Humbly I invite you to try to understand:
- That if you saw abortion as murder, in the way the pro-life crowd does, or in the way that you see the premeditated killing of a spouse as murder—then you too might be “intolerant” of the opposition. If you truly believed these things, you too might even see defending the lives of the unborn with force, as morally defensible.
And
- That if you see animals as very close to us in the evolutionary tree, and certainly not morally inferior … if you see them as sentient cousins who are conscious and equally as “sacred”—then you too might be “intolerant” of puppy mills, meat-eating humans (speciest cannibals), or those who wear mass-produced fur.
And
- That if you really don’t believe in virgin births, vicarious redemption, scores of dead people walking through the city on the day Jesus was raised from the dead, or any of the thousands of mythological iterations of gods and what is required to make them happy—then you too might grow “intolerant” of being constantly reminded of how immoral and mistaken you are for rejecting the truth claims of each “true” religion.
Or conversely,
- That if you truly believed a divine hand personally sent you a message—or provided people with scripture through the hand of chosen humans; and you believed that if they didn’t believe as you do your loved ones would surely suffer for all times, without end, in a shadowy underworld of torture, pain, and the most brutal punishments available—then you too might be “pushy” or aggressive in trying to influence people whom you care about.
Or
- Or similarly, if you knew that great rewards awaited you for successfully sharing the “truth”, or for flying planes into a building as a martyr; and that anyone who thereby heard your truth or saw your sacrifice might reap the same reward as you—then you too might aggressively seek to share or impose that “truth”.
And
- That if you really believe that completely free and unregulated markets always outperform any attempt to regulate, control, or reallocate scarce resources; and you also believe that we humans have free will, and are almost totally and completely autonomous, self-determined beings that can—and should—be accountable only for our own behaviors, skills, capacities, and decisions—then you might understandably be less tolerant of those who make very bad decisions time and again, and you might vote for policies that preserve your liberties and wealth, even if to the detriment of those who make the bad decisions.
The POINT
Humans adopt narratives to better understand things. When you better understand a person’s narratives, the beliefs that they hold dear, and the experiences that in their minds prove the truth of their beliefs, you can better understand their actions and behaviors. Better understanding motives and behaviors doesn’t condone, justify, make them truer or better, or excuse them; but I assert that it matters—because mutual understanding is a vital first step to improving human wellbeing.
WHY it Matters:
It seems to me that a mutual and more complete “understanding” of the reasoning, sociology, and psychology behind disparate narratives and worldviews is the first step in preserving peace and improving human wellbeing—based on the following logic:
– Understanding leads to tolerance;
– Tolerance allows minds to relax and be receptive to new information and views;
– Open minds are more capable of exchanging ideas and are less defensive when in dialogue;
– Through intellectually honest dialogue comes growth and learning;
– Through growth and learning come improved estimates of truth (how the world really works);
– Through truth comes improved human wellbeing.
So won’t you join me in being the change? In trying to improve your understanding of people and beliefs that are different from your own? Perhaps someday they will then join you and do the same for your beliefs? It’d be a great first step.
(Stephen L. Gibson is the author of A Secret of the Universe, a critically acclaimed, citation-rich novel about the intersections of science, reason, and faith. Still an emotion-driven thinker in recovery, Steve shares his journey in search of ever-elusive truth with thousands via his Truth-Driven Thinking podcast, and his Perspectives blog. © 2011, Truth-Driven Strategies LLC.)
March 16, 2011 at 1:11 am
Steve, I understand what you’re saying. But, I gotta say, it brings up a moral dilemma for me. It makes me think of people saying that we need to disarm all of our nuclear weapons. (Admittedly, this may represent my own biases.) But, that seems naive. It presumes that if we disarm, Iran, China, North Korea will just follow suit. I just don’t have any reason to buy that, and every reason to believe that would go horribly wrong for us.
More to your point. Say I understand why someone was brought up to think the world is 6000 years old. I understand the paranoid person who recently attacked me when they found out I work at a national laboratory that helped the FBI investigate the anthrax mailings after 9/11. They went on to tell me why 9/11 was a conspiracy construed by the US government. But it’s not the truth and the “facts” they spewed were outrageous! This person was not about to listen to anything I had to say to present the facts I had. These are the people on the school boards trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools.
