May 28, 2007

As a person who largely fits the standard definition of a “traditional American”, I know that many of my acquaintances regard my beliefs as rather “old fashioned”. I also know that these same folks regard me as being judgmental and closed-minded.

I used to think these accusations were wrong and unfair. As a result, I would fight against them and try to prove them untrue when they came up in conversation.

But I have come to realize that I AM a “judgmental” and “closed-minded” advocate of “old fashioned” beliefs. I am afraid the modern free-thinkers are right. So when I get accused of these things today, I actually plead guilty!

Now this may sound like a very counter-productive approach. So please hear me out for a moment before reaching for the tar and feathers!

The first thing to realize is how important it is for those of us with “traditional American views” to deal with these accusations, rather than simply dismiss them. My efforts to publicize their importance to like-minded friends are often brushed off because they see the discussion as gassy philosophy that does not address the specific issues – like gun control, terrorism and so forth – that are right in front of us and that need our attention. A broader discussion of fundamentals – like the one I offer here – is seen as a diversion and a waste of time. “Practical folks” often view such concerns as an interesting piece of academic trivia for the “intellectual” to ponder endlessly, but they see no practical applicability to the issues of the day.

But this is not true. The accusations that we are old-fashioned, judgmental and closed-minded attack us at the fundamental level of HOW we THINK in general, rather than at the surface level of WHAT we BELIEVE about specific issues. The result is that people who buy into these allegations will distrust ANYTHING we say about ANY issue, because they have been made suspicious of the very reasoning process that leads to our beliefs. Before we stand any chance of convincing these undecided folks that WHAT we BELIEVE is true, we need to clear away this deception and misunderstanding associated with HOW we THINK.

Now, even if you bought that argument, we are still left with the unpleasant fact that I have suggested pleading guilty to some rather nasty accusations. So before you DO reach for the tar and feathers, I had better get on to explaining to you what I explain to my politically undecided friends:

My Beliefs are OLD:

You’re darned right they are old! But they should be!

What are my “traditional” beliefs about, anyways? Well, my deepest core beliefs pertain to the fundamental matter of human rights and responsibilities, and these issues are as old as humanity itself. Every society, culture, religion and moral system in recorded history recognized these matters and their importance. Given the fact that the issues themselves are so old, it stands to reason that my beliefs about them are also “old”.

The fact is that these issues were pondered over the course of several thousand years by the Mesopotamians, the Babylonians, the Ancient Chinese, the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Christians, the Anglo-Saxons, the Old Norse, the Hindus and the Buddhists, just to name a few.

If you think about it in these terms, you see that it would be very strange indeed for me to have truly new and totally original ideas about these topics. In fact, it would be utterly impossible. If I truly believed that I had really “new” ideas about such ancient matters, it would simply prove that I am a very poorly studied individual who lacks a proper historical understanding.

In sad contrast to this pragmatic understanding of reality, there are a lot of people who believe that these basic issues of the human condition were first discovered buried under a pile of broken bongs, empty beer bottles and human waste in the aftermath of Woodstock. Of course, this belief is in error. But sadder still, it is not just that the belief is old. Even the error – the idea that the belief is new - is a very old thing!

C.S. Lewis may have been speaking of different matters when he referred to the “man who has no instrument but an old pair of field glasses setting out to put all the real astronomers right” (Mere Christianity, p. 165). But he was clearly talking about the same “erroneous presumption of novelty” that is probably as old as the second rational thought formed by the earliest humans. And if you look carefully, you will see that perhaps 96% of all the beliefs of the “modern free thinkers” are justified simply because they are “new”. Even if this were true, it would not be a valid justification for the beliefs. The fact that the false justification is false itself would be humorous if so many people did not fall for it.

The real problem here is not that my beliefs are old. Rather, it is the fact that a lot of people – including some of my politically undecided friends - have been trained to automatically regard old beliefs as suspicious or even automatically invalid. Recognizing that the real problem is with my friends’ perception allows me to deal with it. They, like I, rely on old beliefs about everything from gravity to cooking on a continual basis. Once they see this, they realize that the “age” of a belief is irrelevant to the real issue of whether the belief is true or false.

If I have once succeeded in making an undecided friend see this truth, that person will never again be as vulnerable to accepting or rejecting beliefs based on their perceived “novelty” or “staleness”. This insight will carry over into the discussion of any and every particular issue - be it gun control, immigration, global warming or foreign policy.

This approach to defusing the attack on my “old fashioned” beliefs also works in dealing with the perceptions that I am judgmental and closed-minded:

I am Judgmental:

I will not speak for you, but I most certainly am!

Now sometimes – as in matters of simple taste and personal preference - being judgmental is inappropriate. When it comes to things like art, fashion, entertainment, food and music, I should not be judgmental. If others like things that I do not, I should live and let live.

