Should we show respect for other people's "beliefs?"

val wrote:

It depends of what you mean by "respect" and "believes".

Indeed!

I have to guess what people mean when they write: "We should all respect each other's beliefs."

In any case, using most definitions of "respect" and "beliefs"...I don't especially agree with the sentiment.

Quote:

Believing, to me, is to accept as true something that cannot be object of proof.

I state this slightly differently...but with almost the same end. I consider "believing" to be guesses about what is unknown.

In my opinion, a guess only becomes a "belief" when it is characterized with that word. Only when someone disguises the fact that they are making a guess by calling it a belief...is it a belief.

Said another way: All beliefs are guesses...not all guesses are beliefs.

(Except for that last comment, feel free to substitute estimate, supposition, conjecture, hypothesis...for the word "guess.")

Quote:

And this is not only the case of religious believes.

Mostly I am going to limit myself to the question of religious beliefs. I understand and acknowledge that reasonable arguments can be made that we cannot "know" anything without making certain guesses or estimates on our way to that supposed knowledge...but I really don't want to get into sophistry.

Quote:

This said, there are different levels of belief. It is different to believe in a God or to believe that there is a city named New York.

Quite so.

And as long as we can make that distinction...which I acknowledge can easily be challenged...we have the basis for discussion of this issue.

Quote:

The belief in a God is a matter of individual faith.

Nearly as I can determine..."faith" is merely the unyielding and unreasonable insistence that a guess disguised as a belief...is correct.

Quote:

Answering your question, I say that we must respect other people's believes. Respect is not the same thing as acceptation. I think that the belief in a soul or a God does not have any real meaning, but I respect those who believe: this means I don't want to convince them that they are wrong, I accept their believes as personal choices and, in order to respect them as individuals I must respect the right they have to believe in a God, or a Soul or gobblins.

Well, I disagree...and in fact, would probably argue the other way. But if I do...I will run afoul of the fact that we still have not adequately defined "respect."

I think you "respect" an individual more by being honest....so disguising the fact that you disagree would, to my way of thinking, be disrepectful.

And many people who are convinced that their philosophy is the best way to conduct life...WANT to share of that philosphy with people they love and respect(!). To not attempt to change their minds where one perceives them to be on the wrong path...is, it could be argued, a greater display of disrespect than to attempt to change them.

Quote:

But, if they want to convince me that they have reached the truth, then I will discuss with them and I have also the right to require they accept the discussion, and the exchange and critical exam of all arguments.

This is better.

Quote:

I would never be bored with Hitler or Bin Laden believes, if they keep those believes to themselves, or even accept to discuss them in forums like this one. But men like Hitler or Bin Laden don't want to discuss anything. They want to impose their belief by the force and terror. Therefore they must be stopped with those same weapons, force and if necessary, terror.

I'll just leave this be.

Quote:

So, excepting those cases of fanatical terrorism, I respect other people believes, discuss them if they accept to discuss, because respecting their believes is not different from respecting them as persons. What I would never accept is that anyone tries to force me to accept his belief or faith or theory by other means than rational and critical discussion.

I disagree....and in my remarks earlier to Phoenix, I explained why I see this kind of thinking as off the mark. But your heart is in the right place....and I truly understand why good folks like you and Phoenix take this position.

0 Replies

OK, i'll respect your beliefs if you respect my facts. Would you get a christian to debate with you on those terms? If you did you could do some serious damage.. Smile

The problem with most believers is that they are incapable of hearing facts that counter their beliefs. You can put up as many guidelines for good debating as you like to no avail.

0 Replies

Lola said:

Quote:

But even then, I sometimes wish I would be more successful than I am in dealing with those who annoy me to death. But I must not wish it too much because I so often fail.......and I enjoy it so when I do.

..man, I really love your honesty.

As to the subject (and I apologize in advance if my answer isn't definitive enough), I think I am obligated to respect the person, regardless of his/her beliefs, until they give me a reason not to respect them.

And if I may proffer a question to those disdainful of "beliefs" and "faith" -

Do you think it takes faith or belief to close your eyes and fall backwards into someone's arms, knowing that there is only hard concrete beneath if they don't catch you?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Lola said:

Quote:
But even then, I sometimes wish I would be more successful than I am in dealing with those who annoy me to death. But I must not wish it too much because I so often fail.......and I enjoy it so when I do.

..man, I really love your honesty.

