Posted by Jim Henderson on: 04.30.2006 /
Comment # 6 from Jim and Hemant on Radio
“What Hemant said about everyone swaying the same way during singing - I don’t think that means they’ve inappropriately surrendered their individuality any more than when everyone in a group claps in time to music (sacred or secular)”
When Hemant brought up this issue during the radio interview I was quite surprised. I had not noticed the group swaying so my response was to challenge his perception. After listening to the interview I realized that neither of us could prove or disprove the “swaying” even though both of us were actually present while it was or wasn;t happening.
This small but very real example of misperceptions made me wonder if any of us are able to truly be objective. I guess I just don;t think that kind of highly disciplined objectivity exists for Cs ,As or any normal human being. And if I’m right then it is true that we probably expect way too much of each other and it also brings into question what then does prompt us to change our viewpoints since “the facts” can be whatever we seem to want to make of them.
I realize that there are Cs and As who for very different reasons will arrive at the exact same answer to this question- “There is objective reality/truth- and THEY (those who oppose my view) are simply unwilling to admit it”
Frankly I am completley unconvinced of both viewpoints and especially the way both groups arrive at their “certainty”. I think we expect too much of each other.
Comment by: Ir
1Indeed.
What you’re bringing up here seems to be the same point I was trying to make in my blog entry “The Art of Storytelling”. Which is fine because it’s a point I’d like to see made again and again in different ways until people realize that “my perception of events” is fallible.
In my opinion it is never a good idea to assume the motives of the other party. I have noticed the tendency of some Cs and As to assume that the other side is in denial of the ‘obvious’ facts which would change their mind if they weren’t in such denial. These Cs and As seem entirely unaware of the fallibility of their own perceptions.
I can understand that a little more in As. I’m surprised that Cs, for all their talk of the differences between God and man, miss that when they are certain about something, they are in effect claiming to be infallibly omniscient on that topic, which is an attribute they have been taught only applies to God.
I know that I am often tripped up by expecting too much of people. Managing my expectations is one of the best tools I have for avoiding unnecessary disappointment in life and I am not as good at it as I would like to be.
Jim can you explain how “I think we expect too much of each other” relates to you and Hemant perceiving the same event different ways? Is it that you are saying both of you expected too much of each other when you expected the other person to have the exact same perception as you did?
Did either of you ask the interviewer what he perceived, since he was there too? Although, since his perceptions were probably as fallible as each of yours I’m not sure what the value of that would have been. Maybe his answer would have simply been a way to back into whether he agreed more with you or Hemant’s view of what a group swaying the same way could imply rather than what a video camera would have recorded.
I guess one of you, were you able to see a videorecording of that part of the service, would see something a little different from what you saw when you were there. Maybe both of you would.
Comment by: TXatheist
2I can understand how Hemant saw it that way as we see the “sheep” mentality sometimes in xians. But I definitely understand this was a sign of unity and happiness in the xians. It’s similar to standing at the 7th inning stretch at a ball game. It’s just tradition and most people just join right in.
Comment by: Marty
3I am keenly aware that the “facts” may well (probably do) play a lesser role in my discernment than other factors. I can’t tell you how bored and unconvinced that I am with all the quoting of scriptures by both sides on this blog. Or all the scientific proof. Is there anyone who really believes that one can not find a scripture and/or interpret a particular scripture to support whatever preconceived world view that they have? It seems to me that Ir might be the best of any of us at doing that - and she is now an Atheist.
On the discussion board I posted a paper I wrote some years ago on Discernment. http://off-the-map.org/ebayatheist/viewtopic.php?t=27
I am keenly aware of how important how something is said/written to my accepting the input into my discernment process. For instance - I would guess that I am not alone in how I particularly tune into what Ir writes. Why - because I recognize that she has had a tremendous amount of experiences into both the Christian and Atheists world’s and I really appreciate her balanced approach to helping all of us get over our stereotypes and prejudices. How she really can’t be defined by any of our labels.
A few days ago I would have been quite skeptical of Spong. Now having sat in the front row and experiencing him for an hour and a half - I am now very tuned into and appreciate him. I think he is very misundertood - while at the same time I think he somewhat revels in it (otherwise he has found that he doesn’t really get attention).
A time or two both Ir and Jim have gotten a tad testy - or misunderstood someone elses input - but very quickly apologized or appreciated the additional input when they received additional input/feedback. They try to learn rather than to combat and debate. It is because of these things that I am very influenced by their inputs.
I am particularly enjoying TxAtheists inputs today on the discussion board. If he can somehow stay with that form of communications - I am likely to overcome my experience of how my body has reacted to the way he has communicated at times in the past - and how therefore the substance of his inputs have not been able to penetrate the defense systems that automatically arise when in me when the input seems to me harsh and dogmatic.
