Foggy

If all one knows about a particular person or group of people is what one has been told by that person's or group's critics, then one likely knows very little about that person or group, regardless of how much information one has been given.

This was driven home to me recently in a conversation with a Christian who was convinced that they understood exactly what I thought about certain issues and what my ethical lines (or lack thereof) were, because the atheist worldview had been explained to them in detail by their pastor.

"Have I met your pastor?" I eventually asked, in an effort to create an opening for the idea that it's exceedingly difficult to create an accurate description of a complete stranger. But my interlocutor was having none of it. Either the pastor's depiction of me was correct, or I was calling the pastor a liar. Rather than call the man deceitful (which part of me feels that I should have done), I simply walked away from the conversation.

This disinterest in understanding how other people understand themselves, in favor of falling back on what is best described as secondhand information, strikes me as a commonplace reaction these days. Perhaps it's a reaction to the idea that "To understand all is to forgive all." Back when I was in school an acquaintance told me that the upshot of that aphorism was that those who should not be forgiven should not be understood. (Personally, this strikes me as being born of the idea that forgiveness is a gift that a wrong party gives the transgressor. Being of the mind that forgiveness of others is a gift that one gives to oneself, I have no problem with understanding.) But it's more likely simply an expression of faith in the people who tell one things. The Christian I was conversing with had much more faith in his pastor than they had in me, even when the topic was me. The idea that I was either in denial or deliberately lying was more palatable to them than the idea that their faith may have been displaced.