Are Women More Likely To Be Believers?

[Grover]

If women are more open to possibilities beyond our knowledge, why is that?

I think men and women are equal in this respect, but men have got more to lose if they are "wrong".

As I heard somewhere, we all must find the right balance between "infantile credulity and paralyzing scepticism".

[DirkGently]

The one truth I live by is, never eat anything bigger than your own head.

I feel that all will become clear when I find some, genuinly, blue food.

[suegha]

Interesting points being made about there being only one truth. This of course has to be the case. I believe that what I pursue is the one truth. However, perception has been mentioned many times, and we all perceive truth diffferently.

What I believe, has to hang together naturally, otherwise it would 'jar'. That said, not that many people who consider themselves 'spiritual' seem to consider the inconsistencies in what they believe.

At the end of the day we have been given the ability to believe what we want. I still say, despite believing what I believe, that you should be happy in what your beliefs are.

[canuckamuck]

I agree with you Suegha, we all have varied perceptions and takes on the truth. This is the nature of our universe; diversity is embedded and celebrated in truth. If this were not so the universe would move towards singularity. It is going too far however when people say that, what they have decided to be true is true - based solely on their adoption of an idea. The phrase "it is true for me", is a defense mechanism, that causes much confusion because the person must then conform reality into their personal truth.

Truth must be sifted and applied to what is already unshakable. We all have understandings of absolutes, 2+2=4. Truth is not created in our understanding; rather our understanding can enter into truth. Love, creativity, and integrity lead to life, their opposites bring death. This is observable. But that in itself is only a starting point. Even when truth comes like a flood, we can only be in part of the stream. It is bigger than us.

Are women more likely to be believers? I think women are more comfortable putting their faith into something that feels right, whereas men search for logic and often fail to connect the dots. Women are also more likely to admit a belief, IMO.

[kat]

I wasn't remotely "spiritual" as a child/teenager but when I was 17 I had an out of body experience where I was looking down at myself from the ceiling. I was absolutely terrified because the noise was unbearable and I was trying to get back in my body but couldn't. The whole time I felt a definite cord attached between me (on the ceiling) to the body on the floor. When I did get back in my body (3 hours later!) I was shaking uncontrollably. In hindsight I realised that the shaking was me trying to realign my "soul" to my body and the noise when I was "outside" was the sounds of vibrations. I was instantly transformed from a really depressed teenager to something more aware (spiritual??). You just can't be depressed when you see the reality of what you really are! It only happened the once but it really changed my life (and saved it). I never try to change people's own ideas about this sort of thing because it's only words. Once you have the experience there's no need to argue the point because you know in yourself the truth of reality.

In my opinion, all the comments that amoutn to relativism- i.e. I have my reality, you have your reality, are nonsense. There must be an absolute reality and truth to the way things are, metaphysically and otherwise, and where there are two opposing views on the subject they cannot both be correct. One person is wrong, or both are wrong, but they cannot both be right. I personally find that reassuring, but I realise I am in a minority with that view.

Actually, Will, I'm not at all making a case for relativism on this thread. In fact, what I'm saying is that I know what I heard, observed, and confirmed with someone else present or outside of myself more than a few times in my life. I'm not quoting from scripture or philosophy or physics about what is supposed to be present, but am actually dealing with what was present for me and the other people who observed it. The essence of scientific proof is to observe, hypothesize and substantiate. I know that I have done that at least three times in my life with supernatural phenomena that has occurred with either someone else present, or with information gained from these experiences that would then check out in the "real" world. How is it any more scientific or proven for someone who doesn't know the extent of those observations or how they checked out to dismiss my claims simply because they are confounding according to what they've read and learned? That is also a form of ignorance as far as I'm concerned, but one that I understand because it could easily be me if I'd never experienced the mysteries of life that even science admittedly cannot explain.

So, what is "real"? Again, I don't really think of myself as one of these alternate reality people, and am more inclined to agree with the people that believe one reality exists. However, I am no fool to believe that science or "rational thinking" come even close to understanding the reality of what full truth is. In simple terms, if I had only ever experienced some of these occurrences myself, would they be less likely to exist? They probably would be subject to a lot more doubt, until we see and experience them ourselves. If I am thinking something about someone, and then they blurt out the same thing or tell me what I'm thinking, would that be any less real if we admitted it, denied it, or never mentioned it?

Again, reality as defined by science can only go so far in explaining the reality of existence. This is what I have experienced and now believe.

But we are all believers in something, even those who claim to believe in nothing.

Existence forces an awareness of an absolute, even in insanity.

