I thought this was a very insightful look at curiosity… and curious is something I’m very proud to consider myself. This post is to start the debate with Joel about his outlook on new things… I suspect that despite his religious leanings he is the curious type who “examines the evidence first, then evaluates the implications”… Joel?
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/01/curious.html
2 comments ↓
Justin, thanks for the post. It was thought provoking. I do consider you a very curious person and it’s definitely an admirable quality that you possess. I consider myself a curious person as well, but not just for the sake of curiosity but because I want to learn more about this creation. My curiosity exists in the context of my world view. Curiosity for curiosity’s sake reminds me of one of the principles of the Unitarian Universalist church which advocates, “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” One of the presumptions of this principle is that in searching for truth and meaning, you never actually find it outside of a relativistic perspective. In other words, if I freely and responsibly search for truth and meaning and find it in an absolute world view, then I’m no longer a part of the club. So the idea of curiosity for curiosity’s sake is limited by it’s tendency to be hypocritical of those who actually think they find absolute answers. In a way, it presupposes that absolute answers are not possible or not available.
Therefore, I agree with Mr. Godin that remaining curious about things is an advantageous trait that will benefit people in the navigation of this life. And I mostly agree with his definition of fundamentalism as one who is just shy of close minded…”someone who evaluates whether or not they can accept a fact”…or something like that. However, I wish that he would clarify whether his definition of fundamentalist includes those who believe in absolute truth. I don’t believe that it does, but it is slightly ambiguous. If his view of fundamentalist includes those who are decided in an absolute truth, then I would reject his conclusion. Being curious and believing in an absolute truth are entirely compatible. I’ll admit that there are some who will decide to be less curious based on a particular world view. This is a decision which will have real consequences on their understanding of other perspectives and points of view. But, I don’t begrudge them for taking refuge in their faith from a complex and often overwhelming world. So hopefully, this answers your question of how I view new things. I maintain my curiosity through my world view. I look to see how new information contributes to or challenges my beliefs and preconceptions. And just because I am curious does not mean that I will openly accept, without critical thought, something new that I believe could be flawed and/or inaccurate.
What say you?
Joel
Okay Joel, While it’s challenging to respond to such a long post, here is my attempt (and this would be a good video podcast subject I think)….
First of all, I don’t believe in any absolute truths. That’s probably our principle difference. Even science, which I value extremely highly cannot be considered absolute because as we learn more we just might find some new way to explain things… such as with the concept of light: particles vs. waves. This belief also applies to religion and the belief religions tend to espouse that they have the absolute truth… it’s hogwash! If everyone who believes that they have absolute truth actually did, well I don’t have to tell you how badly that would reflect on the idea in the first place!
You said “Being curious and believing in an absolute truth are entirely compatible” and I ask you once again: what is your FIRST thought when confronted with a “fact”? Is it “does this fit inside my absolute truth?” or is it “let’s examine this discovery without context?” It’s a difficult question because I doubt you really want to label yourself as a fundamentalist…
As to your last point, I don’t think anyone should “accept, without critical thought, something new” but once again and put in a different way: Does that something new need to be put through the prism of your absolute truth (i.e. religion) before or after you examine its’ merits?
A good example of this would be evolution, which has much empirical fact to back it up but is often considered incompatible with the “absolute truth” that adam and eve started it all…
woohoo I can’t wait to edit and post our discussion on evolution! stay tuned, listeners
Leave a Comment