Smart people saying smart things

May 1, 2012 By 18 Comments

Carol Howard Merritt: “(Re)Imagining Christianity“

Right now, on the 21st Century blogosphere, Christians argue whether women should keep silent in churches. That’s right. It’s 2012 and they believe that women are so subordinate that we should not even be allowed to ask questions in a Bible study. First Timothy explains that Eve tasted the fruit first, so two thousand years later, anyone with XX chromosomes should not open their mouths within the walls of a church. If that logic is not a contrived recipe for oppression, I don’t know what is.

In many congregations, women cannot become pastors, elders, or deacons. Leadership is barred from women. Where else in society does that explicitly take place? I can’t think of any place other than a couple of absurd golf clubs in the South.

Ethan Siegel: “The Power of Admitting ‘I’m Wrong’“

No matter who you are, no matter how smart you are, no matter how brilliantly you’ve drawn the conclusions you’ve drawn from the evidence you’ve gathered, there will come an instance where the evidence you encounter will be irreconciliable with the picture of reality you presently hold. And when that moment happens, your response will mean absolutely everything.

Because there is the possibility that your view of reality — the way you make sense of things — is flawed in some way. You have to open your self up to at least the possibility that you are wrong. It is a humbling admission, that you may be wrong, but it’s also the most freeing thing in the world. Because if you can be wrong about something, then you can learn.

… But if you can’t admit that you might be wrong, if your picture of reality is unchangeable despite any evidence to the contrary, if you refuse to assimilate new information and new knowledge and re-evaluate your prior stance on an issue, then you will never learn.

… But if we recognize that our present understanding may not be the final answer, and we can absorb that ego-bruise from possibly not being in the right when we thought we were, we can step forward.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.” Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: 18 Comments
  • redsixwing

    Loving the Siegel article.

    I had an interesting conversation in college with a supporter of George W Bush, who was in office at the time. I was annoyed with his stubborn refusal to admit he’d been wrong about something, apologize and fix it; my conversation partner was baffled by the idea that a political leader should (or even could) admit to being wrong, on anything.

    I wonder how prevalent that is.

  • esmerelda ogg

    I never expected that Thomas Aquinas would leave me stunned, blinking, and shaking my head in amazement.  (In desperate situations)  “it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s
    property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly
    speaking theft or robbery.”? Wow.

    (Of course, I suppose in today’s world it would still always be immoral to take property – or tax money – from the Job Creators, wouldn’t it?)

  • WingedBeast

    During the 2004 debates, I was engaged in a couple online forums that also included ardent Bush supporters.  They all seemed to think that asking Bush to admit to a mistake (such as there weren’t WMDs in Iraq) was a trap.  Once he would admit that a conclusion he had drawn was mistaken, somehow, liberals and Democrats would pounce on him with a bunch of negative “George W. Bush… he’s fallible” ads.

    The reality of the situation is that we were looking for some sense of humanity from Bush.  Not in the sense of “humane” but in the sense of “admitting to being a member of the same fallible species as the rest of us” or in the sense of “having some connection to reality as we know it.”

    The truth, though, is that admitting one’s mistakes can be a grave error, politically speaking.  Bush’s PR was based entirely upon the fervence of his base, people similarly as incapable of admitting to being members of the same species as the rest of us as Bush was.  He was so certain, they were so certain, you could even come to question “as certain as they are, is it possible that they’re right?”  It’s a sales trick, too.  Be so certain that your certainty becomes infectious.  It’s a great way of distracting people from reality.

    And, in large part, that’s how he beat Kerry.  In part it was because Kerry didn’t present people with a positive reason to vote for him.  In majority part, it was a cynical move to start an anti-gay-marriage amendment process (that he promptly did nothing about after re-election) by George W. Bush.  But, in part, it was because people saw Kerry as wishy-washy, overdeliberative, and uncertain about anything.  One of Bush’s supporters even said it straight out.  “At least Bush is certain.”

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I appreciate the Ethan Seigel cosplays as Wolverine. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    The truth, though, is that admitting one’s mistakes can be a grave error, politically speaking. Bush’s PR was based entirely upon the fervence of his base, people similarly as incapable of admitting to being members of the same species as the rest of us as Bush was. He was so certain, they were so certain, you could even come to question “as certain as they are, is it possible that they’re right?” It’s a sales trick, too. Be so certain that your certainty becomes infectious. It’s a great way of distracting people from reality.

    To quote Stephen Colbert (speaking out of character during the W. Bush administration):

    It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that’s not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It’s certainty. People love the president because he’s certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don’t seem to exist. It’s the fact that he’s certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?…

  • redsixwing

    Yes, that’s it exactly – acceptance that The Leader could be wrong too, and was willing to make wrong things right. I never did see it in him. (FWIW, I don’t see a lot of it in President Obama either.)

    I’d heard “At least Bush is certain” a couple times too.  The Siegel article was very gentle, I thought, pointing out “if you can’t admit you’re wrong, you’ll never learn.” I don’t think it went quite far enough in dissecting what that means.

    For example (all instances of “you” are theoretical, not targeted):

    If you never learn, you cannot adapt to a changing situation; and we know where that gets you.

    If you never learn, you cannot ever see things from a point of view you already understand. People being fallible, that’s a major weakness, to the point of being a character flaw.

    If you never learn, you are stagnant; all you can do is repeat your same patterns.  (Growing up in a culture like this one, a lot of those patterns are likely to be directly or indirectly harmful to you or others.)

