The truth will set you free, but only if you hold it right
Lately I’ve engaged in conversations with two very different types of people: hardcore skeptics and True Believers.
The skeptics I spoke to are pretty much skeptical about all New Age ideas while the True Believers are open to most of them but deeply committed to their personal favorites.
The funny thing - to me at least - is that for the first 90% of each conversation I got along splendidly with these people regardless of which group they were in.
I tried to clarify my statements but there was no undoing the damage they had caused; I was no longer one of them - I was the enemy.
The skeptics and I swapped war stories about the absurdity and hypocrisy that seems to run rampant in some New Age circles. And the True Believers and I talked about our appreciation for and experience with many metaphysical concepts.
It was beautiful. But then I went and opened my mouth and destroyed whatever rapport we’d had.
The unforgivable phrase I uttered to the skeptics was, “I don’t believe ideas have to be true to be useful.”
That was all the proof they needed to identify me as a mindless kook.
The unforgivable phrase I uttered to the True Believers was, “Just because an idea may be useful doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true.”
That was all the proof they needed to identify me as an insensitive prick.
I tried to clarify my statements but there was no undoing the damage they had caused; I was no longer one of them - I was the enemy.
This has become an increasingly common experience in my life and it has - until recently - baffled me.
The trouble with the first approach is that it tends to cut us off from many “nonsensical” ideas we might otherwise find to be valuable. The trouble with the second is that it leads to a vicious cycle of self-justification and denial that cuts us off from reality itself.
I couldn’t figure out how I could share so much in common with such completely different types of people. It seemed I needed to either be a skeptic or a believer. I couldn’t be both. And at different times in my life that’s exactly what I did. I chose sides, took my marching orders and fancied myself amongst the good guys. But soon, I would get antsy and change my mind, swap sides and - inexplicably - still find myself amongst the good guys. (Funny how malleable the terms “good” and “bad” are at times, isn’t it?)
However, in the last year or so I think I’ve gained some clarity into the dynamics behind all of this good guy/bad guy, skeptic/True Believer stuff. And now the mystery doesn’t seem so strange to me after all.
While there are obviously dramatic differences between what these two groups hold to be true, I think there is a subtle difference in the way they hold the truth that makes my ambivalence more understandable.
In my experience…
A hardcore skeptic will declare an idea useless if it is proven to be false.
A True Believer will declare an idea true if they have found it to be useful.
The trouble with the first approach is that it tends to cut us off from many “nonsensical” ideas we might otherwise find to be valuable.
Yes, we may proudly sit back with the truth on our side, but we can only watch as others venture into metaphysical realms in search of ideas that make life, if not more understandable, infinitely more enjoyable.
The trouble with the second approach is that it leads to a vicious cycle of self-justification and denial that cuts us off from reality itself.
Are we all really that afraid of being caught in public entertaining an idea that might not be true?
Yes, we may proudly sit back with smiles on our faces and warm glows in our hearts, but behind the smiles we desperately seek every whisper of an idea that promises to validate our pet ideas and denounce anyone or anything that calls them into question.
To me this all seems like such wasted effort.
Why does an idea have to be declared true before we can embrace it and possibly profit from it? And why do we feel we have to defend and prop up every idea that benefits us as being true?
Are we all really that afraid of being caught in public entertaining an idea that might not be true?
Don’t get me wrong. I think understanding what is true and what is false greatly enhances our chances of survival. And I think we owe it to each other to be as clear as possible about the objective truth or falsity of the ideas and information we exchange.
But come on.
Are children the only ones allowed to knowingly entertain false ideas without risking public humiliation or having to “justify” themselves? If so, no wonder they’re the ones having all the fun.*
I suspect I’ll regret making this post. If so, fine. But I refuse to tie pieces of dogma around my neck just so certain people will play with me.
* These two sentences were defective in their original form and have since been fixed. Thank you Tom. Or should that be, “Thank you (comma) Tom”? What can I say? I wrote most of this piece in the middle of the night and was running on fumes. 
Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 09:10 AM
Tags: human nature, true believers, dogmaShare Blair:
(12) Reader Comments about The truth will set you free, but only if you hold it right
John Thomas says...
Blair,
Interesting post. Two comments:
1. I think the big problem that people have is when they forget the NLP presupposition that the map is not the territory (and a lot of NLP people don’t get that either. You see lots of skeptics and lots of New Age blindly-accepting-anything-metaphysical folks who are NLPers). If we hold that the map is not the territory, then we realize that it is important to have our maps as accurate as possible (maps that are “true"), but that, as human beings, we live inside our subjective reality and not truly in objective reality and preception, and that there are advantages to having maps that are beneficial if not completely true (sometimes it’s fun to forget that the quickest way to get to our end result is through 6 hours of road construction and to just take the 12 hour detour with places you can stop to use the restroom and eat without being parked on the interstate with no respite. Let me tell you, having a bathroom, at times, is VERY useful.).
