On the Spirituality of Opinion

[OneSheep]

I once sat in a wonderful session at our parish having to do with small-group dynamics, and the speaker talked about the origin of opinions (political, religious, or otherwise).

At the basic level, we all have our human nature, a nature we share.

At the next level up, we have our individual variations in our nature. (For example, I add, some of us are born autistic or have an empathy disability)

At the next level up, we have nurture. We experience different home environments. We also experience random occurrences which mold and shape our compassion, consciences, vocabularies, and understanding of words and meanings.

To the above, we have a layer of affiliation to add. Given our upbringing and past experiences, adults tend to find community among those who are like-minded, it is a tribal instinct.

Opinion, then, is a manifestation of all the above and more. What good does it do to say this opinion or that opinion is simply “wrong”, when all opinion has underpinnings that are understandable? Opinions make sense in the context of the person having the opinion, do they not? Indeed, are we to *expect *people to have different opinions than the ones they currently have given the underpinnings of opinion itself?

Then, what is argument? Argument as simple pitting of one opinion against another, is probably fruitless. We cannot change someone’s nature, upbringing, affiliation, or experiences. What we can possibly do is shed a different light on the interpretation of those experiences.

Therefore, is not argument at it’s most efficient and charitable a sharing of experiences, knowledge, and to bring a different light to interpretations of that experience and knowledge?

On top of all this, can we see that the process of opinion formation itself is intricately beautiful, and reflects something unique about every individual?

Okay, I went all over the place there. Feel free to pick a question and comment!

 

[Hatikvah]

]Then, what is argument? Argument as simple pitting of one opinion against another, is probably fruitless. We cannot change someone’s nature, upbringing, affiliation, or experiences. What we can possibly do is shed a different light on the interpretation of those experiences.

Whether this is rhetorical or not, Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” This reigns true today, and so arguments have this purpose. We can entertain ideas without accepting them as true.

 

[po18guy]

Boy! Some real deconstruction going on in that group! Pretty soon, everything means nothing to everyone. Was this a group of theologians?

Opinion should accord with truth as expressed in the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love. To use some other measure, or no measure at all is to lapse into subjectivity, if not outright relativism.

 

[GratefulFred]

One Sheep wrote: can we see that the process of opinion formation itself is intricately beautiful, and reflects something unique about every individual?​

Unique, yes. Intricately beautiful, not in all cases.

Just two examples:

In my opinion: 2+2 = 5.
In my opinion: Hitler was a good man.

I fail to see the process of such opinion formation to be intricately beautiful.

 

[Irishmom2]

One Sheep wrote: can we see that the process of opinion formation itself is intricately beautiful, and reflects something unique about every individual?​

Unique, yes. Intricately beautiful, not in all cases.

Just two examples:

In my opinion: 2+2 = 5.
In my opinion: Hitler was a good man.

I fail to see the process of such opinion formation to be intricately beautiful.

I agree with you.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn’t mean their opinion has any merit or truth.

That is, of course, just my opinion.

 

[St_Francis]

In my opinion, your idea of how opinion is developed is wrong.

The reason I disagree with you is that I do not think that feelings and emotions are that important to the way people think, and if they are, the people have not achieved a correct balance in their life.

Should we be guided primarily by emotion? A bit of thought will show that emotions are a terrible foundation for our actions. In stead, we should be guided by our intellect.

I realize emotions play some role in how we live, but our opinions should have reasons underpinning them, not emotions. I also think the fact that people often radically change their opinions as they get older shows that thinking is an important factor, and that as people learn more, their opinions change.

(Which is not to discount the importance of one’s spiritual life, growth in virtue, etc.; that just seemed to complicated to include.)

 

[fhansen]

I once sat in a wonderful session at our parish having to do with small-group dynamics, and the speaker talked about the origin of opinions (political, religious, or otherwise).

At the basic level, we all have our human nature, a nature we share.

At the next level up, we have our individual variations in our nature. (For example, I add, some of us are born autistic or have an empathy disability)

At the next level up, we have nurture. We experience different home environments. We also experience random occurrences which mold and shape our compassion, consciences, vocabularies, and understanding of words and meanings.

To the above, we have a layer of affiliation to add. Given our upbringing and past experiences, adults tend to find community among those who are like-minded, it is a tribal instinct.

Opinion, then, is a manifestation of all the above and more. What good does it do to say this opinion or that opinion is simply “wrong”, when all opinion has underpinnings that are understandable? Opinions make sense in the context of the person having the opinion, do they not? Indeed, are we to *expect *people to have different opinions than the ones they currently have given the underpinnings of opinion itself?

