The impetus for this was an email from my brother-in-law Jay, and my subsequent flame back in his direction. He'd forwarded a press release in an email that was calling Al Gore a hypocrite because his home energy usage was dramatically higher then the US average. In my opinion, it was a ludicrous and ridiculous detraction from the realities of an environmental issue. This was so disturbing to me that I literally lost sleep, violently tossing and turning in our bed, lamenting the thought that there was a significant chance that partisan ignorance might impede people from recognizing a serious issue and taking measures to contribute to controlling it as much as possible.
"But actually it's you who wants so badly to believe it's true that you mention every shred of inconsequential proof to fuel your justification."
I spent time composing a post, using hour upon hour of my downtime, wanting to be sure I stated my position well, and with sufficient data to back it up. Then I started to wonder if there was a point in doing so, and if my efforts to cull together a rational, documented and verifiable set of data would be given true consideration, or merely refuted or discounted with a roll of his eyes.
Meanwhile, I'd also ventured into some impassioned religious debates with a close friend or two, which gave me cause to reflect not on the topics of the discussions, but on the process of the dialogs instead.
Shortly thereafter, my other brother-in-law posted a comment to my Global Warming reference, closing the loop in this journey, and verifying the conclusions I have been arriving at as all these parallel events took place.
As is the case with any religion, from Jehovah's Witnesses to Muslims and everything in between, and as is the case with political perspectives, from patriotic flag waving in the US to 'Free Palestine' statements of the French and again, everything in between... you can and will always find articles, scientist, ranters and ravers for every possible perspective. EVERYBODY has an opinion, and everybody can and will say and do things to support their opinion far more aggressively then they will to challenge it.
What honestly should and needs to be boiled down to in examining any point or statement is the resource(s), supporting and reproducible scientific analysis, and the neutrality of their motives. I'm sure that a zealous religious supporter would easily find a plethora of 'resources' to support their position and refute logical arguments, but it does not make them right or their belief's "true". The sources of the info they bring to the table will not be objective ones.
For example, look at global warming. Yes, as it is the case with the websites, reports, books and defenders of religions belief systems that a thinking person would clearly recognize as falsehoods and apologetic rationalizations, there was a clear, and sadly misplaced and inappropriate political slant applied to the topic of global warming. It'd oddly become a right/left wing debate, and just like the press and websites that have a republican conservative slant or a democratic liberal twist to what they do or do not report, there were plenty of places you could find to dispute or confirm Global Warming science. I know that directing my relative to a scathing, exposé on the cover up of global warming issues published on Vanity Fair would be met with the same degree of skepticism as would his directing me to the Hannity article relating the falshoods behind the claims, as published on the Ann Coulter website.
Or, take religion as another example. I've spend years... and I do mean years, reading and investigation religion. I've repeatedly been challenged by christians to read their literature, attend their church, join and live their gospels. But I've also read and investigated the foundations of the gospels, the ignorant and irrational claims, the fairy tale fables presented as historical fact in the face of undeniable scientific refutation, and I just can't and won't buy into it. But more often then not, no.... actually, on every single occurence, although I was asked to investigate theirbeliefs, my own findings and facts were consistently discounted, regardless of the fact that doing so requires abandoning logical though, critical scientific findings and probability analysis. So much so that I now firmly believe that the term 'blind faith' is redundant.
My wife would argue that my religion is skepticism. I disagree. I have no religion. Skepticism may be a passion and a driving force in discussions of faith, politics and things of such a nature, but it's a passion for the search for reasonable rational thought and truth. I believe that I've reached a point of conviction in my own research and investigations into so many of these things. But that's never stopped me from being open to consider I might be wrong. I just need something that can answer all the reasons that science and analysis disproof a belief system then the pat answer that "God's just testing your faith.... you have to believe beyond things that give you reasonable evidence to doubt".
But willingness to consider the other might be wrong is not what I find in most exchanges. It's asked and expected of me, but In most, as described above, I find a turned back to all of the arguments and data that challenges their position.
