How Important is Unity and Dialogue?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Depends, if your beliefs make you vehemently opposed to drinking – then you will not be invited out to the bar. If we are going out for a steak dinner and you believe eating animals is akin to genocide then you will not be invited to the dinner. Outside of where belief directly interferes with the activity at hand all are welcome.

9. Not the only one.
10. Nope but everyone gets a shot though.

Will it kill me if I were wrong?

I abhor being incorrect, to the point that I don’t mind being proved “wrong”. But, you won’t prove me wrong without evidence. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong about something–you may not have had all the facts. But refusing to change your mind when faced with the evidence? Well that’s just wrong!

Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?
Yes, I do.

Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?
Yes, if the person in question is not a jerk. Not related to ideas. I just don’t like jerks.

Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?
Yes. There are plenty of them so I would have to work hard to ignore them.

Will it kill me if I were wrong?
In the case of religion it will probably get me a ticket to hell if I’m wrong, but no, it won’t directly kill me. 😀 And normally, no, I’m not that bothered about being wrong. Only means I have more stuff to learn.

Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

Not quite sure I understand that one. Blame it on not being an English speaker natively. Or me being stupid.

Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?
Yes, as long as it’s not too much. But I’d appreciate it if the feeling was mutual.

Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?
Yes! In fact I often get grief for always going too deep.

Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?
Everybody can play, of course. Else it would fast get boring.

Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?
Pretty much. There is a few dodgy areas but that can be solved by talking about it.

Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?
Nah, I don’t. Hell, I’m not even sure I should. But I do respect their right to be here and live their life. No need for my love to do that. And I’ll treat them well and take care not to harm them. But I have limited love.
In fact I’m not sure it’s even something to wish for, loving all other beings. Seems like one of those religious things that will only cause me grief if I tried as I’ll never be able to do it and I’ll end up guilt tripping about being a failure. Like not being allowed to covet your neighbours ass and what not. Never gonna happen so why bother. You will only end up feeling bad for failing and it will cause you endless grief for impure thoughts. As long as you don’t steal his ass you are golden.

At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?
When other people try to encroach on how I live my life. That’s where it changes and the argument gets serious.

Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?
Yes, as long as you don’t cede too much of yourself in order to do it. You need to balance it. So as long as it’s not personality defining stuff and the other person is also willing to compromise. The world is not black and white and you should both be aware of that.

1.Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?

Well, I want to say yes, but I do have the sneaking suspicion that I may have biases against this notion, in some cases. Nontheless, I do beleive that this idea is correct. It does not mean, however, that believing something “really, really deeply in my heart” gives you the right to commit whatever barbarity may strike your fancy.

2.Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?

This one is tricky, for the simply reason that I refuse to use the word “respect” in the sense in which it is usually used (because I don’t think most people use this word the way I do; if they do and still say that things they say about respect, I pitty them). The way I see it, respect has to be earned. You shoudl expect tolerance, and perhaps even politeness, but if you want respect you’d better be ready to work for it.

Can someone who has ridiculous ideas earn my respect? They may. Can someone who holds repugnant beliefs earn my respect? I very much doubt they would be able to, much less want to, but they might still be able to acheive things that would compel me to respect them. Still, not likely.

3.Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?

Yes, though I will admit I don’t always use it, and sometimes I’ll need to have them pointed out to me before I can notice them.

4.Will it kill me if I were wrong?

No. It would be embarassing, at most.

5.Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

I don’t really understand this question.

6.Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?

Sometimes, but I’m afraid I don’t have a good track record here. I know I should make an effort to do this, but sometimes it’s hard.

7.Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?

I am inclined to say yes, though this metaphor could means all kinds of things; a couple of concrete examples would be nice.

8.Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?

Well, that depends on the beliefs and what I think of them. I am not obligated to be anyone’s friend, nor would I ask the same of anybody else.

9.Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?

I believe this is the ideal, although I do understand that more indirect laws and regulations will be necessary in the real world, although these should always be informed by the likelihood, given our best scientifically valid and evidence based knowledge, that they will avoid harm being done to people.

10.Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?

Perhaps I misunderstand this question; I do not, I am not willing, and I stand in dumbfounded incomprehension of the idea that anyone thinks this is necessary or even advisable.

