Believers Vs. Skeptics

[priestofmemory]

It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference in expectations between believers and skeptics when they discuss beliefs. What causes so many problems is that they often don't notice this difference

Comments

[soma_tomato]

I think the typical problem of any discussion on such subject matters as religious beliefs is that, by human nature, people tend to instinctually neutralize an opposing view or entity by any means necessary (be this by ignoring them, reacting with impetuous or violent words or actions, patronization, etc). With assumptions about the validity of any beliefs follows the underlying assumption that that belief is superior in some or every way to an alternative belief, just as any fight or conflict is waged based fundamentally on the idea of the superiority of the mutual combatants in some respect.

Many people perceive the roles of being right and wrong about something in an exaggerated light too I think, especially when feelings and prejudices become involved. It depends a lot on the setting of the discussion though also; being proven wrong (or irrational or maladroit at arguing on a subject for that matter) in a public setting or in the presence of friends can be very embarrassing and/or emasculating. We live in a world of fear and insecurities which will always be the variable that factors into what is and isn't discussed at any time.

Faith, at least by my understanding of the term, is a belief that is seldom open to different viewpoints or interpretations, rather, it is a sacrosanct concept incubated in the mind unmolested and therefore uncontested, the underlying assumption of which being that their respective belief in X is infallible. In other words, while one side may be trying to analyze or debunk the other's beliefs in a logical and civilized fashion, the believer of X may simply see this as a test on their faith, and may simply be enduring the discussion as a testament of their faith, rather than listening and contributing to the conversation in a sensible manner. On the other side of it though, the other interlocutor could very well be presumptuous in their choice of words, and the believer of X would have every right to balk at a discussion.

[priestofmemory]

Thanks for these thoughts. I daresay you're on to something.

Many people perceive the roles of being right and wrong about something in an exaggerated light too I think, especially when feelings and prejudices become involved.

I for one have come to suspect that we have an instinct to enforce social conformity. The Internet has exacerbated this to the point of lunacy. We have all these people whose their hormones are screaming "ZOMG THAT PERSON'S WRONG!" And we get so wrapped up in this that we even forget why it mattered whether or not an idea was right or wrong. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Great Divorce, had George MacDonald say something about how a lot of people debate over God's existence as if God had nothing to do but exist.

[sisalfish]

For myself - it's easy for me to believe in a whole lot of realities as being useful to others, but not to me (Christianity, Asatru, etc). I think the number of ways the sacred makes itself known and opens the door to transformation is amazing. Its diversity is part of what gives me faith that there IS something "sacred".

And I've had friends who were atheists or agnostics who struggled valiantly (I thought) to define their ethics, without any guidelines at all - working completely in a spiritual vacuum. I learned a lot by watching their process.

I think, for me, I just don't want to hoo hah anyone off the list who has valid things to contribute, just because their "methods" or their language don't make the cut. Much of what we're discussing is intuitive, on one side of the fence - what is scientific is, I assume, more supportable. But I get insight from both, and I'm hoping this community finds a way to make a place for both.

[priestofmemory]

And I've had friends who were atheists or agnostics who struggled valiantly (I thought) to define their ethics, without any guidelines at all - working completely in a spiritual vacuum. I learned a lot by watching their process.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.

[sisalfish]

Well - one friend, Pat, was a vehement atheist, and had the strictest moral code of anyone I'd ever met. She pretty much saw everything as right/wrong, black/white, and she never wavered. She'd get REALLY upset when people would say things to her like "But if you don't believe in God, how do you know how to do the right thing?"

Her whole sense of what to do, how to be, seemed rooted entirely in her own integrity. That made me examine what the heck I was doing - I realized I wanted to grow into someone better than I was (more compassionate, more at peace), so I reached for being more of a right-acting person. She wasn't trying to become anything - I think she saw being human as being noble, and she just naturally gravitated toward doing what she thought was the right thing.

I think what I learned from watching her and how she defined what it meant to be a good human being was how few people acted out of what they honored, and how many acted out of what they feared.

[priestofmemory]

Well - one friend, Pat, was a vehement atheist, and had the strictest moral code of anyone I'd ever met.

She sounds like a perfectionist. That's a personality disorder, generally considered to be a bad thing. I've often wondered to what extent perfectionism leads people to be atheists, or vice versa, especially considering the connection between libertarianism/anarchism and atheism.

Her whole sense of what to do, how to be, seemed rooted entirely in her own integrity.

Could you elaborate on this? The idea that comes to my mind when I read this is an insistence on consistency of ethical values and action. Which is admirable, but I'd like to hear more on why she believed what she believed. Did she have a theory of ethics? Why did she think she had any ethical obligations at all?