A head-scratcher that I've been turning over for a while now.... how does one go beyond simple tolerance for people of all faiths/beliefs, and towards confirming the validity of those faiths/beliefs, without being condescending? Agreeing to disagree is one matter, but agreeing to disagree while not secretly holding the opinion that the other party is still wrong is quite another.
I think that we manage a pretty good job of it here at the Monastery, but there's a lot of folks out there that can't even get the tolerance bit. What I'm specifically interested in is how two people (or groups) with strong mutually exclusive beliefs can recognize the other's beliefs as being valid (as opposed to 'true' or 'correct') without diluting their own set of beliefs....
???
EDIT: The other part of this question (I suppose) is whether this is actually necessary...? Is simple tolerance enough?
personally I'm rubbish at it. you are all completely wrong and deluded along with everyone else I can think of. i simply accept the fact that if everyone I know is wrong then the chances are that I am wrong too. when you realise that we all believe complete balderdash you dont have to be condescending to anyone (except Beagle who is more wrong than everyone else ;D).
I think I'm entitled to believe you are completely wrong in your beliefs.
What I'm not entitled to do is try to persuade you that your beliefs are completely wrong.
And I get a little grumpy if you try to 'reconcile' my beliefs and yours. That feels like a covert attempt at proselytising to me. :P
I won't get mad, I'll just be unhelpful, or change the subject... :)
I'm quite happy ro reconcile 'behaviours' on the other hand. The net results of Sibling Chatty's beliefs and mine are, to me, remarkably similar in many ways, though (to my understanding) our 'beliefs' are very different.
I guess that's why is called fundamentalism.
I have a set of beliefs, (political, social, economical, spiritual) that I think are right but I do accept the possibility of being wrong about all of them. On the same token, I accept that while on the whole I don't believe/endorse A, some elements of A make sense and merit further consideration. There may be a valid reason why condition X from A is in place and that reason may have been useful in the past or may still be useful. IOW, I try to be open minded about other people's beliefs.
OTOH, if my belief is fundamental and absolute it is virtually impossible to admit anything outside of it, and in the best case scenario I will -in the most strict sense of the word- tolerate those who don't think/believe like me, or simply go one step further and wish them/make them otherwise.
Still, even in the first case, there is a level of condescension, because I think I am right and in the bottom of my heart I wish they saw the *light*. Those are the moments in which I wish there were a way to gather those who think the same way as I do and just leave the planet to those who don't and bear the consequences... (you see where am I going?)
It is impossible not to feel strongly toward those who you think are wrong, and there will be cases in which you should not tolerate them (personally, any form of human right abuses shouldn't be tolerated in my opinion) but some are very quick to get to that point.
In the end tolerance is about admitting the existence of those who think different, it may not look (or even feel) nice but it is a huge step forward.
Given I hold beliefs and disbeliefs that cannot actually be held at the same time and make sense, I assume everyone else does too.
Good point. me too! :D :beer:
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on July 05, 2007, 02:23:15 AM
Given I hold beliefs and disbeliefs that cannot actually be held at the same time and make sense, I assume everyone else does too.
:thumbsup: :ROFL:
*rumble* I hold many mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time. ;D
Mind you, I used to play those off against one another by compartmentalizing. It's tougher when they are forced to cohabit; the total belief has to get smeared around so that it's partly on all beliefs unless observed (used in decision-making). ;)
Quote from: goat starer on July 04, 2007, 11:54:28 PMwhen you realise that we all believe complete balderdash you dont have to be condescending to anyone (except Beagle who is more wrong than everyone else ;D).
Watch it, Goat breath.
Oops.
Let me unbundle that a little.
[fx:serene smile]
That's an interesting and perceptive opinion of yours that i'll waste no time in taking on board.
[/fx]
Once had a German (written) exam with different definitions of "tolerance" to discuss.
One was (more or less): Try to get the other one off his wrong beliefs by polite persuasion (instead of instant violence).
Sounds more like the RCC definition of religious freedom to me: Everyone is free to submit to the pope.
The word itself seems to imply suffering/enduring (i.e. of something wrong), so "tolerance" is itself not a very tolerant word.
Are we to conclude this Monastery is full of suffering and enduring? No wonder we are not getting many new members. ;)
"Tolerate" and "suffer" are synonyms, that's true.
I think it's okay to have firm beliefs and even to disagree with other people about them, as long as you can tolerate their views enough to listen to them and learn something from them instead of merely blast them as infidels. That goes nowhere.
I think we tolerate the views of those we have to deal with.
We accept the diversity of our Siblings...
Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on July 05, 2007, 04:55:30 PMWe accept the diversity of our Siblings...
I'd say we even
celebrate it!
Outside of the Monastery context though, how is it possible to bring the appreciation of diversity to a larger audience, particularly if that audience is a monoculture?
Oh, now I've gone and put together a mental analogy to agriculture....
Quote from: Agujjim on July 05, 2007, 05:06:13 PM
how is it possible to bring the appreciation of diversity to a larger audience
Wait, are you talking about changing the attitudes of
others?
