|
|
 |
OPED
When
Belief Meets Reality
continued from Page One
Three sociologists
wondered what would ordinary, intelligent Americans do if they became
members of a cult that believed the world would end on a date prophesied
by their leader and the end didn’t happen on that date? In the
Preface to When Prophesy Fails, the authors state their finding:
- A
man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures
and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he
fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change
a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in
his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which
people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the
most devastating attacks.
But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting
a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose
further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable
actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal
and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view. (Leon Festinger, Henry W.
Riecken, Stanley Schachter, 1956)
This is an example of belief trumping reality.
A committed community of faith has powerful defenses against anything
that controverts their beliefs.
What, we might ask, would happen if two such communities are in conflict over
their beliefs? Would negotiation be feasible? World War II, the Massacre at
Wounded Knee, the war in Vietnam, the Waco tragedy and the 9/11 attack all
involved clashes of belief systems. Could negotiation have prevented the violence?
Interestingly, the collapse of the Soviet Union, independence and democracy
in India, market reforms in China and the coming together of the European Union
also involved struggles of belief systems. But these historic struggles were
resolved and sea-changes were achieved through a process of negotiation without
violence. What can we learn from these experiences?
The ideas of war and peace are explored from a worldview perspective at www.WorldviewForum.org.
Articles introduce the issues and forums invite further discussion. We host
this site because we believe that open discussion of hard issues is important.
However, it is unlikely that issues of war and peace can be settled through
discussion alone. Some truths need more than discussion.
- Gandhi
devoted his life to a search for ultimate truth. Truth
for Gandhi is many-sided and is accessible from many
directions. The truth Gandhi seeks is beyond any person’s
understanding because it is greater than our capacity
to understand. A sure sign that one is straying from
the truth is to believe that one’s group has the
exclusive claim on it.
- Truth
for Gandhi is not a dogma but a way of living. It’s
experiential and experimental. Only in the laboratory
of experience can we test our understanding of truth,
and only non-violence can bring us closer to the truth.
Non-violence means hanging on to a truth that we wear
experimentally to see how it endures in the face of life’s
struggles and conflicts.
(Summarized from an essay by Diana L. Eck, “Gandhian
Guidelines for a World of Religious Difference”, Gandhi on Christianity,
Orbis Books, 1991.
Conflict Lab provides an experimental laboratory
dedicated to the Gandhian quest for truth. We think the really hard
but important lessons in life are best learned through a combination
of experience and critical thinking. But don’t take our word
for it – put that idea to the test in one of Conflict Lab’s
simulations.
|
