You Always Think You are Right

"You Always Think You are Right"

by
Jason Dulle
JasonDulle@sbcglobal.net

I made a comment to someone the other day that it is always easier to see others' errors than it is to see your own. That got me thinking about how everyone holds to opinions that conflict with others' opinions at one point or another, and yet everyone thinks they are the one who is right. It is often as the old saying, "Heresy is what you believe, orthodoxy is what I believe." The question I pose here is Is it wrong to think we are right? Not only do I believe that it is not wrong, but that it is natural and healthy to think so. People naturally want to be right, and always tend to think that whatever it is that we believe is right. That this is normal almost goes without saying, for if we thought we were wrong we would cease to believe whatever it is that was wrong and would believe that which was right instead.

I have never known any honest person proclaim that they desire to be wrong, or maintain their position even though they know it to be in error. When we discover we are wrong, we change our position so as to align ourselves with what is right, at least according to our understanding of what is right. I have yet to hear a person say, "I know the earth revolves around the sun, but I prefer to say that the sun revolves around the earth. I am comfortable being wrong, and actually prefer it."

Who wants to be wrong? Nobody. That is why humans argue with one another. There is no reason to argue if we were not concerned about being right. Why is it, then, that we take offense when someone says to us, "You always think you are right"? The only other thing someone could say to us is, "You always think you are wrong!," but that would not be a compliment either. It is impossible to win. If we want to be right we are seen as an egotistical bigot. If we want to be wrong we are a bumbling idiot. We cannot think we are right, and we cannot want to be wrong. When someone says, "You think you are always right!," in reality they are complimenting our intelligence. In essence their statements says, "You don't believe those things that you believe are wrong. You only believe those things you think are right."

When someone deals you the "always right" line you should answer, "Thank you! Yes I do think I am right. What else were you expecting? Do you not also think you are always right? If not, why are you arguing with me? You are only arguing with me because you believe you are right and I am wrong." Should we rather believe that we are wrong, but with no evidence to conclude so? Of course not! But while we naturally believe we are right, we also recognize that our knowledge is limited and imperfect, and thus can be mistaken at times. Our acceptance of the notion of truth causes us to change our positions to line up with truth, wherever we find it to be. If presented with evidence that exposes our error and demonstrates the veracity of another position we will change our position. Until then, however, we have no reason to believe other than what we believe.

One would never give the "always right" line to someone whom they believed was indeed right. When John Doe says, "The grass is green," no one would come back with, "You think you are always right John!" There would be no reason for such a statement to be made unless it was believed that John was wrong. So who is it that always thinks they are right? Everyone. The fact is that all of us try to be right all of the time, and because we naturally choose to believe right things instead of wrong things all of us think that we are right. We only believe we are wrong when we are shown to be wrong by someone else who is right, and once we change our mind on the issue we instantly believe we are right again. That's just the way it is.

In fact, if it was wrong to think we are right we could never know it because as soon as we came to know that we were right about it being wrong to be right, we would have to conclude that we were wrong about thinking it is wrong to be right because we think we are right in our conclusion. If it is wrong to believe we are right, we could never be right in believing that it is indeed wrong in the first place.

This discussion is not for the purpose of mental gymnastics, but has apologetic relevance on at least two levels: relativism, evangelism.

Relativism

Relativists do not like for anyone to claim they are right, and will often verbally berate those who claim to so be. If you find yourself being attacked on this level you can demonstrate to the relativist the impracticality of their position. Point out that all people think they are right in their current beliefs (including them), and would change their beliefs if they thought otherwise. No one continues to maintain belief in things they know to be wrong. This does not mean that we do not realize that we could be mistaken about something, but it does mean that humans only allow themselves to believe things they think to be right, not things they think to be wrong.

It is self-refuting for a relativist to say we are wrong for claiming to be right, because such a claim is based on their belief that they are right. Relativists have to presuppose the notion of right and wrong beliefs to object to our assertion that our belief is right. If it is wrong for us to believe we are right, the relativist Himself cannot claim to be right in believing it wrong, for such a belief asserts that he is right and we are wrong. His charge is as coherent as saying, "I can't speak one word of English." It is self-refuting.

Evangelism

This discussion is also relevant when discussing any matter of truth with an unbeliever, or even a fellow-believer for that matter. We must keep in mind that every person naturally thinks they are right, and will not surrender their beliefs until they can be demonstrated to be in error and replaced with right beliefs. It is not sufficient to merely present the truth to a person who is in error. For them to fully embrace the truth they must first be persuaded that their current belief is in error, or at least inferior to the new truth claim being presented to them. If they fail to be convinced that their current belief is wrong at best they will accept both beliefs as true in some fashion (resulting in confusion), and at worst they will reject the truth being given to them and continue to believe their error. If we cannot demonstrate to others why it is that their beliefs are wrong we will have a very difficult time getting them to see why it is that our beliefs are right.

The next time you are discussing Christ with a Buddhist, for example, keep in mind the fact that he is persuaded that his religion is right. The next time you are discussing the nature of the Christian God with a Jehovah's Witness, remember that he thinks he is right. How do we settle the question of truth in such situations? Is it simply by asserting what we believe to be true? No, because all this does is pit one person's assertion against another person's assertion. It is only by explaining and defending the truth of our position, and exposing the error of the opposing position that the question of truth will be settled.

Imagine for a moment that you were approached by a Baptist who wanted to convert you to the Baptist faith. Would you be converted by him? I am sure you would say no, but why not? It is because you have reasons to believe that the Oneness faith is right and the Baptist faith is wrong. If you thought otherwise you would be a Baptist and not a Pentecostal. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Baptists are right and the Pentecostals are wrong, what would it take for that Baptist to convert you to his faith? Could he convert you simply by telling you that Pentecostals are wrong and Baptists are right? Of course not! It would take more than that. It would take polemics on his part, defending and explaining his faith, and showing the error of yours. Until you could see why it is that your Pentecostal beliefs are wrong, you would not be willing to abandon them and embrace his Baptist beliefs.

Now reverse roles. You are witnessing to a Baptist. Why should he convert to Pentecostalism? You will have to give him the same things he would have to give you if he wanted to convert you. You cannot just give him Pentecostal rhetoric and expect him to convert. He believes what he believes for a reason, and is not justified in dismissing those beliefs until they are shown to be in error. Just presenting someone with the truth does not dispel their false beliefs. You must show them the error of their beliefs and the truthfulness of your beliefs in order for them to expel the wrong beliefs from their minds that they have always believed to be right. To do this you must know both his doctrine and yours, be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each, and know how to defend the truth and expose error for what it is. Trying to convince someone who thinks they are right by merely asserting your beliefs is like trying to fill a cup with water that is already full of Pepsi. One must first dump out the Pepsi before the cup will be able to hold the water. So keep in mind that the person you are debating with or witnessing to believes that they are right and you are wrong, and that they will continue to believe so until you can show them the error of their belief and the truthfulness of yours.

Email IBS | Statement of Faith | Home | Browse by Author | Q & A
Links | Virtual Classroom | Copyright | Submitting Articles | Search