I can hear what they say but I reserve the right to assess whether it is nonsense…

A couple of these are badly worded.
Can I recognize my own fallacies? Well, no. If by fallacy you mean something that is clearly mistaken, no one hold onto a fallacy. Once one recognizes a belief as incorrect, one discards it.
Can I respect people despite their beliefs? No. Since beliefs drive behavior, it would be wrong to respect someone who believes members of another race should be murdered.
It is obvious what the “correct” answers to these questions are, but they are the wrong questions.
Does anyone here “respect” Sarah Palin? Of course not, and not because of anything she’s done – she’s done nothing. She’s an idiot; i.e. her “beliefs” are mistaken.
Only Godwin’s Law prohibits me from mentioning “respect for the beliefs” of a certain 20th-century dictator.
Of course I don’t respect people whose beliefs are evil and stupid, because evil and stupid beliefs lead to evil and stupid behavior – even if that behavior doesn’t go beyond wearing a swastika armband.

…distracted by…nipples? wt…? Good list, thanks.

Bah! I just lost everything because IE stopped working. Ugh – I had 3 questions left… and I’d given comprehensive answers lol

1.Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?

I believe everyone has the right to form their own beliefs. If these beliefs, however, directly will cause harm to other people, I believe we have the right to take action against them. No belief has the ‘right’ to be accepted regardless of what it is. No-one has the right to believe they can go around killing people, or, if they do, they don’t have the right to complain when they are prevented from doing so.

2.Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?

Of course not. The person is largely made up of their ideas. By definition, if you do not respect the ideas, you cannot respect the person who holds them. I cannot respect someone who holds that the world is flat, or that evolution is false. Would you respect someone who willfully ignored truths like that?

Yes, the inclusion of evolution in that statement was deliberate.

3.Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?

I hope so, I have enough of them, after all.

4.Will it kill me if I were wrong?

Well, if I were wrong about a belief that I were immortal…

Seriously, of course not.

5.Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

There are a couple of ways of taking this question. I’m going to take it as:

Are you willing to enter a conversation accepting your position may be false?

If that is it, then I certainly try to. Of course, when it comes to demonstrable truths such as a three dimensional earth/evolution (see above) that is another matter. That’s like saying: are you willing to converse with someone who think 1 + 1 = 3 (in base ten mathematics) whilst allowing that he/she may be right? It’s absurd.

6.Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?

I certainly hope so. As long as you mean idiosyncracies (i.e. peculiarities) as opposed to certain massively pronounced character flaws. I’m not going to appreciate the views of a racist.

7.Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?

Something I tend to do by nature anyway, so yes.

8.Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?

Obviously, what is the point of a debate otherwise? Having said that, anyone who comes into the debate without a willingness to discuss and follow the evidence regardless of what they want to believe will be disqualified in my eyes. There’s no point debating if you don’t care about coming to the correct conclusion, whatever that conclusion is.

9.Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?

I’m not entirely sure what the word ‘personal’ adds to the question. My philosophy revolves around the rights of the individual, so take that as you will.

10.Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?

Certainly not. As someone who had a lot of trouble with being bullied in school, I do not, and will not, love the people who did that to me unless something particular happens to change my opinion of them. I do, however, believe in doing my level best not to prejudge, or even judge on first few appearances. At least negatively. I will confess to make hasty positive judgments.

At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?

I don’t understand how the two are mutually incompatible.

Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong

Not to cede, only to agree to disagree, or if you make clear it’s only for the sake of further discussion imo.

1. Yes. 2. I can, but I don’t have to. 3. Yes. 4. No. 5. No. It matters what is true or not. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. No. You have a right to your own opinions, but not facts. Evidence based not revelation based. 9. No. 10. No, and no.

At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?

The question is dependent on numerous factors.

Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?

For the majority of people it’s probably worth it.

I don’t know what it really means to “have a right to their beliefs”. I can’t force people to believe something; I can’t even force myself to believe something. If I think their beliefs are stupid, I have the right to say so. I don’t think it’s reasonable to make this single aspect of the person the focus of my relationship with that person, though, unless the other person is the one doing it.

Same as Stellar Duck, except:

Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

I would often preface comments with “Let’s say for the sake of argument…”.

Is there any time it’s OK to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?

Nope, never – that makes you a liar. Just agree to disagree.

