How to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints

[Galteeth]

Basically, I am looking for advice about how to get along and work with people who have very different ontological ways of interpreting the world. It is not that I am hostile or aggressive to such people, but that I often express my view or opinion, and people have related to me that I come off as arrogant or a know-it-all.
Like for example in talking with someone who doesn't believe in evolution. Me=m T=them
T: "I wish you would respect my beliefs."
M: "I respect you, and you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want."
T: "But you feel that my belief isn't as equally valid as yours."
M: "Yes, that's fair."
T; "Why can't you be more open-minded?"
M: "I believe that there is to some extent an objective reality that we can model. My beliefs reflect this reality and yours don't"
T: "That's your opinion."
M: "No, it's an objective truth."


This would usually be the time when the person would get annoyed and drop the subject. I'm bringing this up because there is someone I have to be working with closely who has a lot of very different views then I do (very strongly believes in energy fields, spirits, auras, etc.). Do you think it would be better to discuss our differences before we work together? Just try to not talk about it? Has anyone had to deal with a similar situation?

 

[chiro]

Hey Galteeth.

My advice to you is pretty simple: either you compromise in some way or find other people to converse with.

This is my philosophy (IMO disclaimer): everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how absurd or otherwise it may seem.

In fact you might learn something important from the uneducated person down the road if you just suspend your disbelief for a few minutes. It's not about being right or wrong, there is only relativity between things. The minute you start to think about things in terms of right or wrong you are created an artificial prison in your mind which acts like seeing the world through a special filtered lense.

We all make decisions about how we spend our time and that includes who we choose to talk and/or listen to, and what we tend to focus on and you are no different. You like everyone else have the right to do your own thing, choose what to focus on, and choose who to talk or have some kind of relationship with.

But let me say this: I think that everyone deserves a level of respect no matter who they are. If someone is uneducated, uninformed, spouts religious nonsense or whatever they still deserve some level of respect as a human being. You may think they are uneducated, uninformed, and absolutely insane but they deserve to be treated like a human being regardless and if you miss this very important point, then I really think that you will have a lot of problems down the road of life and perhaps even miss out on many of the important lessons that are there for the taking.

If you want to think about things strictly in terms of right and wrong and always challenge people in a way that makes them uncomfortable that is your choice, but don't be surprised if you get bad responses when you don't show a little empathy and basic respect towards someone else.

 

[Galteeth]

If you want to think about things strictly in terms of right and wrong and always challenge people in a way that makes them uncomfortable that is your choice, but don't be surprised if you get bad responses when you don't show a little empathy and basic respect towards someone else.

Ok. Perhaps then the question I should be asking is how to do the above (show empathy and respect in such situations.) I guess I don't feel like I am being disrespectful, but it apparently comes off that way to some people. This upcoming situation is a unique case where I have to work closely with someone.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan Seeking once posted an essay by a woman who was into auras and all that who finally decided at some point to investigate what science was all about. She was completely amazed the more she learned about it and had previously had no idea what science types meant by being able to objectively ascertain anything, which sounded like arrogance to her. She had started to realize it wasn't.

In her spiritual world everything was governed by attitude, and everything's about your relationship to other people and the universe. If auras or fairies exist in anyone's mind that's reason enough to respect the idea. To disrespect it is bad juju, or whatever; sowing bad energy that will come back to you. All this is paramount.

Science, where people actually go out and investigate physical phenomena, collect data, and form their views based on observation, is an activity they never engage in, and don't understand. This woman, though, was getting it, and was suddenly understanding the resistance scientific or rational types always had showed to her beliefs.

Maybe Ivan can remember where he found that link. It was actually fascinating. It's exactly what you need to understand this co-worker.

 

[chiro]

Ok. Perhaps then the question I should be asking is how to do the above (show empathy and respect in such situations.) I guess I don't feel like I am being disrespectful, but it apparently comes off that way to some people. This upcoming situation is a unique case where I have to work closely with someone.

Before I give a response I want to say that this is a two-way thing: both people need to make the effort to do so, so don't think I'm just saying that 'you are the only one in the wrong, pull your weight'.

Also I want to say that as human beings we make mistakes, get cranky, have experiences which clearly are almost mutually exclusive to other peoples and other things. Bottom line is we all are human and we all see through some kind of lense and are vulnerable to our downsides as human beings.

The best piece of advice I could probably give you is two-fold: it combines the suspension of disbelief, simple laws of logic and patience.

The first thing to do is to let people spill their guts to you and listen. If someone doesn't shutup then you could ask them to get to the point (which is reasonable) but the point is to give them the courtesy to make their point completely.

What this does is it let's them outline their idea in an uninterrupted way which not only shows respect, but it means that you don't get into a pre-emptive argument and create a situation where it becomes so heated that emotions really come into play.

While you do the above you have to suspend your disbelief to allow you to hear them out: probably the hardest for anyone to do but it has to be done whether they have any truth in their viewpoint or not.

Once you have given them an ample opportunity to speak, then comes in the logic part.

