of planting a seed.

 

:iagree: In enjoy reading a lot of the discussions on this board, even when I don't participate. I often find myself thinking of others' thoughts long after a thread is dead.

 

IRL, my mom and I sound a lot like you and your mom, Doran. We are so completely different in our views on many things. But, we truly like each other and talk about politics and religion often, not so much with the intent of changing each others' minds (is that apostrophe in the right place?), as to understand each other. At least that's how I see it - I'll have to ask my mom. We have had "discussions" where it ends with one of us saying "Enough." But overall, it's friendly and interesting stuff.

 

I guess I just don't feel the need to change other people's point of view on things (not suggesting anyone else does either). There are some people with whom I prefer NEVER to discuss politics, "big" ideas or religion. I'm sure everyone knows people like this. They belittle your ideas or spend lots of time finding fault. It's just too much energy to expend, imo.

 

It's like homeschooling, a bit. If someone asks me a sincere question about it, I'm happy to spend time talking to them about it and suggesting resources. If someone "challenges" me with an uninformed question at a bbq or something, I just pass the bean dip. For me, it's just a matter of weeding out who really wants to hear my opinions or if someone is just looking for a debate.

 

Not sure I answered your question ... :tongue_smilie::

[8filltheheart]

 

So, I guess I'm looking for someone who's not threatened and can discuss a new (old) idea intelligently-not emotionally or defensively, y'know?

 

And it's hard to find that person, because to agree some points in the book are valid would ...I don't know...make them feel they had to change in a way they don't want to?

 

I think the above part of Sophia's post are important. (I'm not picking on you Sophia!!! But, I think this is the crux of Doran's question.)

 

Do you have to agree with someone in order to have a conversation?

 

Can a conversation not be simply that of two people sharing completely converse opinions? Does it have to be an affirmation of your POV?

[Mama Lynx]

I *try* not to post a question without being ready to hear truth, or at least different answers than I may be expecting. Unless it's a frivolous question, if I'm asking it it's usually because I'm out of thoughts and things aren't working.

 

Sometimes I forget to be thorough, though. It's funny. If I've forgotten, and really just asked the question to get affirmation, I realize it within the first couple of responses. Certainly I've come here, or gone to my best friend with questions, have gotten answers I didn't expect, and have realized that those answers were right, and my thinking was wrong.

 

Politics is so much trickier, because I never feel like I really understand, or have good enough information. With politics I so often feel like I have to just pick what makes the most sense to me, because all of the information is manipulated. I don't have the time or the energy to sort it all out. I rely a great deal on my dh's opinion - not because he's my husband, but because I know that his mind is very quick to grasp the implications of things that my brain is foggy on; that he has an incredible memory for people, policy, history, and events; and that he looks at things very logically. I don't always agree with him, and I have even changed his mind on a few points; but in general he knows far more than I do, he reads much more politics than I do, and has way more of a clue than I do, so he is my primary teacher. However, I'm unlikely to come, say, here, and allow my political opinions to be changed, because in a large way they're not my political opinions. There are a few issues which I feel I own, which I understand well enough to feel secure, and there, if you are logical and have good information, we can talk and you might convince me. But the rest, honestly, you can't, because I don't know enough to fully examine my own knowledge in those areas.

 

But I know that, and hey, I'm honest about it, with you and with myself. Frankly, that kind of political thinking is often dangerous, and it's why I don't post political topics on my blog, and don't often join in the threads here. I don't want to further discourse that I can't really further; I don't want to propagate political discourse that is more a matter of *feeling* and *belief* than a thorough understanding of the issues. Better to keep my mouth shut, and my ears open.

 

I feel on firmer ground with religion. I am not generally threatened by opposing religious views, and am quite open to ideas I've never considered. I can listen openly. You might change my mind. You might not ;-)

 

But anyway. 1) Doran, you are a wise woman; 2) I think it's human nature to seek affirmation, and supportive opinions, and to not want one's boat rocked; 3) we're better off for facing the rocking - but it's hard, and we're not always up for it. There is a time, and a place.

[Nestof3]

I don't ask questions about things I already have answered for myself. I am quite firm in my belief and opinions on certain matters (particularly politics and religion). I have in the past changed my opinion about things. I was once opposed to homeschooling, believe it or not.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I do believe I like to do like your mom and prove my opinions to myself. In doing so, though, I've often ended up changing my opinions. Does that make any sense?

 

What is funny is that it often has happened more than once even within the same topic, for example, say government or discipline. It happened so profoundly religiously that despite searching to change again, I kept proving I was right in the first change. That was something of a revelation in and of itself.