That is particularly hard more so if there isn't as much diversity where you are. In my experience (and from what I heard from others) a positive exposure to members from a different group is quite helpful ("Oh, you are a [insert your country/race/religion/denomination/etc here]? I thought you guys were different..."). If the only exposure to a group comes from the news -and those tend to be bad- the stereotype tends to be negative. Once a person has seen that there is 'normal' people from that country/race/religion/etc, there is a higher chance of acceptance.
Oh yes - I guess I should have been more clear in the original post, although I'm all for starting small and working out. Perhaps it is worth trying to develop a very informal grouping of 'Toadfish Methods', if you will, but if we are promoting tolerance we will need to look at why it's not the default setting.
-----------------------
Definitely agree on the positive exposure angle - I still laugh at what one of my (rather sheltered, and a tad inebriated at the time) friends said to me after visiting the home of another (visible minority) buddy:
(wow) they [buddy's family] are just normal people like us!
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: Um, yeah? People's people.... what did you expect to see?
But unfortunately, this is a revelation to many people.
I really get my snark on when I hear calls for new immigrants to assimilate seamlessly into the dominant culture at the expense of their own traditions (particularily WRT language and food). :snark:
Quote from: Agujjim on July 05, 2007, 05:53:33 PM
I really get my snark on when I hear calls for new immigrants to assimilate seamlessly into the dominant culture at the expense of their own traditions (particularily WRT language and food). :snark:
Me too.
But that would be considered intolerance, the one thing which we here have agreed not to tolerate.
I think you're right, we do seem to have something here that I hope we can share with a larger audience. Your question is: How can we present our views without alienating people?
Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 05, 2007, 06:16:58 PM
I think you're right, we do seem to have something here that I hope we can share with a larger audience. Your question is: How can we present our views without alienating people?
I wish I could put it so clearly (but that's not exactly what I was thinking). The main problem (diverging from the OP) is more along the line of:
How do we make a case for tolerance to those who are currently in a culture of intolerance?
and
How do we encourage cross-belief learning and communication without threatening incompatible beliefs? (which I believe we do an OK job of here)
Now, I've kept this pretty broad and non-specific, but the scenario I had in mind was like this:
Group A share Belief A, which dictates (among other things) that only people who share Belief A will go to Goodplace in the afterlife, and that everyone else will go to Badplace. An unfortunate number of Group A have extrapolated this to infer that either a) everyone else is a Badperson, and their presence threatens Belief A or b) everyone else needs 'saving' by conversion to Belief A.
It's a) that needs addressing first perhaps, and can perhaps be addressed with communication and tolerance, but I think the original post also takes b) into account. Note that although a) is most obviously associated with faith-based groups, b) is surprisingly common within scientific circles, and I can think of several cases of opposing 'camps' getting muley stubborn about sticking to their treasured theories even when experimental evidence begins to indicate that the scientific reality lies somewhere in between.
I can't remember who wrote it (Might have been Herman Khan), but there was a book about 30 or 40 years ago demonstrating that this is endemic in the history of science. It apparently takes a 'generation and a half' for the revolution in scientific thought to actually happen, and for the new truth to become accepted.
So all we have to do is keep it up another 150 years? That's doable. But we'll need to send for more beer.
A good take on the idea of scientists getting "entrenched and stubborn" is the one made in "A Flock of Dodos" by Randy Olson. It's subtle but he gets to it.
The idea of evolutionary theory did not stall 150 years ago, it is still growing-thriving and changing. Yes, the kernel is still intact but as we learn more and study more then our ideas/knowledge have to change! Or we are no different than those who can't/won't/don't know how to -change.
Being a student of anthropology- that has been hammered into my head since day one--- don't pick on others, don't call names, play nice--- one does not have to agree- one can have differing views/opinions/beliefs and still play nicely with others and value them as fellow beings. I believe that religion developed as a way of dealing with natural phenomena-- why does lightning strike, why are some of us dark brown, when we die you mean that is it,
Not alienating people is hard(maybe not the right word)--- I have trouble with it. I think it is the right thing to do- the right way to be so I work at it, I think before I speak(mostly).
so let's send for some moor beer and keep sticking together and looking out for one another.
Leaping back a bit, although it's relevant to the current debate too
Quote from: Agujjim on July 05, 2007, 05:06:13 PM
how is it possible to bring the appreciation of diversity to a larger audience, particularly if that audience is a monoculture?
isn't that the same thing - or to put it another way - what is the difference between "bringing appreciation of {diversity} * " and persuading others to one's point of view? ie. What right have we to sell the idea of tolerance? :mrgreen:
If we want a more tolerant society, shouldn't it be ok for others to want an intolerant society?
Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on July 05, 2007, 07:52:42 PM
It apparently takes a 'generation and a half' for the revolution in scientific thought to actually happen, and for the new truth to become accepted.
That seems like "natural process" and more likely to succeed in the long run than attempting to persuade anyone of anything pro-actively.
I guess I am thinking in terms of what I have learnt of counselling and psychotherapy. Yes, challenge is one method, but the learning only tends to happen successfully as one comes to one's own realisation, rather than from interpretation or information.
Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on July 05, 2007, 12:45:28 AM
I think I'm entitled to believe you are completely wrong in your beliefs.
What I'm not entitled to do is try to persuade you that your beliefs are completely wrong.