     Now, this is speaking as a person fond of learning things, change, and the sudden unexpected shift to a viewpoint that can entirely change the way one sees the world, so I’m not exactly unbiased here.

    For what it’s worth, I’d also consider emotional response to change or the opportunity of change to be an orientation, albeit a learned one – I am distinctly neophilic in a lot of ways, and that’s a big difference from a lot of people I know. Which just goes to say, I suppose, I don’t give a rip how certain someone is; if they’re wrong, and or/stand against the things I love, I will not vote for them.

  • Lori

    I’d heard “At least Bush is certain” a couple times too.

    It freaks me out that some people think,”Often wrong, never in doubt” is actually a good motto.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    To be fair, our political system selects against that sort of thing. If you’ve ever heard the word “flip-flopper” used to criticize a politician because their opinions are different now than they were 6 days, 6 months, or even 16 years ago, you can imagine why. Yes, it would be nice if people like Bush admitted that they were capable of making mistakes, but if we want that kind of person in charge of the government then we pretty much have to stop using, “AHA!! Your opinions today are not the same as they were back when you were in college!!!! You must be a flip-flopper!!!!!!” as an attack, even against people who might legitimately deserve it.

    (I don’t really believe that politicians don’t really learn anything. I think they have to pretend to because of our political system but I can’t think of any recent politician — or even any historical ones — who never ‘flip-flopped’ or backed down or changed their position on issues over time. At least, not any who were in office for more than a few weeks.)

  • redsixwing

    I think we’re conflating two separate things with accusations of flip-flopping. (All of this is from a US perspective as that’s all I’ve got.)

    The first thing is: you learned something!!1!
    For instance, Politician A received new information, considered it and revised hir opinion on a particular issue in light of the new facts. (This does require Politician A to have some critical thinking skills, which seems to fall afoul of the “often wrong but never in doubt” – bleh!- thinking.)

     The second thing is: you don’t stand for anything!!11!1
    This is a fallacy (I think Excluded Middle, but there’s probably room for more) in which someone states that because Politician A does not support Issue B at all times, unequivocally, with no regard for anything else, they don’t actually support Issue B at all. There’s room for that legitimately (hey, Politician A, you ran with Issue B as one of your planks and then forgot all about it when you got office!) but.. just not supporting something Above All Else doesn’t make one an enemy of it, and that distinction seems to get left out a lot, especially when we get into the really bombastic debate-and-ad season.

    If we (and by “we” I mean a large percentage of US voters) could learn to distinguish between those two things, I think the general election process would be a lot less obnoxious.

  • AnonymousSam

    Where else in society does that explicitly take place? I can’t think of
    any place other than a couple of absurd golf clubs in the South.

    Ah, those clubs where the patrons still speak condescendingly over the head of the negro hired help.

  • Tonio

    From the article:“The ‘ladies,’ hether or not they had brown roots and whether
    they were 25 or 48, ladies wore their hair blonde, straight, and off the
    face.”

    You know, I’ve only seen Fox News for a few minutes at a time over the years, but I seem to remember this also being true of the females who appear on camera. Coincidence?

  • christopher_young

     I believe Ethan Siegal regards himself as a conservative politically (that is to say, I read something by him to that effect but it was a while ago and people do change their minds.) But if he is a conservative, his article is even more refreshing. One can imagine having many useful conversations with such conservatives – pity there don’t seem to be a lot of them around.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    The comments in Rev. Merritt’s article prove her point exactly. If you want to see some Christian jerks (and really, who doesn’t), check out her comments section. 

  • Tonio

    I would be curious to know how Siegal defines conservatism, at least his own.  I tend to avoid the terms “conservative” and “liberal” because their common use these days reflects very little real political philosophy. Among the self-identified conservatives I encounter, most seem to base their positions on either some variety of authoritarianism or the preservation of privilege. Only some seem to adhere to what I perceive to be the classic definition of conservatism, which is halting or slowing changes. I find myself agreeing with self-identified liberals or progressives most of the time because I oppose authoritarianism and privilege and favor humanism.

  • redsixwing

    Heh, regardless of political affiliation, I wish we’d see a willingness to fail and be wrong and learn in more people!

    Of course, on the “being OK with failure” side, that would mean having failure not be the end of the road forever, and that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

  • Mary Kaye

    I think that if you hold a certain position, and then new thoughts or new evidence come around and you change your mind, that is not flip-flopping, it is a sign of a sound connection to reality and a sound moral foundation.

    The politicians against whom I hold it are the ones who won’t say “My previous position was wrong, I have changed it, this is what I now believe” but instead try to hide or explain away their previous position, or worse, trot out one story to those who supported them in the past and a different story to potential new supporters.  One thing I really like about the blogosphere is that it makes these kinds of denial a lot tougher.

    There was an interview a while back with–I am terrible at names–someone who was an official in the KKK and now believes that he did wrong and is working to make amends.  Anyone wants to call *him* a flip-flopper, I will spit in their metaphorical face.  Someone who was an official in the KKK and tries to hide the fact (hypothetical example here, but not an unlikely hypothetical)…that’s bad, and it gets even worse if he keeps and uses those old contacts by not speaking up against them.

  • Liz Coleman

    A friend and I were discussing this sort of thing. She made the point that people need their mental narratives to be consistent more than they need to be accurate. Holes in that narrative can get papered over with some serious bullshit.

  • http://somuchshoutingsomuchlaughter.com/ suzannah {the smitten word}

    the comments were truly ugly. less than rousing support from male progressives proved her point about collusion, too.