Then, what is argument? Argument as simple pitting of one opinion against another, is probably fruitless. We cannot change someone’s nature, upbringing, affiliation, or experiences. What we can possibly do is shed a different light on the interpretation of those experiences.

Therefore, is not argument at it’s most efficient and charitable a sharing of experiences, knowledge, and to bring a different light to interpretations of that experience and knowledge?

On top of all this, can we see that the process of opinion formation itself is intricately beautiful, and reflects something unique about every individual?

Okay, I went all over the place there. Feel free to pick a question and comment!

Years ago a priest told me that he’d found out that water was able to be pumped up from a well due to “the tenacity of water”, that the molecules clung to each other and so could be drawn upwards. I had to explain that water moved upwards from the well due to the creation of a negative pressure by the pump, relative to atmospheric pressure. Recognizing the truth, he changed his opinion.

 

[OneSheep]

One Sheep wrote: can we see that the process of opinion formation itself is intricately beautiful, and reflects something unique about every individual?​

Unique, yes. Intricately beautiful, not in all cases.

Just two examples:

In my opinion: 2+2 = 5.
In my opinion: Hitler was a good man.

I fail to see the process of such opinion formation to be intricately beautiful.

So, the first opinion sounds ridiculous, but the process of forming the opinion itself, IMO, may be very interesting. For the first example, some additional information (such as the definition of “5”) would likely lead to a change of the opinion, which would be part of the beauty of the process. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. IMO

As far as “Hitler being a good man”, one could conclude that the opinion-holder has a different definition of “good” than what is common, which could be revealed in conversation.

Years ago a priest told me that he’d found out that water was able to be pumped up from a well due to “the tenacity of water”, that the molecules clung to each other and so could be drawn upwards. I had to explain that water moved upwards from the well due to the creation of a negative pressure by the pump, relative to atmospheric pressure. Recognizing the truth, he changed his opinion.

Yes, you shed a new light on the information he had. He may have been confused about surface tension being the reason why water moves up vascular plants?

 

[OneSheep]

In my opinion, your idea of how opinion is developed is wrong.

The reason I disagree with you is that I do not think that feelings and emotions are that important to the way people think, and if they are, the people have not achieved a correct balance in their life.

Should we be guided primarily by emotion? A bit of thought will show that emotions are a terrible foundation for our actions. In stead, we should be guided by our intellect.

I realize emotions play some role in how we live, but our opinions should have reasons underpinning them, not emotions. I also think the fact that people often radically change their opinions as they get older shows that thinking is an important factor, and that as people learn more, their opinions change.

(Which is not to discount the importance of one’s spiritual life, growth in virtue, etc.; that just seemed to complicated to include.)

I think we idealize the importance of “unbiased” opinion, for good reason. Since emotions come and go, there is an instability in opinion that has any emotional underpinnings. On the other hand, (remembering the book Thinking Fast, and Slow) it is impossible for us to exclude emotions from opinions, because, in formation, the emotional reactions we have to stimuli are far faster than what comes from the more objective frontal lobes.

Now, would that information influence your opinion? It would depend, in part, on whether I am a person you respect and consider part of the same in-group. If I come from a different ideology, chances are fairly high you will feel some skepticism. If I were a Bishop, I assume, you would probably be more receptive. I am speaking from my own observations, here, but the receptivity would have a partially emotional component, right? And since this emotional receptivity filters information, our opinions are likewise formed in a predictably selective manner. (note my use of the word “partial”)

 

[OneSheep]

Boy! Some real deconstruction going on in that group! Pretty soon, everything means nothing to everyone. Was this a group of theologians?

Opinion should accord with truth as expressed in the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love. To use some other measure, or no measure at all is to lapse into subjectivity, if not outright relativism.

The key word there is the word “should”. Yes, as Catholics we have the opinion that opinions should be in accord with those virtues.

Let’s say, for example though, I encounter a person who has had a very hard life. He thinks that it is God’s will that he suffer, that God does not care in the least about his well-being on Earth. We could point out that such is not a statement of faith, that it defies hope, and it depicts an unloving image of God.

You and I both know that his view does not represent Truth, but really, what fruit is there in simply telling him that he is wrong? If the “deconstruction” leads to the awareness that his bias is due to depression, frustration, or sadness, then he has the opportunity to observe his emotional mindset and address it directly. It would be folly to say that the truth as he sees it is just as valid as the Truth we know as coming from the Spirit, but at the same time when we can see the formation of opinion, through deconstruction, we can tease out the factors that are putting pressure in a direction that goes against the common goal of objectivity, right?

I guess what I am saying is that there is a difference between telling him he is wrong and showing him things in a different light.