As to the subject (and I apologize in advance if my answer isn't definitive enough), I think I am obligated to respect the person, regardless of his/her beliefs, until they give me a reason not to respect them.

Sounds good to me, Snood...and that pretty much is what I do...and I suspect, what most of us do.

But we are left with the same problem that was discussed earlier.

We each subjectively then must come to a subjective decision as to when someone has given sufficient reason not to respect them.

It is an exception...and as with all exceptions of this kind...different people will draw different lines.

Quote:

And if I may proffer a question to those disdainful of "beliefs" and "faith" -..

Well as you know, Snood, I am one who is disdainful of "beliefs" and "faith"...so I will be responding to this question.

As background: I see beliefs (in the religious context) to be merely guesses about the unknown that have been dressed up in the word "belief" in an attempt to disguise the fact that they are merely guesses. And I see "faith" as nothing more than a kind of bullheadedness...insistence that the guess is right despite it being nothing more than a guess.

I understand and appreciate that religious people often take strong exception to that...but that IS my opinion.

Quote:

...Do you think it takes faith or belief to close your eyes and fall backwards into someone's arms, knowing that there is only hard concrete beneath if they don't catch you?

If you don't trust the person...it takes stupidity.

If you do trust the person...I would call it "trust."

Mind you...I acknowledge that I could put my "trust" in someone or something...and find that I was wrong to do so.

The problem I would have with calling it "faith", by the way...is that it might get mixed up with the way religious people use the word "faith"...which as mentioned, I see as bullheaded insistence that a guess is correct...that a guess is more than a guess.

ALL OF WHICH WAS SAID NOT IN ANY ATTEMPT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL...BUT MERELY TO ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY RESPOND TO AN INQUIRY.

0 Replies

Snood wrote:

Quote:

Lola said:

Quote:
But even then, I sometimes wish I would be more successful than I am in dealing with those who annoy me to death. But I must not wish it too much because I so often fail.......and I enjoy it so when I do.

..man, I really love your honesty.

Thank you Snood, I really love yours too. I find it easier to admit ambivalence since I'm unable to deny it. I share this in common with Woody Allen. I believe I have a defective "denial mechanism." Laughing

Only Woody could put it so succinctly.

Quote:

Do you think it takes faith or belief to close your eyes and fall backwards into someone's arms, knowing that there is only hard concrete beneath if they don't catch you?

I was about to respond to this until I saw that Frank had already essentially said what I was about to say. I have trusted many people, but I've only hit the pavement twice. Ouch! It hurt. It's a helpful distinction between faith and trust. I've, all too often, heard talk about faith from the perspective of what I should have rather than a question about what I do have. I have faith or trust only in matters in which I'm convinced it's warranted. And for me that means facts that have stood the test of many trials, and as I said, even that has failed me a couple of times.

0 Replies

Lola said:

Quote:

I have faith or trust only in matters in which I'm convinced it's warranted. And for me that means facts that have stood the test of many trials, and as I said, even that has failed me a couple of times.

Therein, in my estimation, is the dilemma, and the misunderstanding between people who say they have faith in God and those who do not (not to mention those that go the extra bit and espouse perjoratives about all faith and people of faith) - faith is believing in the unprovable, that which cannot be experienced by the 5 senses. In Hebrews 11:1 (NKJ version), it's expressed this way: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

That's why debates and arguments between people who profess faith in God and those who don't (not to mention those who will miss no opportunity to impugn the intelligence and sanity of those persons of faith) are by definition doomed to negative or nonproductive outcomes, unless conscious care is given to (uh oh) respect the other's views.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Lola said:

Quote:
I have faith or trust only in matters in which I'm convinced it's warranted. And for me that means facts that have stood the test of many trials, and as I said, even that has failed me a couple of times.

Therein, in my estimation, is the dilemma, and the misunderstanding between people who say they have faith in God and those who do not (not to mention those that go the extra bit and espouse perjoratives about all faith and people of faith) - faith is believing in the unprovable, that which cannot be experienced by the 5 senses. In Hebrews 11:1 (NKJ version), it's expressed this way: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Well that is what I have been saying all along.

"Believing" is making a guess about the unknown...and "faith" is insisting that the guess is correct despite the fact that it is nothing more than a guess.

We are in agreement.

Quote:

That's why debates and arguments between people who profess faith in God and those who don't (not to mention those who will miss no opportunity to impugn the intelligence and sanity of those persons of faith) are by definition doomed to negative or nonproductive outcomes, unless conscious care is given to (uh oh) respect the other's views.

