Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 03.05.2007 /
What would you include in a “constitution” of dialog between atheists and Christians (and people in-between)? Jim suggests this, which comes from the comments discussion on Hemant’s post How not to blaspheme:
“When you say this or that person who self-professes to belong to your group doesn’t represent what your belief system/non-beliefs/label is all about; we will listen. We will not take advantage of the behavior of particular self-professed members of your group - which you yourself have issues with - to try to show that your whole group or group’s beliefs/non-beliefs are ridiculous.”
Would this be in yours? What else would you include?
Comment by: Rachel
1I was recently invited to participate in a monthly learning group that is modeled after Benjamin Franklin’s famous group, which he called the Junto. It has been fascinating to learn the history of Franklin’s group. Here is Franklin’s own description of his club and the rules that governed it:
I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of the preceding year, [1727] I had form’d most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the Junto; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased.
Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties.
Comment by: Rachel
2And here are the questions each prospective member was required to answer before joining the Junto:
Any person to be qualified as a member was to stand up, lay his hand upon his breast, and be asked the following questions, viz.
1. Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer. I have not.
2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer. I do.
3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer. No.
4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes.
Comment by: Siamang
3Wow, that sounds great, Rachel!
I love Jim’s point, and I think there are a lot of points to add. I’ll add one that comes to mind:
When you state what your beliefs are, we will take that statement as being your actual beliefs. We will not contradict you and say “you never were a ‘true’ atheist, Christian or whatever. If we really mean to listen to each other’s journeys, we cannot listen with an open ear if we are inserting our own barriers to understanding. We cannot understand each other if we mentally accuse each other of willful self-deception* or disingenuousness.
(I want to clarify ‘willful self-deception’, as it sounds one-sided. What I mean by this is that atheists shouldn’t accuse theists of not wanting to look at the truth, and theists shouldn’t accuse atheists of not wanting to look at the truth.)
Comment by: NCxian
4I like this addition, and maybe something like “each of us can label his or herself, and only his or herself”. Although, maybe at times it furthers the conversation, as irritating as it is to me, to hear “I think you are the exception to the rule”.
Comment by: Siamang
5I think most of the people taking part in this discussion are the exception to the rule. This discussion itself is the exception to the tone of “debate” that the majority of the internet seems to be engaged in.
Comment by: Rachel
6Siamang, I agree that we OTM bloggers are an exception to the rule. Although I know what you mean, NXcian. “You are the exception” doesn’t feel like a compliment when it means “Just about everybody else in your group totally sucks, but you don’t.”
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7Thanks everyone for your comments so far.
Siamang, I like your idea that we stay away from accusing each other of willful self-deception of disingenuousness. I’ve found that staying away from attributing motives to others is a really good idea.
I have a problem with environments in which people are encouraged to believe what their belief system says about other people rather than the first hand testimony of other people, when there’s a conflict. I’ve been in some of those environments. NCxian, I’ve noticed that some Christian environments do this but I’m guessing yours does not. Perhaps some atheist environments do it also.
I also understand that “your group really sucks even though you seem to be ok” doesn’t sound that great. But since Siamang wasn’t saying “Your group” so much as “the big group we’re all in i.e. humans” then to me it has a very different connotation from “your group (mostly) sucks”.
Comment by: Siamang
8Big time.
Comment by: Rachel
9Definitely!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10This is a very important insight. I know that I yield to the temptation of “finding facts that support my theory” all too often.
It is like learing to steer “into” the slide and to hold opposites in tension. It is uncomfortable until it becomes so much fun you don’t want to live without it.
We need to find words that express our committment to the “practice” of retaining the same degree of skepticsm about our own beliefs that we have about someone else’s beliefs or non beliefs.
Siamang put it better and I think that covers what Helen is surfacing here with her comments about our tendency to believe what our bias has taught us to believe about “the other” even when they are denying it right in front of us.
Among other more important features - this creates a bunch of really mean and miserly people