8.0.2.4 Disagreements Driven by Misunderstandings

Version 1.1 August 2014                               (Previous Version)

Many people will disagree with these global belief and values.  If we are to maintain our confidence in this vision of a reasonable global way then we need not only to keep in mind why some people will disagree, but how we can respond to their disagreement.

●    Some of these disagreements will be based on conceptual misunderstandings. 

●   Some will disagree because when they look from within their current belief system they can't see how some of these global beliefs could possibly be true.

Here we look at some of the areas where others are likely to have conceptual disagreements with our conclusions.  We attempt to summarise the grounds for disagreement, and perhaps assess whether they have any validity, and outline what our response can be.  We need to be aware of these for two reasons:

1.     We need to be aware of the implications of our beliefs and what major objections others will have – so that we can defend and promote this Way;

2.     We must understand the force of other’s objections and understand the strength of our rebuttal – or entertain the possibility that the objectors may be right: we could be wrong!

Areas where others will disagree:

1)          Unresolvable Dilemmas

2)          Desire for Certainty

3)          Truth in Uncertainty

4)          Mortality

5)          Goodness Is Within

6)          The Incomprehensible

7)          Religion’s Domain

8)          Religion and Science

9)          Reductionism

10)       Simplistic Science

11)       Religion and Politics

8.0.2.4.1 Unresolvable Dilemmas

Many people are unable to understand or accept the dilemma inherent in the meaning of truth and the similar dilemma of free will and responsibility.  They will demand certainty, or in their ignorance, find some rationalisation for feeling certain, or, being thoughtless, just feel certain anyway, for no good reason.

We need to explain:

a.      Our beliefs are caused or they are random; we still must make decisions for daily living!

b.     People’s actions are caused or they are random; we still assign responsibility to people!

c.      We cannot resolve everything.  it's not just that we currently don't know all the answers, some answers we expect to never know!  At the most basic level, we all live with such inconsistencies.

It is a revelation to many people that we must live with some fundamental dilemmas.

8.0.2.4.2 Desire for Certainty

People who are unable to accept the uncertainty want a more certain faith, probably in one of the traditional religions.  They think that faith implies certainty, that to have faith means you have no doubts, that you can ignore evidence and reason, because you ‘have faith’.

We need to explain:

a.      Many religious people have doubts and question their faith.  Many pray for help in their unbelief.

b.     Often the teachings from community leaders or sacred texts, and religious practices, result in hurting people for no apparent benefit.  We should question such teachings.  We should not harm people because of our ‘faith’ if we don’t understand why.

c.      No-one can be completely certain.  We all have doubts.  We all should admit this.

d.     Having faith does not mean you stop learning or asking questions, to check the teachings and practices still seem reasonable.  (This applies to these ‘global beliefs’ as much as any other beliefs.)

e.      Being uncertain is harder than being certain.  it's an ongoing struggle to know what’s right.  It means we have to think more for ourselves and risk making mistakes.  It can be frightening, but it can also be liberating if we are no longer forced to follow silly rules.

It is a revelation to some people that they can and should take their doubts seriously, and consider reason and the evidence when they are making decisions about their ‘faith’, the most fundamental beliefs that guide their behaviour

8.0.2.4.3 Truth in Uncertainty

Some – including some scientists, avowed agnostics and atheists – are unable to rise above the uncertainty.  They will be paralysed by doubt, observers rather than actors, perennial sceptics or cynics.

We need to explain:

a.      Questions are not always better than answers.  Questioning is better than being so certain that you cause unnecessary harm in God’s name.  But we need some reasonable basis to decide how to live.  We must not be so overwhelmed by doubts and questions, that we never do any good.

b.     We need to work out what is a reasonable basis when action is required.  We can't live doing nothing.  We do have an impact on the world.  We can do it in a reasonable way – which means accepting some things are true - or we can be silly about it and deny the truth. 

c.      Since we can never be totally certain, any action does require some leap of faith.  We have to accept this reality.  We may believe some things only tentatively, or provisionally, until they are proved wrong.  Ultimately we can't prove things to be right.  So even the most ardent scientific sceptics must have faith in some basic things, and they should admit it.

It is a revelation to many people that sometimes we must decide, one way or the other, and this involves accepting, at least for the moment, some beliefs, which involves some degree of faith.