Well since we have managed to get to this point of agreement, Snood, I hope you start to show some respect for my views soon.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Define "beliefs."

Define define.

Henry Mencken wrote:

We must repsect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.

0 Replies

Quote:

If a person has seriously investigated a subject and the results do not match the conclusions that you have reached with a similar rigour, then one must respect that person and give attention to their comments. But there is no respect due, merely on the basis of someone having taken a position, even if it is shared by a large part of this planet's population.

BoGoWo is smart! Smile

0 Replies

Spendius

I have a different idea of the possibility of proof, even scientific proof.And I don't believe that we can prove anything, except in the context of an empirical adequacy and social acceptance. Let me give you an example: Aristotle theory of movement was empirically and socialy acceptable for 1.000 years. The same with Ptolomeu's cosmology. Newton theory of an absolute space (and time) were accepted during 200 years, and empirically and socialy validated. A scientific theory can be prooved false, if it is denied by experimental facts, but can never be prooved true. There is a provisory acceptance of a theory, as long as the choosen conditions of experimental verification do not contradict it.
But there is no definitive proof of absolute validity of a scientific theory.

But the fact that I cannot accept proof, except as empirical adequacy and social agreement, does not mean that the belief that I have a keyboard in front of me is irrational. The people wo lived with me, my friends, they all see a keyboard, just like I do. It is impossible to proove that the keyboard is there, because in the limit we are only dealing with perceptions - optical or tactile. But existing a general consensus about the existence of physical objects (and I am part of that consensus), it seems more adequate to accept naturally the existence of the keyboard, even if I cannot proove it.
I don't see any irrationality in this, but that depends obviously on the conception we have of rationalism.

About the respect for other people believes. Perhaps I exagerated in what I said about Hitler or Bin Laden. Their opinions, even as beliefs, are dangerous because they suppose a necessary level of actions. If Bin Laden believes that is moral to kill americans, it is not only a belief, it is an invitation to violence.
And there you are right. Some beliefs lead, inevitably, to actions of violence and terror. They cannot be tolerated, even as believes.
I accept beeing wrong in this point. But, you see, there was a reason for that. It is easy to condemn and repress people who have believes like those of Hitler and Bin Laden. But the process never stops here. There are always believes that, according to a given historical and social situation, are unacceptable.
If we open exceptions in our respect for other people beliefs, we open the door to repression with an impredictable extend. See the case of the spirit of christian crusade in the Bush administration. If this grows much more, some day american atheists will be forced to keep their believes in secret.
This doesn't mean that your critic wasn't right. It was. But there is a major problem: when and were to stop.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
...Do you think it takes faith or belief to close your eyes and fall backwards into someone's arms, knowing that there is only hard concrete beneath if they don't catch you?

If you don't trust the person...it takes stupidity.

If you do trust the person...I would call it "trust."

Mind you...I acknowledge that I could put my "trust" in someone or something...and find that I was wrong to do so.

Your distinction here between "faith" and "trust" is unclear since both words are often used to mean the same thing.

IMO, "faith" and "trust" are both rooted in a confidence level or certianty. "Faith" is forward looking (i.e. the future) and "trust" is based on past events.

If you are famaliar with the group of people who would presumably be catching you your level of trust or distrust (based on your past experience with them) is likely to be higher so your faith that they would/wouldn't catch you in a future fall is likely to be stronger (.i.e. more certian).

If you are unfamaliar with the group you are less likely to have built up any trust/distrust so your faith would probably be weaker (i.e. less certianty).

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
...Do you think it takes faith or belief to close your eyes and fall backwards into someone's arms, knowing that there is only hard concrete beneath if they don't catch you?

If you don't trust the person...it takes stupidity.

If you do trust the person...I would call it "trust."

Mind you...I acknowledge that I could put my "trust" in someone or something...and find that I was wrong to do so.

Your distinction here between "faith" and "trust" is unclear since both words are often used to mean the same thing.

IMO, "faith" and "trust" are both rooted in a confidence level or certianty. "Faith" is forward looking (i.e. the future) and "trust" is based on past events.

If you are famaliar with the group of people who would presumably be catching you your level of trust or distrust (based on your past experience with them) is likely to be higher so your faith that they would/wouldn't catch you in a future fall is likely to be stronger (.i.e. more certian).