And I get a little grumpy if you try to 'reconcile' my beliefs and yours. That feels like a covert attempt at proselytising to me. :P
I won't get mad, I'll just be unhelpful, or change the subject... :)
I'm quite happy ro reconcile 'behaviours' on the other hand. The net results of Sibling Chatty's beliefs and mine are, to me, remarkably similar in many ways, though (to my understanding) our 'beliefs' are very different.
Yeah, 'ZAKLY what you said.
I don't even TRY to 'reconcile' beliefs, because few of us ever fully express the totality of our beliefs aloud, much less to the understanding of others.
I seek only people that have a
clarity of expression of their genuine belief in the worthwhileness of others. That humans, no matter race, creed, color, gender, IQ, haircolor, foot size, butt size, abilities, differing abilities, even disabilities, mentalities, sexual orientation, WHATEVER, are humans, and worthy of equal regard until they prove to be otherwise. (The only way to prove to be otherwise? Act like someone else is worth less...)
I guess, underneath it all, I am a reluctant Humanist; the reluctance being that there are so many humans I just don't like that much. Unfortunately, I'm overqualified for the animal kingdom. (Damned opposable thumbs...only good for opening the dog food cans and hitting the spacebar.)
But, I like people that behave well toward others. Locally, globally, eventually I hope interplanetarily.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on July 06, 2007, 05:42:27 AM
Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on July 05, 2007, 12:45:28 AM
I think I'm entitled to believe you are completely wrong in your beliefs.
What I'm not entitled to do is try to persuade you that your beliefs are completely wrong.
And I get a little grumpy if you try to 'reconcile' my beliefs and yours. That feels like a covert attempt at proselytising to me. :P
I won't get mad, I'll just be unhelpful, or change the subject... :)
I'm quite happy ro reconcile 'behaviours' on the other hand. The net results of Sibling Chatty's beliefs and mine are, to me, remarkably similar in many ways, though (to my understanding) our 'beliefs' are very different.
Yeah, 'ZAKLY what you said.
I don't even TRY to 'reconcile' beliefs, because few of us ever fully express the totality of our beliefs aloud, much less to the understanding of others.
I seek only people that have a clarity of expression of their genuine belief in the worthwhileness of others. That humans, no matter race, creed, color, gender, IQ, haircolor, foot size, butt size, abilities, differing abilities, even disabilities, mentalities, sexual orientation, WHATEVER, are humans, and worthy of equal regard until they prove to be otherwise. (The only way to prove to be otherwise? Act like someone else is worth less...)
I guess, underneath it all, I am a reluctant Humanist; the reluctance being that there are so many humans I just don't like that much. Unfortunately, I'm overqualified for the animal kingdom. (Damned opposable thumbs...only good for opening the dog food cans and hitting the spacebar.)
But, I like people that behave well toward others. Locally, globally, eventually I hope interplanetarily.
good way to put this
I say I know what I believe- but how well do I articulate it? Do I totally understand my beliefs myself?
Who am I really- to "judge" you (anyone).
Around my house we use our opposable thumbs for opening cat food, petting(aka worshiping) the cats, hitting the spacebar, and loading and unloading the washer/dryer--- and some other stuff those are the biggies on a daily basis
A few days ago on NPR Brian Ferry was being interviewed about his 'Dylanesque' album. And in discussing "Knocking on Heavens Door", both he and the interviewer casually discussed the significance of 'a song about death'. This gave me a huge cognitive dissonance as I had always considered that song as 'a song about joy'.
After some thought I can see what they're on about, but still... ::)
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on July 06, 2007, 12:35:28 AMisn't that the same thing - or to put it another way - what is the difference between "bringing appreciation of {diversity} * " and persuading others to one's point of view? ie. What right have we to sell the idea of tolerance? :mrgreen:
Sheer self-righteousness, the same thing that drives most other groups spreading a message. We think that our way is right and that spreading it will make things better (that's a) above). ;)
Not very Toadfishlike, is it? In our defense, the simple concept of tolerance can be integrated with nearly any other belief system (except explicitly intolerant ones), is incrementally beneficial (one person being a little more tolerant, or a few in a group showing tolerance is still a good thing; having a tolerant majority is a goal but not a necessity), and one last thing which IMO is rather important: it has serious potential to reduce certain (rather pointless) types of aggressive behavior and violence. Anything that stops people hurting each other for stupid reasons* is a good thing.
*We may even create a growth industry dedicated to fabricating smarter reasons to justify violent actions. :irony:
(Note: Aggie and I replied simultaneously)
Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on July 06, 2007, 07:26:50 PM
A few days ago on NPR Brian Ferry was being interviewed about his 'Dylanesque' album. And in discussing "Knocking on Heavens Door", both he and the interviewer casually discussed the significance of 'a song about death'. This gave me a huge cognitive dissonance as I had always considered that song as 'a song about joy'.
After some thought I can see what they're on about, but still... ::)
Weird. I always thought that song was about getting ready to get some booty. But that would be a joyful thing.
I don't think it's necessary to like everybody, especially when some clearly and repeatedly prove themselves to be schmoes. Perhaps it's not necessary to try to persuade them to try a more enlightened path, either. If they are truly schmoes, they will not be persuaded, plus who am I to say what's more enlightened? But if I can help by being in opposition to those who would hurt others for flimsy reasons, that's cool.