 

I think you're right in that it's human nature to hold on to beliefs, to want them upheld, proven, etc. And yet, I think there are those that truly want some sort of truth so will find that BECAUSE they need reasoning, proof, etc. And of course there are some that will stubbornly hold onto a belief no matter how nutty it is, how much proof there is against it, how unreasonable the very thought is. But I think those people are fewer than some might believe. They probably just have different priorities and are working out othere beliefs instead of the ones we hold dear :)

[Doran]

I think the above part of Sophia's post are important. (I'm not picking on you Sophia!!! But, I think this is the crux of Doran's question.)

 

Do you have to agree with someone in order to have a conversation?

 

Can a conversation not be simply that of two people sharing completely converse opinions? Does it have to be an affirmation of your POV?

 

It seems I'm just replying to your replies, but it's kind of an accidental flow of thoughts that are ending up that way. For the record, everyone's input so far has been super. I'm enjoying the feedback very much and YES, you're all getting at the point.

 

The only thing is, I think I'm talking more about avoiding the trap of asking a question as if we are looking for opinions -- as if we are seeking -- when in truth we are simply wanting to validate our own already formed thoughts. I'm asking if we're ever really very open or if we are, more often, just fishing for compliments (ha!). Of course it depends on the topic. These are just musings left over from a day spent with my mother and from a lifetime of being, like Stacia, more inclined to see things as "gray" rather than black and white.

[8filltheheart]

I really like this. And, I agree. I also don't enter into conversation with the idea that I'll change a mind or have mine changed (well, most of the time I don't ;)), and I truly enjoy learning about others' views.

 

In terms of a personal dilemma or question, though, I know I'm inclined (moreso than you and others, probably) to ask for or to read others' opinions as I allow my own to coalesce. I realize this isn't everybody's style, and I occasionally see it as a weakness in myself. But, for those who are similar to me or in the times that we are truly asking, not just conversing, I wonder how easy it is for us to really listen or to act on the answers given if our minds are more made up than we admit.

 

 

Oh, no, I can definitely relate to that!!! The old.....why did you ask for my advice if you didn't want to hear my answer???!!!" Yep, that is harder.

 

Honestly, it is harder for me as a parent having those types of conversations with my adult child than with any other individual. It can be painful b/c my nurturing/protecting side wants to dominate over his POV in order to prevent him from making poor decisions. He comes asking with all the answers in his head and really only wants me to affirm him. (exactly like the analogy about the cup flowing over)

 

Sometimes when I hear an answer that I really don't want to hear and there is a stab in my heart from it, after it digests for a while I am very thankful b/c that is probably the truth that I needed to hear.

 

If it happens with other people that completely ignore me or get resentful b/c of my answer, I just try to accept it for what it is......worth the penny for my thoughts. ;)

[8filltheheart]

We keep passing eachother in posts. :)

 

I guess my response is like Nestof3 and Mama Lynx.....I don't ask for other people to affirm my POV on things I am convicted about. There are some topics that I am simply never going to change my mind about. Period. I am willing to listen and discuss. But they are beliefs that are intrinsic to who I am.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I think I'm talking more about avoiding the trap of asking a question as if we are looking for opinions -- as if we are seeking -- when in truth we are simply wanting to validate our own already formed thoughts.

 

This I do not do.

 

Now, I may ask a question, talk myself through it, and come up with a clearer thought with or without the help of those I ask, but I never set up a question with the answer for myself already in view.

[Sharon H in IL]

I always want to hear the best argument for and against an idea. If someone is articulate and informed, great! Bring 'em on! If the best argument is one I hadn't considered before, then I have to re-evaluate my belief and either it becomes stronger or it is changed, for the better.

 

If a blowhard has an opinion to share, well . . . I give them all the attention they deserve. ;)

[Jenny in Florida]

In general, I am open to listening to and considering any opinion that is intelligently and thoughtfully expressed. As a matter of fact, liberal though I am, I have a couple of much more right-wing radio talk show folks I really enjoy listening to, because they make me think about WHY I believe or advocate some of my positions. Sometimes, I enjoy simply sharpening my own argument by pointing out the holes in theirs, but frequently, a well-thought out and respectful commentary from "the other side" forces me to re-think the ideas with which I came into the party.

 

And in the time I've been hanging out here and "meeting" so many wonderful people with whom it seems I should have so very little in common, I've refined a lot of my preconceived notions about conservative Christians, and conservatives, in general.

 

However, there are times and situations in which I'm just not ready to hear anything that doesn't align with my own thoughts and feelings, generally when I'm under a lot of stress and coping with something intensely personal and emotional. Even then, I may eventually allow something that is expressed gently and respectfully to sink in, but in the moment, I just don't want to hear it.

