Rights. As a colleague
said quite often, "Your rights stop where my nose begins."
My unalienable rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not take precedent over your
rights, nor yours over mine.
Each citizen has the
right to choose the sources and data upon which he or she bases his or her
understanding of truth, whether it be scientific or medical, or supermarket tabloid,
or something in between.
All citizens, in theory,
have the right; indeed, the responsibility to vote in public elections, thereby
giving voice and support to their respective positions.
Every citizen enjoys the
right to assent or dissent in response to governmental action. Some do so based
on socio/political ideology, while others stand on ethical principles. The
former often place their ideology above human needs, while the latter stump for
more humanitarian, idealistic results. The former see idealism as impractical
and useless.
These are not hard
dichotomies, but rather a continuum whose statistical curve peaks somewhere
near the middle. As one moves toward either extreme the protagonists become more
rigid and intractable, their intolerance of differences more belligerent.
The foregoing is neither
new nor particularly keen insight. It’s sociology or political science 101.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is
an American sceintist. Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director
of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York.
He says there are three levels of truth:
(1) scientific truths or
“objective truths” or beliefs
that one can substantiate through objectivity, impartial
science, facts, and reasoning.
(2) political truths are
inaccuracies repeated so often they become recognized and
accepted as true. Examples of political truths include the
belief that Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, or that
Christopher Columbus discovered America.
(3) personal truths are perspectives
that fail the test of scientific reasoning. He argues that individuals cling
to these beliefs, even when presented with overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. One example
of a personal truth is the belief that the earth
is flat.
I do not present Tyson’s
categories as in any sense final; indeed, I take issue at more than one point.
I present them here as representations of a new relativism related to truth. I
respect his categories as perceptions and/or applications of
truth; but not of truth, itself. If one believes, as I do, in absolute truth,
there are no relative truths or levels of truth.
As I have said and
written many times (and am far from unique in this perspective), while I
believe in absolute truth, I do not believe in the human capacity to comprehend
truth absolutely. The best we can do is point to a “preponderance of evidence.”
And always—ALWAYS—we are compelled by the limitations of the clay of
which we are made to acknowledge our perception of truth as partial.
As a theologian, in
making this point I almost always quote St. Paul’s dictum in I Corinthians
13:12 “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see
face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have
been fully known.” (NRSV) As you may have noticed, it is adapted
into my blogsite name, “Flawed Glass.”
Given, then, that human
perception of truth at best is vulnerable to distortion, I return to my opening
focus, which is the perceptions and applications related to our rights as
American citizens. The two topics, though divergent, are related, and the issue
at hand is where we get the data upon which we base our respective positions.
Never in human history
has more data be more readily available to more people. This presents us with a
humongous dilemma because the data closely parallels the aforementioned ideological
continuum. Compounding the dilemma is a growing tendency toward confirmation
bias in far too many efforts to research available data.
If one looks long
enough, and knows the ideological biases of enough sources, one eventually can
find someone with a degree or a title who will validate virtually any thought
or idea one has. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I am grounded in the
scientific method, and I accept the findings of those who apply the scientific
method.
For my entire life up to
now I have accepted mainstream medical community's counsel (including the value
of vaccinations—think "smallpox" and "polio"), and I have enjoyed good
health and excellent health care. I especially give credence to their informed
findings in contrast to sources outside the medical mainstream or the biased
opinions of non-medical sources; therefore, I am concerned about the risks of
opening up our culture too soon vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic.
I have the right to
determine my own risks and to gamble with my own health and safety, and maybe
even with that of my household. But my rights stop where your nose begins, and
neither I nor you have the reciprocal right to gamble with each other’s health
and safety.
I hope I'm proven wrong, and that the COVID-19 pandemic is a tempest in
a teacup and hasn't been much of a real threat to anything except to our
economy. The preponderance of evidence from mainstream medical and scientific
community doesn’t support that hope; therefore, until proven otherwise I choose
to stay in my home, and to wear a mask when I venture out; and I will have
difficulty not resenting those who discount the seriousness of the virus and
are willing to trust their biased opinions and gamble with their own safety and
the safety of others (including me and my family).
And, BTW, I also don't have a problem with the government stepping in
and setting boundaries when the preponderance of observable evidence suggests
too many people are not smart enough to be trusted to protect themselves
or to not gamble with others' safety.
That’s the way it looks through the “Flawed Glass” that is my world
view.
Together
in the Walk,
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment