Respect

It hit me tonight. A friend whom I used to be very close to said "I don't feel like you respect me." What hit me was that such a comment would be so entirely justified. In fact, respecting the beliefs of others sounds entirely reasonable - at least until you think about it. The problem is in knowing where to draw the line. I can understand why, for example, Presbyterians should respect the beliefs of Methodists. They’re practically the same thing.

But what about those Heaven’s Gate guys who believed they should kill themselves so their souls could follow a comet? Am I obligated to respect those beliefs too? How about the people who give away all of their possessions because they have determined the exact date that the world will end? Do I respect their opinions up to the predicted end-time and then, after it passes, keep on respecting their opinion while they are begging the neighbors to give back their former possessions?

I suppose you could argue that we should respect any religion that is peaceful and has good intentions at its core.

In the moments of that conversation, I realized how fundamentally different she and I were - how different we are. She wants nothing to do with my questions and my thoughts. Why should she? They are dangerous and damaging towards a way of understanding the world that works for her. But, if that way of understanding the world is taken to be true and not merely perceptually functional, than questions should serve to strengthen that viewpoint - not damage it. The pursuit of truth should bring one to 'God”' if that god is true.

So, why are so many afraid of the questions? Why are so many frustrated by the questions?

Consider this: You are a merchant in Rome. The year is 1644. During the course of your daily walk home, you run into an old friend. He introduces you to the man standing next to him, mentioning something about a book entitled A Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. You soon discover that this man actually believes the Earth revolves around the sun. At first, you listen with mild amusement at what you consider to be an entirely absurd belief. But then something happens, you realize that he doesn't seem delusional nor does he seem a simpleton. He is backing up everything he says. Then the unthinkable happens, he begins to make sense. You suddenly find yourself feeling frustrated and disconcerted. Why? Because you are unable to defend against this man's fantastical and outlandish claims.

Do you know how this would feel? Imagine conversing with someone who believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. That's how radical this claim would seem to 17th century merchant. Now imagine that you were put on the spot to defend your belief that the earth rotates around the sun but found yourself unable to do so, how would you feel?

"I don't think I would care if I could defend it or not because I would know it was true."

How do you know that the Earth revolves around the sun other than what professors and books have told you all of your life? How is that any different from the way in which people knew that the sun revolved around the Earth? Are we fundamentally more intelligent than those who have gone before us? No. We all just believe what is common to believe in whatever time period we find ourselves in.

Thus, our entire perception of reality is colored with the assumption that we have to be right, and therefore the evidence must somehow fit. So we think we can make anything up on the spur of the moment and be "sure" it's true. This is the exact opposite of what all the most profound thinkers have done. They start with the evidence and then figure out what the best explanation of it all really is, regardless of where this quest for truth takes them.

So - while others busied themselves with constructing fanciful explanations for the failures of their culturally transmitted geocentric theory, a fellow by the name of Copernicus decided to simply take a look at things...