Personally, my oldest brother debated me for over three hours this last Christmas (an argument about church authority – my brother is a protestant). After chasing down every fire set by him and eradicating every argument, his only form of defense was to say that maybe the disciples got it wrong (he was talking about the structure of the church) from the beginning. This line of thinking nullifies any reasonable belief in the Bible in the first place, but he was willing to offer that explanation in spite of the ramifications of such a belief. Why? Because I had attacked his world view.
The simple part of the answer is that it is due to the world view of the person, but there are many layers to it. World views begin when a person is a child and then is engrained through the years of life. Life experiences, teachings, cultures, family, friends, and so many other little aspects solidify a view of the world in which all data is interpreted. Somebody once said, “There is no neutral data.” The reason is, because as soon as we can even say, “It’s data”, we’ve already interpreted it on some level to even come to that conclusion. Whether or not you accept the premise, there is a good deal of truth to the idea. People naturally interpret their encounters and interactions based on their world view. |
 |
Simple example, look at this silhouette and see what you think it is. Now, ask yourself, “Would an Indian tribe in the Amazon rain forest interpret this image in the same way?”
Now with that very simple explanation in place, consider what happens when you try to challenge that perspective. Not only are you insulting everything that person believes and holds dear, you’re challenging the entire system in which they used to come to the conclusion they have. It is perceived as an insult to their culture, experience, family, education and everything else from their life. This is the barrier which logic cannot penetrate. All of their life experiences are interpreted through this world view and the positions they hold dear are further strengthened with each new experience they interpret that supports their position. So even though their interpretation of events or ideas might not be necessarily able to add veracity to their view, due to their world view they will not see it that way. This is why people often talk about experiences they have had and how they support the conclusion they have drawn – their world view interprets those experiences in way to fortify their position, continually growing more and more support for what they believe and hold dear.
A world view also has a second part to it though. It also determines automatically which ideas to reject. Whether due to culture or teaching, people learn to dismiss certain views automatically without question. People learned certain arguments against some ideas or were taught certain philosophies growing up and therefore they have no room for listening. This can perhaps be the most frustrating aspect of world views to deal with because if you come from a position which is automatically rejected by the person’s world view, it becomes next to impossible to reason with the person. Why? Because they will never actually LISTEN to your points. All they see is something that is false or even dangerous and should be thrown out; they see something that not only is opposed to their world view, but something that is flat wrong inherently. Many arguments never even reach the ears of people because of this aspect of a world view.
This isn’t to say every view is valid and should be considered. But at the same time, if somebody can offer a reason for a stupid view, I have more respect for them than the person who can offer no defense for what they believe – even if I agree with it! A person’s world view is the most difficult thing to break through. No amount of good arguments will dent the barrier. Until a person is willing to put some of the pillars in their world view at risk they will not be convinced by reason. So I debate hoping that somebody else will be impacted by the reasoning – somebody searching for truth. I also debate hoping, that maybe by chance, this person will risk a pillar of their world view and be willing to listen. Lastly, I debate in the pursuit of truth, always remembering that I too have my own world views.
