What do this newspaper column and this book have in common, other than me reading them?

They both illustrate how unknowable the "absolute truth" is.

It's not that I don't believe in an "absolute truth;" I certainly do. However, I believe that it's simply not within any one person's grasp, due to various factors that cloud our imperfect human abilities.

And when a crowd tries to figure it out together, we don't do much better. Many times, we do worse.

Even within collectives that agree upon certain "truths," there are many interpretations of what that truth is, or what it means. It doesn't matter if the group in question is religious, scientific, philosophical, or even a cluster of witnesses to an event.

This idea, that none of us has a lock on the "truth," is different than simple tolerance. Tolerance means countenancing differences.

But I'm talking about something more than saying, "You're different, and (likely or possibly) wrong, but I'm not going to chop your head off or force you to change."
Mr. Zorn sums it up nicely in the word "humility." This humility requires introspection, an acknowledgment and acceptance of our own fallibility.


I've been guilty of lacking this sort of humility. What about you?