OffordWill ... It is the belief that there is one absolute truth that has held back humankind for centuries. Multi-universe and string theory are already enjoying a steak or two off that particular sacred cow. Where is it written that there must be one absolute truth ... apart from religious texts?

dig

Alternate truth by its very nature is absurd. Truth must be singular or it cannot exist. How has mankind been held back? Where should we have gone by now? Are we late? Where is it written that there are multiple truths apart from science fiction and religious texts?

And what do you mean where is it written? It seems by the frame of your question you concede a form of absolute truth, in the form of the written word.

I agree with you Suegha, we all have varied perceptions and takes on the truth. This is the nature of our universe; diversity is embedded and celebrated in truth. If this were not so the universe would move towards singularity. It is going too far however when people say that, what they have decided to be true is true - based solely on their adoption of an idea. The phrase "it is true for me", is a defense mechanism, that causes much confusion because the person must then conform reality into their personal truth.

Truth must be sifted and applied to what is already unshakable. We all have understandings of absolutes, 2+2=4. Truth is not created in our understanding; rather our understanding can enter into truth. Love, creativity, and integrity lead to life, their opposites bring death. This is observable. But that in itself is only a starting point. Even when truth comes like a flood, we can only be in part of the stream. It is bigger than us.

Are women more likely to be believers? I think women are more comfortable putting their faith into something that feels right, whereas men search for logic and often fail to connect the dots. Women are also more likely to admit a belief, IMO.

Please read my quote above. Do not simplify me into a "believer" and yourself into "logic" simply because I am a female and you are male. If you can admit that the truth is bigger than you, then how will you always know who is sane and who is crazy? How will you know that you are "right" and I am "wrong", simply by dismissing that which you have not seen? Could it be, that someone with more experience with events that are unseen by the majority may have more experience with a larger portion of truth than you? Part of the mystery of life, is that no matter how advanced we become in science, technology, or even economics, not one of us can really prove or disprove the existence of a soul, or if there is life after death, or even what a person experiences at the time of death. On this we are left totally alone, with our own powers of observation, experiences, and gut instincts.

So, as far as I'm concerned, there's not one of us walking the Earth that is in any position of superior knowledge on this issue than any of the rest of us. This mystery is quite possibly the only real equalizer on the planet.

[sbk]

In fact, what I'm saying is that I know what I heard, observed, and confirmed with someone else present or outside of myself more than a few times in my life. I'm not quoting from scripture or philosophy or physics about what is supposed to be present, but am actually dealing with what was present for me and the other people who observed it. ........

And this was exactly my point. I don't dispute or refute other's experiences. I haven't had these experiences, nor have I witnessed them. Until I do, I won't place my faith in someone else's experiences. Simple as that. My belief system is just that, my own, based on what I have experienced, witnessed or felt and not based on what someone else has told me is so.

So, as far as I'm concerned, there's not one of us walking the Earth that is in any position of superior knowledge on this issue than any of the rest of us. This mystery is quite possibly the only real equalizer on the planet.

And this, I think, says it all. As usual kat

[farangsay]

This is a fascinating thread and remarkably civilised , even for this forum.

NR's opening question about women being more "believing" was correctly refined down to them being more intuitive and sensitive to things we ignorant males are totally impervious to.

I would go along with that , if only on the basis of one experience.

Now we had watched one of those "climate change disaster" movies where NY (where else) was devastated by a tidal wave.

A good while later her indoors starts having dreams about mountainous seas causing destruction so I put it down to the movie.

This was Patong. December 2004. Go figure.

Now I've never had an out-of-body experience though the way it creaks from time to time I wouldn't mind trying one.

Any tips ?

Now while the "I believe what I can see and touch" point of view is valid one could also ask the question "is this all there is?"

And to end on a totally sexist not , there not having been enough of that in this thread.

I have known many women who cling tenaciously but quietly to the most ridiculous convictions (eg I married a Catholic) but if you want a total pain in the hole wack job you need a man.

[canuckamuck]

Please read my quote above. Do not simplify me into a "believer" and yourself into "logic" simply because I am a female and you are male. If you can admit that the truth is bigger than you, then how will you always know who is sane and who is crazy? How will you know that you are "right" and I am "wrong", simply by dismissing that which you have not seen? Could it be, that someone with more experience with events that are unseen by the majority may have more experience with a larger portion of truth than you? Part of the mystery of life, is that no matter how advanced we become in science, technology, or even economics, not one of us can really prove or disprove the existence of a soul, or if there is life after death, or even what a person experiences at the time of death. On this we are left totally alone, with our own powers of observation, experiences, and gut instincts.

So, as far as I'm concerned, there's not one of us walking the Earth that is in any position of superior knowledge on this issue than any of the rest of us. This mystery is quite possibly the only real equalizer on the planet.

