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.