Who are we to judge? Well, in every culture on earth the most important value (whether it's followed or not) is not to harm eachother. It is important to our species, but we keep doing it because we are distracted by our emotions or our leaders ask us to do it for political reasons. It is a very difficult thing to ask people to think for themselves and think hard enough to resist harming eachother. It should be so simple. In fact, I think it's so simple we just don't bother to be aware of it enough to avoid doing it. But I believe we are capable of it.
We do have to judge. We have to judge what is harmful. Some people judge that not belonging to their religion is harmful. Maybe it is, but actually harming someone else to prove it is something I judge to be hypocritical. I judge it to be wrong, but I will not hit back and further the hypocrisy. All I can try to do is oppose it and try to prevent it.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 06, 2007, 08:16:37 PM
We have to judge what is harmful.
Nearly introduced "harm" in my last post but decided to go on playing devil's advocate on the tolerance.
Being tolerant is very different to promoting tolerance. Could one say being truly tolerant one would allow harm?
(never mind where we put the line for what defines harm).
Have you considered that 'Tolerance' may be Toadlish shorthand for a concept which inherently intends the reduction of harm? ;)
Or is this going to be a Very Serious Semantics Thread? Haven't seen many of those since Omnia. ::)
Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 06, 2007, 08:16:37 PM
It is a very difficult thing to ask people to think for themselves and think hard enough to resist harming eachother. It should be so simple. In fact, I think it's so simple we just don't bother to be aware of it enough to avoid doing it. But I believe we are capable of it.
Some possible issues.
Who gets to define harm when it comes to say abortion or euthenasia?
How do you agree on a definition of harm when one group thinks this world is all there is, and another believes it is a transitory step to eternal life?
When does turning the cheek become compliance in allowing atrocities to happen?
Here's a concrete example. Most people (me included) admire Gandhi. However, if the whole of India had followed his lead instead of 2.5 million fighting the Axis powers then the Japanese Imperial Army might have broken through into India from Burma with a possible massacre on the scale of Nanking.
Does taking too simplistic a view of harm reduction make you morally culpable for the consequences? *
Could we ever agree on the complex view?
In other words, not only may we not be able to agree on a definition of harm we might not be able to agree on the best strategy to minimize it whatever the definition.
-------
* Shakespeare got here before us, as usual:
"We are not the first. Who with best meaning have incurred the worst."
No, I don't think it's semantics. I think it's interesting how each person defines what is harmful, what level of tolerance each person adopts, and how they feel about judgement.
In effect, we are all judging each other and saying we are worthy of being Toadfish. The Vows are ideals not actions. We probably make assumptions about the sorts of actions someone who has agreed to the vows would take in certain situations. But none of it is explicit.
I just find it interesting.
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on July 05, 2007, 04:17:18 PM
Are we to conclude this Monastery is full of suffering and enduring?
Suffering? You're probably taliking about the occasional whipping? I don't know if that's much suffering, I've heard some of the siblings even enjoy it...
Ooooops, got off-topic (but I had to say it... sorry). Carry on...
if I may make some suggestions......
Quote from: beagle on July 06, 2007, 10:56:15 PM
Who gets to define harm when it comes to say abortion or euthenasia?
me
QuoteHow do you agree on a definition of harm when one group thinks this world is all there is, and another believes it is a transitory step to eternal life?
ask me
QuoteWhen does turning the cheek become compliance in allowing atrocities to happen?
when i say so
QuoteHere's a concrete example. Most people (me included) admire Gandhi. However, if the whole of India had followed his lead instead of 2.5 million fighting the Axis powers then the Japanese Imperial Army might have broken through into India from Burma with a possible massacre on the scale of Nanking.
Does taking too simplistic a view of harm reduction make you morally culpable for the consequences? *
Could we ever agree on the complex view?
dont trouble yourselves with such matters. I will sort them out and get back to you
hope this helps.
yours in tolerance and humility
Lord Goat BA Hons OXON MA OXON
I have to say I disagree with the idea that "I am allowed to disagree with you but I'm not allowed to try to persuade you that you're wrong." I don't think that's a very good definition of tolerance nor a good way to live, since it accomplishes nothing.
I am more inclined to believe that the best attitude in life is this:
I am allowed to disagree with you, and I am allowed to try to persuade you that you're wrong, but only if I do it in a respectful and rational manner and only if I respond in that respectful and rational manner when others do the same to me. In both cases I must remain open-minded about the possibility that I am wrong.
Debate and argument are how we humans can attempt to use disagreement to come closer to truth. I hold that "believing things that are true and not believing things that are untrue" to be fairly important goals, as surely every rational person should. So when two people who disagree on some issue debate it, the goal is to establish which (if either) of these two people is correct. To try to find the truth. A proper, open-minded debate is one in which both people explain their justifications for their beliefs and in which, hopefully, one or both of the parties eventually say, "Oh, I see, I hadn't realised that," and change their belief to something closer to the truth.
It all falls down when people forget the very important "respectful and rational manner" and when they fail to keep an open mind about whether they might be wrong. This is why you get bickering and shouting instead of respectful debate. This is the lack of tolerance showing through - the failure to tolerate disagreement, the failure to tolerate mature debate. As tolerant Toadfish, it is our duty to ensure that when we are presented with ideas that conflict with our own, then if we wish to debate them, that we do so in that respectful and rational manner, and with open minds.
The world would be a happier place if everyone lived in such a way.
I don't exactly disagree with you. I think that, to you, your choice of words accurately defines an attitude that is very close to my own.
What I have learned, however, is that what I think my words mean are not necessarily what someone else thinks they mean. So I could take what you said, and place an entirely different construction on it and sincerely believe you and I were in substantial disagreement (I don't think that, in fact, but someone could reasonably think that).
There's an old legal saying that "the Law is not what is written, the Law is what is read." When I post something here, and someone reads it. I haven't communicated what I wrote, I've communicated what they read. If we are lucky, the two are pretty close. If we are starting from two different viewpoints (and there isn't a lot to be gained from 'arguing' with someone who thinks exactly like you do), then there may be quite a mismatch between written and read.
I would rephrase the point you quoted (in the light of what I now read about how you read it), as "I am allowed to disagree with you, and I'm allowed to try to persuade you that I'm right, but I'm not allowed to try to persuade you that you're wrong." I'm hoping that might clarify what I was trying to say. :)
The essential point, as I see it, is that if I try and persuade you of the rightness of my view, that's an opportunity for you to point out where your understanding of my argument doesn't make sense, and then for me to clarify/rephrase the argument until at least we are both understanding the same words the same way. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but I've found that approaching it from that standpoint is much more likely to lead to mutual respect and understanding, not necessarily agreement, but clarity at least. After all it isn't always true that one of us has to be right and the other wrong, even if we totally disagree. Yes there are some times that one view is right and the other is wrong, but it may be far less frequent than, it seems to me, you are assuming.
Starting from an assumption that the other person is at least as intelligent and thoughtful as I am, and if what they are saying seems wrong to me, it may well be that I'm understanding their words differently from how they are understanding them, and therefore respectfully restating, or pointing out logical consequences (e.g. "are you saying that..." or "wouldn't that mean that..."), has been successful for me in avoiding 'bickering and shouting'., even on strongly emotional subjects.
I hope you now see that I am after the same objective as you are, mature, rational, and polite debate; I'm advocating specific techniques to achieve it more readily - clarify your own point in response to perceived misunderstanding, and ask for clarification, when your understanding of what someone says is that "that doesn't make sense". The techniques are designed to be non-confrontational. :) It was difficult, at first to 're-train myself' to work like this, It took conscious effort for quite a while. By now it's more natural, but I still find it beneficial to preview a post like this one, and to run a 'how could this be misunderstood' check on it, before posting.
This one took three lengthy reviews and substantial changes... :D
Quote from: Opsanus tauWell, in every culture on earth the most important value (whether it's followed or not) is not to harm eachother. It is important to our species, but we keep doing it because we are distracted by our emotions or our leaders ask us to do it for political reasons.
I am not so sure about that. When I see the emotional response of 'Us vs Them' I have noticed that they don't consider the 'other' as a person or human or worth living. We have a natural habit to discriminate (in the sense of perceive differences in natural patterns) and it would seem that it is all to easy to use a little difference as an easy way to *demote* others from the "Us, good guys, humans".
Certainly the emotional response has a big part on the whole but it isn't the only hardwired factor that influences those kinds of perceptions.
---
Wow, I'm out for a moment and the thread gets moving.
I believe Mero's points are quite accurate regarding individual discussions, ironically Opas' point (above) touches one important thing that convolutes the problem even more: many times the emotional response that comes from those 'fundamental disagreements' is exploited by third parties wanting to take advantage of the situation. How can you disarm those feelings if important people in high places are calling for 'crusades' or claiming that 'we are being invaded' or that 'they bring diseases', 'want to destroy our country', 'our way of life', etc, etc, etc? How can you show someone that he is being played for (mostly) political gain, without being immediately demonised as 'collaborators' or 'traitors'?
You need a minimum level of open mindness just to try. :-\
Goat brings something up that's very important.
Each person, in their innermost thoughts, believes that THEY ALONE are correct. Even if you don't EXPRESS it, or even noticeably FEEL it, to HOLD an opinion or belief implies that one considers that thought to be the correct one.
And in our own subjective reality, each of us is right.
The question comes: WHEN is it right to try to impose one's own subjective reality on another? Are we balanced enough that when our concept of a 'debate' starts and the other party chooses to NOT enter into that debate that we DO NOT go off on the "You can't even blah, blah, blah..." to prove the correctness of our own subjective opinion?
I don't discuss religion ANYWHERE on the web but here. And, although I am in a minority position here, I feel safe ONLY here because there is respect for my beliefs, even if they are not shared. Were another member to choose to debate me on the validity of my beliefs--that member would be talking to their own ends, because MY beliefs are exactly that, MINE.
Too often, especially on the intarwebbie, people assume that debate is what's needed. Debate immediately implies adversarial positioning. (I was a Speech and Debate minor in college until I realized how much I hated debate and persuasive speaking. I've been a debate judge on the high school and college level for 25+ years. I STILL hate debate.) I abhor adversarial positioning, although if it's started with me, I will fight like a rabid wildebeestie, especially if the topic runs into either cruel or condescending attitudes. (See: Much of the bullshit at Omnia)
I MUCH prefer discussion to debate. I can SHARE ideas with others without having to debate them. I can share ideas with anyone. i can learn things from any source. There is often much good in what the 'opposite number' of your own position has to say. By sharing, not debating, you get a truer picture of what people think. The adversarial positioning is gone.
