A med student colleague of mine, a devout christian, is going to give a lecture on psychosexual development for our small group in a couple of days. She’s probably going to sneak in an unknown amount of propaganda. With delicious improbability, there happen to be two transgender med students in our group she probably isn’t aware of. To this day, relations in our group have been very friendly.
Any tips on how to avoid the apocalypse? Pre-emptive maneuvers are out of the question, I want to see what happens.
ETA: Nothing happened. Caused a significant update.
This sounds like a situation in which some people present may consider some other people’s beliefs to be an individual-level existential threat — whether to their identity, to their lives, or to their immortal souls. In other words, the problem is not just that these folks disagree with each other, but that they may feel threatened by one another, and by the propagation of one another’s beliefs.
Consider: ”If you convince people of your belief, people are more likely to try to kill me.” ″If you convince people of your belief, I am more likely to become corrupted.”
One framework for dealing with situations like this is called liberalism. In liberalism, we imagine moral boundaries called “rights” around individuals, and we agree that no matter what other beliefs we may arrive at, that it would be wrong to transgress these boundaries. (We imagine individuals, not groups or ideas, as having rights; and that every individual has the same rights, regardless of properties such as their race, sex, sexuality, or religion.)
Agreeing on rights allows us to put boundaries around the effects of certain moral disagreements, which makes them less scary and more peaceful. If your Christian colleague will agree, for instance, that it is wrong to kidnap and torture someonein an effort to change that person’s sexual identity, they may be less threatening to the others.
What would constitute an apocalypse? When you say “I want to see what happens” do you mean you want to let the situation develop organically but set certain boundaries, a cap on damages, so to say?
That’s exactly what I mean. I’m not directing the situation, but will be participating.
I’d like to confront and see people confront her religious bias, without the result being excessive flame or her being backed in a corner without a chance to even marginally nudge her mind in the right direction. She’s smart, will not make explicit religious statements, and will back her claims with cherry picked reseach. Naturally the level of mindkill will depend on other participants too, and I will treat this as some sort of a rationality test if they manage to keep their calm. If they lose it I guess it’s understandable.
I guess I’ll be using lots of some version of “agree denotationally, disagree connotationally”.
Finnish indeed, and even with our completely watered down version of belief in belief christianity there’s always a religious nut or two to ruin your day.
Volatile and emotional? Most lwers per capita was it? Is it because we’re in the highest need for rationality?
Heavily leaning towards in-your-face on the spectrum. Has been very vocal on abortion issues for example. Thinks that homosexuality is a sin. Other than her religiousness, is a perfectly nice human being.
A med student colleague of mine, a devout christian, is going to give a lecture on psychosexual development for our small group in a couple of days. She’s probably going to sneak in an unknown amount of propaganda. With delicious improbability, there happen to be two transgender med students in our group she probably isn’t aware of. To this day, relations in our group have been very friendly.
Any tips on how to avoid the apocalypse? Pre-emptive maneuvers are out of the question, I want to see what happens.
ETA: Nothing happened. Caused a significant update.
This sounds like a situation in which some people present may consider some other people’s beliefs to be an individual-level existential threat — whether to their identity, to their lives, or to their immortal souls. In other words, the problem is not just that these folks disagree with each other, but that they may feel threatened by one another, and by the propagation of one another’s beliefs.
Consider:
”If you convince people of your belief, people are more likely to try to kill me.”
″If you convince people of your belief, I am more likely to become corrupted.”
We are surprised when a local NAACP leader has a calm meeting with a KKK leader. (But possibly not as surprised as the national NAACP leadership were.)
One framework for dealing with situations like this is called liberalism. In liberalism, we imagine moral boundaries called “rights” around individuals, and we agree that no matter what other beliefs we may arrive at, that it would be wrong to transgress these boundaries. (We imagine individuals, not groups or ideas, as having rights; and that every individual has the same rights, regardless of properties such as their race, sex, sexuality, or religion.)
Agreeing on rights allows us to put boundaries around the effects of certain moral disagreements, which makes them less scary and more peaceful. If your Christian colleague will agree, for instance, that it is wrong to kidnap and torture someone in an effort to change that person’s sexual identity, they may be less threatening to the others.
What would constitute an apocalypse? When you say “I want to see what happens” do you mean you want to let the situation develop organically but set certain boundaries, a cap on damages, so to say?
That’s exactly what I mean. I’m not directing the situation, but will be participating.
I’d like to confront and see people confront her religious bias, without the result being excessive flame or her being backed in a corner without a chance to even marginally nudge her mind in the right direction. She’s smart, will not make explicit religious statements, and will back her claims with cherry picked reseach. Naturally the level of mindkill will depend on other participants too, and I will treat this as some sort of a rationality test if they manage to keep their calm. If they lose it I guess it’s understandable.
I guess I’ll be using lots of some version of “agree denotationally, disagree connotationally”.
Are the participants Finnish? I am tempted to start remembering jokes about the volatile and emotional character of Finns… :-)
Finnish indeed, and even with our completely watered down version of belief in belief christianity there’s always a religious nut or two to ruin your day.
Volatile and emotional? Most lwers per capita was it? Is it because we’re in the highest need for rationality?
Is she in-your-face christian or a live-and-let-live one?
Heavily leaning towards in-your-face on the spectrum. Has been very vocal on abortion issues for example. Thinks that homosexuality is a sin. Other than her religiousness, is a perfectly nice human being.