Mathematical logic says that if you want to disprove a generalization, then you find one counterexample and you are done. If you want to disprove one example, then you need to prove the generalization.

As you can see its very hard for someone that wants to prove the general thing because it only takes one counterexample to say 'see you're wrong'. It is a lot easier though if you want to show that one particular example is right and proving a generalization that doesn't include that is certainly going to be a lot of work.

So after you have suspended your disbelief, given the person ample opportunity to put their case forward, then you can fallback on logic by considering everything fairly and giving a response.

Now of course if the other person isn't willing to play ball then you have done all you could to encourage a fair unbiased conversation (as best as you can, we're all biased in some way!) and that is that.

The thing is that you can't force people what to think: they have to come to it in their own way. That way may be in a deceptive manner, but never the less they have to be ones that end up being convinced themselves.

It might be because someone else told them that they consider as reliable, it may that they found it out due to their own experience or it may even be because it is somehow 'intuitive'.

Also if you end disagreeing about most things, you will still get respect if you just treat them like you would expect someone to treat you.

Remember it's not always about right or wrong: things are just relative to each other.

 

[wuliheron]

Metaphysics are the new religion. In the US today people tend to avoid discussing certain things like religion and politics. They've learned the hard way that some subjects are just best avoided in polite company and the workplace. Its a pragmatic approach that works in multicultural environments.

The problem is that often people don't even recognize their beliefs as being metaphysical. The idea that the moon is there when no one is looking, for example, is commonly assumed to be an established fact even among scientists. In competitive and contentious modern democracies its a recipe for instant arguments. The real issue then is how capable are you of avoiding arguments and how much is arguing worth your while in any given situation.

The Enlightened
Honest people use no rhetoric;
Rhetoric is not honesty.
Wise people are not cultured;
Culture is not wisdom.
Content people are not rich;
Riches are not contentment.

So the gentle do not serve themselves;
The more they do for others, the more they are satisfied;
The more they give, the more they receive.
Nature flourishes at the expense of no one;
So the gentle benefit all and contend against none.
Lao Tzu

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I have a good friend that I've known for many years. We meet infrequently but when we do it's always great to see each other unless the subject of religion comes up. He is a very dedicated Catholic and I am not religious at all, the problem comes because we both have strong views on a variety of subjects and every now and then in conversation I feel like I'm hitting the "wall of faith" wherein he has an opinion that he holds because of his religion. This usually ends up in hours of quite heated and aggressive arguments.

The way we have approached this is to understand that it is inevitable. He knows that I do not respect his religion nor his beliefs and in topics where he makes a judgement/decision based on his religion his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I fully respect his right to have an opinion but I do not have to respect what it is he thinks. In other words

Respect for the right to have an opinion =/= respect for someone's opinion

Personally if someone bases their opinion on a irrational/illogical/non-evidenced model then I won't respect that opinion. Having said all this it is important to compartmentalise; it doesn't matter if "Them" from your office's IT department believes that his shoe started the universe if he's great at fixing your computer (although be wary that the model they use to determine the shoe universe creator may seep out).

My last piece of advice would be to think about this:
- Do you want to befriend them?
- Do you think that you would be able to ignore their faith?

 

[Galteeth]

I have a good friend that I've known for many years. We meet infrequently but when we do it's always great to see each other unless the subject of religion comes up. He is a very dedicated Catholic and I am not religious at all, the problem comes because we both have strong views on a variety of subjects and every now and then in conversation I feel like I'm hitting the "wall of faith" wherein he has an opinion that he holds because of his religion. This usually ends up in hours of quite heated and aggressive arguments.

The way we have approached this is to understand that it is inevitable. He knows that I do not respect his religion nor his beliefs and in topics where he makes a judgement/decision based on his religion his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I fully respect his right to have an opinion but I do not have to respect what it is he thinks. In other words

Respect for the right to have an opinion =/= respect for someone's opinion

Personally if someone bases their opinion on a irrational/illogical/non-evidenced model then I won't respect that opinion. Having said all this it is important to compartmentalise; it doesn't matter if "Them" from your office's IT department believes that his shoe started the universe if he's great at fixing your computer (although be wary that the model they use to determine the shoe universe creator may seep out).

My last piece of advice would be to think about this:
- Do you want to befriend them?
- Do you think that you would be able to ignore their faith?

1. Yes
2. The situation is sort of bizarre and complicated. I think the best thing to do is to have a frank discussion. I guess I'm just worried because as i said, in the past, i seem to wind up offending people who are close friends.

Thanks for the advice everyone. The link mentioned in an earlier post sounded interesting. If somebody has that I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The link mentioned in an earlier post sounded interesting. If somebody has that I'd be interested in reading it.

Ivan started a thread based on the essay in S&D, there was a quote from it and a link to it. I don't recall the woman's name or the thread title. Ivan is the best bet for that.

 

[russ_watters]

Just don't talk about things that are problematic.

