To whom it may concern, then.

[avevale_intelligencer]

(to more than one person, in fact, not all of whom do this all the time, but each of you has done it at least once in my experience)

I respect and like you as a person and I respect your beliefs, even if I don't agree with them.

I also respect your right to voice your beliefs.

I do not feel it particularly worthy of respect when you obscure the distinction between "voicing your beliefs" and "voicing your negative opinion of others' beliefs" in order to gain the moral high ground. They are not the same thing at all. The one is a basic and essential right. The other, while also a right, is a right rather like grabbing two seats on the bus; nobody has any authority to stop you doing it, but it's kinder and more courteous to refrain.

It does not offend me when you say "I do not believe in God, for this and that and the other reason." For all I know, you may be right.

It does not offend me when you say "This thing done in the name of religion is evil and makes me angry." You're usually right about that, and it makes me angry too.

It does offend me when you say, either directly or by implication, "People who believe in a god are stupid, or deluded, or lying to self and/or others." That is an entirely different thing, has no bearing on your personal beliefs, and for my money, you are almost always entirely wrong.

It also offends me when Christians talk of non-believers as evil, or deluded, or liars, but that doesn't happen on my flist nearly as often as the opposite. Not at all, in fact, despite the presence of significant numbers of Christians there. Funny, that.

Okay, done with that now. Off to bed. Night, all.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

No belief should go unchallenged.

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

There is, however, a distinction between challenged and insulted.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

How can a belief be insulted?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That's the thing. There is a difference between challenging a belief and insulting the person who holds it.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

But saying a belief is irrational or illogical or without evidence or even stupid is not saying that all people who hold that belief are totally irrational, illogical, or stupid.

That in itself is an insult to them as it assumes that every person is all of a piece. Which they are not. They can be very clever indeed, highly educated, rational about everything else, but still believe something that is irrational, without evidence or even stupid, be it about politics, religion, love, a particular superstition, or that buses always come in threes.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Please give an example of how one would challenge a belief (say a belief in life after death) without insulting it.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

You don't seem to have grasped the difference between challenging a belief and insulting the person who holds the belief.

I do not believe in 'quarks', I have seen no evidence for them which I trust, only anecdotal evidence. I do however understand that you hold similar opinions about the exisence of unicorns, which I have seen on more than one occasion[1] but you apparently have not encountered. While I choose to not believe in the existence of your quarks I cannot disprove their existence conclusively, just as you will never convince me that the unicorns I have seen are an illusion, so I therefore suggest that we agree to differ and remain friends.

Or another way:

I have thought about this subject and researched it, and I have not found anything which convinces me that your belief is valid. However, I accept that you may have reasons for that belief which satisfy you, and which you cannot explain or demonstrate to me in a way which convinces me; this is your choice, just as my choice is to believe differently.

Or by 'challenge' do you mean "browbeat the other person into your own point of view"? (In the same way many politicians use the term 'compromise'.) If so then there is indeed no way to do it without insulting the other person, and the only sensible response of that person to is refrain from intercourse with the 'challenger' (there are other less sensible responses, some of which may result in injury to at least one of the parties involved. Don't try this at home).

[1] This is not true in my case, it is invented for the purpose of illustration. The comments about quarks, however, are true for me.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

So something like:

I do not believe in life after death. I have seen no evidence I trust, and indeed everything I know about how the brain works leads me to believe that the mind is a behavior of the brain, and that when the brain dies, the mind, like all observable behaviors of the brain, ceases. While I do not believe in life after death for these reasons, I cannot disprove it conclusively. Therefore I suggest that we agree to differ and remain friends.

Like that?

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Perfect! (IMHO.) =:o}

It doesn't necessarily have to be so long-winded, however. It mainly just needs to omit such words "stupid", "insane", "laughable", "ludicrous", "preposterous", "absurd", "non-sensical"...

[keristor.livejournal.com]

So long-winded as me, you mean? I completely admit it *g*...

Yes, and avoid 'illogical'. "Logic is an organised way of going wrong with confidence". Or alternatively, "logic is only useful when the predicates are agreed", so you can say "that is not logical to me" (i.e. it does not follow based on the predicates you use/prefer/choose) but since I work with different predicates implying that my logic is faulty based on your predicates is, well, illogical. If I contradict myself based on my own predicates then feel free to call me on it, but implying that I may have made a mistake or have forgotten to tell you the basis on which I was working is rather more polite and more productive than just calling me an idiot. Similarly, if you have proof which satisfies you (note that absense of proof is not proof of absense) then feel free to point me to it -- it may not satisfy me as proof but at least I'll have a basis for understanding your reasoning.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Indeed. A belief, in and of itself, cannot be either logical or illogical; It can only be either true, false, or not provably one or the other. The argument that *supports* the belief may be either logical or illogical, and in the case that it is illogical one can promptly demonstrate this by offering one's own logical argument against it.

Far more commonly, the argument turns out to be not so much illogical as *incomplete*, or based on an axiom/predicate which is open to challenge. The challenge is then on to establish whether the gap can or cannot be filled with valid logical steps, either bridging the gap in the middle of the argument or providing a foundation built opun a mutially acceptable zet of axioms.

Statements that X is "illogical", without any logic presented to back them up, are empty and pointlessly confrontational. "That doesn't make sense to me - Can you explain the basis of it?" is fine. "That seems illogical to me, and here's why: [LOGICAL ARGUMENT REFUTING THE POINT BEING CHALLENGED]" is also fine.

"I can't see how you get from [X] to [Z]. Is it something like [q]? 'Cos if so, then I have to point out Zeebroglespurt's excellent logical refuation of [q] over at [URL]" would be fantastic. Especially if it gives me the chance to say "No, actually, the bit in the middle is [Y]" and have you go "[FOREHEAD SLAP] Of course! Now I see the light." =:o}

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

To clarify and sum up: It mainly needs to avoid the implication that "only a total moron would believe such a thing". Because that implication leads directly to the person who *does* believe such a thing - if they're alert and intelligent enough to follow the obvious logical* chain - reacting exactly as if you had just outright called them a moron. Because to all intents and purposes, you did.


EDIT: Correcting myself, I don't mean logical chain, I mean *inferential* chain.

At bottom, what we're talking about is avoiding triggering unhelpful/negative emotional reactions, unless one has good cause to do so.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That's certainly what I'm talking about. And if anyone can show me a good cause to do so, in this context--a cause in which triggering an unhelpful/negative emotional reaction would actually further a good resolution of the situation--well, I'll be enlightened.

I'm re-reading "The Ball And The Cross" at the moment (Chesterton again) in which a Catholic and an atheist resolve to fight a duel to settle their disagreement (and keep getting interrupted before they can finish it, which might tell at least the Catholic something). Of course, part of GKC's bias was that he saw fighting, at least metaphorically, as a good way to resolve things like this. I don't. Hence my stance.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Exactly like that indeed, and I'm happy to agree to differ. And may neither of us have to find out for ourselves for a long time yet...

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, what makes you think my post was aimed exclusively, or even mainly, at you?

Partly, yes, but by no means mainly.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

As mine was aimed partly, but by no means mainly, at you.

The title was a response to yours, certainly, but the next line should make it clear.