Why is it wrong to change your views?

[SnowyMacie]

Ok, I decided to make a thread about this because I've seen this multiple times on CF now where people are criticizing science, liberals, etc. because they change their views, beliefs, opinions, whatever you want to call when they are presented with new information. To me, I don't understand why that it is a criticism at all. I was raised my parents, teachers, pastors, and everyone to question things, and when you are presented with new information that conflicts with what you current know, study and figure out which is right, never automatically dismiss anything as being wrong. In other words, when presented with hard, proven evidence or a good enough argument, the appropriate response is to change your views. I have changed my views multiple times on many issues, and would change mine.

Why is that such a bad thing? I was a bit dumbfounded the first time I ever saw someone say on here "the problem with liberals is that they're always changing their views to fit new information" and I just "that's what you are supposed to do." Can someone explain this to me?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ok, I decided to make a thread about this because I've seen this multiple times on CF now where people are criticizing science, liberals, etc. because they change their views, beliefs, opinions, whatever you want to call when they are presented with new information. To me, I don't understand why that it is a criticism at all. I was raised my parents, teachers, pastors, and everyone to question things, and when you are presented with new information that conflicts with what you current know, study and figure out which is right, never automatically dismiss anything as being wrong. In other words, when presented with hard, proven evidence or a good enough argument, the appropriate response is to change your views. I have changed my views multiple times on many issues, and would change mine.

Why is that such a bad thing? I was a bit dumbfounded the first time I ever saw someone say on here "the problem with liberals is that they're always changing their views to fit new information" and I just "that's what you are supposed to do." Can someone explain this to me?

Just like a liberal to argue that way.

 

[Albion]

Why is that such a bad thing? I was a bit dumbfounded the first time I ever saw someone say on here "the problem with liberals is that they're always changing their views to fit new information" and I just "that's what you are supposed to do." Can someone explain this to me?

It may be more a question of how it's worded.

Liberals tend to be all over the map when it comes to their principles. They think they're all for X because it's only right, but then they are on the other side of the issue when it suits.

Conservatives, being advocates for that which has a proven track record, are more oriented towards enduring principles and concerned about consistency.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It may be more a question of how it's worded.

Liberals tend to be all over the map when it comes to their principles. They think they're all for X because it's only right, but then they are on the other side of the issue when it suits.

Conservatives, being advocates for that which has a proven track record, are more oriented towards enduring principles and concerned about consistency.

Like when they were so consistently fighting to preserve slavery?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

"the problem with liberals is that they're always changing their views to fit new information"

I have a suspicion that this is not what said person actually said.

to answer your question, I see no problem with doing such a thing and I wonder who thinks in such a way and why. however, there's a difference between "new information" and "going with the flow".

 

[HereIStand]

Studying in order to better understand orthodox Christian beliefs is good. Studying in order to find reasons to undermine (and change) them is not.

 

[Tolworth John]

Why is that such a bad thing? I was a bit dumbfounded the first time I ever saw someone say on here "the problem with liberals is that they're always changing their views to fit new information" and I just "that's what you are supposed to do." Can someone explain this to me?

It depends why are they or anyone changing there views.
Is it because the latest idea being promoted and they want to be in with the trendy ideas or is it because biblical scholarship has shown that an idea held was in fact not supported by the bible.

 

[A New Dawn]

Like when they were so consistently fighting to preserve slavery?

I'm thinking you are not remembering this correctly. It was the Democrats who fought to preserve slavery and started the KKK to scare the bejeesus out of everyone who voted Republican.

 

[A New Dawn]

Ok, I decided to make a thread about this because I've seen this multiple times on CF now where people are criticizing science, liberals, etc. because they change their views, beliefs, opinions, whatever you want to call when they are presented with new information. To me, I don't understand why that it is a criticism at all. I was raised my parents, teachers, pastors, and everyone to question things, and when you are presented with new information that conflicts with what you current know, study and figure out which is right, never automatically dismiss anything as being wrong. In other words, when presented with hard, proven evidence or a good enough argument, the appropriate response is to change your views. I have changed my views multiple times on many issues, and would change mine.

Why is that such a bad thing? I was a bit dumbfounded the first time I ever saw someone say on here "the problem with liberals is that they're always changing their views to fit new information" and I just "that's what you are supposed to do." Can someone explain this to me?

Lots of "new information" contradicts other "new information". There is a plethora of new information out there that is questionable. The problem, IMO, with people who change their views to fit new information is that they can be blown about in the wind, never having any real grounding. Sometimes you need to understand how "new information" fits with what you believe rather than changing what you believe to fit the new information, since it (the new information) is always as suspect as the "old information".

 

[RaymondG]

This is simple.... A good Pharisee knows what they know and stands by it and anyone speaking a different view is a blasphemer. No one can make them change there view, no not even the Lord. But I admire their dedication to what they believe in......in time, they will come around. They are the opposite of the people whose beliefs are determined by the direction of the wind and crowds that day. I aim to be in the middle ground and to eventually Know...so there are no more beliefs to change.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm thinking you are not remembering this correctly. It was the Democrats who fought to preserve slavery and started the KKK to scare the bejeesus out of everyone who voted Republican.

"conservatives" are not equal to "republicans". I lived through the shift from dixiecrat democrats to right wing so-called conservatives. When you try to blame today's democrats for the dixiecrat democrats that no longer exist you have left the realm of logical discussion and entered the realm of political propaganda. Are you one of those so called conservatives who resist efforts at conservation, in favor of big oil and polluting our air and water?

