Do any of us really want the truth?

Qcmbr

I've been reading some essays concerning disagreement online that got me thinking - I won't even attempt to do them justice but to share some ideas that struck home to me.

We spend most of the time here sharing ideas and thoughts often in response to other posts and as arguements to invalidate or re-colour what someone else said. There is an implicit drive behind each thread to somehow approximate a 'truth' from the many different viewpoints - almost like a collective conscience ('the forum') weighing and then selecting or rejecting the mood of the thread and as we share in the posts we add just a little weight and influence to its direction. What's my point you cry OK let me cut to the chase.

Maybe , just maybe we have no real interest in actual truth but have a far deeper psychological goal of simply re-inforcing our self belief that we are indeed perceiving the world correctly. Let me give you a well worn example evolution v creation - This stirs up some real humdinger arguments that on the surface seem to be a debate about cold hard facts v beliefs (e.g. what the bible says and what the fossil record says) and yet always seems to change into personal attacks as posters attempt to re-inforce their belief system. If we all step back though for a minute and silence the desire to 'prove' our position right and think about it - what is our real driver?

Let me work this through just so you can see where I'm heading:

Poster 1 - Takes up the position that a fundamentalist reading of the bible in fact is true and presents some 'fact' or arguement for its validity.
Poster 2 - Points out the logical fallacy of said fact and points out a 'better' interpretation of that fact in light of other 'facts'
Poster 3 - Points out how stupid poster 2 is.
Poster 4 - Suggests that poster 1 should read such and such a report as they need to open their mind.
Poster 1 - Points to some other fact and suggests that poster 2 and 4 should be wary about their 'souls' being lost.

and so on..

These debates often get the posters quite exasperated as they desire the other opposing view poster to 'see the light' and agree to the 'better' solution. Now all the posters think and believe that their view of the facts is of greater value than those who disagree but and this is the kicker neither actually wants the truth deep down - they just want to reinforce their self deception. If the above posters really really wanted the 'truth' they would approach the subject utterly differently -

1/ No personal attacks - heck the other poster is your best friend, another eye and filter on the mass of information.
2/ No dogmatic statements - Permian river shales may show a possible transitional species but it neither proves nor disproves either side.
3/ Few closed statements (i.e. God lives - well if you really want the truth, bar having a physical appearance (or something 'provable) you 'know' you can't make the statement - a truth seeker would more likely say - 'having examined the facts thus far I believe God lives but I'm still looking.')
4/ A great desire to not disagree - yea you heard me right - a truth seeker should see disagreement NOT as a chance to put someone else right but as another viewpoint to add to their pool of facts, ideas and opinions - e.g. an embracing of the spaghetti noodle monster with the weight of humor and previous experience thrown in.

OK I've rambled a bit here but just remember that when we think we are arguing logically we are actually illogically applying bias to our own belief systems rather than always looking for truth even though consciously we all convince ourselves we are sincere truth seekers(ask yourself the following questions to see what I mean: do you think you are smarter than average?, do you think you do your job better than other people? do you find it hard to understand why people with access to the same facts as you can't see what is plainly obvious to you? - the reality is you are probably not much smarter than average:), do a pretty basic job of your job rather than the critical central player you might think you are and what is obvious to you is normally utter lunacy to lots of other people.)

Do we really want truth or do we just want to think we are right?

DanTheMan

Do we really want truth or do we just want to think we are right?

Are these mutually exclusive?

Qcmbr

Well looking at the power of flattery I'd suspect that we might be more swayed by the latter rather than the former..I am but then again I've always known I was pretty super:)

AuldSoul

Qcmbr,

I don't think you can put everyone in a box on this one. Some want The Truth. Some want to believe they have The Truth. Some are content with only some truth. Some don't give a rat's...some don't care one way or the other about "truth" or "The Truth." Some want to find truth. Some are content knowing they will never know the whole truth, but are still driven by a desire to try for it anyway.

That said, it does seem to be like Norm for people to want to be right.

But in my experience, the "one size fits all" approach will be uncomfortable on everyone. I don't know who this "Norm" guy is that everyone is supposed resemble and think like. I've never met him or anyone like him. I don't think he'd like me all that well.

AuldSoul

Qcmbr

Sorry - not trying to box anyone up - I only put babies in boxes :) I was more just asking the question - I know that I certainly often fall foul of the wanting to be right rather than wanting the truth approach..

ringo5

Another pitfall in the search for truth-

generalizing

i.e. "OK I've rambled a bit here but just remember that when we think we are arguing logically we are actually illogically applying bias to our own belief systems rather than always looking for truth"

Qcmbr

Ringo good point - I'm not the best at phrasing these things - maybe you've just given a proof of some points I made..?

Narkissos

Qcmbr,

I'm all for keeping it friendly but I doubt that can be realised around any notion of "truth".

While I heartily agree with your suggestion # 1 (no personal attacks) I think some heated debate on ideas and facts is unescapable, and probably healthy. Trying to force political correctness on everybody doesn't lead anywhere. Some people have very strong, intolerant ideas, and they have to be true to them. In time they can learn something from the "beating" which ensues. And sometimes a pretty violent discussion can be the beginning of a very good friendship.

Don't worry too much.

jwfacts

I understand your point and agree with you. There is no way to prove almost anything beyond doubt, so each person takes what they think is the most logical answer and run with it.
It is amazing how religion/religion or religion/science discussion generates such dogmatism and even agression in people when so much of what is said comes down to a large degree of faith.

gumby

Qcumber,

I believe I've had a similar thread in the past as I too wonder about your question. I believe it asked if a person found out for a fact there really was a Jesus who did what the bible said he did.....would it alter the feelings of those who now deny him.

I'll tell you my own story...in a short version

When I came to JWD, I was a christian. By comments from others and my own re-search into what they had to say, I became to believe different. I could have denied their claims and held fast my own opinions.....but I wanted the truth. I felt I discovered many truths and those truths validified many deep down feelings I had and answered many unanswered questions I had. Many many others here that had no godly relationship with Jehovah... found solace in Christ. These too changed since they felt they found truth.

My point is....many people change.....which proves not all remain staunch to former beliefs and proves many are searching and willing to change for truths they feel they find.

Gumby

Do any of us really want the truth?

Share this