Why do people seem to think opinions are relevant when discussing matters of fact?

Question

I've had a rash of PMs lately basically saying "everyone is entitled to their opinion" on factual matters. One topic was whether or not the Bible discusses an angelic conflict. Another regarded whether or not Jesus existed as a man. In both cases, the person I conversed with resorted to claiming it's a matter of opinion. But it isn't! Matters of fact are certainly open to conflicting positions in cases where evidence allows for multiple positions, but they aren't open to arbitrarily selecting a position just because you like it.

Why does this mentality seem to be so pervasive? Is society really losing all ability to reason?

FYI, the Bible discussion was not about whether or not the Bible is right, but merely about what it says - a trivially verifiable matter of fact not opinion.

The Jesus discussion was not about what the Bible says about Jesus, but rather, was about whether or not the man actually existed - a matter of fact not opinion, although certainly a fact that isn't easy to determine.

Answer 1

"Post-Modernism" says that nobody can know everything; therefore, nobody can be absolutely sure about anything; therefore, nobody can be called 'wrong.'

Reality says that some things are, and somethings are not, no matter how much you wish they were otherwise.

Take the often-tossed-about question "Does God exist?" It is ridiculous to say that God may exist for you if you think so, and He doesn't exist for me because I do not think so, but I have heard people make essentially that claim. I had somebody e-mail me, stating that she didn't believe in God because she didn't like the thought of somebody looking over her; just because she didn't like it doesn't influence reality.

It was said long ago, "Most people would rather die than think, and in fact they usually do so."

Answer 2

I think that as humans we grow up believing that ultimately our way is the right way. I also think that there is a big difference between a fact and the truth. A fact is simply something that can be proved but if everything that is used to justify that fact is a lie, then where is the truth? The truth of the matter is that facts often tend to be the majorities or societies opinion but most people are not ready to believe that. If you take a look back in time people thought that it was a fact that the world was flat, but the truth of the matter was that the earth is round. I could give tons of historical scenarios where facts were often confused with the truth but I think you get my drift. Facts are often disguised as the truth and only the truly intellectual can decipher the codes because majority doesn't equal truth.

Answer 3

You are stating your opinion, are you not? Everyone has an opinion on any subject whether it is proven or not. You may say that a steak is cooked to perfection and in fact it may be to all the experts but can't I have an opinion on that too that is different than yours? IF I have a glass of water, we know it is H2O. Maybe you would say it is really good water but I may not think it is so good. So which of us is correct? Whether fact or fiction, you are never going to find everyone with the same opinion and we do have the right to form an opinion on what you would call fact, don't we? Now for the record, I agree that the bible is based on fact and that Jesus did live and die on the cross but not everyone does and they are free to have that opinion if they so choose, don't they? How can you reason when all you are fed all day long on the boob tube, immorality, killing, violence and garbage? It takes getting out in the world to explore and see real life to be able to learn to reason things out, something this age is severely lacking.

Answer 4

When people state their opinion on a matter as if it were fact or when they decide their perception of a matter is to be the truth of that matter while they bypass researching the facts of the matter. This may come from a desire to control others who would listen to their mindless chatter, it may be a desperate attempt to get in the last word or have a final say so, this depends on the situation at hand of course. Either way this is the very roots of gossip and should be disregarded as such. There are two ways people try and destroy truth, take an essential part of it out or add non factual parts to it.. However they try, truth will stand on its on in the end.

( Proverbs 13-3 )

( Proverbs 13-3

Answer 5

I see that are a couple of reasons that these peopl would tell you that it is a matter of opion. One that they are not ready to aceept Jesus Christ into their lives and therfore cannot handle the truth about Him. Or maybe they relly do not know anything about Him and iy is too overwhelming for them in which I would feel very bad for them and hope they find the truth soon. The other reason I can see is that they have other beliefs and do not want to start a big argument, so they blow it off with its a matter of opion. I agree with you when it says it in the Bible it is and thats all there is to it. I hope this helps.

Answer 6

When the evidence allows for multiple positions, why is it bad for someone to use the available, but nonconclusive evidence to pick a position to support? This mentality is pervasive because we are in a cycle in this society where reason is playing second fiddle to faith. It will turn around. It always does, sooner or later

Answer 7

I agree that it can be simply a matter of opinion about whether or not Jesus existed. He either existed or He didn't.

But I believe that He did exist, not just because I think so but because I believe that the history and witness of the ones who knew Him and walked with Him and the testimony of even non-Christians of that time about Him is enough evidence for me. History can prove that Jesus existed, but it takes faith to believe who He was, God in the flesh.

This is a question about it which was answered by an expert Catholic apologist at Catholic Answers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How does the Church respond to arguments that Jesus never existed?

A: The historian, Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101) a Jew and non-Christian, gives evidence of the life and death of Jesus. Most reputable historians recognize the legitimacy of the early Christian writings. It is hardly likely that eye witnesses would have gone to their deaths rather than retract their accounts if they had been bogus. The martyrdom of so many early Christians (including the apostles, themselves), is by far the strongest evidence we have of the truth of the Gospels. Next to such powerful statements, the arguments you make are weak indeed. The fact that St. Paul makes no mention of Christ’s infancy proves absolutely nothing. Paul indeed speaks of having met Jesus. This is how he was converted! Jesus could very likely have confided to those who were close to Him events that took place away from His disciples.

I suggest that you read: “The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ” by Gary R. Habermas, “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” by Craig L. Blomberg and”New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?” by F.F. Bruce.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Catholic Answers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

spamandham,

You said in answer to my question:

"...cradle Catholic, turned agnostic, turned Catholic, turned foaming at the mouth nutjob young earth creationist Baptist, turned atheist."

I'm curious to know more about your conversion when you "turned Catholic". How serious was this conversion? Was it something that you did a lot of research and meditation on before making the decision or was it a casual one (like doing it because you feel obligated because of a marriage)? What was the reason for this conversion?

Here is the link to my question where you can give more details:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmPglRgHWL.XPmVBlROlwVTsy6IX?qid=20060630131428AAA01Zv

Answer 8

Sometimes what is a "fact" depends on your point of view. We might say that it was a "fact" that we won the Revolutionary War and gained our independence. The English, on the other hand, would say that it is a "fact" that we were a bunch of traitors, and that they gave up the U.S. because they were also fighting to keep other colonies at the time, as well as fighting France, so it was in their best interests to unload us and concentrate on the bigger picture. Both are right, it just depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on.

Answer 9

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own "ego"."

Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech given last June, showed that the issue of relativism is as contentious today as it was in Ancient Greece, when Plato took on the relativist stance of Protagoras.

Society is quickly becoming overwhelmingly relativistic - so buckle up, because it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Answer 10

The facts that you are seeking real or imagined. Who is defining reason? What is the bench mark? Who defined it and by what measure?

If facts are real, then who is defining the reality? Is your reality the same as mine? Are we both real? Can you prove that I am real? How do you know? Could you just be part of my imagination? Can you prove that you are not? How can you prove to me that you are real? What if I choise not to believe it? Does it make you any less real?

Am I real? Do you know? Could this all be just a big dream and you just haven't woke up yet? Are we all a sleep?

Prove it? Wake up? Is anyone really out there?

Is this just one collective reality?

What is icecream?

Get the picture?