It's partially semantics, yes, but it's an important semantic distinction.
*very happy to see some serious discussion*
:thumbsup:
Why, goatie.... did you become an Autotheist while I wasn't looking? It's very nearly spiritual Capitalism, you know... ;) ;) ;)
I would have to agree with Sibling Chatty. Discussion is preferable to debate. The more intelligent the opposite number, the better the discussion.
Although, sometimes I enjoy the adversarial aspect, and the pitting of wits. The fact that I generally only get into debates on topics I know well, and usually with morons, means I win a lot of them.
I was accused of intellectual elitism in the last one. Is using your brain to explain your point and opinion coherently elitist? Apparently. Mind you, she thought leather was compressed plant material....
Quote from: Goat Starer
dont trouble yourselves with such matters. I will sort them out and get back to you
I don't usually. The older I get the more I'm convinced life is just a bad joke in poor taste (c.f. Bob Dylan's view in "All along the Watchtower" and John Gay's epitaph "Life is a jest and all things show it...").
Once a year though I feel obliged to have a bash at a serious post, just to prove I'm still awake.
Quote from: Agujjim on July 07, 2007, 04:06:30 PM
Why, goatie.... did you become an Autotheist while I wasn't looking? It's very nearly spiritual Capitalism, you know... ;) ;) ;)
I think it may be mandatory at Oxford.
Ah, "elitism". That word frequently gets tossed about like a mysterious weapon. How can you argue against name-calling? You can always tell that the discussion is nearing it's cutoff point when someone mentions elitism.
This is a terrific discussion, and everyone contributing seems to me to be an excellent Toadfish, whether or not we see exactly eye to eye, word for word. We are sharing. Being here is just part of the voyage.
Isn't the word 'elitism' raised if the opponent recognizes that a point was well made but he doesn't understand it?
:mrgreen: :devil2:
Exactly. :P
But if I was discussing something with, say, William F. Buckley and he went over my head, I would hope that I would simply ask him to clarify himself rather than accuse him of elitism.
So if you're accused of elitism, maybe one approach could be to say something like: "I'm sorry. Let me see if I can rephrase my point." I don't know if that would help matters, but at least you would have tried to communicate rather than accepting the accusation.
Nothing to add to excellent discussion except on the matter of truth.
I spent most of my life seeking truth, valuing truth beyond many other things.
In latter years I have had to give up on truth and seeking it has been quite destructive. The older I get the less truth makes any sense.
I'd be happy to discuss that endlessly.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 07, 2007, 08:07:39 PM
So if you're accused of elitism, maybe one approach could be to say something like: "I'm sorry. Let me see if I can rephrase my point."
Heh, and then you can get
really condescending...
:devil2: :devil2:
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on July 07, 2007, 09:22:13 PM
In latter years I have had to give up on truth and seeking it has been quite destructive. The older I get the less truth makes any sense.
The truth is a very dangerous thing particularly if it interferes with vested interests, also the truth can be very hurtful and might not get you where you want to be.
Still I am curious about what truths don't make sense.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 07, 2007, 10:38:57 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on July 07, 2007, 09:22:13 PM
In latter years I have had to give up on truth and seeking it has been quite destructive. The older I get the less truth makes any sense.
The truth is a very dangerous thing particularly if it interferes with vested interests, also the truth can be very hurtful and might not get you where you want to be.
Still I am curious about what truths don't make sense.
Mostlly, there is no such thing as truth. There is only perception and interpretation.
I'd like to go as far as there is no such thing as truth without the mostly. But that begs responses of the simple kind. EG. I am watching Live Earth on TV (with the sound turned off) and I expect I could get a lot of people to agree that indeed there was a transmission of a concert called Live Earth at this time etc. but in truth all I am prepared to conceed is that a lot of people would agree with me, they would probably agree with whatever I see too, like the people performing, etc. But that doesn't validate anything other than that we all agree with what we all think is happening.
"There is no such thing as The Absolute Truth but half truths are not truths at all"
Are we getting into Kantian metaphysics?
::) ::)
I like the search of The Truth as the search for perfection (or the perfect interpretation of a musical piece): It is impossible to reach it but you try to get as close as you can.
I have known the truth several times.
And then I changed my mind.
;)
By the way, to reflect this discussion, I have added a line to the Home page:
"The Toadfish are a monastic order dedicated to humbleness, mutual respect, philosophical discussion and witty wordplay. We are a monastery of individuals who celebrate our religious and non-religious diversity. Our mission is to promote worldwide tolerance by milennium's end. We believe that to be a reasonable goal."
Until it was brought up, I didn't realize that someone might read the word "monastery" and just assume it belonged to a particular sect. We'll have to bust up that preconception.
We aren't a sect? But now what will I tell the next YECs that show up in my front door?
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 08, 2007, 06:16:59 PM
We aren't a sect? But now what will I tell the next YECs that show up in my front door?
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Tel lthem "Kelp Roots!".
And refuse to elaborate, on religious grounds... :P
But what if they say "Well, yes, kelp must root in some way in order to grow. But WHY??"