 

Fortunately, I think I have matured to the point at which I usually know what I need to hear and have learned to ask for it. So, if I'm truly trying to think through a situation and am open to all suggestions and ideas, I'll throw open the doors and invite all opinons and options. If I'm really just feeling fragile and bruised and want someone (or many someones) to give me an emotional band-aid and tell me it'll be better tomorrow, I'll say so.

 

Now, if I ask for that band-aid and someone tells me something I don't want to hear, I do tend to get pretty cranky . . .

[Stacia]

After pondering a bit more, I have a little more to say, lol....

 

Although I consider myself to be very open-minded & willing to entertain change for myself based on what I hear, there is something that I tend to be pretty firm about -- I get a little irritated at people who are *not* open-minded to hearing something different than what they believe, not willing to consider other ideas, or change. So, in that respect, I'm just as firm in my stance as the attitudes that bug me, lol! Does that make sense?

 

Another area where I'm firm in my belief: I firmly believe that there is no international task force that has dictated that there is one, and only one, good & proper way to hold a pencil. And, even if there is a task force, they do not have the knowledge or power to declare it so. It's one of my pet peeve issues. I really don't think any arguments to the contrary will convince me otherwise. :D

 

Just pointing out my own hypocritical faults in this line of reasoning....

 

(And, no, I'm not trying to change this into a goofy or silly thread w/ these comments.)

[newlifemom]

A couple years ago, some friends of mine started a home church.

Knowing nothing about home churches, I immediately dismissed it as radical and doubted it's authenticity.

 

Fast forward to a series of events this past summer that have led me to the book Eklessia, and suffice it to say, my opinions have changed.

 

The authors of the book build their case on scripture, history, and the original Greek words used to describe the early church.

 

I am dying to talk about this book with with an impartial party~alas! Not one to be found!

 

Traditional pastors I know are alarmed and convinced I've fallen prey to bad teaching.

The arguments they bring up are so weak even I, a non bible scholar can poke a hole in it within minutes.

I don't want to really discuss it with someone who's already in a home church, because I know they agree with the authors (well, I did call someone to tell her how much I'm enjoying the book.)

 

So, I guess I'm looking for someone who's not threatened and can discuss a new (old) idea intelligently-not emotionally or defensively, y'know?

 

And it's hard to find that person, because to agree some points in the book are valid would ...I don't know...make them feel they had to change in a way they don't want to?

To be honest, there are some points in the book I question and wonder if: it's biblically sound but needs to be developed further, or...it's not.

But I find myself defending the whole thing because others are ready to dismiss it so easily!

Argh!

So; what was your question?:D

Ah, yes....some of my views have changed over the years (I was a diehard liberal in college-not anymore), and I believe I am still learning and therefore prone to change in some areas-not those that would compromise my faith.

 

Sophia, you can talk to me if you want. I do not go to a home church and have not read the book, but since I started homeschooling I have changed a lot of views about life and church and would love to hear more. Not necessarily going to start a home church though :D. But is does sound intriguing(sp?) Interestingly, while a lot of my opinions on raising kids, how church is 'done', school even vaccinations have changed, my core beliefs in Christianity have not. I am not great at apologetics but I am not afraid of people who have evidence to disprove Christianity. So far it never has. (Including the Da Vinci Code, and Origion of the Species which I read)

[umarider]

The only thing is, I think I'm talking more about avoiding the trap of asking a question as if we are looking for opinions -- as if we are seeking -- when in truth we are simply wanting to validate our own already formed thoughts. I'm asking if we're ever really very open or if we are, more often, just fishing for compliments (ha!). Of course it depends on the topic. These are just musings left over from a day spent with my mother and from a lifetime of being, like Stacia, more inclined to see things as "gray" rather than black and white.

 

I think that both situations occur. At times, we seek confirmation of our ideas/opinions/choices... other times we seek alternatives. Sometimes we're even desperate for alternatives...(2nd medical opinions come to mind, or discussing a situation within a support group) And hopefully, through the people w/ whom we converse, we receive a small supply of options to consider. Think about literary discussion groups... I could read a book and interpret it one way while you might see it entirely differently. We share our opinions and hopefully both come away with more insight and perhaps more curiousity.

[laylamcb]

We keep passing eachother in posts. :)

 

I guess my response is like Nestof3 and Mama Lynx.....I don't ask for other people to affirm my POV on things I am convicted about. There are some topics that I am simply never going to change my mind about. Period. I am willing to listen and discuss. But they are beliefs that are intrinsic to who I am.

 

I think that this is key. I think that some of those core beliefs actually can and probably will change in one's life--I speak for myself and my own experience here--but it's a slow process that takes place internally over a lifetime. Answers from a message board to a single question--even really insightful answers! :001_smile: --are not going to change those core beliefs. They might be a part of the change process or an impetus for it, though. YKWIM?