Some time ago, I made a focused and dedicated trip to Peets Coffee. Not for the beans or beverage, but for the chance to engage a close friend in a focused dialog and discussion. My long time friend Martin goes there almost daily. I've known Martin probably longer then I've known anybody outside of my immediate family. His family moved from England to the US in the very early 70's and our father's worked together and friendship was formed. Martin and I worked together at the Cupertino Library, we partied with shared friends, I attended his first and second weddings, and for many many years we routinely meet for breakfast or coffee in Los Gatos and have stayed good friends for decades. At a point between his first and second marriage, Martin "found God", and has since fully embraced his religion. Fortunately our friendship's ability to survive and thrive has never let this matter be an issue, and Martin, more then any other person I know, is tolerant of my questioning, challenging and even attacking of his beliefs. There's a mutual respect for each other's rights to choose. And so I sought him out, wanting to have a serious and detailed discussion about the conclusions I was arriving at regarding the futility of attempting two way dialogs in matters of religion, politics, or even Global Warming.
I asked Martin point blank about the possibility that, were I able to actually present him with documented, concise and reproducible evidence that something he'd believed his whole life was completely incorrect, would he consider it as a possibility. When it didn't involve religion, he felt that his world view might color his assumptions but that he'd be open to the possibilities. But when it comes to religion, regardless of what I might present, he firmly stood by his convictions that his relationship with God was the strongest in his life and nothing would shake it. I have a sister-in-law that's immersed in the Jehovah's witnesses, and the same would hold true for her. I've had only a few moderate discussions with her but, like Martin if not much more so, I recognize the futility of it. I recognize that at some point, there's simply no use in attempting to have a dialog with somebody's who's already formed so firm a conclusion that they'd not even entertain the possibility that they could be incorrect. Their back is already turned.
I know I've also got my feet planted firmly in my own sand on many topics, and that I might seem tough to budge. I like to think that's not the case, and that my passion for scientific examination continues to include being open to conflicting opinions and theories. Sure, I might definitely put the responsibility firmly on proving a religious theory onto the believer at this point, but when my brother-in-law raised a number of points and objections as to the severity of humans having anything to do with the global warming issues that face our planet, I felt compelled to ensure that my exposure included the points he argued before being able to carry on an effective discussion. That, to me, is as reasonable as it is for me to expect that he might do the same in return and seek out neutral, scientific based reporting, devoid of agenda, stepping back to consider data published by the EPA, a scientific, government based fact-reporting agency. Or the National Climate Data Center. National Geographic. The American Meteorological Society. NASA. All of which, in my opinion, represent a reasonable collection of sources with a scientific charter.
Unless you do the research and really look, scientifically and with your eyes and mind open, and unless you exercise your inate ability to objectively discern truth, how can you reasonably claim knowledge of anything? If all I ever considered was what supported my beliefs at the time, and I turned my back on any arguments, I'd believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the promises of presidential candidates, and numerous other misconceptions that have been proven wrong over the years.
The point, after all this rambling, that I'm trying to make is that with rare exception, when I encounter somebody who's opinion on a topic might differ from my own, I typically and inevitably feel like there's little or no chance that they're really interested in hearing and investigating anything that might challenge and potenially disprove their beliefs. I feel like the response I might receive will only be findings that support their positions and not that they'll even care about or want to look at, with an open mind and heart, what I'm putting before them. I feel like I'm preaching to the backs of the choir. And it feels so futile that I'm more inclined to just drop it then I am to pursue an ongoing exchange of emails or discussions that are based on just validating their points and arguing mine.
Oh, and by the way, after being offensively lambastedby a member of my family about my 'green' tendancies...
I did honestly and earnestly dig into the countering claims about the global warming facts. I read the arguments and the arguments to the arguments. And my conclusion remains the same: The world is warming at an unprecident pace. Mankind's impact to this is indisputable. Changes we make in how we live and what we put into our enviornment can and will reduce the severity of the situation. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to go do the same homework in return, investigate both sides of the claims and science with a netural point of view, and then you come back and make your case.
That is, unless you're a believer in the second coming of Christ, in which case, this situation likely gives you a gleeful sense of optimism that the resurrection is near and it's another sign of the Apocalypse and the foretold return of the son of God. Oh, and so we're clear, not any of the many Gods worshipped by numerous religions on the planet today, throughout the world, and certainly none the hundreds of Gods that were once worshipped and subsequently abandoned for those being worshipped today, regardless of how similar they may be in concept or even stories of their actions and events, because hey, we all know those old Gods were not real. And come on, all those other world religions of today... phpfffftt... who're they kidding? We're talking about OUR God. The only true one. Right?