Continuing On Again....
After reading some of your comments, I’m starting to feel a little better. There are people out there that are open minded! But just so you understand where I’m coming from, belief is some something that I don’t know, it’s something that I have to take someone’s word for (like science, plumbing, history and so forth,) knowing is something I’ve experienced and know to be true. Faith is my word for religion ;o) People use different words for different things sometimes, I just want to be clear what mine are.
With that in mind, here’s the next thing:
Assuming you are willing to learn new things, where do you get your information? Who do you and/or what will listen to? How harmful is it if we listen to the wrong source?
How much of it is we simply believe what we want to believe?
With that in mind, here’s the next thing:
Assuming you are willing to learn new things, where do you get your information? Who do you and/or what will listen to? How harmful is it if we listen to the wrong source?
How much of it is we simply believe what we want to believe?
posted by RT at 7:54 AM
10 Comments:
I think I would define the “wrong” source as only one source.
For instance, if you read the New York Times, you will get one view on the war in Iraq. The left side. But, if you are a reader of the New York Post, you get another side of the war. The right side.
So, I think it’s important that people get their information from more than one source to make up their minds. It’s like being a newspaper reporter - the rule of thumb is you always have to have at least two sources that can corroborate what happened.
In the end, some people will disregard the facts. Remember, there are some who would tell you the Holocaust never happened. Can't do much about that.
Bottom line - read, read, read. It should help you come to an informed opinion when seeing something from many different angles.
Journalism, by its nature, has a particular bias, so it's easy to find scores of sources that confirm one another. That makes it hard to judge what's really going on.
When I was in journalism school, many of my classmates said that they were in journalism because they "wanted to change the world". Sorry, folks. Journalism is about "reporting" the world, not changing it. No wonder there's so much bias in the news.
You're probably putting too much thought into this, no? What are you looking to accomplish?
ES: No, not at all. I have no children, no significant other, no family drama (that I'm willing to discuss on my blog just yet) and no major career to take up my time. I can't help but to feel that it's my duty to examine these important subjects that others may not have the time to go in depth on.
Or maybe I just need to feel useful.
Either way, would you just answer the question?!? Or would you rather me talk about TV shows and regurgitate other mindless babble that you've already heard so much about?
Oh no, the topic is fine; it's just that since it isn't focused on anything in particular, posts might tend to get a bit long. And I'll prove that now...
I've observed how many people of note think that Communism is a viable economic and governmental alternative. Many of these people (Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, etc.) are not people that I would consider dumb by any stretch, so what is it that leads them to passionately believe in a system that is a proven failure? They might find comfort in telling themselves that it has never been done properly (but then why are they fans of those that improperly implement?...) but the facts on hand (which I will not bore you with now) clearly state that there is no way such a system can work. What further facts can be brought to light so that these people will make a better decision?
On a related note, I run in circles with many people who do not 'believe' in evolution. Now to me, this is not something about which one has a choice about whether or not to believe in, the facts which support it exist whether you 'believe' in it or not. The strict creationists, like the Communists, make their way around this by A)Ignoring inconvenient facts ("part of conspiracy", "facts obtained from 'unreliable' (i.e. unfriendly) researcher", etc.) and/or B)Justifying their thin intellectual soup of an argument with the 'ends justifies the means'.
Now as far as B goes, there's something to it. I think most right thinking people could probably agree that the 'ends' the Communists seek doesn't justify any 'means' whatsoever (indeed for many a Communist, the 'means' is the 'end'). However, with religion, it gets more complicated. Some people might make the choice that they would rather their kids grow up with good morals than a firm grounding in science. Though it is quite possible to do both, some people may see it as either/or. What about the areas that science cannot address though? I've seen arguments that science and religion should not conflict since religion deals with the unknowable.
Here's where my bias comes in. One has only to look around the world to determine which group has the probably has the best take on the 'unknowable'. To me, this is where the road ends, as this is proof enough in and of itself as a justification for the faith. Facts? P-shaw, the ends justifies the means, and fortunately, there’s more than enough facts to back that up as well.
you have an excellent blog here, I'll be reading you every day since Fred does and I like to copy him).
Joking aside, I do agree with Fred. There needs to be more than one source. For me I research the heck out of something I want to learn about then use with all the info I accumulate formulate my own opinion. I'm working through an issue right now that I want to post about - did or didn't radical feminism "ruin" society? I keep reading about that lately but don't have the energy to open a can or worms ... yet.
I find this really funny because I just finished a post about bias in journalism. I firmly believe that if you see all sides you will have a better understanding of a situation.
With religion, I'd really consider picking a church and attending for a year and trying as many as you can. Somewhere, you will find like-minded individuals that might not be high-pressure. I do tend to notice that most religions would like to isolate their members from learning of other faiths as they spend a lot of time unlearning preconceptions. That's why I remain a devout Martenist.
Seriously Off Topic, but I just wanted to say:
I went to get my E-Check today, and I passed it with flying colors. The only thing I did since failing it last year and passing it this year, is put that damn fuse in! I can't even begin to tell you how angry I am at the mechanic (Car X) who charged me $400.+ to get my car up to code, and didn't even fix the problem...
Aside from that, Well Woman: As much as I appreciate you being here, you're not allowed to kiss Fred's butt on my blog... You have to kiss my butt on my blog! However, I can still kiss Fred's butt on my blog, lol. He's pretty good, huh? ;o)
ES: That's what I'm looking for.
so where does the line begin? ;) (bending and puckering)
You nailed it, people believe what they simply want to believe and they know it is absolute truth (which really scares me). I think they key here is to be open minded (as you said) and accept that what you know may be wrong and be open to change your mind/opinion of it depending on new information. Did that make any sense? Oh well I have a cold, they brain is a little muddled up right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home