[8filltheheart]

I don't agree. I do believe people have core beliefs that they have reasoned through and will not change. For example, I believe in God. No one will argue me out of that belief. I believe all life is sacred, from conception to natural death. Again, no one will argue me out of that belief b/c it is tied to my core belief in God, etc.

 

My core beliefs, in turn, are the glasses through which I make decisions. I love to learn about all different POVs. But my actions and decisions remain true to my conscience which is regulated by my core beliefs.

[Doran]

I always want to hear the best argument for and against an idea. If someone is articulate and informed, great! Bring 'em on! If the best argument is one I hadn't considered before, then I have to re-evaluate my belief and either it becomes stronger or it is changed, for the better.

 

If a blowhard has an opinion to share, well . . . I give them all the attention they deserve. ;)

 

 

Reading this I see that perhaps this is more of where my mother is than I give her credit for. She so appreciates a well reasoned argument and respects the person who can offer it. I'm just not sure she remembers to listen quite as well when the points of view being offered don't align with her own. But, since she continues to ask the questions (often the same ones), she is probably doing more listening than I think.

 

Your last sentence made me laugh. But it also captures what I think happens to me, my mother, others quite often - that is that we might label someone a "blowhard" because we're sure their opinion is nothing but hot air.

 

At the heart of this post is, I'm realizing, that I want to pay closer attention to my personal responses. I want to work on being a better listener. Isn't it so true that the qualities that most irritate us in others are usually qualities that we ourselves possess?

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

 

If I know I'm not ready to hear that I need to change - I won't ask the question, I think. If I am *that* sure I'm right I probably don't feel the need to seek someone else's opinion.

 

 

 

This is the way I feel. If I'm asking questions, I want to hear others opinions. If I don't accept the opinions right away, but ask for clarification, or bring up counter arguments, it is because I want to see the how other person's point of view answers those questions. I'll even go to more neutral outside sources if I haven't heard enough to answer my questions.

 

My final opinions are based on my synthesis of all the available info. Those opinions are important to me. They are the hardest to change. I rarely bring them up in conversation unless someone asks about them. If someone asks my opinion about something, I assume they really want to know, so I give it to them. If they didn't really want to know, they shouldn't have asked. :)

 

 

But most of the time I know I have not finalized an opinion because I realize I haven't yet made the effort to look into the question thoroughly enough to know exactly what I'm talking about. Those are the things I ask questions about the most. I am also quick to say, "I'm not sure, but here is what I've heard other people say."

 

I don't think I am in the habit of trying to get others to validate my opinions at all. I think it would irritate me if someone did that to me.

[Kathleen in VA]

I don't agree. I do believe people have core beliefs that they have reasoned through and will not change. For example, I believe in God. No one will argue me out of that belief. I believe all life is sacred, from conception to natural death. Again, no one will argue me out of that belief b/c it is tied to my core belief in God, etc.

 

My core beliefs, in turn, are the glasses through which I make decisions. I love to learn about all different POVs. But my actions and decisions remain true to my conscience which is regulated by my core beliefs.

 

This is my viewpoint as well. It took me a long time to get to the point where I determined what made sense to me - I struggled through a lot to reach my conclusions. When I finally came to a place where I felt I had settled many of the questions of life - who am I? where did I come from? why I am I here? what's the purpose of suffering?, etc. I didn't and don't feel the need to explore further. Now all I do is view the world through these "glasses" as it were.

 

If I ask a question on these boards I am most certainly looking for the "right" answer and will be open to hearing all povs. I recently asked about how to handle door-to-door solicitors. I felt I had behaved reasonably to one who came uninvited to my door the other day, but my children were shocked by my behavior. I was truly perplexed at that point as to why I had had the response I did. I thought maybe I had been out of line after all and needed to hear more input. Most agreed with my stance and some did not. But after hearing everyone's viewpoint I felt affirmed that I had done the right thing considering my specific circumstance.

 

Another time there was a discussion about women being beautifiers of their households (or something like that). I held a firm belief about this - a belief that I had come to after lots and lots of reading and discussion beforehand. Some of the posts on that thread shocked me, but I was most shocked to find that my own belief had been based in a very romanticized notion of womanhood from the 19th century. Someone posted a link to an article by Nancy Pearcey - an author I trust - about the subject which changed my mind completely. I actually dropped my previously held belief and adopted a new one. It just made more sense to me:).

 

I think if I'm looking for validation I go to those I already know will support my pov. How narrow is that?:) But if I have a question, I am usually just unsure what to think and want to hear lots of opinions so I can weigh them all and determine then, if I am able, what I really believe about it.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm pretty set in my opinions, but I do like to get into a good discussion and really understand where the other side is coming from. I've been known to admit I'm wrong ;)

 

But usually I don't engage in a discussion to alter my own convictions, but to get a better handle on others'. i can be all over a discussion w/o taking it too personally or needing the other side to agree. The rhino skin helps a lot, lol.