All I’m saying is that while your motives are pure and magnanimous, others have agendas that can be harmful and counter the truth. I just find it very difficult to believe that they have the noble motivations of listening and realizing that their life long world view might be wrong. The moral dilemma is: do I listen and admit I understand why they believe what they believe or is it my duty to stand up with truth. Essentially, shutting them and further discussion down. Another example: I understand the Constitutional Right of the Westboro Church members to taunt the family members at funerals of their soldier children. Someday, I may understand where they are coming from. But, they are wrong. They are causing great pain. They are not open to listening to anyone. They are on a misguided crusade. I have no empathy or compassion for them. I think they should be stood up to by other Constitutional Right waving people that disagree with them. I just don’t think it can be settled over coffee. To agree to disagree doesn’t always seem like the right thing to do when the truth is being destroyed.
March 17, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Thanks for the thoughts, Bonnie. Quick thoughts in return. First, not sure I understand the disarming analogy, but I think I follow your thinking. Perhaps I was unclear, because this is exactly the opposite of what I mean: deeper understanding is not caving, it is not complicit agreement, it is not endorsement, it is not backing down, it is not failing to share your ideas, and it is not being inauthentic. It is just better understanding. Always be able to put yourself in someone elses head and understand how they got there. You may learn, but if not you’re better accepted as you try to help them learn. If both sides do this, we’re in good shape. My point is that we need to do our half, in order to “be the change.”
Even if you are right and they are “wrong,” (which everyone always thinks) it’s like fixing a car … with a twist. A) You can’t fix a car unless you understand how it works. B) The twist is that if “the car” doesn’t think you genuinely care and will listen and wish to understand how it works, it won’t even allow it’s hood to be opened. C) When you do so, you might find that the car isn’t broken, but rather you are broken; or you may find you were right. This is the same we would ask people who disagree with us to do for us: be genuine, listen, “hear”. If nothing else, we have reduced the risk of unkind or volatile interactions, and gained new insights. Even learning more about how the Westboro folks got to where they are, and what motivates them, what biology they have, etc.–would be useful it seems. Not to endorse, but to understand objectively.
Again, understanding doesn’t mean or imply they are right, however. But it does help both sides both interpersonally, to gain clarity on the issues without the emotional defensiveness that lack of undestanding causes. My intentions are practical, not magnanimous. Even with Westboro, truly getting into their heads, and them into ours … sitting and having hours and hours of open dialogue–if all barriers were gone, would be a good thing. Much like radical sunis, they believe what they believe for “good reason” in their heads, even if the reasons actually suck in the real world. That’s where learning could happen. Unlikely they will do this, but even there we can model the behavior first (though we wouldn’t want to be coddling–and I agree that even being reasonably nice in that example could be an enabling mistake in practice). This doesn’t even require empathy or compassion necessarily, but just understanding. I’m a determinist. There is a reason they have wound up where they are. Even if we can’t fix it, understanding a sociopath (not calling them that necessarily) has value–perhaps for treatment, or perhaps for containment.
All that said, yes, ultimatley some differences need morally to be resolved by force. Think Hitler. Totally non-violence when under attack is immoral. But I stand by my point, even though if you look hard enough you’ll find exceptions to any rule. Thanks for the dialogue.
March 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I appreciate expanded explanation, Steve. It gives me things to think about. I was going to say that I don’t recall ever being in a dialogue with someone as open to trying to understand my point of view as you are describing. Upon further reflection, though, I can think of certain situations where I may have been able to guide it toward that way by being more of an example. (Aha!) That’s a challenge for me because I have an automatic shut-valve when I interpret a response as conflicting mine. Maybe interpreting conflicting as conflict, which I don’t deal with well. (Aha #2.) I’d like to try to overcome my auto shut off and give your suggestion a try when the opportunity presents itself. Thanks, Steve!
March 18, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Ahhh, you are a good soul. That’s all we can do. For the record, I could do much better too; and yes, there will be times we both just have to bail, but at least we tried to do our part for the wellbeing of the universe ;). Cheers!