When normally defined, humility means being modest, slight in one's opinion of oneself, and bearing a certain perception of personal lowliness.
This word has recently and egregiously been hijacked.
In postmodern language (though many now recoil at the term "postmodern", preferring to be considered more post-postmodern [and so it goes, I suppose, ad nauseum, ad infinitum]), humility has undergone a metamorphosis.
Rather than dealing in the realm of introspection and view of oneself, humility has now been unjustly thrust upon the realm of ideas. Now, to have an opinion which one believes is universally and objectively true, and especially to voice that opinion, is considered arrogant. Appreciation of academic debates has therefore been dulled, or has even disappeared entirely (especially within the Church). Strong political and theological stances (especially if smelling, even faintly, of conservatism) are ridiculed for being absolutist and unyielding to individual differences, and truth claims in general are dismissed as reckless and supercilious statements. Confidence in knowledge and firmness in ideas have been tragically confused with personal pride, and thus are no longer welcome in the (especially younger) public square. These are the ways of the humble postmodern, post-truth, post-thinker.
Sporting its newly contrived franken-definition, "humility" has begun its nationwide tour to extinguish rational thought. Where there is a knowledge claim made, "humility" fires the dismissive charge of "arrogance" at the rebel thinker. Where there is an opinion that attempts to claim universality and objectivity, "humility" thrusts the painfully dull spear of relativism. "Humility"attempts to convince the masses that we absolutely cannot know the truth in any absolute sense, and that we must be "humble" at all costs, even if that cost is reason.
Even within the Church, being staunchly opinionated has become rather faux pas, as it is (falsely) seen as the antithesis of Biblical humility. While this is far from accurate (Paul, for one, argued for positions brilliantly and steadfastly), the Church has nevertheless adopted this truly unlivable and self-defeating philosophy which carries with it the stench of relativism. However, many defensively cry, "But we are not relativists! There is a truth out there, we just must not be so arrogant as to think it is knowable." This common defense is actually quite permeable; to deny the possibility of ever knowing truth that may be out there somewhere is to detach oneself from absolute truth, and leads only in the direction of relativism. Having cut the anchor of objectivity, these individuals' attempt at disassociating from relativism is futile. After all, one absolutely must believe something is knowable in order to have warrant to make an objective truth claim about it!
So, what is the modus operandi of the "humble" post-thinker?
1) Beliefs and opinions are private, personal, and should not be "shoved down anyone's throat".
2) Knowledge is subjective and emotion-based, because absolute truth either doesn't exist at all or is unknowable.
3) In conversation, to take an unyielding position is to be arrogant and is therefore to be avoided, lest the discussion begin to resemble a debate and someone should take offence.
4) Facts are of little importance, and we must realize that those we hear are only the records of the "winners". We must humble ourselves enough to give equal appreciation to all opinions, especially those of the "losers", as none are wrong or right; they are all unique.
Rather than perpetuate this popular and absurd philosophy that draws upon a misconstrual of humility, human beings need to passionately and zealously discuss and defend knowable truth if they intend to preserve a milieu of legitimate and intellectually solid exchange in the marketplace of ideas. Furthermore, they can and should do so by also pursuing authentic, Biblical humility in order to maintain necessary civility when speaking the truth in love.