 

as i mentioned in another post, my best friend is an atheist --our "joint motto" is My faith/ lack thereof is not dependent on how another perceives it.

[Nestof3]

You know, Sophia, we home church but not because we read an article about another family doing it, nor did we do it to follow a trend. We began looking (and looked for 2 years) after studying scripture regarding elders and such. I remember using some Critical Thinking Press books regarding history, and one of the questions they use to question a "side" or a "source" was did the person have something to lose if they were wrong about their position. A pastor has a job to lose, so you will find a precious few who would even study scripture on this matter. I find most people pattern "church" after what they grew up with or as a swing away from what they grew up with -- without even studying the new testament church epistles.

[Kathy in MD]

I find the longer I've held an STRONG opinion or belief, the harder it is to change it, because I've had lots of time to consider the pro and con arguments. To change it quickly requires good, **solid**, new evidence generally. OTOH, as one poster stated, sometimes it just takes a lot of time with lots of small "jabs" at it.

 

I still enjoy listening to good, well reasoned arguments. I understand the other person/group better and respond to them as fellow humans better. Sometimes I'll modify my opinions, or even change them, based on what I hear.

 

However I find that I treat opposing "pure" ideas and opinions different than when I'm trying to solve a problem. IOW, I may disagree vehemently with you on how our economy got into this mess, but I'm more likely to listen to opposing ideas on how to solve the mess. I've been a problem solver my entire life, and I've learned that the best solutions generally try to incorporate opposing ideas.

 

The OP also asked for a time when I changed my opinion. There was a politician that I didn't approve of because of his policies, philosophies and one or two illegal or unethical actions. I didn't give him credit for any good points for over a decade. It wasn't that we were of different parties, we were just coming from different extremes of the same party and I much preferred his primary opponent. Years later a much worse politician came along and I recognized all the good points the previous one had. I still disagree with much of his philosophy, I just respect him more because he DID have reasons and an underlying philosophy for many of his actions.

[Doran]

However I find that I treat opposing "pure" ideas and opinions different than when I'm trying to solve a problem. IOW, I may disagree vehemently with you on how our economy got into this mess, but I'm more likely to listen to opposing ideas on how to solve the mess. I've been a problem solver my entire life, and I've learned that the best solutions generally try to incorporate opposing ideas.

 

 

Yes, it's one thing to be interested in a discussion from a distance when it is a topic that intrigues or maybe affects us in a broad sense (referring to the example of the economy). Perhaps we'd like to collect enough data to be able to understand what the solutions might be, or to state our opinion on the matter logically. But, to me it seems different if it's a topic in which we have a vested personal interest, if it strikes a nerve in that it calls us to question specific behaviors or ideals we hold dear.

 

Thanks, Kathy

[SheilaZ]

It depends on how big of an issue it is. On politics and religion, I am unwavering. I came to my faith and my political beliefs on my own and I don't sway from them. Nor will I try to sway you to my beliefs.

Yours are just as valid as mine.

 

But on the day to day stuff, I am open. I'll admit I was wrong. I'll consider another opinion. I'll put myself in their shoes. I'll chose to not be offended. Some times I fail at it and I have to apologize. But I do try.

 

I will tell about my DH's recent epiphany. He has always been against pagan religions. Not that he hunted them down and burned them at the stake of anything....but he had a negative opinion based on his own prejudice. His mind was closed.

I have a friend who is pagan. (actually a couple of them) This one in particular has been very supportive and a good friend to me and to my sons. He's seen this and has come to acept that pagans are not automatically evil people.

And it was pretty easy. We just didn't discuss it. Over time he came to know her as the person and not the "pagan" because that is how she has always presented herself.

 

When people get so tied up into being a (insert any label), they often stop considering other people. It's like they are always looking to fight the world. And most of the time, the world doesn't care what they are.

[Phred]

I voted for Ronald Reagan. I voted for Bush the first... twice. I used to be unswervingly Republican. I balanced the things I felt were good against the things I felt were bad and... well... for all the nonsense, the Meese report, the anti-abortion stuff, the Iran-Contra sneaking around... I still wouldn't have wanted anyone else in the White House when Challenger blew up. Or negotiating with the Soviets.

 

But... times change. Today's Republican party, it seems to me is doing more harm than good. So my vote goes elsewhere. I make the decision based upon the evidence, not the name of the party. At least I like to think so.

