A fascinating video popped up last fortnight. It showed actor and director Ben Affleck on a TV talk show, not discussing his latest film, but hitting back at host Bill Maher’s strongly worded diatribe against the religion of Islam.
Maher argued that true thinking liberals should denounce Islam entirely because “it is the only religion that acts like the mafia that will kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”
Mr Affleck hit back, essentially saying that it is ridiculous to assert that the thoughts and actions of more than one billion Muslims can be predicted and condemned based on the actions of the radical element of that group.
Tailspin of ferocity
This set off a tailspin of furiously written think-pieces, some lambasting Affleck for his politically correct comments and refusal to acknowledge the ‘true nature’ of the tenets of Islam, others taking Maher to task for his blind hatred and intolerance of those with different beliefs.
All these seem very familiar, for reasons entirely unrelated to the subject matter of Islam, extremism, or Ben Affleck.
Regardless of how much you know about exactly what was said by either Maher or Affleck, it is likely that you formed an opinion on which side you agreed with here based solely on the 144 words I just wrote about it.
Granted, you may have a much larger store of background knowledge of the subject that helped you figure out which side of the discussion you support.
More for less
But, as my colleague wrote a few months ago, research from Yale academic Dan Kahan suggests that the more we know about an issue, the less likely we are to accept any new information or argument that contradicts our pre-existing beliefs.
This is not a phenomenon unique to the realm of American cable TV talk shows.
Before the election, my right-wing friends blindly refused to even look at the Green Party’s new, more moderate economic initiatives because, in their words, “it is all going to be left wing nonsense anyway.”
Since the election, left-wing politicos have scoffed at Prime Minister John Key’s announcements about his focus on child poverty because “he does not really care about poor people, it is just a cynical tactic to win approval.”
Uneasy acceptance
We arrive at our diverse convictions for many reasons.
Perhaps it is study, debates with friends, documentaries, blogs, our parents, life experience, or a combination of all of the above.
Whatever their origin, it is important to keep in mind that even though convictions lead us to think in binaries (right, wrong, good and bad), the world does not comprise issues with solutions as easy to distinguish as black and white.
There is a whole spectrum of grey colouring between the staunchly defended lines of our perspectives and experiences of life.
Our conversations and understanding of one another will be much richer, more generous, and humane if we can step past our lines, and ask sincere questions before giving hasty answers.
Jeremy Vargo is Media & Communications Officer at Maxim Institute based in Auckland.
