Conceding Non-Consensus

[Aggie]

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?

[goat starer]

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 ).

[The Meromorph]

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.
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.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

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.

[Griffin NoName]

Given I hold beliefs and disbeliefs that cannot actually be held at the same time and make sense, I assume everyone else does too.

[The Meromorph]

Good point. me too!   

[Aggie]

Given I hold beliefs and disbeliefs that cannot actually be held at the same time and make sense, I assume everyone else does too.

*rumble* I hold many mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time. 
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). 

[beagle]

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 ).

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]

[Swatopluk]

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.

[Griffin NoName]

Are we to conclude this Monastery is full of suffering and enduring? No wonder we are not getting many new members.

[Opsa]

"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.

[The Meromorph]

I think we tolerate the views of those we have to deal with.
We accept the diversity of our Siblings...

[Aggie]

We 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....}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

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.

[Aggie]

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!

  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).