(Disagreement through agreement. Tactic 1,392)
You could tell them it does so in order to establish it's position within the known universe. Kelp have heard of this mythical place "Dry Land", where all the good seaweed goes when it's holdfast eventually fails. But only good seaweed gets there. None of your covered in barnacles and mermaid's purses fronds will get to Dry Land.
And watch them run....
I can get them running by quoting Scripture and asking them why they choose to twist the meaning of the Word...
The 7 version Parallel Bible and the Latin and Greek texts scare them off quickly.
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :daz:
I once answered the door (was expecting it to be a friend) holding a bloody knife, and a recently deceased chicken.
"We would like to talk to you abou....."
"I'm a little busy at the moment. do call back in an hour or two."
I have no idea who they told, but have not been bothered by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of the Latter Day Saints, Methodists or the Hari Krishnas since.
Have seen various groups going round the other houses in the road, no-one comes to our door. Not, I hasten to add, that I am complaining....
Oh man, look what happens when I'm not here for five minutes, all this interesting discussion!
My spin on this is that my most deeply held conviction (belief, whatever word you want to use) is that there is no such thing as absolute truth or certain knowledge with the sole exception of some branches of mathematics. (and I could be wrong about that too).
I always think to myself that "this might not be so". My universe is entirely populated by probability. Many things IMO are very probably, they are things that are generally considered to be facts, other things I believe to be of very low probability (these are generally considered to be myths of various flavours). Of course there is much in between.
I enjoy discussing my ideas and the ideas of others. I usually pick up some valuable insights and justifying or defending your beliefs helps you to refine them (or in my world view shift the probability a bit). My base position is that the other person may, just possibly, be right. However, the more extreme their belief, the more extreme justification for their belief I require before I am prepared to adopt it. However, even in the most extreme case there may be some element that I can find useful.
The thing is to understand that the other person is a human too. I (we) may find a particular view repellent, but that does not mean that we should dismiss it out of hand. For example a very topical thing is the acts of terrorists in recent times. Now I do not accept the justifications that have been put up to support their acts, but we are gravely mistaken if we do not try to understand why these people do these things. From their perspective they are moral people and are doing good works. Without trying to accept that these works are "good" we need to understand the reasons that these people think the way they do. We will never convince them that they are wrong by poking a gun in their face. Indeed, we are likely to reinforce their thinking. I do not say we should accept their actions, actions should have consequences, but ignoring the world view of these people only ensures that their kind of thinking will be perpetuated.
The first thing, if we wish to change these things, IMO, is to show tolerance for their ideals (not their actions) and try to understand where they are coming from. It seems to me that most of this terrible activity is ultimately rooted in the conditions that people live in, or the conditions that people live in that the terrorists identify with. I am firmly of the belief that the best way to fight terrorism is to fight those things that marginalise people.
To do that requires tolerance as the very first thing.
I seem to have got a bit off topic here, but I will allow the above to stand. The thing is, this place can and does set an example for how people with very different views and beliefs can get along. I do not agree with (for example) Sibling
Chatty's religious beliefs at all, but that does not matter to me, whatever the reasons for the way she acts here I respect and even love her (in an entirely platonic way of course) as I do all the siblings. You (we) are an amazing bunch. We can discuss all sorts of serious things, yet we can be very playful too. What a great example of tolerance. Let us continue to lead by example and also try to find ways to get our message out there. We do not need to convince people that our way is "right", let us just show that tolerance is possible. Let us show that we can discuss contentious issues without acrimony, because we practice tolerance. Let us show that this is not just a show of words, that we welcome anyone who is prepared to do just one things - allow others the right to be different.
Sibling Bluenose
I second those thoughts---
I don't agree with everyone- but I do love everyone and I'll stand beside/behind/with you no matter what because of the acceptance you've given me I give to you- freely and without condition. Not one of you has to be anything other than YOU
(I'm still not taking any IOU's from the pirates though.) ;D
Quote from: Bluenose on July 09, 2007, 12:04:56 AM
..... we are gravely mistaken if we do not try to understand why these people do these things. From their perspective they are moral people and are doing good works. Without trying to accept that these works are "good" we need to understand the reasons that these people think the way they do. We will never convince them that they are wrong by poking a gun in their face. Indeed, we are likely to reinforce their thinking. I do not say we should accept their actions, actions should have consequences, but ignoring the world view of these people only ensures that their kind of thinking will be perpetuated....
......
To do that requires tolerance as the very first thing......
While I agree about understanding but I haven't a clue how the type of different thinking I imagine you refer to can be prevented from being perpetuated.
Example. My Hassidic cousin cannot be alone in a room with me. When we were accompanied by his mother in the room, he could not look at me but addressed himself to the wall when talking to me.
I understand that this is because he may have had wicked thoughts if he were to look at me. The original Sin.
I can be tolerant of this, although it feels very strange to be such a scary person. But I don't believe anything will ever change his community from having these beliefs and I don't believe his community will disappear.
So, I am not sure that tolerance of this is actually helpful. And, no I don't have any answers. But we need answers.
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on July 09, 2007, 12:42:22 AM
[I can be tolerant of this, although it feels very strange to be such a scary person. But I don't believe anything will ever change his community from having these beliefs and I don't believe his community will disappear.
So, I am not sure that tolerance of this is actually helpful. And, no I don't have any answers. But we need answers.
