The story has become a classic because it illustrates so clearly how our understanding, or belief, can be very different from the reality that is “out there.” We can give the Reality that is “out there” the label “Big R” and the reality as we understand it, the belief that is “in here”, in our minds, the label “little r.” To avoid a collision, the ship’s captain had to adjust his “little r” to be consistent with “Big R”. And so it is with all of us.
With the Internet so available today, we are bombarded with messages that disagree with each other. So what are we to believe? So many different perspectives tend to overwhelm us, which is why it is popular today to believe that there is no absolute truth. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” Oh? “I believe you’re a ship, you believe you’re a lighthouse. What’s true for you is not true for me, so I’m going to just continue straight ahead.”
Eventually, if we’re thinking, we realize that Reality stands apart from our belief of it, just as the lighthouse stands on the rock, warning of danger, whether the ship’s captain believes it or not. To truly achieve success, then, we must be constantly seeking to bring “little r” more and more in line with “Big R”.
In trying to know what to believe, one of the questions we have to consider is, “How are our beliefs shaped in the first place?” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that babies don’t have beliefs at all, much less firmly held ones that they would die for, or kill someone else over. But often, by the time they’re 20, they do. In western civilization, we tend to believe that knowledge is something we discover, and freedom of speech is important. We believe those things. In Islamic tradition, however, knowledge is revealed (by Allah), and freedom of speech has little value at all. That’s what they believe. So for some, whenever freedom of speech violates what Allah has revealed, the conflict in beliefs is worth dying for, or killing someone else for. This at least partially explains the killing of 12 people in the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo. But how do such divergent beliefs develop, in the first place?
As we watch the war in the Ukraine, we become more and more aware that the war is the result of different perspectives on the same issues, developed by people who have grown up in the same general area. How did the different perspectives develop? Obviously, it’s because different people were influenced by different viewpoints as they grew up. As individuals, we may like to think we’re brilliant, and too smart to be deceived by propaganda, but for most of us, the only perspectives we have available to us are those we have already been exposed to. Most of us never think an original thought – our originality is limited to the way we mentally rearrange and interpret those ideas to which we have been exposed from outside influences. So two people can be exposed to the same information, and develop different opinions about it, but the differences in opinion become even greater when two people are not even exposed to the same information. Russian media, for example, is known to be controlled by the state, so it appears clear that certain information is being withheld from the Russian audience, and other information, which may not reflect all the information available, is what is broadcast. How can people believe information to which they have never been exposed?
All of us have limited information, so all of us, to a degree, are in the same situation the Russian public is in. We simply don’t have access to all the information there is. From the information we do have, we still have to sort out what is truth, and what is not.
Fortunately, there are some basic tests of truth that can be applied. One test is whether the information agrees with what I already believe to be true. If it does, then it’s easy to believe it. But that is certainly the case with Russian media broadcasting, that it supports what most of the audience already believes, so that is not a good enough test. Another test is whether the information is complete. This one is much more helpful. If we consider Russian broadcasting about the war in the Ukraine, we can immediately see that the information is not complete. If we look at almost any religion’s treatment of the views of other religions, we can see that they are not complete. Or if we look at the western media’s treatment of couples living together before marriage, we can see that the whole picture is not being shown. When only part of a much bigger picture is presented, we have reason to question it’s truthfulness. Would it be just as believable if the opposite position were also presented?
Another test for truth is whether it is coherent, that is, does it have parts of the information that don’t agree with other parts of the information. Within minutes after the Indonesian airliner was shot down over Ukraine, there was communication from the separatists that they had shot down a military airplane. However, when it was revealed that the plane was a civilian airliner, then those same separatists denied any involvement at all. That’s incoherence. The two parts of the story don’t fit together. When we see incoherence, it should make us more alert, because something is wrong.
One of the difficulties with knowing truth, is the tendency of proof to elude us. Many people have never thought of the difference between proof and evidence, but the difference is profound. Proof is conclusive. It finishes the argument. When something is proven, there is no more room for doubt or argument. Evidence, on the other hand, is not conclusive, but it points in the direction of a logical conclusion. When evidence is presented, it tends to lead to a conclusion, but there is still room for some doubt and discussion. It is often said, then, that proof is elusive, but evidence is all around us.
We have to take the evidence, ask ourselves which direction it points toward, ask ourselves if it is complete, coherent, and consistent with what I already believe, and when we have done that, we have to decide for ourselves which direction we need to go. If the evidence disagrees with what I already believe, but if it seems to be essentially complete and apparently coherent, then I may need to rethink my personal viewpoint.
For me, there are two more critical points that affect my evaluation of what is presented as truth. The first one is motive. If I can see that those presenting the information clearly have some benefit to gain if I believe them, they I am immediately suspicious. This is true of the car salesman, but it is especially true of politicians – so anytime profit or power are potential motives, I’m suspicious.
The second critical point is whether the information is likely to prove true over the long term, or just in the short term, and who it affects. If movies can convince young couples that it is wise to live together before marriage, that may serve their interests in the short term. But what will the long term affects be? The research shows that it basically doubles their chances of divorcing later on. And does it serve the interests of others equally well? How does it affect children born to the couple? Research shows that it hinders the children in every area of life. Hitler convinced virtually everybody in Germany that his way was right. They believed him. But the rest of the world responded with an opposite perspective, and today, most Germans would agree that their fathers and grandfathers were wrong, that Hitler was not telling the truth. He was not telling the whole story, he stood to gain if believed, his view took only the short term view, and it did not look after the intersts of others.
Much more could be said about this topic, but one thing we should realize – children do not have a choice about what to believe, but adults do. If I stay in my own area and limit my input to sources that support what I already believe, I can defend a belief system that does not accurately reflect all that going on in the world. That is true whether I’m a Russian separatist, a secular westerner, a radical Muslim, or a conservative Christian. Surely, as an adult, I have a responsibility to break that cycle.
We are not looking for proof. Proof is too elusive. We are looking for enough evidence to justify a commitment. We’re looking for a belief system that seems to be complete, coherent, free of wrong motives, and which over the long term is going to serve the interests of others as well as myself. Evidence that supports such a belief system justifies making a commitment to it. We can make that commitment and still keep an open mind, and time will tell if we have found the truth. Then, as new evidence becomes available, we can make adjustments to our beliefs, without changing the basic requirements – that they be as complete as possible, apparently coherent, free of wrong motives, and serve others over the long term as well as myself.
The world is waging a war with words, but there is enough evidence out there that we can know what to believe, and be right. I believe that.
Bill Mauldin, publisher and missionary
13 Feb 2015
13 Feb 2015
Nav komentāru:
Ierakstīt komentāru