In response to my mom’s remedy for hiccups, I launched into an arrogant little rant about how that remedy resembled folklore or witchcraft and didn’t sound scientific in the least. She looked somewhat shocked, but replied that they had always done that for babies and it seemed to work.

I’m sorry for that, now. We humans often choose a position on an issue that is not based on a careful consideration of all the angles. Instead, we often decide which source of knowledge is trustworthy and which is suspect, and go with what our source tells us. And we continue to defend our position in the face of new evidence, because to backtrack would be too humiliating.

I love coffee. I deal in coffee. I can point toward numerous studies that affirm some health benefits of drinking a moderate amount of coffee. I really don’t care to read the stuff that warns about any negative effects. I admit it. I like reading about the benefits. It confirms my bias.

What if new information ends up denying what I hope is true? If I am wrong, would I really want to know it?

We may laugh at those who still assume that the earth is flat. They choose to deny something that seems to be well-documented. Do you use a similar line of reasoning when choosing a set of values or solutions?

How often do you read or listen to a report on health, news, or science hoping for a specific bit of information that supports what you already think?

What about today’s highly-emotional topics of controversy: vaccines, health supplements, guns, climate change, political ethics, racial realities, ethnic stereotypes? Does your favourite source of information always get it right? Do the other sources always lie?

Do you actually read or listen to additional evidence and data in order to consider the issues with integrity? Do you apply the same critique to your information source that you apply to others?

If not, you are guided by what is called “confirmation bias.” That simply means you will hear what you want to hear. You will read what you want to know. You will accept what confirms your preferred belief.

Admit it. We all do that, at least some of the time. When we live that way, we more easily move from disagreement to hatred.

Christ-followers quickly point out the difference between disagreement and hatred on some issues. But then we can easily engage in hatred toward individuals on other issues—when it supports our position.

I just read someone’s social media comment about a real person with whom they had a strong ideological disagreement. The writer called the other a “piece of scum.” These two people don’t know each other. They never will. The politician will never hear the curse. The slanderer will never try to hear what may actually be useful and factual bits of information.

There is significant public ridicule for those who accept the minority views on things like climate change, on vaccines, or on ethnic superiority. There is also plenty of ridicule for those who accept the majority view. How do you sort through the conflicting social pressures and the expectations of close friends? It happens on a variety of levels in most controversies.

Some of us are inclined to believe that the majority must be right, and some of us will intuitively and emotionally assume the majority can’t be right.

And when the evidence contradicts our emotional-trust framework, we make up logical explanations to satisfy our conflicted hearts. That’s how we explain why one person’s character flaws aren’t significant, while the same actions in another leader matter enormously. That’s how we explain why our theory of health and diet will eventually provide the results we wish for.

When I unquestioningly trust information from one source because of its label, without comparing or considering other sources, I’m not even acting with integrity—much less critical, intelligent thinking.

Confirmation bias is a powerful reality.

In addition, we are pressured to believe that we must make a simple judgment about a whole body of data that we are marginally informed on. We feel forced to jump into an opinion stream and to judge others as wrong, for fear we may be considered stupid.

Is there an alternative to being forced into a category in these controversies?

If you are a citizen of God’s kingdom, there is a foundational contrast in how you may engage the controversies. I suggest we need a healthy skepticism while processing scientific, political, or medical information. All of these categories are in a rapid state of change, and I recommend caution in assuming that we can easily tell when the source of information is trustworthy. Scientists and politicians also suffer from confirmation bias.

The most important things in life and eternity do not hang upon resolving our society’s most divisive topics. The most critical aspects of our existence are not primarily the product of logic, research, philosophy or public opinion.

The Meaning of Life has its beginning outside ourselves, revealed to us by the Eternal God. Jesus Christ amazed everyone by leading a movement not organized around intelligence, influence, wealth, domination, or control. He calls his followers to take a very different path toward a society where people may live in harmony and peace.

Have we forgotten his ideals? Love, for example, will never be reduced to a body of evidence or to the philosophy of the majority. Loving and being loved are realities that originated from God who is, himself, the definition of love. Check out 1 John 4:7-21 in the Bible.

As we are governed by that rule of love, we are empowered to live out our lives with integrity—for the good of others—in contrast to trying to win controversies and conquer others in order to protect our ideological position, our security, and our comfort.