I'm not sure, either if being tolerant is helpful to anyone but myself.
Can we be tolerant and vocal at the same time- or does one negate the other.
If I'm tolerant of this, but I share my views about it... that sort of thing
The only way to show tolerance and understanding with a man who considers females induce wicked thoughts is by keeping quiet on the matter - otherwise one is probably going to induce wicked thoughts ;) Does that extrapolate to other circumstances with other beliefs ? (my head is screwed up thinking about it; don't mention the war).
The only measure I can think of is harm: depending on a relative amount of harm that comes from a particular belief, it can or not be tolerated. If someone thinks that having sex with a virgin (read preteen girl) will cure his AIDS (http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/april/virgin.htm) then his belief is not tolerable at all. Other beliefs may be less harmful or even possibly to the tolerable level. There is of course disagreement as to what constitutes harm, but in general there is agreement that murder, rape, and slavery (among others) are definitively harmful (apparently torture has been going out of that list in certain sectors of the population :censored:).
Problem for me is that I doubt that even a like-minded group such as Toadfish would agree on what is harmful and what is not, apart from the most obvious ones including those Zono mentions.
There seems to me to have never been a consensus on harm/ethics at any given point in history even within fairly homogenous cultures/groups (let alone across cultural divides). The old argument about objective v subjective ethics (Mackie - Ethics Inventing Right and Wrong is a good and accessible read on this). It strikes me that most major 'projects' in human history have been about trying to pin down and spread generally agreed principles on which we can cooperate (from the ten commandments to the current US administration via Marx, Hitler etc). These efforts always lack internal coherence simply because ethics is a product of our relationship with each other and our environment rather than a measurable 'fact'.
so where does that leave us? I dont believe in tolerating all diversity of opinion and action (and have never met anyone who did - perhaps that is the one constant!) but equally i tend to think that any attempt to impose (or even persuade) values on others is doomed to failure and often stinks of hypocracy.
So the Goat way is to tolerate what i can tolerate, challenge what i cant and accept that there is just the tiniest chance that i may be wrong.
The trick is relative harm and tolerable harm. We are talking gray areas in most cases, and those will always be relative to the conditions in which that harm is set. One example is TV: it can be harmful depending on a series of conditions but in most cases it will not be harmful or the level of harm that it may create is relatively low compared to other things, like alcohol which in turn can or cannot be harmful depending on... etc, etc.
Other example is more complicated, if a woman is considered property in other culture is it tolerable? Then -IMO- relative harm is not only related to the practice itself but to the actions against such practice; if in order to stop said belief I have to impose rules on millions of unwilling people, then the consequences of my intolerance may be intolerable.
It is a very thin line.
Good points.
Part of what we're doing here is trying to promote religious tolerance (including atheism and agnosticism) because it seems that so much seriously damaging conflict in the world stems from a lack of tolerance for the otherwise harmless spiritual beliefs of others.
We are not tolerating oppression, aggression, or Brittany Spear's latest fiasco.
We are not saying we're all ready there, we 're saying we are attempting the feat of religious tolerance. Things that we're finding to be effective are the practices of humbleness (as in the admission that I don't know everything) and mutual respect (as in the awareness that someone else's opinion matters as much as mine does).
Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 09, 2007, 04:40:53 PM
We are not tolerating oppression, aggression, or Brittany Spear's latest fiasco.
Don't we? This is where it gets serious, we may not tolerate oppression or aggression
withing the monastery, but while we frown on those we do tolerate them in the real world for the most part. Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 09, 2007, 06:04:01 PM
Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 09, 2007, 04:40:53 PM
We are not tolerating oppression, aggression, or Brittany Spear's latest fiasco.
Don't we? This is where it gets serious, we may not tolerate oppression or aggression withing the monastery, but while we frown on those we do tolerate them in the real world for the most part. Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.
Contrariwise, there's many people out there who may not be particularly tolerant, yet aren't taking openly intolerant action against Groups X,Y,Z (attitudes may be a different story).
Perhaps what we need to promote more than simple tolerance is
tolerant communication aimed at creating mutual understanding between groups; a sharing of perspectives, if you will. The trouble is keeping the focus on learning from one another rather than teaching one another the 'error' of their ways.
I think we'll have to be patient until we get everyone into the monastery.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 09, 2007, 06:04:01 PM
Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.
To Arms!!! To Arms!!! we must oppose this Brittany fiasco (what did Bretons do to you all anyhow?)
:goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag:
Britney? Apart from her lack of judgment (and undies :nervous: ) what other fiasco has she been involved in lately?
Now, the Bretons elected Sarkozy, and the Britts Brown, is that trigger of the imminent revolution?
:goatflag: ;) :D
Edit: I checked and almost all Brittany voted for Royal, apologies to any bretons reading this.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on July 10, 2007, 11:27:05 AM
I think we'll have to be patient until we get everyone into the monastery.
:ROFL:
Get thee to a nunnery!!!! ;D
Quote from: goat starer on July 10, 2007, 05:02:11 PM
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 09, 2007, 06:04:01 PM
Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.
To Arms!!! To Arms!!! we must oppose this Brittany fiasco (what did Bretons do to you all anyhow?)
:goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag: :goatflag:
she's moving to your town..............