Travelling to London one afternoon, the passenger sitting next me momentarily shelved what I had come to regard as British social etiquette, and struck up a conversation with me despite the fact that I was a total stranger. Being non-British myself, I didn't feel offended as if my private space had been invaded so all was well. Though I must admit I found it a bit strange that she seemed to want to chat despite the fact that I had my nose buried in a book. After general chit chat about what I did, where I was from, what I was going to do etc. etc., she happened to mention that she was on a course in theology, attempting to make better sense of her religion. She had converted to Catholicism recently.
During the two hour or so train journey, she and I spent about sixty or so minutes talking about religion and God, among other things such as psychological suffering, human existence, and mental illness.
Let me state at the outset that I am not a religious person. I don't practice any religion, and while I think nearly all organised religions may have something to offer as far as humanism is concerned, I think overall they have led to more division than unity, and more harm than good for humanity.
I made my religious indifference clear to her quite early in our conversation.
We spoke about God and nature, and she told me how as part of her religious journey she had learnt how to witness God in everything around us, especially the natural world. She added that some people were unable to see it that way, and wanted evidence to prove the existence of God. I calmly replied that individuals were all different and both positions were equally valid. It's just a question of the meaning you ascribe to things and events, more often than not it just boils down to the words we use to construct those meanings. Some people are moved by faith, some are not. I also added that it was hard for either to convince the other, because if one knew the language of the other there wouldn't be a problem to begin with. As an example, I pointed out that no matter how hard they tried, they might not be able to convince Richard Dawkins about God's existence all around us. People who need evidence need it before they can believe, and people who speak the language of faith need you to believe before you can see the "evidence".
The question here appears to lie on the atheism/theism vs. agnosticism question. Some may be quite happy to believe without having the knowledge, others may disbelieve in the absence of knowledge. Some others may claim to possess the knowledge, which I have to admit seems an odd position to have, but that's my personal viewpoint.
She then asked me what I thought of Richard Dawkins. She said she often felt he said what he did just for publicity. Now despite my tolerance, I don't like people being misunderstood or misrepresented, so I promptly came to Dawkins' defense and told her I didn't think he did it for publicity and he really does believe in what he writes. Or writes what he believes in. Whichever way you look at it.
We agreed that it was best to try and learn about one's religion academically, to make better sense of it and arrive at your own subjective interpretation of it, rather than blindly following what others have said. I would appreciate any effort by the religious to try and deconstruct their religion. I anticipate it will lead to shifts in their world view.
She came across as someone trying to make sense of the world through the prism of her religion, seeking external validation in the process. Far from trying to convince me of the supremacy of her religious world view, she seemed to be quite unconvinced about it herself. I remained largely non committal, making a case for subjective realities, individual choice and preference, and broadmindedness enough to have an opinion while letting others have their own opinions as well. While she nodded along in agreement, I think my non committal answers did frustrate her a little.
Fellow atheists might feel I let her off too easily. That I should have argued against her beliefs, and metaphorically put-her-in-her-place. I on the other hand feel I did quite alright to make my own position known. Why not defend your position more vociferously, some might ask. Why not try to convince the other that religion is less than ideal? That you are right and they are erring?
I don't feel the need to defend my position. I think I am right, and that suffices for me. I am definitely not aiming to convince anyone of anything. I am convinced of my position, and in discussions and exchanges of ideas with me if another were to start thinking or feeling differently, I would regard that as a natural bi-product of a conversation between open minded individuals rather than a victory for "my side" or my powers of persuasion.
In order to influence others' opinions, two conditions must be met. Firstly, you should have conviction in what you're trying to say and secondly, the other should have enough mental elasticity to accommodate your views. If these two conditions are absent, any conscious effort to try and convince another person will be an exercise in futility. On the other hand, if they are both present, I believe some transfer of ideas will naturally occur by osmosis.
While we're on the subject, I definitely don't think the way to make an impression on another person is by belittling their existing viewpoints. Try telling someone suffering from psychosis that they are wrong in believing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons with the specific aim of destroying them, for example, and watch the metaphorical distance between the two of you increase right before your eyes.
Certain types of beliefs are impervious to arguments aimed at proving them wrong. Knowledge/ignorance can be tackled by logical arguments. But what do you do when someone says "I don't know but I believe...." ? The only way to confront those beliefs is by admitting "I hear what you're saying, but this is what I believe". That's the end of it.
We have heard the words "religious tolerance" often enough. What does it mean though? Does it mean respecting all religions equally? Perhaps not. Your own choice and lifestyle make it abundantly clear that you respect one way of life more than another. That's why you choose to follow it. If I choose to practice XYZ to the exclusion of other religions, it's quite apparent that something about XYZ appeals to me more than other religions.
Atheists, it is fair to say, have little respect for any organised religion. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists, would they?
What exactly is religious tolerance then?
It is not about respecting or supporting other religions. It is about respecting and supporting an other's freedom to choose to practice any or all of those religions. Remember Voltaire's famous quote on tolerance? No, not the one about which considerable controversy still exists, but the straightforward one from his Essay on Tolerance - "Think for yourself, and let others enjoy the privilege to do so".
I trust, or would like to trust, that atheists do believe in liberal humanism even if they scoff at the world's recognised religions. Liberal humanists, while making their views known, let others arrive at their own conclusions about the nature of things. They are broadminded enough to realise that the world is filled with different individuals, each of whom may live their lives as they choose, even with much pomp and show, and have every right to do so.
Let it be known that I also think it is annoying when someone tries to sell an idea to you despite much head-shaking and protests on your part. Religious types can come on pretty strong, I agree. But many a time it seems to me that any discussion on the subject is perceived as being an attempt to promote one's agenda rather than what it is- a mere exchange of ideas. I wish it weren't so.
Of course, for the times that they do hound you and try to win you over to "their side", maybe the above mentioned will help you ward them off by giving them gyaan (a lesson) in tolerance for individual differences and freedom of choice.
Politely saying "Thanks for the offer, but I'm all set for now" might be a better solution than having an angry war of words.