 

[Topher925]

When I have conversations with people like this I usually choose not to get along with them. If you work closely with them on a daily basis then your only real choice is just to not to talk about such beliefs or things that would upset such a person.

 

[Evo]

I worked with a Young Earth Creationist. He was always saying that science was fraud. One of his most memorable lines was "you can make anything out of a pile of bones". He didn't believe dinosaurs were real. Anything that didn't literally support the bible was a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

We agreed that certain topics were not appropriate while working.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's difficult because inevitably what someone believes will affect their actions, this is even more true of the mechanism by which they choose what to believe. In some circumstances it is possible that what they believe and why won't affect you relationship with them (i.e. a professional one) but if they are particularly fanatical and out there this will not be the case.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It's ironic that a lot of people here seem to genuinely believe that people with irrational beliefs are going to be unprofessional about it to the point that nobody is saying that being the first person to bring up the topic is a pretty terrible idea. If someone is going to be pushy about their beliefs in a professional setting let them bring it up and tell them you aren't interested in talking about it. Bringing it up first is an invitation to talk about it and worse could be interpreted as you pushing your beliefs on someone else

 

[rolerbe]

"you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts"
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[ThomasT]

Has anyone had to deal with a similar situation?

I'd guess that a majority of people have had to deal with a similar situation. Wrt my personal experience, I've come to agree with the approach advocated by several contributors to this thread -- which is to avoid the sorts of conversations that your OP is concerned with, and to not be the one to bring up opinions about controversial subjects wrt which unresolvable disagreements might damage the working relationship and which have nothing to do with that relationship.

People who hold to irrational beliefs aren't going to be, for the most part, imo, swayed by evidence or rational arguments to the contrary, much less via casual discussions that can sometimes get a bit emotionally competitive.

 

[MarcoD]

You will find little rationality to the majority of believes, even your own. Just don't fret too much on it.

(Personally, I like logic and ethics and stuff -used to teach it twenty years ago, it's a hobby,- and I find it funny why people do or think stuff. There's way less reason to most stuff than you think.)

 

[lisab]

I'd guess that a majority of people have had to deal with a similar situation. Wrt my personal experience, I've come to agree with the approach advocated by several contributors to this thread -- which is to avoid the sorts of conversations that your OP is concerned with, and to not be the one to bring up opinions about controversial subjects wrt which unresolvable disagreements might damage the working relationship and which have nothing to do with that relationship.

People who hold to irrational beliefs aren't going to be swayed by evidence or rational arguments to the contrary.

Re the bolded text: that's so true! In fact, once people are in that state of mind, your facts and data only make them dig in deeper.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan started a thread based on the essay in S&D, there was a quote from it and a link to it. I don't recall the woman's name or the thread title. Ivan is the best bet for that.

Funny that you would remember that. It was almost 8 years ago!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31585

New link
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures

I only needed to search what you provided. I didn't remember a thing about it.

 

[netgypsy]

There are two kinds of people in the world - a.) those who study the facts and form their beliefs from those facts and b.) those who select the beliefs they wish to be true and seek out only those facts that agree with these beliefs.

Some of my family came to the US from northern Ireland. We had very simple rules for adult conversation. One avoided three topics - religion, politics and sex.

Discussing either of the first two would get you killed very quickly.
Discussing the third - if you had to talk about it you were obviously not participating.

Even though we're now several generations away from that war torn time where bombs were placed in baby carriages these three rules seem very sensible.

If you are an a.) and have to work with a b.),they are particularly applicable.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Funny that you would remember that. It was almost 8 years ago!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31585

It stuck deeply in my mind: first time I'd ever heard an articulate statement of what it was like to be on the other side of the fence.

New link
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures

I only needed to search what you provided. I didn't remember a thing about it.

I'm glad you found it and the new link. I couldn't think what terms to search.

 

[MarcoD]

Some of my family came to the US from northern Ireland. We had very simple rules for adult conversation. One avoided three topics - religion, politics and sex.

You took away all favorite topics of people in the Netherlands!

(Well, except for the weather of course. Which is always a variant on: It's twelve degrees Celsius and raining.)

 

[Pythagorean]

I just can't keep uber-religious company and I often tell my mother she's wrong. I have two friends that used to be evolution denialists and I very respectfully told them they were wrong and they both are a lot more considerate of it now. One, whom I expected to research the topic on his own before arguing with me again, has since become an atheist (he changed his world view: accommodation).

The other seems to have incorporated evolution into his world view, crediting it as one of God's miracles (assimilation); he believes that there is no instantaneous divine intervention, but that God set the initial conditions of a deterministic system.

Anybody that aggressively and blatantly denies evolution has not adapted a rational view of the universe or they would have been convinced by the evidence if they actually took the time to digest it; But most importantly, it's the difference between people who think actions in the universe requires some causal explanation, and those that think a lack-of-explanation (i.e. magic) suffices.

 

[Antiphon]

Post withdrawn.

