Conflict And Controversy, Yes; Combat, No

Today I'm posting an interchange in response to something controversial I put on Facebook last week (about the need for "well regulated" gun policies). My friend Winston Shiflet responded with the gentle suggestion that I was ignorant of certain important facts. 

What is in italics, below, was my answer to him:

None of us has all the answers, Winston, and I'm sure there is enough ignorance to go around. I always find it humbling to realize that so many good people support so many convictions they hold with great certainty, even though can't all be right. But maybe we can learn from each other if we take time to listen.

To which he responded with what I thought was a stellar example of civil and helpful reflection of the kind one rarely finds on social media, and which I print with his permission:

Harvey, you make a decent point, in that many people have their own different convictions and that can’t all be right. That point I won’t argue. The method that one comes to a strongly held conviction, however, is the fundamental difference as to how one reaches those ends. 

When one reaches a conclusion from logical decisions on the best data available, it is no guarantee that one has all of the answers, but would achieve the best possible understanding based on the data we can prove. This also must be tempered with compassion. 

When one reaches strongly held beliefs based on emotions alone, with a willingness to avoid facts that don’t support their ideology and a seemingly disregard for actual factual data, it does not bode well for arriving at the most scientific, verifiable conclusion. It is simply fundamental differences in people’s ability to identify the world around them. 

You graciously and humbly (?) attempt (?) to present yourself as always seeking common ground among people whose world view is achieved from diametrically opposed influences and experiences. I believe that this reconciliation is unachievable on a scale to be significant in finding the common ground you profess you seek. 

Facts without compassion is truth without euphoria. Compassion without facts is euphoria but never really understanding why we are here or the world in which we truly live. You won’t change your world view regardless of any facts that would show you in error. As difficult as it can be at times I attempt not to allow my emotions or ideology alone to direct my world view when facts show me a verifiable different conclusion. I attempt not to turn my emotions off in order to maintain my compassion but not to the level of ignoring the obvious be it good or bad. 

Do yourself a favor. Read Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions, a fantastic book by a great author. It won’t change your views on anything but it will give you a bit of insight into the irreconcilable differences in world views of those with the “unconstrained" and the "constrained" visions. 

All of us must remain open in order to grow both spiritually, emotionally and intellectually, but ignoring the true human condition will achieve nothing but war, be that in verbal conflicts or on the battlefield. Unfortunately that has been the human condition since the Fall of Man. Ignoring the true condition of Man will always leave us in confusion and disappointment.