I have to say – if someone is being disingenuous or a moron, I reserve the right to completely ignore them.

I’ll go out on a limb and admit that being wrong bugs the crap out of me. When I’m proven wrong (which, alas, has happened quite a bit) it does almost seem to kill me. Luckily, I’ve been able to survive and adapt my beliefs up to this point, and I hope it will continue.

As far as being right vs. maintaining a relationship goes, there is a difference between being honest and insisting on being right. We should always be the former, and rarely do the latter.

after a decent attempt has been made to find common ground, in order to stay in relationship with someone important to me, I will take a discussion off the table, agreeing to disagree. that doesn’t mean it can’t resurface if some major change of heart happens on either side. as a former believer of the conservative evangelical flavor I can say, people do change their minds.

on the professional side I’m much quicker to not press my case – I’ll present what I believe to be a best course of action, and answer questions, however, if I get pushback from above, I will set my ideas aside and work with whatever idea wins the day.

codemonkey,

I am not saying there is any validity to the viewpoint, only that it is valuable to understand what motivates people.

4. Will it kill me if I were wrong?

Nope. I’m in a line of work where I constantly try to prove my own ideas wrong, so I’m used to it. Truth is more important than being correct.

9. Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?

This is sometimes taken as the definition of libertarianism (with a little caveat on the use of the word ‘harm’ as technically everything I do from breathing the air you want, to taking the job you want, to dating the person you want to, etc., harms you a little bit). I agree with it and think that everyone else should too, but I’m not sure why it’s on this list.

I believe this is the ideal, although I do understand that more indirect laws and regulations will be necessary in the real world, although these should always be informed by the likelihood, given our best scientifically valid and evidence based knowledge, that they will avoid harm being done to people.

For that to be a meaningful normative statement, you also need to believe that policymakers will likely be so informed. Personally, I don’t think that such legislation and government-run regulation is necessary, although I’ll cede it’s a little bit of a gray area. However, it’s a moot point because no government in history or in an imaginable hypothetical has ever or will ever govern based on the principle you gave. (You also get into slippery-slopes where people start weighing the value of different lives and saying ridiculous things such as that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified by ‘saving’ lives.)

Yes, if by harm we include discrimination and abuse.

We include abuse obviously, but not discrimination. If I hire the best person for a job, I’m discriminating against the less qualified candidates. If I date one person instead of another, I’m discriminating. If you use violence to prevent me from doing this, you’re doing much more harm to me than I am to others. Sure, there’s good discrimination and bad discrimination, but if you try to build this into a moral philosophy, you’re just going to end up with an arbitrary mess that’s based not on any moral principle but on everyone having to do what you say, or else.

I’m not entirely sure what the word ‘personal’ adds to the question.

It prevents interpretations that justify such monstrous ideas as corporate person-hood and propertarianism.

codemonkey,

I do agree that there are beliefs that need no tolerance, obviously. However listening to someone make an ass of themselves and let them give you a truly accurate picture of their views can have value.
Also, there are lots of people that have the views they do from childhood, have never had them challenged and simply hate on reflex, not the muscular hatred of a jihadist, the disgust at something foreign.
These are the poster children for the banality of evil. Some can be wakened up with exposure, some alas not.

We include abuse obviously, but not discrimination. If I hire the best person for a job, I’m discriminating against the less qualified candidates. If I date one person instead of another, I’m discriminating.

Granted, poor wording on my part. I was using the word in the political sense of limiting a set group’s civil rights and limitations.

1)Yup
2)Yup
3)Yup
4)Quite the contrary, I’d have everlasting life – of a sort.
5)Yup
6)To a certain extent. I don’t tolerate ad-hominems against me. Feel free to talk about others, though.
7)Context matters. Sometimes even more than the actual arguments being put forth.
8)All are welcome.
9)Yes, that’s it. Feelings and their protection are a matter of the individual’s responsibility and not anyone else’s. If you can’t handle having your opinions questioned, then back away fromt the conversation, don’t blame the questioner. Conversely, if the questioner is being an ass, why take their abuse?
10)I do not love all beings. I’m closer to misanthrope than to humanist. But, I’m willing to give anyone a chance.

At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?

When you start to feel like a phony.

Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?