If you are unfamaliar with the group you are less likely to have built up any trust/distrust so your faith would probably be weaker (i.e. less certianty).

I understand and appreciate what you are saying, Fishin'...but what I said pretty much stands as written.

This question was proposed after a fairly lengthy disussion of several things that impact on the question.

I'm not sure if you have read the entire thread, but if you haven't...do so...and you'll see what I mean.

0 Replies

I read the entire thread Frank. Been following it for a couple of days.

I just don't agree that you can, as you stated, "trust" that something will or won't happen in the future. You can only have faith that something will or won't happen based on your level of trust (in people, science, etc..) and those distinctions fall directly in line with all of the previous discussion.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

I read the entire thread Frank. Been following it for a couple of days.

I just don't agree that you can, as you stated, "trust" that something will or won't happen in the future. You can only have faith that something will or won't happen based on your level of trust (in people, science, etc..) and those distinctions fall directly in line with all of the previous discussion.

Okay.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

OK, i'll respect your beliefs if you respect my facts. Would you get a christian to debate with you on those terms? If you did you could do some serious damage..

The problem with most believers is that they are incapable of hearing facts that counter their beliefs. You can put up as many guidelines for good debating as you like to no avail.

I'll have a bash...let's hear your "facts" ?

0 Replies

Frank - here's two quotes of mine for ya:

"It's truly unbelievable what unbelievers must believe to remain unbelieving."

"I trust your faith will believe in my hope for respect."

0 Replies

"May my karma run over your dogma"

0 Replies

pretty good snood... you too bib Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

"It's truly unbelievable what unbelievers must believe to remain unbelieving."

Cute Bib. But it's also an obvious fact that everyone is depending on a belief in something, in some system (except Frank, of course.) But blind faith is a very different animal than faith in a convincing body of evidence. The willingness to doubt or the use of the right to doubt differentiates blind faith from faith that stems from evidence provided by the scientific method. There's a difference in a faith that requires one take the priest's word for how many teeth are in a horse's mouth and one that allows faith only after one has counted the teeth in many horses mouths.

Blind faith is what I don't have. And I don't have blind belief either. I agree with Frank on this. I can't believe that I truly believe without knowledge and experience. If you want to call it faith or belief, and you're not causing harm to me or others by doing so, then it's ok with me. But to the extent that our laws and policies about scientific progress are determined based on such superstition, to that extent I (and all of humanity) am being hurt. What you and Snood call faith and belief in God is what I call a wish or a hope. I have not yet seen anything that leads me to believe there's a God or that we should base our sense of morality and rules of ethics on old ideas passed down from past generations without putting them to repeated testing. As a matter of fact, I see lots of evidence that there is no God in the material sense.

I can assign a name like God to the reality of an infinite universe that has always been and will always be. But that's not a personal God and has nothing to do with morality. I don't believe literally that there's any old man in the sky watching after us, or giving us gifts if we're good and a bag of switches if we're bad.

And I especially can't place my faith in a system that predicts punishment and condemnation based on the condition that I can generate an idea that I call faith in an unknown and unknowable entity. What can be said of a God who would require, by threat of punishment, that his creations believe in something that can't be known? This would make him inconsistent and unreasonable, cruel even. He becomes an untrustworthy God, a whimsical, unpredictable, totalitarian God. He's like a dictator with no self doubt. Sort of like a parent who wants to exercise his authority without helping his child discover truth for himself. Pretty poor God to believe in, I'd say. How can I trust a God who just wants his way, regardless of my experience? How can I trust a God who would give us a pre-frontal cortex and expect us not to use it? These are my big questions.

Snood's statement about faith being a belief in the unprovable is fine if one feels comforted by the idea. But I've never felt comforted by this concept of God because I can't conjure up a feeling I can call belief without clear evidence. It just doesn't make sense to me. At church, when I was asked if I believed, I could never honestly answer that question with a yes, and I was taught that I should always be honest, even though I often lied (a sin, according to this supposed God) when I was a child in order to preserve the peace. What am I to do about this problem? Somehow the Calvinist explanation that I'm not one of the elect just doesn't satisfy, and you must see why not.

In my opinion old time religion produces either a child who learns not to think or a child who is a dirty little liar, like me. The concept of ethics being a series of choices.......relative honesty is the result. Man cannot live by rules alone.

0 Replies

I like lola Smile

0 Replies

Should we show respect for other people's "beliefs?"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know