 

[jim hardy]

I usually say to them something along the lines of
"Science is trying to figure out how God set up Mother Nature to work. After all, if you were building a universe wouldn't you make it run pretty much automatic , with some rules of how things are going to behave, so you don't have to micromanage every single atom? Math must be one of His languages. It's just that the guys who transcribed the original Bible weren't fluent in it. And consider who was their audience -- nobody spoke advanced mathematics back then. They'd only recently figured out Pi, for Pete's sake."

You might enjoy reading Robert Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers", , i think it'll help you with this social conundrum.


Good Luck !

old jim

 

[Adyssa]

I have the perspective that none of us have a 100% complete idea of where we come from, why we are here, or what happens after we die.

With that in mind, I can talk to anyone about anything. My view is not 100% correct, their view is not 100% correct. I might mention that I was raised Christian (protestant, baptist if you want to get specific) and have since adopted a more or less agnostic view. I'm comfortable talking to people of any faith and I have a genuine interest in their views. It's not my place to say they are wrong. I can't prove anything. I might let them know that I don't immediately take what they say as fact, but with some tact, that is a sentence I can make inoffensive.

I don't know why many atheists feel that they must belittle religious believers. I guess there is an evangelical aspect to many religions whereby believers do attempt to convert non-believers, but it is my experience that this is usually done in a way that is not quite as forcible as the convertee likes to tell everyone it was. The violent fundamentalist types are few and far between. I don't usually enjoy being evangelised to, but by the same token, I don't throw science books at people and demand that they accept THE FACTS either.

A little live and let live, by definition, never hurt anyone. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

where we come from, why we are here, or what happens after we die.

1) You'll need to provide some context of what you are talking about but mostly that is simple to answer; I came from a certain town, I came from my parents, I came from a species whose evolution is...
2) Begging the question by assuming a "why"
3) We have a very good idea of what happens when you die. Your bodily functions cease and you decay. There has never been any indication of anything else, it's like asking what happens to a candle when you blow it out.

With that in mind, I can talk to anyone about anything.

I can talk to anyone about anything but I often disagree with them and I will vehemently argue the point if I think that their belief is detrimental to me, others and society at large (I'm not so concerned if it is detrimental to them).

My view is not 100% correct, their view is not 100% correct.

Yes but views can be tested to see who has evidence to support them. If they cannot be tested and there is no evidence then the correct answer is "I don't know". Also regarding "100%" correct I would implore you to google my signature and read the essay by Asimov.

It's not my place to say they are wrong. I can't prove anything.

Why does "proof" matter? All that matters is evidence, you don't have to 100% absolutely know something to know that it is. Regarding whether not it is your place it depends on the setting obviously. Workplace behaviour and pub behaviour is very different. Finally let's say that Alice does not know why Y causes X and Bob claims he does. Alice can look at Bob's claim and point out all the flaws in his reasoning and research thus showing that this claim is wrong without actually having a claim of her own.

I don't know why many atheists feel that they must belittle religious believers. I guess there is an evangelical aspect to many religions whereby believers do attempt to convert non-believers, but it is my experience that this is usually done in a way that is not quite as forcible as the convertee likes to tell everyone it was. The violent fundamentalist types are few and far between. I don't usually enjoy being evangelised to, but by the same token, I don't throw science books at people and demand that they accept THE FACTS either.

I think many people feel it worth fighting depending on the situation. I don't care if someone privately wants to believe whatever they want but beliefs and the mechanisms you use to determine beliefs determine your actions which influence others. I think it was PZ Myers who said (something like) "some people ask me why I bother to call myself atheist. Well if there was a large group of people in this country that wanted to control the behaviour of everyone else on the basis of their belief in Big Foot you'd better believe I'd be calling myself abigfootist".

Also it isn't just religion we are talking about here. So called "alternative medicines" drain millions of pounds out of systems like the NHS and soak up billions of dollars world wide. There are huge industries dedicated to scamming and taking advantage of vulnerable (and often sick people) on the basis of pseudoscience and irrational belief. The world doesn't care what you believe, it will kill you anyway if it can. Anything set of beliefs (and therefore actions) that aren't formed from an evidence based system just aren't going to be as well equipped to deal with a variety of situations.

A little live and let live, by definition, never hurt anyone. :)

That would be fine if the irrational beliefs of others weren't harming and killing millions world wide (no condoms in a HIV epidemic anyone?)

 

[Galteeth]

So I had a discussion with the person in question and it went very well. Basically, I just explained that I have a different perspective then him, and he was fine with that.

As far as discussing this with friends, I actually have convinced two of my friends that evolution was real (well one of them I had to give her a book to read that convinced her.) one interesting thing, the other friend was initially offended by my views, feeling they were closed minded, but after a two hour long conversation, was convinced. However, i got the sense that she was somewhat unhappy coming to this conclusion; she preferred her previous belief system. As for what is the point of discussing such things, well, with close friends, I like to talk about meaningful things sometimes.
With the latter girl, in response to her saying everything is energy, i started off with, ok, define energy. That quickly got to the heart of the matter, the question whether there could be something exerting influence that was on-physical, and if so, was it subject to consistent rules. After admitting that it in order for something to exert influence on the physical world, there had to be a mechanism by which it was doing so, and consistent rules that governed its interactions, she saw that such a thing had to be inherently physical.

 

[Galteeth]

Funny that you would remember that. It was almost 8 years ago!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31585

New link
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures

I only needed to search what you provided. I didn't remember a thing about it.

On the subject of self-proclaimed skeptics, i will say, i think there are some skeptics that are a bit "blinded by science" so to speak. I have seen those that can't separate their own opinions from their science-based viewpoints, or who feel that any opinion that can't be quantified is inherently invalid, not making a distinction between the objective and the subjective. Perhaps it is individuals like this who are partially responsible for "non-skeptics" being so defensive.

 

[chiro]

1) You'll need to provide some context of what you are talking about but mostly that is simple to answer; I came from a certain town, I came from my parents, I came from a species whose evolution is...
2) Begging the question by assuming a "why"
3) We have a very good idea of what happens when you die. Your bodily functions cease and you decay. There has never been any indication of anything else, it's like asking what happens to a candle when you blow it out.

Look, I like science as much as a lot of people both laymen and scientific professionals themselves but I had to something about this:

Firstly science is caught up in a bit of a twist: it is very narrow yet it makes highly inductive statements. There has been some great success of doing this kind of thing like for example Newtons investigations into gravity, but again given what is done it is a very dangerous thing if this nature is not fully acknowledged.

Trying to extrapolate highly inductive statements out of a very narrow set of experiments both controlled or uncontrolled is not wise if there is no caution exerted on both the experimenter and by anyone analyzing it.

The other thing is that the kind of segregation, hyperspecialization and isolation amongst different fields doesn't help the cause but makes it worse.

Yes we are starting to see a lot of interdiscplinary investigation, experimentation and so on between the fields that were previously isolated but again I have to stress it's very early in the game (of science) and the simple fact is that our techniques and knowledge are very very primitive.

People might say that mathematics is complex and that mathematicians are geniuses but Von Neumann was right in saying that essentially mathematics is simple when you consider how complex life is and I agree in some respects after studying mathematics myself.

So even if you don't want to consider things like the near death studies or things like that, at least acknowledge that we are at a primitive age in our understanding, and also that with our technique of taking very narrow data of any kind (controlled, uncontrolled, whatever) and trying to develop highly inductive statements, you are bound to end up having many disasters versus the many successes.

Yes but views can be tested to see who has evidence to support them. If they cannot be tested and there is no evidence then the correct answer is "I don't know". Also regarding "100%" correct I would implore you to google my signature and read the essay by Asimov.

This is definitely something everyone should at the very least consider: the fact that there is only relativity between things and not blatant 'true' or 'false'.

Why does "proof" matter? All that matters is evidence, you don't have to 100% absolutely know something to know that it is. Regarding whether not it is your place it depends on the setting obviously. Workplace behaviour and pub behaviour is very different. Finally let's say that Alice does not know why Y causes X and Bob claims he does. Alice can look at Bob's claim and point out all the flaws in his reasoning and research thus showing that this claim is wrong without actually having a claim of her own.

While the premise is good, again we are way to narrow minded to take in a lot of the detail as human beings.

Again it boils down to taking a very specific stance and considering a very limited context. This is not a shot at you or any other scientist it is just our current limitation as human beings.

We can't take in everything at once so we have to filter things in our mind, make assumptions and simplify things as much as possible.

So what ends up happening is that a lot of information that is deemed 'useless' or 'not significant' ends up getting filtered and even if someone has a good logical heuristic for their argument, the data that the argument is based on might not be a good thing: garbage in garbage out.

I think many people feel it worth fighting depending on the situation. I don't care if someone privately wants to believe whatever they want but beliefs and the mechanisms you use to determine beliefs determine your actions which influence others. I think it was PZ Myers who said (something like) "some people ask me why I bother to call myself atheist. Well if there was a large group of people in this country that wanted to control the behaviour of everyone else on the basis of their belief in Big Foot you'd better believe I'd be calling myself abigfootist".

I hope for the sake of humanity that scientists make all efforts to rid the field, its politics and anything related from these attributes, but I'm afraid as human beings I don't have much faith.

Also it isn't just religion we are talking about here. So called "alternative medicines" drain millions of pounds out of systems like the NHS and soak up billions of dollars world wide. There are huge industries dedicated to scamming and taking advantage of vulnerable (and often sick people) on the basis of pseudoscience and irrational belief. The world doesn't care what you believe, it will kill you anyway if it can. Anything set of beliefs (and therefore actions) that aren't formed from an evidence based system just aren't going to be as well equipped to deal with a variety of situations.

That would be fine if the irrational beliefs of others weren't harming and killing millions world wide (no condoms in a HIV epidemic anyone?)

Scammers will always find ways by taking advantage of well established and legitimate areas as well as non-established areas to do their work. One audience may have attributes that are suited to the scammer, but again scammers will always find a way regardless.