Any relationship that is endangered by an intellectual discussion has other problems that you’d do well to investigate and remedy.

I like these questions; I think the religious and non-religious could get along much better if everyone could take a deep breath and have their different beliefs, and agree to disagree without going into a big rant.

The one sticking point is the question of harm: as others have pointed out, that’s where the line has to be drawn. My moral code is “Don’t hurt others.” Murder obviously hurts others, as does lying and stealing and rape. It also hurts others to force one set of beliefs onto someone else (who believes something else) – so saying that gay people can’t get married hurts gay people, and saying that abortions should be universally illegal hurts the pregnant woman. People should be free to live their own lives without interference from others’ beliefs, as long as their own beliefs don’t hurt others back.

Off topic, I find it “funny” how Christians care SO MUCH about life, right up until the baby is born, and then the kid is left to flounder in sometimes horrible conditions: in poverty, possibly around drugs, sometimes with abusive or non-existent parents, terrible conditions with no social help – yeah, that’s really “valuing life.” Ooops! I guess I need to take a deep breath and have different beliefs without going into a big rant, eh?! 🙂

OK, it took me a while (see question #3), but I think I understand question #9 now. It could be rephrased as “Are you willing to accept others as long as they meet a minimum standard of not harming others?” So my answer would be similar to that for #6. If one does no harm, but is still wrong, I can walk away. Also proselytizing = harm, so there are fewer candidates for this “unity” than the author of the questions thinks.

I’m surprised at the number of people who say no, they cannot respect a person if they don’t respect that person’s ideas.

Imagine a neighbor: a devoted parent who helps out in school; who treats everyone, child and adult alike, with kindness and respect; who advocates high-quality education, attending meetings and writing letters, supporting teachers. Is this person worthy of respect? Now imagine this person is a Satanist. Has anything changed? What if this neighbor is a staunch advocate of proper science education, and is firmly in favor of separation of church and state, but yet holds these bizarre religious ideas?

People hold many ideas. I can’t see dismissing a person, failing to grant them respect, unless a very large number of ideas they hold, or certain very important ideas, are incompatible with what I think is reasonable. There are plenty of religious people I respect but whose religious beliefs I do not respect. I can’t imagine the case is drastically different for most atheists. What am I missing?

Sackbut,

I was thinking much the same thing. Intolerance is intolerance no matter what side you are on. If the person’s beliefs and ideas make them act in an abhorrent way then no, they don’t deserve respect but short of that…

I posted the answers on my blog, but I’ll repost them here since it was Mr. Mehta that requested it.

1. Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?
Yes. Beliefs are internal, and up to the person. Whether you consider them to be wrong or right should only be addressed if the person publicly voices their beliefs.

2. Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?
Yes. If a person holds what I percieve to be a negative belief but doesn’t take action in using that belief to harm others then I can respect the person.

3. Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?
I hope so.

4. Will it kill me if I were wrong?
I’m assuming that “kill” in this sense refers to great emotional stress. In that case, I don’t think so. During the time that I was gradually coming to understand my atheism it wasn’t a major crisis for me, and that is arguably the most life altering realization that I’ve ever come to.

But I could be wrong.

5. Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?
Absolutely not. The truth is too important to be treated lightly, even in the interest of dialog.

6. Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?
Of course, I’ve tried to do so for nearly my entire life. Additionally, I always attmept to, not only hear but, listen to what they say.

7. Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?
Ooohhh… someone wrote a deepity. As a kayaker I’ll further this analogy. Looking at the surface will often tell you what the deeper currents are like if you know what to look for. The trick is drawing on past experience with those currents.

So, in effect yes. I won’t be distracted by the surface ripples, because I’ll be using them to give me a greater idea of what is underneath.

8. Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?
I hope that my answer to question #2 would give you some idea of my answer to this. I’m willing to converse, associate, or “play” with anyone, regardless of their beliefs. I will however avoid or confront someone who takes a negative action against me or another person.

9. Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?
Absolutely not.

10. Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?
By my definition of love, no and no. Love, like respect, has to be earned, but love takes a deeper involvement in order for a person to earn it. If you were to love everyone, then you would truly love no one.

11. At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?*
Being approachable/likeable isn’t imporant to me to begin with. I try to conduct myself in a way that others won’t find condescending, intimidating, or threatening but there are some people that you just can’t deal with.

12. Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?*
If you have to “cede points” to someone to keep the relationship going it doesn’t sound like there is a strong relationship to being with.

1. Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?

Yes

2. Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends very much on their ideas. I hold a person ultimately responsible for the ideas they hold, therefore I refuse to absolve them from that responsibility. If someone’s ideas are disreputable enough and they continue to hold them in the face of sound rebuttals I most certainly will not respect that person.

3. Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?

What fallacies? 🙂
No, but seriously, I think I do. I am always willing to concede errors in argument.

4. Will it kill me if I were wrong?

Depends on circumstances, no? If I’m arguing religious ideas over the internet and I wrongly assume the person I’m arguing with is not a psychotic fundamentalist, then no, it won’t kill me. Face to face, however, it might.

5. Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

Sometimes. It depends on who I’m having the dialog with, how much I respect them, whether anything’s riding on the argument. Many of these questions are grey yet are trying to push for black and white responses. I’m always deeply suspicious of the motivations of those who pose questions like that. Let’s just say it doesn’t surprise me that this particular set came from a religious person.

6. Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?

If what they have to say appears to be worth it, then yes.

7. Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?

If they exist, sure.

8. Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?

Ostracize, no. I’m not promising I’ll be nice to them, though.

9. Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?

What a strange, ambiguous question. I’m not sure exactly what it means.

10. Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?

No, I’m not a brain-dead hippy. There are plenty of “beings” wholly unworthy of love just as there are plenty who are unworthy of respect. Forget that ridiculous Godwin nonsense; sometimes Hitler makes the point validly: was he a being I should have been willing to love?

Indeed, my answer would also change to yes with mingfromongo’s revised second question.

There’s also ambiguity in the original 2nd question. You can read it as either:

Is it possible to disagree with someone’s beliefs and yet still respect them?

But it could also mean (and this is the way I took it),

Can you respect someone no matter what beliefs they hold?

To clarify – I could respect someone who believes the earth orbits the sun. (As opposed to them both orbiting a common centre of mass. :p)

However, I could not respect someone who believed that they were entitled to commit genocide.

Naturally there is a sliding scale between the two… 🙂

This is an interesting post in light of the recent request by Ray Comfort.

I think, due to my religious background, I understand where ‘nakedpastor’ is coming from, and, as is, this list could possibly be asked of many Christians and other ‘religionists’. But, for the rest of us, life is too complicated to answer simply “yes” or “no”. It always depends, just like so many people have commented in this discussion. I agree with several other respondents that the questions could be more useful if reworded. (How, is for someone else to figure out.) And, I would replace the word love with compassion, considering ‘Ed’s dictionary.com list of definitions. (I really don’t think that I could feel “profoundly tender” or have “passionate affection” or have “a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection” for, or have a “sexual passion or desire” for many/most/all people. Maybe a, relative, few at a time…but no.) And I agree with ‘mingfrommongo’ that the use of consideration instead of respect makes more sense. It seems that ‘mingfrommongo’ and ‘Valhar2000’ agree with me, and others here, that respect is earned, not simply a given. I think it is quite reasonable to be polite and to consider and acknowledge the humanity, the ‘beingness’, of others. You don’t have to “love” them to do that. And, let’s be honest, in living our lives, most people, for the most part, live in their own little worlds and ‘ignore’ the rest….Life is too complicated. Discussions like this are good, but, never conclusive and they should never cease.

To viggo, sackbut, mingfrommongo, nakedpastor and some others, this is in regards to question 2:

A coworker and I got into a discussion of the term and use of the term ‘respect’ and we realized there is at least two different categories of respect that needs to be addressed. I can respect someone’s accomplishments without respecting their beliefs, or personal behavior. I don’t know that you can say that you respect someone, and mean it to be the ‘whole’ person.

I have a supervisor who follows Islam. He is extremely capable and very good in business. I respect him professionally. I would take any business advice he were to give. However, I absolutely do not respect his beliefs and ideals. I am actually angered at some of the things he believes.

So, the question of respect is several very gradient rulers to put up to someone. Professional accomplishments, social behavior, environmental responsibility, etc.. are all areas where respect can be given, and be totally separate from each other.