jeremy.lankenau
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 15:21
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 32
Atheists and "Believers" alike seem to pick the worst of what they perceive about the others, while cherry picking their own. There are just as many in the Bible that do permit slavery, especially when you conquer another people group (of course, those in your people group were limited to 7 years, or the next jubilee)
I'd like to share an article I read recently that I hope is constructive for all those mentally (and emotionally) invested in this topic:
From the website "The Atheists Next Door" (couldnt post link because this is my 10th post and can't share links until at 10, lol)
"Our conversations are alive. When they are newborns they don’t accomplish much, but they also don’t really do any lasting damage. The longer they live, however, the more their potential grows – for both good and ill. Some of the best conversations become immortal, while others seem all too eager to die a horrendous death. And the last gasp of those conversations is all-too-often heard…”you should just respect my beliefs.”
…
Respect is a funny word. It means a lot of different things. For instance…
“Respect your mother and father.” To me, this means we ought to embody their teachings. The same goes for other authority figures (police, teachers, coaches, bosses). I’m going to give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt and say that most people are not so arrogant as to insist that everyone should adhere to their beliefs by default.
“I respect her as a lawyer.” An expression of admiration. It’s getting a little closer here. After all, I can respect someone as a lawyer, but not as a cook, so this is slightly less presumptuous. But I think this still misses the mark.
“Be respectful, children, and don’t mention Aunt Selma’s growth on her neck.” Etiquette, or courtesy. I think this is the first half of what people mean by “respecting beliefs.” At the core of it, a lot of people think that it’s rude and disrespectful to directly question the beliefs of others.
“I disagree with your opinion, but I respect your right to have it.” Tolerance. I think this is the other half of what people mean. The problem is that people are often confused about what their legal rights actually are. In the United States we have the legal guarantee that the weight of the government can not be used to criticize (or promote) one set of beliefs over another. But that doesn’t mean that we have the legal guarantee that private citizens can not criticize (or promote) one set of beliefs over another. I think this subtle but important distinction has laid to rest a number of promising young conversations.
If you take the emotions wrapped up in the last two meanings and stir them up it’s easy to see how a lot of people are just not willing to engage on important topics. So what are we to do? How can we revive a conversation that is on life support? I’m going to try to set up a framework for how to help conversations pull through when they are flat-lining. I think the key is to get back to common ground. For instance:
1.) I hope we can all agree that most people think their beliefs, if put into actions, will be for the best.
We’re generally all good people. We generally want things to work out. We might not agree on exactly what that looks like or how to get there, but let’s at least give each other credit that we’re trying to do what we think is best.
2.) We’ll need to agree that some beliefs, if acted out, will not actually have positive consequences.
If we disagree on something, and our disagreement will cause us to act differently, we will experience different outcomes. Sometimes these outcomes will still be nearly identical, other times they will be extremely different. We only need to agree that these differences will occur sometimes, and that there will be times when one outcome is preferable to the other.
3.) We’ll need to agree that if we think we see someone in harm’s way that we ought to try to help.
I hope we would agree that if you see someone on the ground in pain that we should try to offer help. Now, sometimes we think we see someone in need of help, but we later find out our perceptions were just wrong. To this day I have a scar on my right arm from hopping a chain link fence, en-route to what I thought was a friend getting in fist fight. It turns out that flirting and fighting can look very similar from a few hundred feet away, at night, after you have had a few drinks. But given my belief I think my actions were perfectly reasonable. I was right to try and help, given the fact that I had perceived someone in danger. It just turns out my perceptions were flawed.
So that’s it. I think these three assumptions are enough to get the conversation back on the right track. If we all agree with the above then there seems to be at least one conclusion I can draw: we all ought to confront ideas we disagree with if we perceive those ideas to be harmful. And I think this last portion, the perceived harm, is where the stakes get raised. It’s why I personally take a conversation longer than others might deem appropriate. It’s why I can’t just “agree to disagree.” I wouldn’t walk away from an impending fight. It would be wrong of me. I have to at least try and help. And it could very well turn out that my perceptions are incorrect, but I can only find that out by taking a risk and starting that conversation. Because at the end of the day, someone really ought to talk to Aunt Selma about that lump on her neck. She should probably go see a doctor. Granted, nobody wants to be thought of as the ‘Aunt Selma’ here. Because then we’re comparing deep, heartfelt beliefs to a tumor. But if you’ve made it this far then hopefully you’ve already agreed in principle that some beliefs can be harmful. A test to help search your inner thoughts: could you possibly hold the belief yourself? If not, then why not? There’s no way to dress it up: if you couldn’t imagine holding the belief yourself then at some level it is because you perceive the idea as harmful.
So what happens when we follow the usual etiquette when these beliefs come up? When I witness an exchange of “respecting another’s beliefs” I do not come away with an overwhelming sense of respect. It always seems to me to be the epitome of condescension.
Most importantly, however, I think that respecting someone else’s belief is simply not possible. Every time that I have ever truly come to respect someone else’s beliefs they ceased being someone else’s…they became my beliefs. That’s what respect means to me. If I respect a belief it’s because I find it more compelling than my current belief. And then I must have it. I’m obligated to. It would be positively immoral to turn from it. And then I have the obligation to let others know what a great idea it is. And then our conversation can live to see another day. Maybe it’ll give birth to a few more down the road. And the cycle of life continues.