Also to finish, I wanted to add that we live in a world of great deception.

It's everywhere in the smallest ways and you would be a fool to think that you don't live in a world that is flooded in it.

Part of our job as human beings is to try and discern what is deception and what isn't and it is not an easy job for any human being to do.

We all have our experiences, our preconceived thoughts and notions and everything else that contributes on how we see the world and even with this we still have a great challenge in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Pythagorean]

Again it boils down to taking a very specific stance and considering a very limited context. This is not a shot at you or any other scientist it is just our current limitation as human beings.

But it is kind of a shot to assume that most of what you've said in your whole post isn't already considered by scientists. It's kind of our starting point... kind of the very idea that ignited the age of reason. Kind of why we require evidence to make claims...

 

[chiro]

But it is kind of a shot to assume that most of what you've said in your whole post isn't already considered by scientists. It's kind of our starting point... kind of the very idea that ignited the age of reason.

Well when you see some scientists being arrogant in their viewpoint, then yes it becomes a valid thing to say.

Arrogance isn't just limited to scientists but to all human beings and I did not categorize all scientists with this attribute whatsoever.

So yes it wasn't a cheap shot at 'scientists' as a group and when you get a scientist that has a bit of arrogance then yes it needs to be made clear to them.

In fact you should make it clear to anyone regardless of if they are scientists or not.

Also I never said that science is a bad thing: I'm a member at PF for christs sake!

 

[Galteeth]

Well when you see some scientists being arrogant in their viewpoint, then yes it becomes a valid thing to say.

Arrogance isn't just limited to scientists but to all human beings and I did not categorize all scientists with this attribute whatsoever.

So yes it wasn't a cheap shot at 'scientists' as a group and when you get a scientist that has a bit of arrogance then yes it needs to be made clear to them.

In fact you should make it clear to anyone regardless of if they are scientists or not.

Also I never said that science is a bad thing: I'm a member at PF for christs sake!

This reminds me of some old Dilbert strips, featuring "Dan, the illogical scientist"

http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Illogical Scientist

 

[chiro]

This reminds me of some old Dilbert strips, featuring "Dan, the illogical scientist"

http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Illogical Scientist

I'm surprised he doesn't have two black eyes let alone one...

 

[Adyssa]

1) You'll need to provide some context of what you are talking about but mostly that is simple to answer; I came from a certain town, I came from my parents, I came from a species whose evolution is...
2) Begging the question by assuming a "why"
3) We have a very good idea of what happens when you die. Your bodily functions cease and you decay. There has never been any indication of anything else, it's like asking what happens to a candle when you blow it out.

Well and good, but there are some hard things to explain, like consciousness. I don't have airy-fairy beliefs as to the nature of consciousness, but it's a curious thing. Not knowing much (anything) about it, leaves me in a spot where I am cautious about stating it's properties with certainty.

I agree with what you wrote. My comment about not throwing science at people, and being civil in general, was more about not being an a##hole. You have to talk to people every day, especially at work, and there are a lot of things about people's beliefs in religion that are inconsequential to the daily running of things. It's not my place to try and shatter their universe. I have better things to care about, like having a good day!

When they want to implement fundamentalist laws, and interfere with the response to AIDS epidemics, and plenty of them do, I have a problem with that, but I don't argue the point with Person X and infuriate him and refuse to work with him based on that fact. There are proper forums for that discussion. I'm reminded of this sign, regardless of the context, the message is clear. :)

https://www.transitionnetwork.org/sites/default/files/uploaded/u182/respectful-discourse.jpg

 

[Hobin]

Anybody that aggressively and blatantly denies evolution has not adapted a rational view of the universe or they would have been convinced by the evidence if they actually took the time to digest it; But most importantly, it's the difference between people who think actions in the universe requires some causal explanation, and those that think a lack-of-explanation (i.e. magic) suffices.

While I agree with you, I don't think things are as clear-cut as that (and I think the 'actually took the time to digest it' is significant). I come from an extremely religious family (myself, I'm agnostic), and I know that perhaps ninety percent of the people in my church simply don't believe in evolution, the big bang et al. because they're uninformed. More importantly, because they've been informed by pastors about 'what scientists think'. These people are not necessarily irrational, they are just basing their views on what they *think* evolution and the big bang theory are. Of course, in many cases, it is 'already too late' to tell them what it's really about, because many - probably most - of them *are* dogmatized irrationalists.

But I think it's still an important point, because it also goes the other way 'round: people who believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. etc. *are not necessary rational*. I know some of such people who have simply been taught that the beforementioned are true, have simply been taught that everyone who doesn't believe them is irrational, and now think themselves masters of rationality! That, I think, is just as stupid. (And possible more dangerous, because others believe them rational. Oh, by the way, Pythagorean, I'm not saying you think everyone who believes the above is rational. I know that would be a logical fallacy and a strawman in one.)

