<<I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradictions to the sentiments of
others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use
of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion,
such as "certainly", "undoubtedly", etc. I adopted instead of them "I
conceive", "I apprehend", or "I imagine" a thing to be so or so; or "so it
appears to me at present".
When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself
the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing him immediately
some absurdity in his proposition. In answering I began by observing that
in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the
present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc.
I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations
I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my
opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction. I had
less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily
prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I
happened to be in the right.>>
We can probably all learn something from this; I know I certainly can!
/Gary
> From evolution-owner-etlgycs=etlxdmx.ericsson.se@udomo2.calvin.edu Tue Feb 24 17:01:21 1998
> Delivered-To: evolution@udomo2.calvin.edu
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:59:22 -0500
> From: Jim Bell <JamesScottBell@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Evolution debate
> To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Re: the comment by Ron Chitwood:
>
> "Perhaps this discussion is cutting into the sales of your books,
> something both you and I know is your real agenda."
>
> I have to add my voice to those who are calling you to account for this,
> Ron. I have disagreed with Glenn often, and sometimes vituperatively, but I
> don't question his motive. His motive is the truth, as he sees it. He is a
> vigorous advocate for his cause. Meet his arguments if you disagree, but do
> not disparage his character.
>
> You will find, if you don't judge motives, that people will listen more to
> what you have to say. It's a biblical command, BTW. See 1 Peter 3:15
> (gentleness and respect).
>
> While we're on this subject, I want to quote from one of my favorite
> contemporary thinkers, Dennis Prager, a Jewish intellectual and author of
> "Think a Second Time." In a chapter titled "Don't Judge Motives" he says:
>
> "Assessing motives is usually pointless, and often destructive. It is
> pointless because motives are almost impossible to determine. We often
> don't know our own, let alone others', and it is destructive because we
> almost always exaggerate the purity of our own motives and assign nefarious
> ones to others.
>
> "Nearly all of us fall into this trap. Like most people, I long tended to
> judge negatively the motives of people with whom I disagreed. Only after
> years of hosting a radio talk show in which I speak daily with people whose
> views oppose mine did I learn the great lesson that people with whom I
> disagree are just as likely to have the same good conscious motives I
> ascribe to myself.
>
> "In addition to enabling me to mature, this attitude had an enormous
> unforseeable benefit--people who disagree with me listen to what I have to
> say. When you belittle your opponents' motives, they can only become
> defensive. But when you ascribe to them moral conviction, they only have to
> defend their views, not themselves.
>
> "So, please, no more assessments of motives. In matters of public policy,
> let's debate results, not motives. And in interpersonal relationships,
> let's assess ourselves and others by actions, not intentions."
>
> Jim Bell