The ones that I do not tune in to and do not learn from are those who are the absolutists - even if they may be absolutely right.
I am keenly aware of things that I used to think were absolutely true in years past - that I no longer believe at all - or have drastically changed my mind on. Why should I think that I now have the absolute truth and will not see it different in the future. I also don’t think it is fun having the absolute unchangeable truth. What a bore the rest of my life would be.
Comment by: Ir
4TX, thanks for being willing to see the point of view of both sides. I think you’re exactly right that it’s a type of ‘tradition’.
Comment by: Julie Marie
5I suspect that the regular posters on this forum have some more common ground…extremely high expectation of self. And others. (I know I do.)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
6I agree and am “absolutely sure” of my position :-)
This was not about Hemant and I but about all people everywhere (not to sound too grandiose):-) Hemant and I (from my persepective) gained a deeper respect for each other as the process progressed. This final review was an anamoly (although a helpful one) in that we were both present at the same place at the same time and we happened to have a slight disagreement- it was not a big deal - Im sure it would have happened earlier if I had accompanied him to other churches. This kind of difference is simply part of what happens when two people see the same thing and come to different conclusions.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
7Bravo Marty
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
8May I add a contrary perspective. As one who, from the earliest, has considered this a place to learn, and who has hoped that others are here for the same reason, I think there is a very useful point in sharing scriptural references. It is for precisely the same reason that I have also appreciated David, Jayson, TX, and Siamang when, on occasion they have quoted or provided links to various secular quotes.
All of us come from somewhat (or greatly) differing perspectives. And as such we may value or discount another commeentator’s “sources”. What is largely unknown is the degree to which we are good or poor analysts and logicians. So, by providing source documentation we are, if you will, footnoting our thoughts and providing insights into how we analyze the information gleaned from our sources.
I, frankly, couldn’t care less whether anyone believes my biblical cites. The last thing I care about here is trying to convert someone. It isn’t even on the radar screen. That’s between them and God.
But if I assert a point, or if Siamang asserts a point, it is nice to be able to check references for context and to see how they’ve approached and used their valued references. It tells us something of why we believe what we believe. And, we’ve given a lot of lip-service to the notion of wanting to understand each other and be cordial with each other. But that is never going to happen until we at least grant some degree of respect to the other side’s sources and their analytical approach. If a person doesn’t want to do that, then their very presence here is an immense hypocrisy, IMO. And anyone who doesn’t appreciate source/reference cites is, IMO, insufficiently analytical to have anything to teach…or, probably, learn.
Comment by: Ir
9Well, I might not be an atheist ;)
But, yes, I was so good at using Scriptures to justify whatever I wanted to that I inadvertently eroded away my belief that the Bible can be relied upon to tell me which way God wants me to go whenever I’m unsure. It was way too easy to find a verse or passage which backed up whatever I wanted to do, irrespective of what God might want. (It just takes a little creativity, that’s all :))
So you don’t think it would be fun going around inflicting your absolute unchangeable truth on other people, huh? ;)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10Tom
I can see your point
Comment by: Lisa W.
11It is fascinating to me, this idea of seeing the same thing and having a different placement for it in our worldview.
Have we expected too much in our hopefulness that the other will see as we have? Maybe. We become frustrated when we feel the other has come to a conclusion that seems to be a misunderstanding. We are attached to our own understanding, our own placement of where something fits into the ‘puzzle’ as Ir, mentioned once. We can each have the same exact puzzle piece and have a perfect place for it in our own worldview puzzle, but each puzzle/picture is completely different.
The challenge I think is to not be so attached to the worldview that we have. To know that is to be more fluid, less certain, more open to learning. We then are more open to simply managing the polarity of our differences; more free to explore the common turf of Otherliness. It may feel precarious but I think it is where love tends to show up.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
12This is what I look for
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
13Hmmm. See, I don’t see attachment to one’s worldview as the problem. I think one can be an ardent C or an ardent A, and it still remains an open issue as to whether they will be strident and obnoxious or open and engaging. We’ve seem plenty of examples of both here.
I, for one, would far rather talk with an ardent, fully committed, but thoughtful and analytical atheist, than someone who is lacadaisical about their beliefs. I just want to find people who are as interested in learning from me as I am in learning from them. I think there are some stellar examples of this on the other side from me; Ir and Eliza come immediately to mind. Engagement with each of them is, for me, an immense pleasure. They ask good questions and give evidence of being genuinely interested in the answers. They’re listening. And they make it easy for me to listen back.