For instance, if certain flaky individuals want to regard a mess of mud, canned blueberries and dog waste smeared on a piece of plywood to be “art”, I suppose I should let them have their opinion (so long as they do not wish to use my tax money to pay for it or indoctrinate your kids into their belief). I recognize this principle and try to the best of my ability to avoid being judgmental in those cases where it is the wrong thing to do.

But when it comes to factual matters – like assessing the guilt of the accused or the circumstances of an accident or the structural integrity of a bridge or the correct balance in a checking account – being judgmental is not only a right, it is a responsibility. Honest people, when presented with factual issues, are supposed to recognize a duty to put aside emotions, biases, agendas and ulterior motives and JUDGE such issues on the basis of the facts.

Well, simply put, I view the basic issues of human rights and responsibilities – those fundamental issues that are the focus of my core beliefs - as factual issues. I draw conclusions about them – in other words, I am JUDGMENTAL - because I see it as the duty of a responsible citizen.

Again, the problem is not that I am judgmental. The real problem is that my friends have been trained to automatically regard being judgmental as a bad thing. Once they see that it is actually a mandatory and appropriate attitude in certain situations, this red herring attack on my beliefs is revealed for what it is – utterly devoid of substance. And again, this revelation will carry over into any issue-specific discussion that my friends may encounter.

I am Closed-Minded:

Once again – I am guilty!

When I am “judging” a factual issue, it is certainly possible that there will not be sufficient evidence for me to arrive at a definite conclusion. When this is the case, I should remain “open-minded” as I honestly search for more evidence. But when the facts overwhelmingly point to a certain conclusion, it is time for me to close my mind. Once again, this is not only “acceptable”; it is the mandatory duty of the responsible citizen.

For instance, through a combination of my personal experience and what I have been told by reliable authorities, I believe that gasoline is flammable. And since I cannot imagine any conceivable “new” evidence or arguments that would even remotely suggest otherwise, I hold this belief VERY firmly – which is equivalent to saying that I have closed my mind.

And when it comes to the basics of fundamental human rights and responsibilities, there is plenty of evidence available to anyone who wants to consider it. Here, what I find is that all of the evidence – Constitutional, historical, factual and statistical – clearly supports my “old” ideas. These old ideas have been hammered out on the anvils of history and tested in the face of trials and tribulations that I cannot even imagine. And they have been shown to work. When followed carefully, they have been shown to produce societies that are fair and just. But when they are ignored, injustice and ruin are the results proven time and time again by history.

So, unless I choose to ignore factual reality, re-define the clear meaning of the plainspoken words contained in our founding documents and regard all of history as irrelevant, it is hard to arrive at any conclusions other than the “old” ones which I have embraced. And I have embraced them, by the way, as a direct result of careful, honest and independent study that was not guided by what anyone – be it Rush Limbaugh or Oprah Winfrey – told me to think. Having reached firm conclusions about very old and thoroughly studied matters, I have closed my mind.

One more time, it is not my attitude that is the problem. It is people’s perception of that attitude. Once my friends see that the closing of the mind is a natural, appropriate and responsible thing to do in certain situations, I have destroyed another deceptive and utterly substance-less attack that is used by “free thinkers” to impeach my core beliefs.

What’s the Point?

By clearing away the false assumptions, I am giving my friends permission to at least consider the shocking possibility that there might be something to my “old” beliefs. Relieved of their reflexive desire to dismiss my beliefs for false reasons, they may be tempted (or even forced) to examine them on the basis of merit. When they quit fretting over whether they are old-fashioned, judgmental and closed-minded, they just may find themselves wondering whether they are true!

AUTHOR’S NOTE: For many people, the negative image they hold about anyone who is “judgmental” and “closed-minded” stems from confusion about whether a matter before them is ultimately an objective issue of fact or a subjective issue or mere opinion. Obviously, it is appropriate to be judgmental and – when the evidence is sufficient – closed-minded when the matter at hand is an objective one.

I first clearly observed this confusion over the objective and subjective while teaching introductory chemistry to college students. I realized that many students did not draw any mental distinction between my “opinion” about the properties of gasoline and their English Professor’s opinion of twentieth century authors. I have explored the practical (and dangerous) consequences of this confusion in some detail in an article published in the May/June issue of American Handgunner. Although that article focuses on the gun issue, the broader dangers of this mental error are self-evident. The interested reader can access this article at http://www.americanhandgunner.com/GunRght6.html

Tim Thorstenson is a chemist who lives in Bismarck, North Dakota. He is currently exploring the relationship between reasoning and the gun rights debate in a series of articles for American Handgunner magazine. Tim can be contacted at timthorstenson- at -yahoo.com.

See Tim's other articles at www.americanhandgunner.com.

Archives

Are Gun People on a Different Wavelength? (And Why We Should Care)

The Educational Process and the Death of Critical Thinking