 

8.0.2.4.4 Mortality

Some people are unable to accept that there is no life after death, no spirit world, nothing outside the universe known to science and history.

We need to explain:

a)     Many of us do appear to have a reluctance to contemplate our own death.  When we die, everything we experience will vanish.  This seems so extraordinary that some people conclude our experience must continue.  But it doesn’t.  The things we experienced – the world outside us – will continue, but our awareness of anything (anywhere) ceases.

b)     Our influence on the world continues, in the memories of those who have known us, in the actions we took in the world, and perhaps in our works and our children.

It is a revelation to many people that life is still worth living, and it is still worthwhile trying to be good, even if there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no reincarnation.

8.0.2.4.5 Goodness Is Within

Some people are unable to understand or accept that goodness, our knowledge of what is good, such as it is, must come from within ourselves, and cannot be imposed from “outside�. 

We need to explain:

a)     Some have been convinced that almost everyone is basically sinful or bad.  There are very ancient Hindu texts saying we are born with a debt to Death.  Many Christians believe in original sin, that we inherit sin as soon as we are born, or that somehow fleshly bodies are intrinsically selfish or evil.  Some people believe they themselves are bad, perhaps because they actually did some bad things, but perhaps because they are sometime tempted.  That doesn’t matter.  Here we are talking about how we know what is good or bad, not whether we ourselves or our neighbours are actually good or bad.  You do not have to always be good to know what being good is.

b)     Some people are so used to following rules set out by others (in a sacred book, the laws of the land, or tradition and custom) that they cannot grasp how we can discover sensible rules for ourselves.  They think that unless the rules are imposed from outside, then we will only choose selfishly.  But this is not what most real people actually do, and not what we do if we follow these ‘global beliefs and values’. 

c)     Some people incorrectly believe that science tells us that we are essentially greedy and selfish, and that humans are designed primarily to compete with others to survive.  But humans are also designed to cooperate and to share and to have compassion.  We need to take both aspects into account, and not base our fundamental beliefs on only one of them.

It is a revelation to many people that:

●  firstly we all do need to decide for ourselves what is good and bad; and

●  secondly most of us (most of the time) actually do try to do what is right. 

Our religious differences are mostly due to different knowledge and understanding.

 

8.0.2.4.6 Incomprehensible

Some people believe that god or religion or value is ultimately unknowable.  They won't accept any rational religion on principle, believing that god and religion must be incomprehensible.  Some believe that even the basic stuff of the universe is unknowable – the void.

We need to explain:

a.      Historically whenever religion was clearly defined it appeared to be dogmatic – to lay down the law, telling us what is real and what to do.  Then it would conflict with science, or philosophers would criticise it.  The existence of God could then be called into doubt. 

b.     To avoid these criticisms, religious supporters said God is more sophisticated: God is not like that.  In the extreme, God is not like anything we know.  God became somehow ‘bigger’ or ‘beyond’ anything we can possibly know, and we don’t even know how God is bigger.

c.      But that means we don't know enough about God to know what he wants us to do.  We can’t comprehend our lives based on the incomprehensible.  It is silly to base our whole lives on something the experts say we know little about.

d.     Mystery is great, it is everywhere.  But mystery doesn’t help with practical decisions about our most fundamental beliefs to guide our behaviour, right here and now.

e.      If God is incomprehensible, or mysterious, then it is even more essential that we work out for ourselves what to believe, what we can comprehend, and how we should behave.

It is a revelation to many people that the mysterious, unknowable and incomprehensible cannot help us discover what to believe or how to behave, and that even knowing this, we can be entirely reasonable and still appreciate mystery.

8.0.2.4.7 Religion’s Domain

Some people want to compartmentalise religion, and say it cannot involve “everything�, that it is just one part of reality, completely separate from other parts covered by history, science or philosophy.  Some say there are two ‘domains’, one which covers the ‘factual world’ of science and history and one which covers the ‘values world’ of goodness and beauty, meaning and purpose, or in other words, religion. 

