Truth and Convictions
Who do we trust? How do convictions arise? What is truth? Previously primarily issues of religious discourse, these questions are relevant in our time of politicized public health messages and polarized American polemics. My next few blogs will highlight a few points from books on these topics, followed by my comments.
Know-It-All Society (Michael Patrick Lynch)
Convictions are emotionally laden commitments that reveal our self-identity. Convictions carry authority into our morals, actions, and beliefs. Our worldviews turn upon them; our actions spring from them. What we believe, however, is affected by our attitudes in how we form convictions. We unconsciously compare and contrast new information with what we already believe to cohere with our expectations. This implicit bias from existing convictions shapes our ongoing opinions and perceptions of the world. As a result, we are prone to discount contrary evidence rather than overturn our convictions. Blind faith is belief based on attitudes over evidence.
Intellectual arrogance and blind convictions originate from our natural desires for self-worth and shared identities. We can be deceived by both believing what is false and by not believing what is true. What is blatantly false, even crazy, can be normalized by the spread of doubt and confusion. Social media is an effective blind-conviction machine; newsfeeds primarily express emotions, not exchange of information. Being “emotionally authentic by telling it like it is” motivates anxiety, anger, and fear of one’s perceived loss of status quo. Its main goal is not truth-promotion.
How knowledge is gained always exist in a context of traditions, customs, and our way of life. It is never immune from bias. What we think is true depends on our perspectives, but truth itself is not relative to perspectives. As we pursue reasons that leads and lends support to truth, reflect upon our weaknesses and assumptions. Intellectual humility examines new evidence, tries to understand others’ experiences, and dialogues with other worldviews. Otherwise, if we simply want to retain power and superiority in debates and decision making, we treat alternative views with moral contempt. Then compromise, consensus, and conversations will disappear, individually and institutionally in our democratic society.
As one of my theology professors once said, “Have few convictions, but be ready to die for them.” If we form convictions that are attached to our identity too quickly, we become easily emotionally entangled when these beliefs are challenged. Knowledge, wisdom, and truth are not the same. But in all three, the danger of the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies—to not know that we don’t know. Steven Sloman warns our present technological society is deepening our illusion of knowledge. But if we need authoritative and trustworthy sources for explanations and revelations, who do we trust? How? Read on.
0 comments