 

[John_Martin]

Opinion wishes to suggest something is true or good without knowing it is, and with an uncertainty about it actually being true or good. There is no verification by reason nor authority. As such, it could be a starting point for reasoned experimentation or for consulting an authority (such as the Magisterium). But an opinion is “unfinished business” to humans, who must know the true and the good (and the beautiful) In fact.

Science and faith are stating what is true or good from a position of “knowing”, either by sound reasoning about apprehended reality, or by revelation from a trusted source.

 

[Bradski]

On the other hand, (remembering the book Thinking Fast, and Slow) it is impossible for us to exclude emotions from opinions, because, in formation, the emotional reactions we have to stimuli are far faster than what comes from the more objective frontal lobes

Kahneman (the author of Thinking Fast and Slow) described that we often react to everyday situations as does a rider on an elephant. The emotions (the elephant) come first and the elephant heads off in a particular direction. Sometimes, if not most of the time, we are happy to go along with it. Except that the rider (our rational thought processes) decides at some point that we need to head off somewhere else.

Maybe we are thirsty and the elephant thinks that a beer would be a good idea (pleasurable emotions at the thought have already got him heading to the fridge) but the rider thinks that a glass of water would be healthier but, as we know, it can be difficult to get the elephant to change direction and head for the water tap.

And as you say, we are aware of the emotions a lot quicker than the relatively slow cognitive process which takes a lot longer to develop a rational decision. Consequently, our body makes a lot of what we believe to be rational decisions based on the already locked-in emotion.

The speaker at your talk has pretty much nailed it. Emotions (or nature), nurture and affiliation are what guide us. Rational thought has to get in there somewhere but it can be difficult. For example, it’s nature to distrust strangers (an emotional reaction). If we are brought up in a group environment which actively discourages it (nurture) and we feel a natural affiliation to the group, then we have a sense of xenophobia. Us and them. And we know where that can lead.

 

[OneSheep]

Kahneman (the author of Thinking Fast and Slow) described that we often react to everyday situations as does a rider on an elephant. The emotions (the elephant) come first and the elephant heads off in a particular direction. Sometimes, if not most of the time, we are happy to go along with it. Except that the rider (our rational thought processes) decides at some point that we need to head off somewhere else.

Maybe we are thirsty and the elephant thinks that a beer would be a good idea (pleasurable emotions at the thought have already got him heading to the fridge) but the rider thinks that a glass of water would be healthier but, as we know, it can be difficult to get the elephant to change direction and head for the water tap.

And as you say, we are aware of the emotions a lot quicker than the relatively slow cognitive process which takes a lot longer to develop a rational decision. Consequently, our body makes a lot of what we believe to be rational decisions based on the already locked-in emotion.

The speaker at your talk has pretty much nailed it. Emotions (or nature), nurture and affiliation are what guide us. Rational thought has to get in there somewhere but it can be difficult. For example, it’s nature to distrust strangers (an emotional reaction). If we are brought up in a group environment which actively discourages it (nurture) and we feel a natural affiliation to the group, then we have a sense of xenophobia. Us and them. And we know where that can lead.

Hi Bradski,

Actually, I’m thinking that you might be over-rating our awareness. I think that much of the time we are on the elephant without really being aware of it. In addition, we can often be unaware that the elephant is significantly influencing the rational rider.

In other words, the beer is not only desired, but it also makes all “rational” sense to have
it. Even “thinking better of it” has a good deal of emotion tied up in the consideration. “I should have water instead of beer” may have a lot of underlying fears involved.

Objectivity is largely an illusion, I think!

 

[Bradski]

Hi Bradski,

Actually, I’m thinking that you might be over-rating our awareness. I think that much of the time we are on the elephant without really being aware of it. In addition, we can often be unaware that the elephant is significantly influencing the rational rider.

In other words, the beer is not only desired, but it also makes all “rational” sense to have
it. Even “thinking better of it” has a good deal of emotion tied up in the consideration. “I should have water instead of beer” may have a lot of underlying fears involved.

Objectivity is largely an illusion, I think!

Well, I often find myself reaching into the fridge without having thought about what I’m doing.

But I think that you are right about what I might have described as a conscious, rational thought process in skipping on the beer and having a glass of water. I made that conscious decision last night because I’m trying to lose weight. And that decision might well have been an emotional one.

I could say that water is healthier, it will do me more good to drink it, but truth be known, I just want to lose weight so I will look better. And that’s an emotional decision.

My wife is joining me in this health kick as we have my brother’s wedding to go to next year. As it turns out, a few days ago we came across a picture of us as his first wedding. So she has stuck that on the fridge door as an encouragement to avoid that croissant or chocolate chip cookie. She wants to look like she did back then. She needs those 'Hey, look at you…; comments. Pure emotion.