 

[A New Dawn]

"conservatives" are not equal to "republicans". I lived through the shift from dixiecrat democrats to right wing so-called conservatives. When you try to blame today's democrats for the dixiecrat democrats that no longer exist you have left the realm of logical discussion and entered the realm of political propaganda. Are you one of those so called conservatives who resist efforts at conservation, in favor of big oil and polluting our air and water?

It is only your misperception that the two have 'changed sides'. Democrats still will do anything and everything to get the vote. Look at LBJ. Look at the democrats of today, going back to the days of the KKK, practically. But to answer your question, I know lots of Republicans who believe in conserving the earth.

 

[Archivist]

It was the Democrats who fought to preserve slavery and started the KKK to scare the bejeesus out of everyone who voted Republican.

That was before the parties flipped. The Republicans were once the more liberal party.

 

[A New Dawn]

That was before the parties flipped. The Republicans were once the more liberal party.

There was no "flip", as I outlined above.

 

[Archivist]

There was no "flip", as I outlined above.

Actually there was. The Republicans were once the liberal party, the Democrats were the conservatives.

 

[A New Dawn]

Actually there was. The Republicans were once the liberal party, the Democrats were the conservatives.

Democrats are still very conservative, they just hold different things close to the chest. That is why we are having the problems we are having now regarding the people who are abusive and rioting, etc., just because they lost. True liberals, like Kennedy, are almost nowhere to be found in the Democratic party these days.

 

[lambkisses]

right, but then they are on the other side of the issue when it suits.

This is a very interesting statement. The implication is that liberal politics is rife with hypocrisy. It would be easy to write off liberals as hypocrites but I believe the truth is slightly more complex.
Let's be honest there are hypocrites on both sides. There are hypocritical liberals and there are hypocritical conservatives period. However the appearance that liberals are "sll over the map" is not necessarily due to there being more liberal hypocrites but more due to the fact that the body we call the "liberals" is more of a coalition rather than a body. This becomes more easy to understand when you repaint the struggle as traditional (conservtive) versus non traditional (liberals). By its nature the traditions side is going to be more cohesive with me or less concurrency on most issues. However on the in the non traditional side you have all the groups (gays, Muslims, feminist, Trans, ect) whom all may have radically different moral/social views but are united by their common thread of being opposed to the traditionalists.

 

[A New Dawn]

This is a very interesting statement. The implication is that liberal politics is rife with hypocrisy. It would be easy to write off liberals as hypocrites but I believe the truth is slightly more complex.
Let's be honest there are hypocrites on both sides. There are hypocritical liberals and there are hypocritical conservatives period. However the appearance that liberals are "sll over the map" is not necessarily due to there being more liberal hypocrites but more due to the fact that the body we call the "liberals" is more of a coalition rather than a body. This becomes more easy to understand when you repaint the struggle as traditional (conservtive) versus non traditional (liberals). By its nature the traditions side is going to be more cohesive with me or less concurrency on most issues. However on the in the non traditional side you have all the groups (gays, Muslims, feminist, Trans, ect) whom all may have radically different moral/social views but are united by their common thread of being opposed to the traditionalists.

Your whole analysis is rife with error. It assumes that all 'traditionalists' are united. Traditionalists are just as varied as non-traditionalists, with some focusing on the problem with freedoms, some focusing on the problem with taxation, etc. What's really sad is not that you feel that liberals are opposed to the issues that traditionalists hold, but that you feel they are opposed to traditionalists.

 

[Albion]

This is a very interesting statement. The implication is that liberal politics is rife with hypocrisy.

That's well stated, lambkisses.

It would be easy to write off liberals as hypocrites but I believe the truth is slightly more complex.
Let's be honest there are hypocrites on both sides. There are hypocritical liberals and there are hypocritical conservatives period.

Certainly, but it is in the nature of liberalism to be that way, whereas it is in the nature of conservatism not to be that way. So although individuals on both sides of the divide may not fit the pattern exactly, the ideologies in each case push the adherents in certain directions.

However the appearance that liberals are "all over the map" is not necessarily due to there being more liberal hypocrites but more due to the fact that the body we call the "liberals" is more of a coalition rather than a body. This becomes more easy to understand when you repaint the struggle as traditional (conservtive) versus non traditional (liberals). By its nature the traditions side is going to be more cohesive with me or less concurrency on most issues. However on the in the non traditional side you have all the groups (gays, Muslims, feminist, Trans, ect) whom all may have radically different moral/social views but are united by their common thread of being opposed to the traditionalists.

Yes, that's a worthwhile observation. I don't think it negates my point, but it has merit. I doubt, however, that we should conclude that if liberalism today is a coalition of groups with grievances against society that they differ radically one from another. There is quite a similarity in style and overall objectives between, say, militant gays and militant feminists (to refer to two of the groups you yourself chose for your example).

 

[lambkisses]

That's well stated, lambkisses.


Certainly, but it is in the nature of liberalism to be that way, whereas it is in the nature of conservatism not to be that way. So although individuals on both sides of the divide may not fit the pattern exactly, the ideologies in each case push the adherents in certain directions.


Yes, that's a worthwhile observation. I don't think it negates my point, but it has merit. I doubt, however, that we should conclude that if liberalism today is a coalition of groups with grievances against society that they differ radically one from another. There is quite a similarity in style and overall objectives between, say, militant gays and militant feminists (to refer to two of the groups you yourself chose for your example).

I didn't say it negates your point. On the contrary I think what I say expounds on your point and provides a "why" to it . I conjecture that liberal orthodoxy is inherently unstsinable because of your point. You are correct that the Tatics of the militant gays, militant Muslims , etc are very very similar yet their end objectives are very different. As such once there is no longer a common foe, the liberal coalition will invariably tear itself apart.