Conversations with people whose opinions or beliefs differ from our own, especially on issues which trigger emotional reactions, easily devolve into debates or arguments. Unfortunately, when we take such disagreements personally, the result can be feelings of offense, anger, or resentment. One thing that can help mitigate these negative responses is some perspective on how we decide what to believe (i.e., choose our positions/values). It is my considered opinion that, in forming our opinions/beliefs, we normally utilize only a few options:
1. We rely on our own thinking – using our God-given little brains, we conclude that something is right or wrong, or good or bad, and act accordingly (if we don’t act according to what we believe, we experience cognitive dissonance, which is mentally uncomfortable for sane people). My experience suggests that we don’t usually think through issues as independently as we’d like to believe. That is, we seldom come up with an original position or belief, but instead accept a position/belief adopted from outside ourselves. This leads to #2 …
2. We are exposed to one or more positions or beliefs about an issue, which we evaluate using a combination of emotion and logic and comparison with our existing values (we are unlikely to accept a position or belief that directly conflicts with our other existing values/beliefs). The relative influence of emotion vs logic varies, but it seems to me most of us are less logical than we think we are, particularly regarding issues that involve ethics, religion, or interpersonal relationships.
3. The positions/beliefs/values which we consider may vary, but not as widely as we might think. Most of the ideas we consider have already been limited by a series of “filters” – the groups, organizations, and society to which we belong. These range from our circle of friends or workmates to clubs and interest groups to which we belong (including political and religious groups). This “filtering” limits our thinking but is not entirely negative as it saves us the mental and emotional exertion of having to think through every single issue on our own.
Note: Many people have a “primary” or overriding filter which, as the term suggests, takes precedence over other factors in the selection of beliefs and values. Also, group affiliations are significantly influenced by our desire for both personal identity and acceptance by others.
4. In addition to groups which we “join”, our positions/values are significantly influenced by the cultures and subcultures of various geographic locations. Irrespective of where they came from, certain values held by the majority (not all) of people in southern California tend to differ from those of Iowans; some values of people in Chicago tend to differ from residents of southern Illinois, people in France have different values from people in Japan, etc.
5. Differences in values are often both a result of and a cause of where people choose to live and the social groups with which they associate. A person from a small town whose values are incompatible with a rural lifestyle is likely to move to a city. Once in the city, that person is likely to adopt more urban values. A person with strong liberal or conservative political leanings is likely to form friendships with people with similar values. As they associate with people whose views reflect their own, their political stance will likely become even more liberal or conservative.
6. The old saying “birds of a feather flock together” is not a myth. We tend to associate with people who share our beliefs and values, largely because it is comfortable to do so. But this also limits our exposure to and real consideration of other beliefs and values. In the most extreme instances people consciously choose to socialize only with those of like belief/values and avoid people with different values or beliefs (I know some people to whom this applies; maybe you do, too).
7. The items described in #1 - #6 above offer multiple opportunities to form our values/beliefs/positions. As we do so, we are exposed to a variety of ideas, beliefs, and values which conflict with each other. In order to decide on our own values/beliefs, we choose the ‘voices’ we will listen to. But we do not normally give the same relative weight to these ‘voices’ (e.g., on Issue A we might accept the teaching of our religion, on Issue B we might adopt the values of our closest friends, on Issue C we might accept the position currently dominant in our society, or we might actually think through Issue D and form a position that does not align with either our social groups or general societal values).
8. It is important to realize that many (if not most) of our values/beliefs are formed subconsciously – that is, we adopt ideas, values, and beliefs without consciously and logically evaluating them. Many values of our society are simply absorbed by living with the society, and the same applies to values infused by interaction within organizations, groups, friends, and families. This is not to say we never consciously form values/beliefs by thinking issues through and logically choosing our position. But when we do, if our position conflicts with that of others in our organizations, groups, friendship circle, or family, we will face peer pressure to conform by adopting the dominant values of the group involved. In this situation, maintaining our position will lead to disagreements with other group members and possible conflict.
9. Few people have purposely thought through their hierarchy of values/beliefs to decide which of their values/beliefs are of primary importance (I have; in fact, I’ve taught hundreds of people how to do this). Identifying one’s core values/beliefs is valuable because it helps define the limited number of “deal breakers” in our belief system. A person who defines their core values/beliefs in writing (not on paper doesn’t count!) becomes more able to associate comfortably with people who hold other beliefs. This is because they are certain of and secure in their own beliefs, and therefore able to relate to people with conflicting beliefs without feeling threatened.
10. We are all influenced by the larger culture in which we live, often to a greater extent than we realize. The contemporary Western culture (i.e., Western Europe, U.S., Canada) has, in the past few decades, largely lost the ability to distinguish between disagreeing with or criticizing a person’s values or beliefs and disliking (or worse) that person. The dominant culture equates disagreement, particularly on moral issues, with personal hatred, and we live with the animosity and divisiveness that results from this illogical and harmful attitude.
11. In all times and in all societies, people must decide how they will treat those whose value or beliefs differ from their own. The simplest response is to isolate ourselves from those who differ. The worst response – which develops more easily through isolation - is to somehow view them as inferior. This is what the Nazis did regarding the Jews, what slaveholders did to slaves (including blacks who owned blacks), what the U.S. government did to native Americans, and is the pattern followed by every perpetrator of genocide in history. This is not limited to action on a large scale or by governments; it can be done by individuals or small groups of people.
12. One question faced by every individual who takes their own values and beliefs seriously (yes, there are those who do not, but they are a small minority) is “How will I relate to the people whose values or beliefs I strongly disagree with?” [the question is valid even though I ended a sentence with a preposition J]. The key word in this question is not the word values or the word beliefs, but the word people. We are free to view others’ values or beliefs as incorrect, wrongheaded, foolish, stupid, harmful, or even evil. But we are not free to view the people who hold them as anything less than humans whom God loves and whom God commands his followers to love also.
13. Based on #10, above, the short answer to “How will I relate to the people whose values or beliefs I strongly disagree with?” is “I will do my best to love them; that is, to treat them with kindness and respect, no matter how much I disagree with their beliefs or values.” This does not imply agreeing with them or affirming their beliefs or values. It simply describes how we are to treat them as people.
14. A question in response to #11, above, might be “Aren’t there some exceptions?” Yes, I think there are a small number of people whose behavior is so offensive and/or harmful to others that it is wise to avoid them (I doubt I would voluntarily associate with Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, etc.). We are not obligated to expose ourselves to potential harm from such people. But these are the exception, not the rule.
So, what does all this mean? I suggest it means we can disagree --vehemently, even -- on issues, including religion, politics, morals, ethics, etc., without treating others as inferior or in some way deficient. We have an obligation to treat those with whom we disagree with kindness and respect, and the right to expect they will afford us the same. Doing so is one of the hallmarks of maturity and wisdom and will benefit both ourselves and the dissimilar people with whom we interact.
