"The Man" and Curiosity

The Trial of Galileo
From Lightandmatter.com

Something about this Op-Ed article by David Brooks in the NY Times rankles me.

Forget the specific story of Jefferson Bethke who (in a viral video) said he doesn't like "the Church" but loves Jesus, and then went on to backtrack when a blogger, Kevin DeYoung, made what seemed to him a persuasive and perhaps better informed counter-argument. Ignore for the moment the question of whether or not the teachings of Jesus or the various Christian church systems are worth living by - that isn't what concerns me.

Here's what got my goat. David Brooks takes this example and then generalizes to say rebellion against established ideas is not a good idea in itself, for most people. (No, this rant is not about the 1% v 99%)


I quote: For generations people have been told: Think for yourself; come up with your own independent worldview. Unless your name is Nietzsche, that’s probably a bad idea. Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview. He then goes on to put together a laundry list of philosophers, writers, thinkers, socio-political theories and the like... name-dropping of the highest degree here.

Look, I have no problem agreeing that a vast majority of people live in ignorance (as perhaps do I myself?) and without much deep curiosity about the world (this second charge I like to think I am not guilty of). I also believe strongly that having an internally consistent world-view is a very rare thing. As an Agnostic, I actually believe it is impossible to have a completely consistent world-view in any case! Those that claim to have one often scare me with their zeal and/ or conviction, especially when they react aggressively to evidence to the contrary.

What I have a problem with is that while "sticking it to the Man" for its own sake might be silly, it is the only thing in history that has ever produced positive change!

Would David Brooks have told Galileo to recognize his personal failings, ignore the moons of Jupiter, and not challenge the work of Aristotle (that put the Earth in the center of the universe)? That is at least until and unless Galileo has personally read the works of all Graeco-Roman philosophers! Would he call Martin Luther King a fool for suggesting desegregation, because of course segregation worked so beautifully and was based on a "consistent" world-view that Black people were racially inferior to White people? Or perhaps Mr. Brooks is suggesting that Chinese political dissidents, who are challenging the orthodoxy of the Communist (Well, sort of) government first need to master the works of Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, and Chairman Mao?

The problem I have is that this article is subtly telling the little guy to shut up. Yes, yes, it does seem to recommend that the little guy bulk up his learning and understanding and become wise, and then speak... but it also suggests at the outset that not everyone can achieve this intellectual Nirvana.

My greatest worry with pontification like this is not that it might encourage people to shut up, but that it might douse that spark of curiosity before it can become a raging fire. If even one reader of this piece who happens to be a questioner of orthodoxy decides it is beyond their capacity to challenge it, David Brooks is then guilty of intellectual suppression!

I'd rather if he had said, go out and question orthodoxy in the public square. Sure, you'll be wrong more often than you'll be right - but you'll be better off for having spoken up. Study, learn, and be willing to change your mind when the facts as you know them are challenged. In this age of extreme information overload, everyone sticks to their positions regardless of what facts they are presented with - because somewhere on the web they can always find a counter-argument, which appeals to their bias and does not trigger incredulity (when it should).

I for one find something admirable about Jefferson Bethke, who had the courage to question his own beliefs, and was open to changing them.