The debate between religious paradigms

[Frigga]

The debate between religious paradigms: Why do all of those involved feel like criticizing the opposite view and say that opposing viewpoints are wrong? This can be between different religions altogether, or between the different sects of the same religion. What about those who are not religious at all that feel that the ones who are religious are foolish for feeling the need to believe in some "figment of the imagination"? What do you think is the root cause for the intolerance that some express in their religious views?

[Psychonaut]

The debate between religious paradigms: Why do all of those involved feel like criticizing the opposite view and say that opposing viewpoints are wrong? This can be between different religions altogether, or between the different sects of the same religion. What about those who are not religious at all that feel that the ones who are religious are foolish for feeling the need to believe in some "figment of the imagination"? What do you think is the root cause for the intolerance that some express in their religious views?

The situation described only appears when one the parties involved hold to a kind of epistemological absolutism. Pluralist epistemologies make arguments about "the truth" null, and generally avoid these kinds of pitfalls. Monopolization of truth is the hallmark of adherents of the former type, and their belief that they hold the one and only truth leads them to denounce and/or convert those around them (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.). You generally don't see that type of behavior among groups who hold to pluralism (Hindus, Native Americans, Pagans, etc.).

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Frigga
What do you think is the root cause for the intolerance that some express in their religious views?

Insecurity has a lot to do with it.

[Poltergeist]

Insecurity has a lot to do with it.

...and lack of wisdom, sometimes.

[Anthropos]

One big mistake made by a majority of our contemporaries is to think that any folly can be propagated under the header 'religion', so that any argument between viewpoints must necessarily be a mark of 'intolerance'. Religion does not mean 'folly', 'arbitrary philosophy', 'ideological superstructure' or anything like that. Not everything propagated as a 'religion' has a right to that name, and there is nothing wrong with criticism, in my opinion. What I find to be very wrong, on the other hand, is when people abuse their freedom of speech as a freedom to spread their ignorance.

[Aemma]

The debate between religious paradigms: Why do all of those involved feel like criticizing the opposite view and say that opposing viewpoints are wrong? This can be between different religions altogether, or between the different sects of the same religion. What about those who are not religious at all that feel that the ones who are religious are foolish for feeling the need to believe in some "figment of the imagination"? What do you think is the root cause for the intolerance that some express in their religious views?


Good choice of buzzwords. Intolerance runs rampant especially in cyberspace. It's been my experience that the more orthodox/traditional one is in approach to belief (and no I'm not picking on Christians in particular since orthodoxy occurs in all spiritual traiditions, even heathen ones and even non-religious ones such as atheism), the less tolerant one is of other worldviews. It becomes very difficult to debate and sanely discuss anything having to do with religion with anybody that close-minded--to wit some of the very posts made in this thread which lack respect for different worldviews altogether. :rolleyes:

EDIT: What Psy said! :D

[Aemma]

Insecurity has a lot to do with it.

To this I would add genuine ignorance.

[Anthropos]

Some tolerance moralists are extremely intolerant.

[Monolith]

Methinks that's because such paradigms are deeply ingrained into most (if not all) social/political systems, regardless of whether they relate to hardcore religiosity or absence of faith in general.

[Cato]

One shouldn't have to walk on eggshells so as to not offend some thinskin in a conversation based on existential dogma.

[Poltergeist]

It's been my experience that the more orthodox/traditional one is in approach to belief (and no I'm not picking on Christians in particular since orthodoxy occurs in all spiritual traiditions, even heathen ones and even non-religious ones such as atheism), the less tolerant one is of other worldviews.

Regarding Christianity it hardly holds water. It's the other way around. Much more intolerant and shrill are various Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals (all of them quite untraditional in their approach, picking quotes from Bible at their liking) than traditional Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or traditional Lutherans.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The debate between religious paradigms: Why do all of those involved feel like criticizing the opposite view and say that opposing viewpoints are wrong? This can be between different religions altogether, or between the different sects of the same religion. What about those who are not religious at all that feel that the ones who are religious are foolish for feeling the need to believe in some "figment of the imagination"? What do you think is the root cause for the intolerance that some express in their religious views?

I find it to be ridiculous and downright arrogant for something to believe that his belief system is right and others are wrong when there's no facts to support one faith over another. No one knows the truth, so why pretend? I don't care what people believe, but the minute it starts effecting public policy is when I get pissed and extremely critical.

[Óttar]

:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27alIS48I5g
Seriously though, Psychonaut hit it on the head although I would not so readily include the Buddhists with Christians, Musul-hammies and Jews.

[Psychonaut]

Seriously though, Psychonaut hit it on the head although I would not so readily include the Buddhists with Christians, Musul-hammies and Jews.

I definitely would. Their epistemological outlook is undoubtedly absolutist. Their proselytization efforts have been just as extensive as those of the Christians and Muslims and have been nearly as destructive in uprooting indigenous religions. This has been the case in nearly the whole of East and Southeast Asia. Buddhism, like Christianity, views itself as the sole means to liberation (मोक्ष mokṣa) from the net of illusion (माया māyā)—going to far as to wholly discount the nearly identical methodology of the Hindu schools due to doctrinal differences stemming from the immutable Noble Truths of Siddhartha. The package may have been imposed on the East in a more pleasing and less violent manner than Christianity was in the West, but the effect has been just as insidious in undermining the ethnic religions of the region.

[Óttar]

The package may have been imposed on the East in a more pleasing and less violent manner than Christianity was in the West, but the effect has been just as insidious in undermining the ethnic religions of the region.
There are still Bon-Po practitioners in Tibet as well as people who mix the two systems together. The same is true of Shinto in Japan and Taoism and Confucianism in China. There is still plenty of shamanism in Central Asia. In Nepal, Hinduism and Buddhism live side by side and mix at certain points. The only major problem I have with Buddhism is its asceticism. It is not unlike certain strains of Hinduism which deny the body.

In the past, many Hindus went to Buddhism voluntarily on account of the fact that Buddhism rejected the classical Hindu caste system. There were still Brahmins in Thai courts even after they had adopted Buddhism.

[SwordoftheVistula]

What do you think is the root cause for the intolerance that some express in their religious views?

Some people demand the world adapt to their alternate reality.

I don't mind people with religious views, it's when they try to change the people around them and society at large to be in line with their religious beliefs that it becomes a problem.