THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH:  IT HAS AN
 OBJECTIVE AND PUBLIC ASPECT 
AND A PRIVATE SUBJECTIVE 
ASPECT THAT IS NO ONE'S
BUSINESS BUT ONE'S OWN

©  2004 by Orchid Land Publications

[updated 20040705]

     Methodologically at least, the best way to arrive at truth of any kind is to listen to intelligent (not inept) arguments against one's own position, i.e. to expose oneself to possible holes in one's own position.  Those who consider themselves divinely inspired and those who have so little confidence in their own ability to argue of course reject this method.  Conversely, the more robust personalities welcome reasoned counterarguments based on logic--not of course pseudo-arguments based on logical fallacies.  
     In the realm of public, objective discussions, those who welcome counterarguments of the right sort reveal a certain maturity and self-confidence; those who do not welcome counterarguments of the right sort in the non-personal realm would be described otherwise.  Personal arguments are one's own business, and do not fall into the foregoing category, although those who make every object personal are deluding themselves; they are not seekers of the truth, only seekers of whatever might seem to substantiate their own positions.  It is not unlikely that these last constitute an overall majority; but I suspect that many people are of one sort in one field of argumentation--politics, grammar, religion, what have you--but of another sort in other fields that are less close to home.  Of course, there are the sort that personalize (de-objectify) every discussion and take personal  offence in any substantive (or even trivial) disagreement.
    When it comes to religion, it should be observed that those who are traditionalist or conservative in religion (the Orthodox) are often "liberal" in politics, whereas those who anti-traditionalist in religion (Evangelicals) are often what passes for conservative relative to a given time and place.  (This caveat is necessary in view of the way that political conservativism has shifted from one point of view on civil rights, budgetary responsibility, etc.,  to the opposites character in different generations.)  While the mode of proper discussion is the same in different subjects that one regards as important, it does indeed seem that many people require a sort of balance--conservative or traditional in one field of importance, radical in another.
    Statistics differ remarkably.  Those who are open to counterarguments against their own position on any subject regarded by them as important are vastly rarer than the contrary type.  Whether that statistic is the result of the relative frequencies of different kinds of personalities or education (or some combination of both) is something I leave others to deal with.

     Truth in religion, one would think, is as important for a sincere worshiper or believer as anything.  The evidence suggests, on the contrary, that many believers (even those who do not claim divine inspiration) are so hide-bound that they show genuine fear in the presence of an argument potentially undermining their own position.  Mindless atheists exhibit this vulnerability as often as do mindless fundamentalists, who, unlike some atheists, view intellect with suspicion--i.e. as "vain philosophy."  While this human trait is understandable, it does militate against arriving at truth--something that believer/worshipers (in contrast with atheists) should presumably be in favor of.  However that may be, the closed mind has the least chance of any mind to arrive at truth, especially in religion.  There are phonies of course, e.g. avowed literalists who declare that oînos means "grape juice" when Jesus created it out of water but "wine" when St. Paul condemned excessive wine-bibbing . . . or those literalists whose paradigm forces them to believe that, in a literal interpretation, John 6:53-54 means the contrary (some figurative or virtue sense) of what it literally says!
     A crucial factor in what one regards as not possibly (un)true is the paradigm constituted out of one's axiomatic assumptions.  SEE R265, R285, R305, R310!!!

     As for private truth, so long as no interpersonal fault is involved, that is between an individual worshiper and one's confessor.  Christ told us (Mat. 7:1; concerning slander, cf. John 7:24, etc.) not to judge persons.  Not being God, individuals are not to judge persons.  This of course applies to individuals rather than to members of a legally constituted jury.  Of course, we are to judge ideas--what is true and what is false--and our own more strictly than all others.  Many do not know how--because of a defect of temperate, the passion of circumstances, lack of education, etc.