“Conversion”, one way or the other, doesn’t have to even be on the radar screen. (Although I will admit that in conservative Christendom, there is little in the way of contemporary role models for that kind of approach. IRL I’ve had to make it up as I go along.) To quote that emminent philosopher, Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
14One other thought that occurs to me wrt my own, personal use of scripture. When I have a relationship IRL where I have earned the right to be heard, my friends know that I am a Christian. And, at least among the more intellectually engaged of my friends, if I express an opinion, especially one that may strike them as contrary to their received stereotype Christian thought, they will ask me for Biblical references if I don’t offer them. They know my frame of reference, so they expect me to cite it.
So, while I am a big fan of the concept of OAs and being able to be normal, ISTM that that is not the end, that is just a step on the way to the end. And somewhere a few steps down the way you come to a place where your life and your worldview and your knowledge of scripture and your cultural manners become so thoroughly integrated that they are inseparable parts of your normal interaction. Thoroughly integrated wholeness in a winsome, attractive package.
At least, that’s what what I’m striving for. Still got a long ways to go.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
15To the point of the question: It’s not that we expect too much of each other, it’s that we expect too little of ourselves.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
16I cant be as hopeful as Tom - I still think we expect too much of each other and that expectation is what gets us in trouble with endless arguments.
I think we expect too much of ourselves as well
Comment by: RickLinTx
17It’s been said that the biggest cause of frustration and disappointment is unmet expectations.
BTW Ir, in #9 above you used the word “irrespective”. was it an intentional pun: “*Ir*-respective”? ; )
Comment by: Ir
18I’ll be honest - no, it wasn’t intentional. I like it though! :)
Comment by: Eliza
19(this is a little scattered - child riding truck at high speeds around my chair - distracting!)
Jim - you sound disappointed and frustrated (though I may be reading emotion wrong from the words on the screen, if so forgive me). I see more reason to be hopeful. Ok, humans are messy, so to speak. Religion and related beliefs are deeply held & very personal; objectivity is probably not achievable. But conversation and interaction between people with different beliefs is.
No, we’re not able to be truly objective, at least not about things that we care about. And it’s not useful to try to find some common ground in some area none of us cares about (if there even is any such area ;) ). When it comes to highly charged topics, there is no objectivity.
What would “objective” look like in this situation? Would an “objective” person describe only what he/she observes, as close to a human video tape as possible, using dry, sociologic reearch terms with no judgments made? But that person would totally miss the emotional aspects, or traditions, or meanings, and those are valid aspects of the experience.
I agree. Not only do we seem to see the same things and interpret them differently, but as we’ve talked about here, input seems to go through a person’s “filter”, so we don’t even necessarily “see” the same things even if “objectively” they’re the same. Again, that’s OK, that’s human. It helps to be made aware of those filters.
It’s really hard not to be attached! I don’t think there’s any easy way around that, and maybe there shouldn’t be. Maybe that’s how the human brain works - we need to feel there is some certainty in the world, and it’s self-protective to believe “I/we have that certainty.” Again, maybe it helps just to be aware of that tendency, in ourselves and others.
It seems to me that encouraging people to talk with others with different beliefs, different realities, and to approach those interactions with open mind & curiosity & willingness to be pushed outside their comfort zone is probably one of the best ways to encourage understanding between people of different beliefs, if not change in personal beliefs. (Even if many of us (like me) have to keep watch for slipping back into our solid sense of certainty.) This site has been a valuable way for me to hear about other people’s beliefs, and think about my own, and challenge myself to listen & reserve judgment (not without me backsliding into my own solid certainty at times, but I’m trying to watch out for that). So thank you - to everyone but Jim especially - for encouraging and allowing these conversations.
Comment by: Eliza
20To respond to Marty #3 above:
Marty, I really like your thoughts on discernment (link in #3 above). For me, gathering information, especially from different points of view, is very helpful. The Bible is important in Christianity (yeah, understatement, I know). Asking questions about specific sections of the Bible has helped me think through the question: how can it be that other people see/read the same thing as I do, but I come away with an incredibly different impression and interpretation? It’s almost like I’m trying to figure out dialects that look like a language I know, but have a different meaning…or even several different meanings, depending on who you talk to. And it has been very helpful in giving me a glimpse at how some Christians interpret the Bible and a glimpse at what it means to them. (There’s a much wider range than I’d ever expected.) I can’t think of any other way I could have investigated my question above, in a way that works for me, without bringing up scripture. (But rest easy - I don’t plan to start any more discussions about the Bible! Nor scientific proof, though I absolutely cannot promise not to bring science into a discussion again ;) )