2. I think the reason people get so upset about people disagreeing with them is this: they don’t feel secure in their stated beliefs. They are outward-referencing instead of inner-referencing in terms of how they solidify their beliefs. (I’m not pointing fingers here. I’ve had the same struggle in areas. Still do.) Part of that, I think, comes from growing up in a society where there is so much constant marketing and peer pressure from a very young age to be directed and dictated to by others as opposed to following our own inner muse. In areas that we really feel secure in our beliefs, it doesn’t bother us if people disagree. We tend to believe that they have a right to be wrong, but it’s not worth arguing about because I know what I believe in this area and if other people disagree with me, so what? They aren’t living my life for me, so there is no threat to me personally. Their opinion, while interesting, while it may be interesting and/or useful to consider, doesn’t affect me and my life directly (though their actions might, and that’s a different discussion than this). If I’m secure in my belief and in my own conclusions and choices, then I’m okay with people having different conclusions and choices. No big deal (to us).
So, if we (the human race, in general) would just get the clue that our maps and conclusions are our own and no one else’s, it would, I think, solve at least this part of the human race’s disagreement with itself.
Then again, I’ve been wrong before.
- John
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 09:56 AM
Colin says...
I read this one twice, and found myself thinking of multiple examples of both skeptics and true believers in my life - and it fits. I also think John is spot on as far as people not being certain of their beliefs. When question=criticism in someone’s mind then the heels dig in.
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 10:15 AM
Michael says...
In science nothing is ever “proved”. I get really irritated when I see the words “scientifically proven” in an advert for some so-called wonder pill or supplement. All that can sensibly be done is to verify that a given experiment or action has the same outcome as previous similar experiments or actions. So a fair test is repeatability. Until someone comes along who finds that accepted “law” does not work in all circumstances, and comes up with a new law. Newtons laws were held to be inviolate until Einstein came along.
I err on the side of the skeptics and dig for supporting evidence before believing anything, and am always open minded to the possibility that it might not be completely true.
It’s always very wise to look into the motives of people promoting the next theory ( example: The law of Attraction) as an essential part of the evaluation process.
It’s all to easy to be lazy and believe what you want to believe, (with potentially disastrous consequences) rather than rigorously examine some new pronouncement.
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 11:01 AM
Greg says...
Very interesting topic. I found myself asking if I still hold the same beliefs I had when I was much younger. Thats’ odd. My beliefs changed in my 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and now in my 50’s. Heck, some beliefs changed when my wife helped me to see reality - through her eyes. LOL!!! I guess I have changed my beliefs when it was necessary. They are my beliefs. If they don’t work for me by empowering me, I guess I can change them.
I do have to agree with Colin, regarding digging my heels in when external forces question or threaten my beliefs. I have done that and later, during a moment of clarity, decided to stand firm for an entirely different belief. Maybe we assign far too much weight to what we believe? As my references change so does what I believe in.
I don’t know if this makes any sense or if I’m just confused. Men once believed the world was flat, but photos from the space lab show something quite different. I need to keep an open mind. I need to be more flexible in my thinking. If a belief no longer serves me, I can change it. I just hope I don’t fall off the edge of earth. Intriguing! I believe we are onto something here...or not.
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 11:09 AM
Jason says...
*Standing up nervously as all eyes turn to him* “My name is Jason and I am a True Believer.” *Listens to the Choruses of “Hi Jason”
“I use affirmations and they work for me, so I refuse to hear anything bad about the practice.” *Sees sympathetic nods all around*
“I know its wrong to think of others who don’t believe as I do as stupid, silly, and moronic. I know that I should see their side. Thats why I’m here, I want to change. Thank you for listening.”
*His mentor hugs him while the rest of the room claps. Teary eyed, Jason sits down, grateful he has this support as he works to find a balance between true believing and not thinking the rest of the world is made up of assholes.*
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 11:27 AM
thekev says...
“Skeptics” are a form of true believers. And all true believers are nutcases in a sense. They would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that true believers can cause harm to others with a clear conscience.
We tend to get high on Dogma(TM), which may come in many flavours but still remains the same crap. It’s this simple sentence “The map is not the territory” that nobody understands, because we humans mostly are Dogma(TM)-addicts who prefer the illusion of “being right” to being happy.
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 11:29 AM
Tom Welsh says...
I myself am an admitted hard-core truth guy about English punctuation. And I am scratching my head as to why this obviously brilliant writer put an apostrophe - not once but twice - in an otherwise perfectly good word (ones) in his penultimate paragraph.
I am also a nitpicky SOB. And yes, I am sure I have missed the whole point.
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 12:53 PM
Scott Jones says...
Blair & Everyone:
Another mind and soul massage for me. Great post and responses. And Blair, I’ll still play with you even without the dogma around your neck.
