On withholding judgment

I've learned over the years that we shouldn't judge something--a political position or program, a religious movement or philosophical idea--based on the characterizations of that something by people who are essentially antagonistic to it.

So, for example, don't draw your conclusions about, say, climate change, Roman Catholocism or Calvinism or Arianism, post-modernism or Marxism or Never Trump-ism, simply by reading stuff written by people whose purpose is to put these things in the worst possible light.

I'm not saying that as you investigate a subject you shouldn't read critical assessments from an antagonistic viewpoint, only don't base your own position entirely on these assessments. It is better to withhold judgment--not have an opinion at all--than to draw conclusions from what is very likely to be a slanted, fact-selective piece studded with straw-man argumentation.

And straw men are mostly what we get in political and religious commentary these days. In fact, the political class (politicians, political handlers and activists, along with the commentariat) largely make their living and advance their respective causes by way of the construction of straw men. They are masters of the art.

You have to go to the source. You have to read what the other side says. And that's a time-consuming process, so you have to select carefully what you want to know more about, and what you want to let slide. For example, I don't know much about climate science. I don't really feel like learning all I can about it. So, in the end, I just have to resign myself to not having a strong opinion on the subject. Oh well.

This not having a strong opinion can be very satisfying. I highly recommend it.