 

Same with religion. Did a deity just 'poof' it all into existence? Or did complexity arise from simplicity? Well, we see, all around us that's what happens. Simplicity comes first, then we get complexity. But religion would have us believe that the most complex thing ever imagined, God, came first. His mind would be the largest data repository ever imagined. Since it would know the location of every sparrow, and every atom, it would have to be bigger than the universe itself just to hold the knowledge of the universe in every state from the beginning of time to the end. I see no evidence of such a being anywhere. Outside this universe? There is no outside that can come inside... so that's deism, isn't it?

 

People ask me to find just one error in the Bible. Just one. It's in the first sentence. "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the Earth." Except we know the universe is about 18 billion years old and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They did not come about at the same time. So I base my belief upon what is evidenced to me... not what has to be interpreted. (Please don't bother jumping all over this, I know that believers have their own opinions of this, and that's fine. This is mine.) I can't accept the Bible as accurate history of the universe, nor can I accept any other historical tract. It's all our ancestors trying to make sense of the world around them, and as such, they are marvelous works of mythology.

 

Then there's evolution. I can clearly see how man evolved. And how other species have evolved. Transitional fossils do exist. Transitional species do exist. Hopefully we are a transitional species. I accept evolution, I don't believe in it. So when others get all hot and bothered about trying to blow holes in the theory... they just need an education. If you understand it, you can't not accept it.

 

Ahh... but there's the issue. Sometimes we have one thing that stops us from looking past it. In the case of evolution, that thing is God. Many people think that they can't believe in both. Obviously... some people have gotten past that.

 

I've changed my stance many times because the evidence has made it impossible for me to continue to hold my ground. I would hope that anyone would agree to that.

[Jenny in Atl]

When people get so tied up into being a (insert any label), they often stop considering other people. It's like they are always looking to fight the world. And most of the time, the world doesn't care what they are.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Yes! We box ourselves in with labels and judge not by actions but by color, faith, political leanings, etc. I hate the "group/sheep" mindset that so often keeps us from really knowing each other.

 

Good for your husband - that he looked beyond his misgivings and mistrust to see your friend for who she really is. :grouphug:

[Doran]

I've changed my stance many times because the evidence has made it impossible for me to continue to hold my ground. I would hope that anyone would agree to that.

 

 

You're saying you base your decisions only on what you deem is factual information? That the opinions most meaningful to you are those that you can verify through evidence? Any conclusion you reach (let's consider that which falls outside the boundaries of religion and politics as well as that which falls within) has come about after thorough investigation of the facts? If I'm understanding you correctly, this sounds like a very scientific way to evaluate a topic. My problem with this, personally, is, that I can't easily get past the myriad topics for which clear evidence does not seem to exist. I can, in so many cases, see both sides of an issue and can see evidence of truth in both.

[laylamcb]

I don't agree. I do believe people have core beliefs that they have reasoned through and will not change. For example, I believe in God. No one will argue me out of that belief. I believe all life is sacred, from conception to natural death. Again, no one will argue me out of that belief b/c it is tied to my core belief in God, etc.

 

My core beliefs, in turn, are the glasses through which I make decisions. I love to learn about all different POVs. But my actions and decisions remain true to my conscience which is regulated by my core beliefs.

 

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. :001_smile: I meant that, for example, many of us (like me) haven't believed in God from our earliest memories. Over time and through various means (and IMHO, through the work of the Holy Spirit) we came to that belief; our beliefs about life changed then, and a post on a message board is just not going to change that belief.

 

We weren't born with these "core beliefs" (a very good phrase, by the way); we have, over time and experience, as you expressed, already reasoned through them. They have evolved within us and are solid. They might still evolve or mature (not go from "there is a God" to "there is no God," necessarily, but more like "I have a better understanding of who God is and who I am in relation to Him"), but even a well-reasoned, logical, civil discourse on a forum isn't going to shake our core beliefs.

 

Isn't that what you meant? Because that's what I meant. :001_smile:

[Phred]

You're saying you base your decisions only on what you deem is factual information? That the opinions most meaningful to you are those that you can verify through evidence? Any conclusion you reach (let's consider that which falls outside the boundaries of religion and politics as well as that which falls within) has come about after thorough investigation of the facts? If I'm understanding you correctly, this sounds like a very scientific way to evaluate a topic. My problem with this, personally, is, that I can't easily get past the myriad topics for which clear evidence does not seem to exist. I can, in so many cases, see both sides of an issue and can see evidence of truth in both.

Like what for example?

[lovemyboys]

Over time he came to know her as the person and not the "pagan" because that is how she has always presented herself.

 

When people get so tied up into being a (insert any label), they often stop considering other people. It's like they are always looking to fight the world. And most of the time, the world doesn't care what they are.

 

it's obviously good that your dh sees past the label to the real person and her value as such.

