Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
The best lack all conviction

The best lack all conviction

Last updated on: March 13, 2007 at 5:18 pm by Fred Clark

The best lack all conviction 2007-03-13T17:18:24-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

MyDD points us to the latest from The Washington Post's Shankar Vedantam, "Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong — You're Evil."

Here's the nut grafs of the article (which, as usual, Vedantam buries after several introductory paragraphs of misleading "examples"):

"We are really bad about putting ourselves in other people's places and looking at the world the way they look at it," said Glenn D. Reeder, a social psychologist at Illinois State University who recently conducted a study into how supporters and critics of the Iraq war have come to believe entirely different narratives about the war — and about each other. "We find it difficult to grant that other people come to their conclusions in good faith if they reach a conclusion that is different than ours," he said.

When Reeder and his colleagues asked pro-war and antiwar Americans how they would describe the other side's motives, the researchers found that the groups suffered from an identical bias: People described others who agreed with them as motivated by ethics and principle, but felt that the people who disagreed with them were motivated by narrow self-interest.

This is something we've been talking about here quite a bit recently: the presumption of good faith.

That presumption, like the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in our legal system, is terribly important for civil society and democracy. If we start, instead, with a presumption of bad faith, then we will be unable to discuss the things about which we disagree. If we can't talk, then we can only fight — with bullets or ballots.

The presumption of good faith is sometimes referred to as the presumption of charity — a reference to the cardinal virtue, love. But it's also an expression of a different virtue: justice. It is unjust, unfair to presume before-the-fact that those who disagree with you have evil intent. This, again, is why we have a similar principle — innocent until proven guilty — in our justice system. Justice demands a presumption of innocence.

But note that this presumption of innocence in our justice system does not mean that no one is ever convicted of a crime. The standard is innocent until proven guilty. Prosecutors do not violate the presumption of innocence when they produce evidence and testimony proving that a suspect is guilty of a crime. Such evidence can lead to a conviction, the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect is not innocent.

Convictions based on evidence do not violate the presumption of innocence.

Here's where Vedantam and Dr. Reeder lose the plot. We've discussed Vedantam before (see "Behindsight and bias"). He covers the "Human Behavior" beat and as such is concerned mainly with people's attitudes. This tends to make his column weirdly abstract. He's curiously incurious about the real-world facts and conditions that may be the basis for those attitudes. In this case, in this article, he notes that people have drawn conclusions, but he is uninterested in whether or not these conclusions — these convictions, to use the word in both senses — are based on evidence:

It is important to note that the experiment does not establish which version of Bush's motives is true. It is possible, in other words, that everything you believe about Bush's motives is true and everything that your opponents believe is false. But a number of studies suggest people ought to be cautious about such conclusions. Studies have found, for example, that people believe that those who disagree with them are less informed and that those who agree with them are better informed.

Vedantam is arguing for a version of civility in which there is no such thing as evidence, in which, as he puts it, it does not matter "which version … is true." We "ought to be cautious," Vedantam says, about even thinking that it's possible to "establish which version … is true," because "studies have found" that we all approach such questions with biases and presuppositions about "those who disagree."

One wonders what basis Vedantam has for giving credence to the findings of such studies. If we accept his premise that all evidence is invalid due to bias, then the same must be said of the studies he (vaguely) cites as evidence of that bias.

What Vedantam fails to recognize is that the purpose of civil discourse is to allow us to find the truth together. Facts matter. Matter matters. Believing, or presuming, "the worst about those who disagree" should be avoided because it is uncharitable and unjust, but it also should be avoided because it is a distraction from the consideration of the facts of the matter. The motives, feelings and attitudes of those who disagree with me are not, to begin with, the substance of our disagreement.

Analogies are dangerous, but let's consider a hypothetical scenario so that we can be sure of agreeing on the facts in question.

Imagine there arises a health-craze for a new children's vitamin supplement containing large amounts of lead. Your friend has begun buying this supplement for his kids, and you have pleaded with him to stop. It's entirely possible, in this scenario, that you are both acting out of good faith, with the purest of motives. You both want what is best, and healthiest, for the children. Because you are friends, you are able to set aside bias and suspicion and the presumption of bad faith and you are able to discuss the evidence, the facts of the matter: lead is poisonous. In such a scenario, you would be able to persuade your friend not to poison the children with the lead supplements.

When talking to your next-door neighbor, however, you do not have this same basis of friendship and so your attempt at conversation quickly devolves into a shouting match in which each of you is presuming bad faith, bad motives. Your neighbor wants what is best for his children, so he insists that, as the ad says, they "Start the day the heavy, healthy way with new Pb for Kids!" He takes your disagreement with this practice to mean that you, for some twisted reason, don't want his kids to benefit from the best that medical science has to offer. This accusation leads you, unfortunately, to accuse him of wanting to poison his children, an approach that fails to persuade him. Eventually, you calm down and try to explain that lead is dangerous, but he's no longer listening. You may think lead is poisonous, but you also think he hates his children, and he knows you're wrong about that, so why should he listen to you?

The presumption of bad faith is a distraction from a consideration of the facts. And, because an invalid accusation of bad motive undermines your credibility, it prohibits the consideration of the facts.

But again, contra Vedantam, the facts matter. The relative sincerity or insincerity of the opposing parties' concern for the children's health is nowhere near as relevant as the fact that "Pb for Kids" is highly toxic. "Which version … is true" is all that really matters.

Now imagine a conversation with a different neighbor. You have been the model of civility, politeness and magnanimity. "I realize that you only want what is best for your children," you say, "so I ask you to reconsider giving them this supplement." You give them a copy of this pamphlet on the dangers of lead poisoning and calmly, patiently explain — without ever once questioning their motives — why it is terribly important not to expose children to this toxin. This neighbor thanks you, but continues giving his children the supplement.

At this point, you begin to question his motives. You begin to wonder if maybe he is intentionally poisoning his children, or if he's crazy, or deliberately ignorant.

Tsk, tsk! says Vedantam Shankar, wagging a disapproving finger. Concluding bad faith based on evidence is just the same as presuming it beforehand. And where do you get off handing out pamphlets? That's just an example of the biased preconception "that people believe that those who disagree with them are less informed and that those who agree with them are better informed."

Vedantam seems to think that the only way to avoid prejudice is to avoid judgment — that consideration of the evidence is dangerous because it can lead to bias. He seems to think that any conviction is a rejection of the presumption of innocence. That it's impossible to believe another is wrong without accusing them of being evil, an thus that we should never accuse others of being (or risk being ourselves) wrong.

Here's the conclusion of Vedantam's article:

Reeder said he has very strong beliefs about the Iraq war, but reminds himself when he gets too heated that he might be falling victim to the very biases he studies. I asked the psychologist where he stands on the war. He declined to say. "I have done my job," he said, "if partisans on both sides think I disagree with them."

This is Broderian cowardice. Reeder and Vedantam are drowning in their ceremony of innocence, so intent on avoiding passionate intensity that they lack all conviction. Such a center cannot hold.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 12, 2007

Harnessing teachers' greed

Next Post

March 16, 2007 The Lost Tomb

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the official state church of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Pentecostal Lutheran Catholic Orthodox