Hi Kat:

I might have phrased what I said poorly, but I did not intend to say there is a difference between a believer and logical person. In fact those that arrive at extra natural belief by a logic path might be a more convinced believer. What I was saying is that males are more likely to look to logic and reason, just because of the way they are wired. This is not a black and white statement, many females are logic dependant and many males make choices based on feeling. A believer is a believer; the most confirmed believers are those who have had an experience, a personal account of something that can't be explained away by natural law. Any one can fit into this category, but males might be more likely to talk themselves out of it, as it doesn't fit into an acceptable ideology when you are out with the boys. As for me, I feel science is directed by those who are fearful that there is more to our existence than the observable, hence they work very hard to contain their fear. The scientific community represents the most closed minded view, although they will tell it the other way.

As to (how will you know who is sane or crazy if the truth is so big?) I can't tell you who is sane or crazy, but I think those who are closer to truth have a reassurance that that there world is making sense. There is more peace when your experience fits your expectation. Experience however can also be a liar.

[wotaplonker]

Good to read this thread. As a man who 'believes' I've found most men have real problems with anything they can't see or 'fix'. I've had experiences that have left me with no doubts about life beyond the physical world. Interestingly, and no surprise to those who have replied to this thread, my closest friends are woman. There's a lot of superstition in tradional societies like Thailand. But like every other country ... plenty of real substance if you look for it.

dig

well certainly women do seem to be the major 'believing' group, cf the roman catholic religion where i believe a major percentage of its adherents are women (curious really when you think that that religion regards women as somewhat less than men) why is this? who knows, possibly a route of escape from the dominance of men over the centuries.

However "real substance"? sorry but personal anecdotes are not evidence for the existence of an afterlife, loch ness monster, alien abduction, princess Diana murdered by Mi5 etc etc. If there was 'real substance' and by that do you mean rational, verifiable and repeatable evidence? It would be front page news all over the world. On any issue i will be pursuaded one way or the other, but so far i have not been privy to one single atom of evidence that any of what could be described as Mumbo Jumbo exists.

You said it yourself "there is a lot of supersition" now that is true, sadly its everywhere like some horrific disease, and it may destroy us yet.

Fear is the key.

Cheers Wap

[Grover]

Fear is the key.

yes, fear of the unknown and fear of being wrong. enter faith.

[tijnebijn]

Interesting points being made about there being only one truth. This of course has to be the case. I believe that what I pursue is the one truth. However, perception has been mentioned many times, and we all perceive truth differently.

What I believe, has to hang together naturally, otherwise it would 'jar'. That said, not that many people who consider themselves 'spiritual' seem to consider the inconsistencies in what they believe.

At the end of the day we have been given the ability to believe what we want. I still say, despite believing what I believe, that you should be happy in what your beliefs are.

Why should there be only one truth ?

If you look at something and I look at it we can see something totally different.

Of course it is the same , but your truth what you see is true and mine as well.

The thing is, I think , is our own perception , does not mean it is all not true .

[Ave]

Fear is the key.

yes, fear of the unknown and fear of being wrong. enter faith.

I was waiting for us to come to this.. check this out http://members.shaw.ca/yofrizb/

so true! or...is it just my own perception..?

[kat]

Please read my quote above. Do not simplify me into a "believer" and yourself into "logic" simply because I am a female and you are male. If you can admit that the truth is bigger than you, then how will you always know who is sane and who is crazy? How will you know that you are "right" and I am "wrong", simply by dismissing that which you have not seen? Could it be, that someone with more experience with events that are unseen by the majority may have more experience with a larger portion of truth than you? Part of the mystery of life, is that no matter how advanced we become in science, technology, or even economics, not one of us can really prove or disprove the existence of a soul, or if there is life after death, or even what a person experiences at the time of death. On this we are left totally alone, with our own powers of observation, experiences, and gut instincts.

So, as far as I'm concerned, there's not one of us walking the Earth that is in any position of superior knowledge on this issue than any of the rest of us. This mystery is quite possibly the only real equalizer on the planet.

Hi Kat:

I might have phrased what I said poorly, but I did not intend to say there is a difference between a believer and logical person. In fact those that arrive at extra natural belief by a logic path might be a more convinced believer. What I was saying is that males are more likely to look to logic and reason, just because of the way they are wired. This is not a black and white statement, many females are logic dependant and many males make choices based on feeling. A believer is a believer; the most confirmed believers are those who have had an experience, a personal account of something that can't be explained away by natural law. Any one can fit into this category, but males might be more likely to talk themselves out of it, as it doesn't fit into an acceptable ideology when you are out with the boys. As for me, I feel science is directed by those who are fearful that there is more to our existence than the observable, hence they work very hard to contain their fear. The scientific community represents the most closed minded view, although they will tell it the other way.

