When evidence is not in absence
So this is one of my biggest pet peeves, when someone will not accept the truth even when presented with evidence. Look, we're all wrong about things, probably a lot of things. But when someone shows you definite, conclusive and contradictory evidence, you should change your mind, not just go with what feels right to you. For instance, for a long time I corrected people's usage of the word "citizen." I was taught that people are citizens of a country, not of a town, so when I saw someone say "citizens of Ocilla" I changed it. Then, recently, I actually looked it up and saw that you can use citizen to refer to residents of a town, so I changed my mind. But this way of thinking is not as common as it should be. If you've ever had an argument with someone who doesn't believe in evolution, you know what I mean. If science proved God existed, I'd be like "Dang. I better figure out which religion to join." But what if science proved that God did exist, but he was the God of another religion. How many people do you think would change their religions? Feelings and faith are fine in the absence of evidence, but if they stand in the way of accepting evidence, then your way of thinking may be flawed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment