How to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints

[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!