 

But the other side of this is that your friend 'has always presented herself' as the "pagan" so she's been reinforcing that label. I wonder if she's doing a bit of the same thing, iow, putting the label out there so that she deals with the reactions first before people get to know her. Or is that exactly what you were saying?:001_huh:

 

Doran, this is a great discussion. I like to think that I get more open-minded with the years because I keep learning and meeting more people with different life experiences good and bad. But there are people with whom I've learned it's best not to have a political or religious conversation because they are quite set in their opinions. And for me, travelling has definitely broadened my understanding of life...also the good and bad of our country, much more good than bad:) despite what politicians and pundits say.

 

I realize that the more experience I get with something, the more informed my opinion is with it and therefore, my comfort with that opinion, and that definitely includes the struggling. If you're not willing to consider or even hear someone else's views on something, how comfortable are you with your beliefs really? Doesn't that suggest that on some level you're afraid that you'll be shaken from those beliefs? I'm talking here about reasonable discussion, not vitriole or "blowhards!":001_huh:

[SheilaZ]

it's obviously good that your dh sees past the label to the real person and her value as such.

 

But the other side of this is that your friend 'has always presented herself' as the "pagan" so she's been reinforcing that label. I wonder if she's doing a bit of the same thing, iow, putting the label out there so that she deals with the reactions first before people get to know her. Or is that exactly what you were saying?:001_huh:

 

I must have been bad at explaining it.

She's only presented herself as my friend. If you ask her, she'll tell you she's pagan. Just like if you ask me, I'll tell you that I'm a lapsed Catholic who is supposed to be Presbyterian.

We (friend and I) rarely talk about religion at all except for making plans for holidays. It just doesn't come up.

Not on the radar.

[Spy Car]

I can, in so many cases, see both sides of an issue and can see evidence of truth in both.

 

I can relate to this. Perhaps less in terms of "truth" vs "falsity" as in trying to balance goods and evils of one choice against the goods and evils of another.

 

Life is complex.

 

Bill

[Doran]

Like what for example?

 

Okay, I'll cite some personal examples as long as no one (including you) tries to pick a side and argue that point. :D

 

These are topics about which I do have an opinion. For the most part, I have chosen a "side" on which to stand, but I can't look my opposition in the face and tell them they have no leg on which to stand, because the evidence, as I see it, isn't black and white.

 

1. Like global warming being directly resultant from human existence/interference on the planet -- even though I come down on the side of believing that humans are a huge part of the problem, I can't say that there is no evidence to the contrary or that we know enough to say this is an absolute.

 

2. Like improving health by eating no sugar (or eating no meat, or eating only organic vegetables, or..). I can see the merits in the arguments in favor of these choices, but evidence also suggests that diet is but one small part of the complicated system of human health.

 

3. Like media being a cause of the uncontrollable nature of our sexual expression. We choose to limit our kids' exposure to mass media more than most (not only for this reason), and I have a general opinion that "times have changed for the worse", but I can't find convincing data that supports the theory. I'm not entirely convinced that we are any more uncontrolled now than we have ever been across human existence.

 

So, in each of these examples, I have an opinion, yet I can also pretty easily see that there is another side that I may not have given careful study. These examples probably actually do have empirical data which I could choose to collect and analyse more precisely. They don't even come close to the more subjective areas like styles of parenting, postponing career to enjoy life when you're young, early to bed or early to rise (;)).

 

As Spy Car notes below - I see life as quite complex.

[8filltheheart]

Doran,

 

I wanted to thank you for posting this yesterday. It was timely for me.

 

Today my adult child experienced a personal crisis. It stemmed from an issue that I totally respect the decision he was making even though I didn't really agree with it. (one of those where I can respect the other side even though my view is different kind of things. ;) ) Keeping all of these responses in mind today, I tried to remain totally detatched from the subject matter and instead I tried to stay focus solely on supporting him emotionally.

 

As I wrote last night, when it comes to my older kids......this is the area I struggle the most. So, thanks for having me think about it last night b/c the philosophical reflections helped me today.

[Stacia]

I can't say that there is no evidence to the contrary or that we know enough to say this is an absolute.

...

As Spy Car notes below - I see life as quite complex.

 

I totally know what you are saying, Doran (and Spy Car)! I think the 3 of us must hold similar viewpoints.

 

As for using the word "absolute".... Quite a few years ago, dh & a friend & I were having a discussion on beliefs about various things, etc.... I basically ended up saying that I feel there are no (or very few) absolutes in the world -- we could always learn more, or not know everything, and therefore, nothing we know is absolute. Dh (at that time) seemed to think that was a rather depressing way of looking at the world. The conversation turned to the sun rising every day, right? (As in, the Earth rotating & facing the sun every day, even if we don't 'see' it.) For dh & friend, that was an 'absolute' -- it has always happened & will continue to always happen. For me, well, I don't know all of past history, nor do I know the future. I can't say that the sun will always rise, kwim? Hence dh's classification of my views being depressing. I don't think that's depressing -- it's just that I don't know. In all probability, yes, the sun will rise. I expect it probably always will, at least during my lifetime. But, that does not mean that it actually will.