I would of course still prefer people to believe in evolution, but I woud *also* like people to stop thinking that because someone has been trained to believe science is telling the truth, those people are being rational. I think science is a rational process myself, and I also think it's the most (if not the only) reliable way of telling what's true (well, except for math). However, because I'm from a religious family and actually had to rationally convince myself of this, it disturbs me how many people there are who simply believe science because they were conditioned to do so. (Granted, one could argue that I believe in science out of rebellionistic (is that a word?) tendencies towards my family and my 'culture'. I think I'm being rational, of course, but who knows? Everyone else thinks that, too. *wink* The jury's still out on that one.)

I also think that the people who were simply conditioned to believe science are more likely to have such philosophical viewpoints as 'everything is matter', and 'materialism has scientifically been proven to be correct'. (I don't know this for certain, of course, and it would be quite hard to ask people this: "Hey, have you been conditioned to believe in science or was this actually a rational decision? Oh, and do you think materialism has been scientifically proven?")

So now for my 'personal opinion': Science is the most reliable way of determining truth; I don't know whether materialism is 'true', but I do know that it's a philosophical preference (that allowed us to learn a lot of new things during the Enlightenment, that much is true!) that has no scientific basis, per se; I also know that there are http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/TCUbiblio.html http://dbem.ws/online_pubs.html#psi http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/psipapers.html of interesting experiments and www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf concerning http://archived.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html, and that the idea of parapsychology as a pseudoscience is ungrounded (I suspect this might be an unpopular view; should you feel a need to comment on it, I suggest giving the above a read *first*); I do not know whether such a thing as 'psi' exists, and I'll leave that to the people scientifically studying it to determine, but I'm open to the possibility, and think there's quite a bit of interesting evidence.

...And while I hope the above sounds very tolerant, I must admit to being very bad at being in the company of people who believe stupid things (no matter the reason). Shutting my mouth when appropriate is something my parents have always wanted to teach me, but, alas, they have not succeeded (except when I have food in my mouth; then, I succeed. Hurrah).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We had very simple rules for adult conversation. One avoided three topics - religion, politics and sex.

My three favorite subjects!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just can't keep uber-religious company and I often tell my mother she's wrong. I have two friends that used to be evolution denialists and I very respectfully told them they were wrong

I found this a bit humorous. Mom isn't treated respectfully but your friends are?

I have spent a lot of time debating religion, but mostly in an effort to get each side to quit misrepresenting the other. As a rule, the non-believers know about as much about religion and faith, as evolution denialists know about science.

So I guess my approach is to simply correct incorrect statements when I hear them and know better, provided it is appropriate to the situation. Where I live, it is best not to discuss these issues with most people. Small towns are not receptive to disruptive influences, like me!

 

[JDStupi]

I think you just need to have tact in analyzing to what extent you believe the person will be receptive to analyzing their own beliefs, logically. That is the key word-logically. Scientific types often (myself included) often cannot understand the belief formation of others because we believe that beliefs (meta beliefs woohoo) should be largely guided and supported by logic, however looking at beliefs, this is only a small part of what they are. So, we are making a normative claim about what they should believe, as opposed to a descriptive claim about what beliefs are (not saying we know what they are exactly). This can blind us to the fact that, psychologically, to communicate we need middle ground, we need to show the way to where we are and justify why somebody should follow that path. There have been beliefs always, though they may not be based entirely off logic, in fact, i know people who say that they "believe" in God or "believe" in spirits or x,y,or z even though they understand that it may just be for comfort, or what have you, but they feel as though they need it or something. So obviousely belief involves more than logic. It involves erecting an edifice to stand on, and so people are often reluctant to take away this edifice, especialy when they strongly structure there schema around "fate" or "good and bad energy" or "God" or whatever.

In conclusion, there is no one hundred percent right answer, you have to do it on a person by person, belief by belief basis. I usually just don't bring up "metaphysical" beliefs once I know that ours don't match up, and if I do, I do so carefully, trying to get them to analyze it "from the inside". So if you are intent on trying to get them to re-examine it, just observe and listen and try and get them to consider it from their own angle. Otherwise, just enjoy them as a person and forget it or save it for drinking times or something.

 

[Pythagorean]

I found this a bit humorous. Mom isn't treated respectfully but your friends are?

I have spent a lot of time debating religion, but mostly in an effort to get each side to quit misrepresenting the other. As a rule, the non-believers know about as much about religion and faith, as evolution denialists know about science.

So I guess my approach is to simply correct incorrect statements when I hear them and know better, provided it is appropriate to the situation. Where I live, it is best not to discuss these issues with most people. Small towns are not receptive to disruptive influences, like me!

Note: I didn't tell her (or my friends) that they were wrong about religion, just about evolution and all the little over-repeated sayings "it's just a theory", "there's no missing link!", etc... stuff you'd only say if you were told what to believe and didn't actually look into it yourself.

So I wasn't actually trying to convert my friend... and I don't really take credit! The difference between my friends and my mother is that my friends are intellectuals. They actually seek to understand things or at least rationalize them in a reasonable way... rather than plugging their ears and closing their eyes.

