Well, all of us are. It's not possible for one person's beliefs to be perfectly inline with everyone else's so inevitably someone will think someone else is a kook based on their beliefs.
It's an easy shorthand for us to use to dismiss those propositions that we don't think deserve our investigation. Now, not every proposition does deserve exploration - and no one has enough time to investigate every proposition. Many we accept on the strength of the source; some we accept merely barring contrary evidence and many we reject out of hand because they conflict with what we think is probable or true. No problem there - as long as we realize that's what we're doing.
The problem occurs when we transfer the disbelief in a 'kooky' idea to the labeling of the advocate - minus any actual investigation on our part. If we're lucky, it really isn't a defensible proposition and we don't get egg all over ourselves. If not, we look like idiots. In BOTH cases, we've treated someone else unfairly - and shouldn't be overly surprised when they refuse to give our propositions fair hearing.
I don't accept that UFO's are alien spacecraft. I don't find the evidence I've seen compelling enough that I'm willing to invest serious time in studying it further. I DO NOT believe I have thereby disproven anything because I haven't. I merely retain a somewhat informed opinion that serves my own purposes only. You won't find me debating the topic because I already know I haven't bothered doing the homework. I personally dismiss the possibility - but that's just personal opinion. You also won't find me calling advocates 'kooks' - or any other derogatory term. I think they are wrong, mistaken or just deceived but if I haven't the inclination to really look at their evidence or arguments by what right do I make assertions about those claims? That's right - none. I have only my opinion, to which I am perfectly entitled, but not the necessary research to support my contention, and I am not entitled to unsupported assertions of fact.
It's okay to not investigate every possible topic - no one can, anyway. It's NOT okay to mistake your opinion for fact. We Christians get this all the time - how many times a day do we see some idiotic 'But Jesus would/would not' argument that is totally without support in Scripture? Yeah, I can't count that high, either. We hate those things - no one wants to spend time dealing with straw men, let alone be labelled by them. Atheists get similar ill informed at best nonsense spouted at them, too. It's not unique to any group but it is avoidable.
Think before you debate - how do I know this? I once saw a documentary on Bigfoot therefore I'm an expert on simians? Er, maybe I should tread a little lightly here.
It would be no fun at all if we never engaged topics in which we aren't expert - and I'm not suggesting that we should become experts in all topics. Just be aware of your level of expertise when you take on an interesting topic and don't mistakenly declare your opinion as fact.
Yep, I have to work on this, too!
It's an easy shorthand for us to use to dismiss those propositions that we don't think deserve our investigation. Now, not every proposition does deserve exploration - and no one has enough time to investigate every proposition. Many we accept on the strength of the source; some we accept merely barring contrary evidence and many we reject out of hand because they conflict with what we think is probable or true. No problem there - as long as we realize that's what we're doing.
The problem occurs when we transfer the disbelief in a 'kooky' idea to the labeling of the advocate - minus any actual investigation on our part. If we're lucky, it really isn't a defensible proposition and we don't get egg all over ourselves. If not, we look like idiots. In BOTH cases, we've treated someone else unfairly - and shouldn't be overly surprised when they refuse to give our propositions fair hearing.
I don't accept that UFO's are alien spacecraft. I don't find the evidence I've seen compelling enough that I'm willing to invest serious time in studying it further. I DO NOT believe I have thereby disproven anything because I haven't. I merely retain a somewhat informed opinion that serves my own purposes only. You won't find me debating the topic because I already know I haven't bothered doing the homework. I personally dismiss the possibility - but that's just personal opinion. You also won't find me calling advocates 'kooks' - or any other derogatory term. I think they are wrong, mistaken or just deceived but if I haven't the inclination to really look at their evidence or arguments by what right do I make assertions about those claims? That's right - none. I have only my opinion, to which I am perfectly entitled, but not the necessary research to support my contention, and I am not entitled to unsupported assertions of fact.
It's okay to not investigate every possible topic - no one can, anyway. It's NOT okay to mistake your opinion for fact. We Christians get this all the time - how many times a day do we see some idiotic 'But Jesus would/would not' argument that is totally without support in Scripture? Yeah, I can't count that high, either. We hate those things - no one wants to spend time dealing with straw men, let alone be labelled by them. Atheists get similar ill informed at best nonsense spouted at them, too. It's not unique to any group but it is avoidable.
Think before you debate - how do I know this? I once saw a documentary on Bigfoot therefore I'm an expert on simians? Er, maybe I should tread a little lightly here.
It would be no fun at all if we never engaged topics in which we aren't expert - and I'm not suggesting that we should become experts in all topics. Just be aware of your level of expertise when you take on an interesting topic and don't mistakenly declare your opinion as fact.
Yep, I have to work on this, too!
Comment