Five reasons why disagreement is more tolerant than keeping silent
I often come across the view that religions / faiths / systems should keep their beliefs to themselves, and that everyone has the right to believe what they believe. This is a contradictory view, because everyone who has told me this has imposed their own belief system on me - who believe in open discussion and discourse. In Syria and around the world, we are seeing what happens when a religious group refuses to engage in conversation.Ā
It is not intolerant to challenge someone on their beliefs. Here areĀ five reasons why:
5. IF I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I HAVE TO TEST MY OWN BELIEFS.
It is actually a risk to take your beliefs into discussion - whether a work colleague who might think you are insane, a friend who has known you for years and might take offence, or a stranger that would otherwise know nothing of what you believe. In the worlds of politics or science, we expect discussion in order to further everyoneās understanding ofĀ ātruthā. If we smile, nod and agree with each other in the world of religion, our own beliefs go untested, which is more comfortable, but allows as much wrong thinking as right thinking.Ā
If post-modernity has taught us anything, itās not to trust our own perception of things. We need outside help.
4. IF I DISAGREE WITH YOU, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE DISTINCTIVE FROM ME.
āAll roads lead to Heavenā is a popular universalist belief, in a lot of ways influenced by Hinduism (and yoga) in the UK. This is the height of tolerance that says, āItās all Love and weāre all the same, and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong, but thatās ok, theyāre still right, they just donāt know it.ā
Believing there is good in everything is a perfect protection from the conflict of believing that someone intelligent might be wrong or that an action might actually be evil. However, it simply cannot be true that all religions are the same as they have conflicting teaching. Yes words likeĀ āpeaceā,Ā āloveā and āfaithā are attached to them, because these are the essential aims of religions - but key distinctions arise in the specific religions about how such values are attained.
Take, the wordĀ āpeaceā for example. It may be attached to the faith, but isnāt it important how that term is defined? If peace means the suppression of all apostates, that is one religious system striving rightly for peace. In another example peace is the internal balancing of oneself and accepting that I am nothing. Peace in Christianity is not just with each other, but with God, who we rebel against, and naturally try to overthrow, but the end of war against God is bought by the peace offering of Jesusā death on the cross. You see, these are all different views of peace, and all provoke different responses - one believer takes up a Kalashnikov rifle to bring peace, another sits in a room and focuses on their breathing, and another worships a man as if he is God and has his head blown off by a Kalashnikov because of the offence this causes.Ā
If we donāt talk about these differences, then we blur it all together into one confusing ball of assumptions, called religion, and it becomes a taboo that everyone is afraid to discuss. However, if we can be specific, as post-modernity teaches us to be, then we value the individual more highly. Instead, silent tolerance assumes a sacred / secular divide in conversation.Ā
3. IF I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I AGREE TO LISTEN TO AND BE INTERESTED IN YOU
The human virtue of curiosity is the catalyst for all human development. The exploration of the whole world, discovery of inventions and experimenting with new architecture have made the human experience bigger, broader, better.Ā
And yet, that curiosity doesnāt translate when it comes to faith. At the mention of God, people say,Ā āIām not religiousā,Ā āThatās nice for youā, or the worst response I get is,Ā āI really respect religious people. I wish I could have faith.ā The latter is the most frustrating for me, because it shuts discussion down; they have ticked theĀ ātoleranceā box, but they donāt think I have anything valuable to say. Itās as if faith is a hobby for me, akin to angling or knitting, instead of what it really is, a window through which all of life is experienced.Ā
Personally, I think this is ruder than disagreeing with me. Curiosity shows a value for the thing to be explored. Not being willing to engage in conversation is the same as saying,Ā āI think youāre wrong, but Iām not going to waste my time on you telling you why I think that.ā
Likewise, anyone who simplyĀ gives their own version of events without stopping to listen to the other side is not communicating, theyāre spouting; theyāre not engaging, theyāre vomiting their own perspective. I hope youāll comment on this post, as it would be great to hear what you think. I donāt see this as one-way communication. Have you experienced anything like this? Am I representing your beliefs fairly?
2. IF I KEEP SILENT, YOU DONāT KNOW WHAT I REALLY THINK
How many times have you smiled, nodded and not said anything because you thought someone was mad, and then gone away and talked to a friend behind that personās back?
Maybe youāre more virtuous than I am, and havenāt done that. By assuming that this false view canāt be corrected, it is left unchallenged, which gives the person an unreal perspective.
The early rounds of X Factor are enough proof that silence can be cruel. There are people who go on X Factor believing that they have what it takes to win, who somehow canāt hit a single note right. At no stage were they ever challenged that this was not what they should be doing. The result, they are humiliated on TV in front of everyone. Why? Because people kept silent.Ā
1. IF I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I RESPECT YOU ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND YOUR BELIEFS
Perhaps you have a really thought through belief system. Perhaps you havenāt given it that much examination and itās based on a hodge podge of journalistic viewpoint, something Dan Brown once told me, and a love of alcohol.
If I challenge you to examine what you believe in the light of new evidence, that isnāt me being proud or obnoxious, thatās valuing your reason. From my experience, examining my Christian beliefs has always given me more reason to believe, not less, and I am more convinced of the death and resurrection of Jesus than I have ever been. That doesnāt mean you should believe me - but if you havenāt read the Bible, or engaged a real Christian with questions about why they believe what they believe, then you are treating a lot of people with contempt, and canāt call yourself a true universalist who values all beliefs. How can you value a belief you donāt know enough about to disagree with?Ā
And what if our own beliefs get challenged in the process? Oh no! How terrible! We may be forced to think about it! Discussions of faith should never be about winning an argument - they should always be done in respect, and in gentleness. It should always be ok to say to someone,Ā āI donāt know, but thank you for challenging me on that. Iāll look into that and get back to you.āĀ
This may make you afraid - thereās a lot to learn and an infinite amount of views. That is exactly the problem Iām addressing with this argument. Why should a million view points make us afraid? Surely that is a realm of so much curiosity and creativity, of miracles, of truth, of mystery, of lies, of morality and forgiveness, that we should be excited to try to perceive the world through as many eyes as possible, praying as we do, that God would show himself to us.