-C.L. O’Hanlon"
I'd like to share an article I read recently that I hope is constructive for all those mentally (and emotionally) invested in this topic:
From the website "The Atheists Next Door" (couldnt post link because this is my 10th post and can't share links until at 10, lol)
"Our conversations are alive. When they are newborns they don’t accomplish much, but they also don’t really do any lasting damage. The longer they live, however, the more their potential grows – for both good and ill. Some of the best conversations become immortal, while others seem all too eager to die a horrendous death. And the last gasp of those conversations is all-too-often heard…”you should just respect my beliefs.”
…
Respect is a funny word. It means a lot of different things. For instance…
“Respect your mother and father.” To me, this means we ought to embody their teachings. The same goes for other authority figures (police, teachers, coaches, bosses). I’m going to give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt and say that most people are not so arrogant as to insist that everyone should adhere to their beliefs by default.
“I respect her as a lawyer.” An expression of admiration. It’s getting a little closer here. After all, I can respect someone as a lawyer, but not as a cook, so this is slightly less presumptuous. But I think this still misses the mark.
“Be respectful, children, and don’t mention Aunt Selma’s growth on her neck.” Etiquette, or courtesy. I think this is the first half of what people mean by “respecting beliefs.” At the core of it, a lot of people think that it’s rude and disrespectful to directly question the beliefs of others.
“I disagree with your opinion, but I respect your right to have it.” Tolerance. I think this is the other half of what people mean. The problem is that people are often confused about what their legal rights actually are. In the United States we have the legal guarantee that the weight of the government can not be used to criticize (or promote) one set of beliefs over another. But that doesn’t mean that we have the legal guarantee that private citizens can not criticize (or promote) one set of beliefs over another. I think this subtle but important distinction has laid to rest a number of promising young conversations.
If you take the emotions wrapped up in the last two meanings and stir them up it’s easy to see how a lot of people are just not willing to engage on important topics. So what are we to do? How can we revive a conversation that is on life support? I’m going to try to set up a framework for how to help conversations pull through when they are flat-lining. I think the key is to get back to common ground. For instance:
1.) I hope we can all agree that most people think their beliefs, if put into actions, will be for the best.
We’re generally all good people. We generally want things to work out. We might not agree on exactly what that looks like or how to get there, but let’s at least give each other credit that we’re trying to do what we think is best.
2.) We’ll need to agree that some beliefs, if acted out, will not actually have positive consequences.
If we disagree on something, and our disagreement will cause us to act differently, we will experience different outcomes. Sometimes these outcomes will still be nearly identical, other times they will be extremely different. We only need to agree that these differences will occur sometimes, and that there will be times when one outcome is preferable to the other.
3.) We’ll need to agree that if we think we see someone in harm’s way that we ought to try to help.
I hope we would agree that if you see someone on the ground in pain that we should try to offer help. Now, sometimes we think we see someone in need of help, but we later find out our perceptions were just wrong. To this day I have a scar on my right arm from hopping a chain link fence, en-route to what I thought was a friend getting in fist fight. It turns out that flirting and fighting can look very similar from a few hundred feet away, at night, after you have had a few drinks. But given my belief I think my actions were perfectly reasonable. I was right to try and help, given the fact that I had perceived someone in danger. It just turns out my perceptions were flawed.
So that’s it. I think these three assumptions are enough to get the conversation back on the right track. If we all agree with the above then there seems to be at least one conclusion I can draw: we all ought to confront ideas we disagree with if we perceive those ideas to be harmful. And I think this last portion, the perceived harm, is where the stakes get raised. It’s why I personally take a conversation longer than others might deem appropriate. It’s why I can’t just “agree to disagree.” I wouldn’t walk away from an impending fight. It would be wrong of me. I have to at least try and help. And it could very well turn out that my perceptions are incorrect, but I can only find that out by taking a risk and starting that conversation. Because at the end of the day, someone really ought to talk to Aunt Selma about that lump on her neck. She should probably go see a doctor. Granted, nobody wants to be thought of as the ‘Aunt Selma’ here. Because then we’re comparing deep, heartfelt beliefs to a tumor. But if you’ve made it this far then hopefully you’ve already agreed in principle that some beliefs can be harmful. A test to help search your inner thoughts: could you possibly hold the belief yourself? If not, then why not? There’s no way to dress it up: if you couldn’t imagine holding the belief yourself then at some level it is because you perceive the idea as harmful.
So what happens when we follow the usual etiquette when these beliefs come up? When I witness an exchange of “respecting another’s beliefs” I do not come away with an overwhelming sense of respect. It always seems to me to be the epitome of condescension.
Censoring yourself because you feel your conversation partner can not emotionally or intellectually handle your thoughts is not respect.
It is pity. It is how you treat a child. It seems like a fatal flaw if respecting a belief requires us to regard one another with such low expectations.
Most importantly, however, I think that respecting someone else’s belief is simply not possible. Every time that I have ever truly come to respect someone else’s beliefs they ceased being someone else’s…they became my beliefs. That’s what respect means to me. If I respect a belief it’s because I find it more compelling than my current belief. And then I must have it. I’m obligated to. It would be positively immoral to turn from it. And then I have the obligation to let others know what a great idea it is. And then our conversation can live to see another day. Maybe it’ll give birth to a few more down the road. And the cycle of life continues.
-C.L. O’Hanlon"
- She belonged to the Ardipithecus family rather than the Australopithecus which was originally thought. Either way, Lucy was a transitional fossil. Nice try bud, more info needed on your end.