Blair, I thought you might be commenting in this post about what I asked earlier about good results with cultic leadership, but alas, this is not it. (Another gentle reminder)
However, this is a very interesting post and has some application to my earlier questions. I am a Christian (gasp) and certainly fall into the class of “a” believer when it comes to who I think Jesus was when here on earth and who I think He is in my life today.
Particularly relevant to your points is the idea of faith (definitions below from dictionary.com) and hope (hope, in this case, defined as a confident expectation). The Bible says that Jesus stated on several occasions that He was sent by God and was the Son of God. He also said in several situations, involving the healing of people’s diseases, that their faith had made them well rather than, “My power has made you well.”
We may get into a semantics argument here, but I believe that it was their faith in one or both of 2 ideas that made them well. One, that Jesus was who He said He was, or two, their faith that He did have the power to heal them.
Once, when His disciples asked why they could not cast a demon out of a boy, Jesus told them it was because of their little faith. He also said that He did not do “many mighty works” in His hometown of Nazareth because of their unbelief.
While I accept what I believe as a Christian about Jesus and God to be true, I could be wrong. Yet I can state for a fact that my faith has been useful in coping with the bad I’ve experienced in life and enjoy the good I’ve experienced more fully. Plus, my faith has led me to a hope (confident expectation) of life in Heaven after my life ends here. If that doesn’t happen, well, that sucks for me, but hey, it’s my life isn’t it?
Nevertheless, I am constantly examining my beliefs for both more clarity and understanding, and to see how my actions line up with my beliefs (wouldn’t want to be one of them there hypocrites). I don’t think I have all the answers, but I have the most critical answers I feel I need. The additional clarity and understanding, both of God and other people are just icing on the cake.
faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key
Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth]noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.Posted on 03/12/2008 at 04:56 PM
Scott Jones says...
Dang Blair, now I feel like I’m in the last 10% of the conversations you were talking about. Anyone out there? Bueller? Anyone?
Posted on 03/12/2008 at 09:20 PM
Krish says...
Some beliefs are core to any person and some are changeable. For a Southern Baptist, for instance, it’s his or her way alone that is right and he or she cannot possibly fathom that each human being is entitled to his or her point of view of what makes the World go round! A Muslim may have a viewpoint that is radically opposite.
Becoming a human being is the stage when one opens oneself to the possibility that both viewpoints can exist together and there is no need to go to war to defend one point of view. Honestly, we are still not human beings in that sense.
Posted on 03/13/2008 at 11:07 PM
Scott Jones says...
Krish said, “For a Southern Baptist, for instance, it’s his or her way alone that is right and he or she cannot possibly fathom that each human being is entitled to his or her point of view of what makes the World go round!”
Krish, another human failing is assigning blanket characteristics to a group of people, such as Southern Baptists. I am a Southern Baptist, but I absolutely believe that each person is entitled to their point of view of what makes the world go round. In fact, I believe God has established that right as well, through what I would refer to as the free will of man which He has granted to us, rather than making us mindless automatons in His service.
Another fallacy in your statement is that believing your way is the only right way automatically precludes you granting that same right to others, and that is not true.
I believe that I am on the right path in relationship to God as I understand what I believe to be His revelation of Himself to the human race through the person of Jesus and through the Bible. Because I believe that the Bible accurately records what Jesus said, and I believe what Jesus said about who He was, and what He came to earth to do, I must believe that He is the right and only path to God, because Jesus said He was the only path to God.
Others believe they are on the right path through their understanding of who Buddha, Mohammed, Confucious, or others, were, or are, and through their readings of texts they consider sacred or enlightened, and I believe that many of them are absolutely convinced that their way is the only way, or at least the right way. If you believe that the way you are going is the right way, is it fair to assume that most think the other ways are the wrong way.
If you don’t consider the path you are traveling the right way to go, why would you go that way? Does any rational person intentionally go down what they consider to be the wrong path?
However, I realize that some people, probably a lot of people, view life like a trip to a certain destination. Maybe that destination is Heaven, maybe just death, maybe reincarnation, maybe nirvana. They believe there are a lot of ways to get there; the interstate, the most direct route, the backroads, the scenic route, but all will ultimately get you to the destination.
Having said all that, let me assure you that I am not willing to go to war to force anyone to be a Christian, like the Crusades. Why would you go to war to offer someone what the Bible characterizes as a free gift from God? I, and many other Christians, are glad to just offer the gift and love people, whether they take the gift or not. Many people of other beliefs are glad to do the same, but some are waging war because of their beliefs, and that is sad. We agree on that, but on that about which we disagree, I’m OK with that.
Posted on 03/14/2008 at 09:10 AM
Scott Jones says...
Blair, I’ve determined, after much reflection, that I’m a hardcore true skeptical believer. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it… I think.
Posted on 03/14/2008 at 10:25 AM
Leave a comment
Next entry: I take it back
Previous entry: Me and Twitter
