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

[avekid]

I think the root of the problem -- and it applies, though perhaps not equally, to both believers and skeptics -- is a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're discussing when we discuss beliefs. There are (at least) two different things going on in most of the discussions I've read recently in this community and in other communities dealing with similar subject-matter

[priestofmemory]

Very good points. I can't say that I've ever seen a debate of the first type that ever changed anyone's mind.

[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

[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.