 

So, that was my long-winded way to say...

 

I have beliefs & opinions on things, based on what I currently know, but I am open for those things to change. I guess that in many areas of life (not necessarily talking about religion here), I could term myself 'agnostic' (without knowledge). I think humans in general will always have a vast body of unknown knowledge. As such, that's why I tend to think of things as gray rather than black & white.

 

Don't know if I'm veering too off-topic or not or just blathering on, but figured I would continue chiming in.... LOL.

[Phred]

Excellent. So... there are many examples like this. But what you do, what I do and what I would suppose any person does is they look at the issue and they evaluate it. They look at the evidence and they see that one side or the other has more evidence in favor of one side or that the evidence in favor of the other side is faulty in one way or another. Then you decide.

 

Granted, there are many gray areas in many of today's issues. But we find our way to taking a stance on most of them by listening, reading and trying to understand them. At least, many of us do.

 

A problem that I see in today's society is that there is an overwhelming source of what is called "evidence" that isn't. You have people coming down on just about every issue you've mentioned with the absolute hammer of God. "Sexuality must be portrayed in this manner because God says so." "The earth isn't doing anything that will be harmful to man because God is in control." "You can eat anything that is on the earth because God put it here for us to enjoy." Or any other permutation thereof... It skews the process. Our concept of sexuality is changed by what people *think* God wants. That's why we can view thousands of murders on TV annually but show one nipple at the Superbowl and people go ballistic. You see what I mean.

 

And this harms our kids. One out of four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD. Something to be proud of. Since, for the last eight years, the public schools have taught them nothing but abstinence only, we're seeing how that works.

 

We have, at our fingertips, more data than at any other time in human existence. Isn't it time we started to use it instead of relying upon ancient mythology or what some preacher says?

 

Ok... once more I shall be accused of dragging religion into a conversation where it wasn't. But it belongs here. How many people make their most important decisions based upon it? We see, here on this board how every single moment of daily life is credited to an all-powerful deity. How can we NOT bring religion into it?

 

 

 

Okay, I'll cite some personal examples as long as no one (including you) tries to pick a side and argue that point. :D

 

These are topics about which I do have an opinion. For the most part, I have chosen a "side" on which to stand, but I can't look my opposition in the face and tell them they have no leg on which to stand, because the evidence, as I see it, isn't black and white.

 

1. Like global warming being directly resultant from human existence/interference on the planet -- even though I come down on the side of believing that humans are a huge part of the problem, I can't say that there is no evidence to the contrary or that we know enough to say this is an absolute.

 

2. Like improving health by eating no sugar (or eating no meat, or eating only organic vegetables, or..). I can see the merits in the arguments in favor of these choices, but evidence also suggests that diet is but one small part of the complicated system of human health.

 

3. Like media being a cause of the uncontrollable nature of our sexual expression. We choose to limit our kids' exposure to mass media more than most (not only for this reason), and I have a general opinion that "times have changed for the worse", but I can't find convincing data that supports the theory. I'm not entirely convinced that we are any more uncontrolled now than we have ever been across human existence.

 

So, in each of these examples, I have an opinion, yet I can also pretty easily see that there is another side that I may not have given careful study. These examples probably actually do have empirical data which I could choose to collect and analyse more precisely. They don't even come close to the more subjective areas like styles of parenting, postponing career to enjoy life when you're young, early to bed or early to rise (;)).

 

As Spy Car notes below - I see life as quite complex.

[Doran]

 

We have, at our fingertips, more data than at any other time in human existence. Isn't it time we started to use it instead of relying upon ancient mythology or what some preacher says?

 

 

Yes, this makes sense assuming one approaches decision making from a scientific perspective -- one who uses data more than feeling. And, assuming "we" are smart enough, or inclined to actually seek, find, and interpret the data. Yet, gut instinct, or moral code, religious conviction, or whatever you want to call it is still one of the primary ways people go about deciding what they want to believe. Like it or lump it.

 

How can we NOT bring religion into it?

 

"We" can't, because many of "we" use religion as our guide to everything - by choice. I'm thinking, though, that you can. Does the way that other people make decisions, or do the opinions they find most meaningful have to affect you? And, even if it does, do you really think you could change that, even if it was within your right to do so (which I would argue it is not)? Kind of like paddling upstream, don't you think?