"I could be wrong" is what separates openness from dogmatism

Two wonderful sayings that every person should embrace are "I don't know" and "I could be wrong." Each points toward openness, humility, and a rejection of dogmatism.

My favorite, though, is I could be wrong. One reason is that there are so many things that each of us doesn't know. The number of things we know is far, far, far exceeded by the things we don't know. This makes I don't know a commonplace statement.

But I could be wrong is about a belief we hold that seems true to us, yet there's at least some chance we're incorrect about that. This is the way of science, where no truth is viewed as being true for evermore. 

Instead, every truth is provisional, since it might be overthrown by fresh facts. That isn't the way of religion, at least when it comes to fundamentalist religiosity. Rarely do we hear fundamentalists say, "I could be wrong" -- about God, life after death, the religion's founder, heaven, and such.

As an atheist, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong about there being no God. However, my experience is that fervent religious believers, whether on this blog or elsewhere, are very reluctant to admit that they could be wrong about there being a God.

This goes a long way toward explaining why it is so difficult and frustrating to have a conversation about religious belief with a fundamentalist. Since they usually won't admit they could be wrong about their beliefs being true, that closed-mindedness shuts off open debate and discussion.

I wrote about this in a 2009 post, "Tips on talking to a fundamentalist." 

Fundamentalism is defined in various ways. I like this Wikipedia definition: "clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence."

If someone is certain they're right, it's tough to have a productive conversation with them.

So it's good to learn early on whether you're dealing with a fundamentalist, since most of us have better things to do than try to open up a mind that is nailed shut. A simple question, if answered honestly, is a helpful aid:

Do you consider that you could be wrong?

When you hear a "yes," that's an indication of openness. It turns the conversation in the direction of offering reasons for a religious, spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, or mystical belief.

Because if there's a possibility of being wrong, no one else should be expected to accept an assertion on blind faith. And if you are told, "no," I'd look elsewhere for conversational companionship (unless you're a glutton for dogmatism).

I've got wrongness on my mind today because yesterday I wrote a post for my HinesSight blog, "A kitchen faucet problem reminds me of the wisdom in 'I could be wrong.'" It starts with:

I don't like to be wrong. But I dislike problems that defy fixing even more, whether these be personal, political, or any other sort.

And what I've learned from painful experience is that when I believe I'm absolutely right, yet that rightness isn't resulting in progress at resolving a problem, the best thing I could do is tell myself, "I could be wrong."

When I'm able to do this, or better put, remember to do this, the possibility of fresh options opens up. This is how I was able to leave the religious organization I was an active member of for 35 years. When I was certain that the religion was true, despite a lack of evidence for this, I had no choice but to keep doing what I was doing.

But when I seriously entertained the idea that I could be wrong about the teachings of the religion being true, new avenues of growth appeared. That's the beauty of "I could be wrong." It's a path forward when we're stuck.

Comments

[Ron E.]

Brian: - “But I could be wrong is about a belief we hold that seems true to us, yet there's at least some chance we're incorrect about that. This is the way of science, where no truth is viewed as being true for evermore.”

Attributed to Lao Tzu: - “The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know.”

And, an ancient Persian saying goes: -
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, can be taught; teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep; wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a prophet; follow him.

I quite like the Persian saying as it covers all aspects of knowing and not knowing. Yes, there are many things that we don’t know and science has uncovered many previously unknowns and no doubt will continue to reveal more.

I would say that, as far as we humans are concerned, the never-ending question of who/what we are is already apparent in that we can know we are biological creatures, born, exist for a time and then die. We can also know that this is the way of all other life forms. We can also know that where we intuitively believe in such things as Gods, reincarnation, existence after death and so on, it is contrary and totally unnecessary for our so very natural existence.

It surely can be understood that such thinking is the result of imagination, wishful thinking, fears and insecurities that we accrue during our lifetimes to become quite dominant contents of our minds. Many of the ‘mysteries’ that were once assigned to gods and demons have been revealed as natural phenomenon and no doubt some of the last resorts of our beliefs and hopes of something more than the natural biological lives, we all enjoy will also someday become clear.

Ah, on second thoughts, ‘I could be wrong!’

[Sant64]

EVERYBODY thinks they're open-minded. Even the most fervent fundamentalist, even the most adamant atheist. They all believe they're open-minded.

Atheists just tend to believe they're more open-minded than the average bear. But are they?

When asked "what evidence would it take for you to flip from atheism and believe in God," leading atheists like Richard Dawkins say no kind of evidence is trustworthy. They say if they had what seemed to be an overwhelmingly powerful spiritual experience or vision, it could be an illusion, a trick of their brain, or a deception by an alien.

Think I'm kidding?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flQkMxnA7ok

And yet, Dawkins and other atheists consider themselves abundantly open-minded. Are they really?

[umami]

"skydaddy! skydaddy! skydaddy! skydaddy!"
Lol

Our touch activated kitchen faucet had a mind of its own and drove us crazy. Remove the batteries with the water running, and there's a good chance the solenoid will hang in the open position. Presto change-o, manual operation!

Moral: the solution isn't always A or B. Sometimes it's C.

[What matters most?]

👏 👏 👏

Great blog post!

Here’s something more to think about (and it does tie in if you take the time to watch it): https://youtube.com/watch?v=VPaOy3G1-2A&feature=shared
We have sooo much to learn from what we cannot see.

[Appreciative Reader]

facepalm

The Dawkins thing, I mean.

Haven't watched the linked vid, I expect it's a link to one of Dawkins' talks; but I'm pretty sure I know what that's about. Read that argument in Dawkin's God Delusion, I think, or maybe his Magic of Reality, or maybe one of his other books

What he says is, what would actually be proof of God? Say right now, the sky splits wide, and a huge bearded face fills the sky, voice booming, saying "I'm God." Does that tell you there's a God? No, all that tells you there's a figure in the sky, and s booming voice.

It could be God. Or it could be drugs in the water supply. Some magic trick, like an illusion. ...Even if something woo, even then, it could be a monster. It could be Voldemort. It could be a witch.

-----

You walk up a hill, and suddenly, a bush bursts into flame, and a voice booms out, I yam who I yam, sonny, and thou shalt not fuck thy neighbor's wife on Sabbath. And you take that, as, what, proof of God?

Sure, it may be that. But it may also be yesterday evening's binge drinking. Drugs. Hallucination. Or your brain gone wrong. Or, if supernatural stuff, then kids from Hogwarts playing a prank on you. Or a monster speaking with you. A witch. A ...well for Christ sake, any of a thousand possibilities more likely than that it's God. Or any of like a million more possibilities at least as likely as that it's God. And like a billion more possibilities at least as likely as that it's the particular Christian God.

-----

(Like I said, I haven't seen that link, but I expect it's something similar-ish. That isn't being "not open-minded", that's only being reasonable.)

[Spence Tepper]

I could be wrong...Is too passive for any value.
I AM WRONG...now we're getting somewhere.

If you aren't wrong several times a day and can see and know it, I fear you are not in touch with reality.

Better to check your notions with ones who hold the opposite view, and listen.

Say it with me...

"I Don't Know."