And that's the difference between people I choose to be around and people I have to be around :)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I used to be a solipsist, i.e. no one exists but me, and this would lead inevitably to arguments with anyone who felt the same way I did. However, more recently I have switched over to anti-solipsism, i.e. everyone exists except me. This cuts down on one kind of argument, but leads to another. People in the philosophy forum keep proving that I do exist and I always feel compelled to tell them how insensitive they are.

 

[netgypsy]

The makeup of an AP physics class 2 Evangelical Christians, 2 practicing Jewish students, one black army brat, one black middle class, one super bright forum troll who hated any type of bigotry (loved to troll on neo nazi sites), one Pakistani Muslim, one Indian Hindu, one known cheater who was Scandinavian/Latino, 60%male, 40% female

One rule - NOONE insults anyone else YOU WILL BE POLITE!

When the work was finished the class was free to discuss almost any topic and only one time did they have to be chastised. It's a shame adults can't do as well.

In the part of the US where I live it is truly dangerous to espouse any views other than those preached in the evangelical Christian churches every week. THIS is my problem with this particular group. Enough of them are violent to give the entire group a bad name. Very sad since most are very sincere and "good people".

 

[Evo]

I understand that were I live I am the only atheist among very devout Christians. At work, I was befriended by one woman that was also a church minister. She would always come over, take my hands and pray for me. Hey, it was a cuthroat job, I was happy for any help.

When I was scheduled for surgery, she formed a prayer group at her church for me. She called and checked on me. She came to the hospital with gifts and prayed that the psycho nurses would not kill me. (the psycho nurses are quite a story). I have found that most religious people are sincere, kind, loving, and caring. My upstairs neighbors are religious and they do lovely things for me. The YEC guy was another story. Even the religious people avoided him.

 

[ThomasT]

I understand that were I live I am the only atheist among very devout Christians. At work, I was befriended by one woman that was also a church minister. She would always come over, take my hands and pray for me. Hey, it was a cuthroat job, I was happy for any help.

When I was scheduled for surgery, she formed a prayer group at her church for me. She called and checked on me. She came to the hospital with gifts and prayed that the psycho nurses would not kill me. (the psycho nurses are quite a story). I have found that most religious people are sincere, kind, loving, and caring. My upstairs neighbors are religious and they do lovely things for me. The YEC guy was another story. Even the religious people avoided him.

I've known lots of really religious people during my life. Some were (and are) close friends. They were (are) all, afaik, essentially good people, good neighbors, etc. There was a period in my life, during my late teens, when I tried to actually embrace the view and lifestyle of church going folk. But it just didn't make any sense to me, from a very young age.

Anyway, lots of interesting posts and, imo, good advice wrt the OP in this thread.

 

[jim hardy]

If science teaches anything it is how profoundly little we really know.

Myself, i decided that:
IF there is a metaphysical, it is going to influence the physical by small subtle means,, by coincidences if you will.
That's why the universe has randomness because meager forces can slightly alter the outcomes.
Like the green 00 on a roulette wheel.

Were i building a universe that's the kind of "Back Door" i would put in.


I sure don't know... but i think there are things out there we just can't measure with meter-sticks and electromagnetic apparati. Apparently so did Pauli and Jung.

Pay attention to your dreams.

old jim

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have generally tended to avoid discussing religion with anyone at work. The only person I can remember actually discussing it with at work was a very christian supervisor I had. He was a good guy and never tried to push his opinions on me but he made reference to his beliefs occasionally. I only engaged in discussion with him when he ask my opinion and he was fortunately actually interested in my opinion and wasn't looking for any sort of argument. As to how I approached the subject when asked I would generally attempt to treat it as philosophy or history and look for points of validity or potential validity. In that sort of context it generally seemed to give him the sense that even if I did not agree with or share his beliefs, and even if I deconstructed them and treated them as history/philosophy/ect, I had at least considered them and not simply dismissed them. He even sometimes seemed to have enjoyed hearing a different perspective on his religion.

 

[chiro]

I have generally tended to avoid discussing religion with anyone at work. The only person I can remember actually discussing it with at work was a very christian supervisor I had. He was a good guy and never tried to push his opinions on me but he made reference to his beliefs occasionally. I only engaged in discussion with him when he ask my opinion and he was fortunately actually interested in my opinion and wasn't looking for any sort of argument. As to how I approached the subject when asked I would generally attempt to treat it as philosophy or history and look for points of validity or potential validity. In that sort of context it generally seemed to give him the sense that even if I did not agree with or share his beliefs, and even if I deconstructed them and treated them as history/philosophy/ect, I had at least considered them and not simply dismissed them.

It would be great if everyone were this way!

The emphasis is on the consideration part: Let people think whatever the hell they want after they have considered it, but just by adding the consideration part in I reckon it would be nothing short of the Earth axis' shifting creating another ice age with Elvis returning from the dead and aliens greeting our planet.

Seriously it would be that extreme!