We need to explain:

a.      Religion can be the most important part of our lives.  It is not restricted to stories about creation and sexual morality, it is part of everything we do. 

b.     If our religion is not influenced by history or science or philosophy then is based on ignorance of the best, most widely accepted, knowledge we have.

c.      All fields of knowledge interact.  If we don't take science and history into account we may be attempting the impossible or causing more harm.  Science and history don’t give us values but can tell us what works.  On the other hand, if we have no values then there is no point doing science or history.

It is a revelation to many people that science, history, philosophy and religion can be compatible, with each one influencing the others.

 

8.0.2.4.8 Religion and Science

Some don't accept that any religion can be rational or comprehensible, because of the historical conflict between science and religion.

We need to explain:

a.      Such people need to look further.  These ‘global beliefs and values’ can be seen as a sophisticated form of religion – we need to debate what we call it.  Science is definitely compatible with these global beliefs.

b.     Historical battles between science and western religions (especially Christianity) about the solar system and evolution are past.  Science won those battles. 

c.      Most of western religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) has moved on, but fundamentalists and some evangelicals from all these traditions still cling to outdated and false scientific beliefs. 

It is a revelation for some, that religion can be rational, and that these issues have not been a big problem for the great eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

8.0.2.4.9 Reductionism

Some will not accept that any religion can be rational or comprehensible, because they don't like scientific “reductionism�, which reduces complex things to more simple components. They think there is something more than the simple mechanisms they imagine science takes seriously.  They believe the universe is somehow bigger than the sum of its parts.

We need to explain:

a.      These ‘global beliefs’ cover wide areas of knowledge – philosophy, science, history, art and literature.  This is comprehensive, not reductionist.

b.     Reductionism is one method which can be used to discover various truths.  Then we can assemble these truths into a coherent, comprehensive, all-inclusive whole. 

c.      Any discussion has to break down the topic into smaller chunks that we can handle.  Otherwise we can't use ordinary words and sentences.  If we can't break it down then all we can say is “Omâ€� or “Aumâ€�– the Hindu chant that means everything.  If we can't talk about things then we can't say this approach is wrong – we can’t say anything! 

It is a revelation to many people that science and history can now integrate wide areas of knowledge.

 

8.0.2.4.10 Simplistic Science

Some will have a simplistic and outdated view of science, thinking it is restricted to the mechanistic “billiard ball� theories from a hundred years ago, and will not be able to see its relevance to contemporary religion.

We need to explain:

a.      Such people need to look further.  We now have a better understanding of science: it is not as simplistic as it once appeared to be.  Science is now looking at the fundamental nature of the universe, the cosmological constants, fundamental particles and forces.

b.     Cosmology helps to explain the origins of our universe (since the big bang).

c.      Biology helps to explain the existence of life.

d.     Psychology and related neurosciences are beginning to explain how our minds work.  Science helps to explain why we make some choices as we do. 

e.      Science and history can help us discover what can and can't work.  This is not telling us what we should do, but our understanding of the practical possibilities will have a big influence on the decisions we make. 

It is a revelation to many that the story of the universe as explained by science and history is an overarching narrative that can help to provide meaning to our lives.

8.0.2.4.11 Religion and Politics

Some will say that history and politics are not part of religion.  Many politicians say religion should be separate from politics, others proclaim their religious values to boost their popularity.  Some politicians avoid all religious topics to avoid upsetting some of the voters.

We need to explain:

a.      Beliefs in ideas such as freedom and democracy are part of our most fundamental beliefs which guide our behaviour.  So these are also religious beliefs.

b.     This does not mean we are dogmatic about what happened in history or how democratic principles should be implemented.  We must look at the evidence and apply reason. 

c.      Our religious and political beliefs are substantially influenced by our understanding of how humans spread around the globe, how some tribes and nations conquered and colonised others, and how technology advanced at different rates in different societies.

d.     As any truly religious person will say, we cannot totally divorce true religion from politics.  We can support secular government, which doesn’t favour any religious belief or non-belief.  We can conduct many traditional religious duties without imposing our beliefs on others, and allow and expect others to do the same.  But if religion addresses our ultimate concerns, what is most important to us, we cannot leave these aside as soon as we enter public debate.  But our public discourse must recognise our shared beliefs and values as we debate policy matters.

It will be a revelation to many people that history and concepts such as freedom and democracy and associated political ideas are valid topics of religious discussion.