As to (how will you know who is sane or crazy if the truth is so big?) I can't tell you who is sane or crazy, but I think those who are closer to truth have a reassurance that that there world is making sense. There is more peace when your experience fits your expectation. Experience however can also be a liar.

Yes, thanks for that explanation. It is much clearer. I agree with most of what you said. I'm intrigued: how can experience be a liar?

[canuckamuck]

Yes, thanks for that explanation. It is much clearer. I agree with most of what you said. I'm intrigued: how can experience be a liar?

Experience can be a liar because we often have too little experience to make a valid judgment. For example if the first three times you ate lunch at a certain restaurant you got sick, you would have a very strong belief that the restaurant served bad food. However it is possible that all three of those times there were random conditions unknown to you, that caused you to be sick; things that had nothing to do with the restaurant. It would probably be difficult for you to ever believe the restaurant was good.

Because we cannot see the whole picture, we make assumptions based on experience. Sometimes we are completley wrong. Experience is a guide but not 100% reliable.

I would love to explain more, but I have to fly to Sri Lanka tonight. Maybe in 10 days if this thread is still warm I will add some more.

Cheers

[Grover]

I'm intrigued: how can experience be a liar?

eg, when we see a spoon in a glass of water, the spoon may appear to be bent when it is actually straight.

[OxfordWill]

Im sorry for not using the proper quote function for this reply.

"OffordWill ... It is the belief that there is one absolute truth that has held back humankind for centuries. "

-- That may or may not be the case. I'd have to do a lot of reading to agree or disagree with that statement. However, it is entirely irrelevant to the truth value of the belief. Humans have many beliefs which prohibit progress of some kind or another which are in fact justified true beliefs.

"Multi-universe and string theory are already enjoying a steak or two off that particular sacred cow. Where is it written that there must be one absolute truth ... apart from religious texts?"

--I am not very good at physics, but I wonder if you and I mean the same thing by "absolute truth". Are you saying that these theories support the notion of truth being relative? That would be surprising to me, but then I am not knowledgeable when it comes to theoretical physics and it is so easy to misunderstand these complicated theories when one only has oneself as a teacher.

I think that a world with relative truth would, I think, look very different to the one we live in. Out of interest, as a truth relativist, do you think truth is relative for everyone? If so, does this not mean you believe in at least one absolute truth? But yet- are you not saying such a truth (an absolute one) cannot exist?

If not, and you are saying that relative truth is relatively true, then why should I accept what you are saying is right? If relative truth is only relatively true, then it will be true for some people (like you) and false for other people. What happens here is, you can never end the assertion, it is an infinite regress of "relatively.. relatively..relatively.."

I also don't understand the framing of your question. In this situation I am not concerned about whether something is written or not and nor should you be.

Kat-

I'm glad you are not a truth relativist, and it was interesting reading your thoughts on science. I am very much like you and probably go further than you do, I am highly suspicious of science in general. For me, I would feel very uncomfortable making any claims on this subject which were scientifically supported if that support was the only support I had. The only way, I feel, we can talk about truth, is via the force of logic. Logic and science are old enemies. All I will say about science, as I feel it relevant to this question, is that experiences can show us truth, but can just as quickly show us non-truth. It is not wise, I feel, to assume an experience is an insight into truth. Science does this too, but the reason we do not criticise science so heavily is because at least science makes an effort to replicate the experience-giving situation many times, to try and increase the odds of filtering out the true-experiences from the non-true-experiences. But it frequently fails to do this, just like many humans frequently mistakenly consider non-true-experiences to be true-experiences. To clarify, a non-true-experience is NOT an "experience which one does not actually experience". It is an experience one does experience, but an experience which "lies" to us or which we do not have the tools to properly understand.

"So, as far as I'm concerned, there's not one of us walking the Earth that is in any position of superior knowledge on this issue than any of the rest of us. This mystery is quite possibly the only real equalizer on the planet."

This is a nice, very emotionally acute, thing to say. But (you knew there would be a "but"), where two of us disagree on a question which can only have a true or false answer, one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong. I guess, maybe, you mean something special here by the word "knowledge". I guess what you really mean is "access to truth". For me, knowledge is a contested concept, but at any rate it is at least a justified belief. I think it is not right to say that some people don't have beliefs which are more justified than other people, since this would result in us all being identical.

For the public record, I have many beliefs. I am a big believer.

[kat]

"Experience can be a liar because we often have too little experience to make a valid judgment. For example if the first three times you ate lunch at a certain restaurant you got sick, you would have a very strong belief that the restaurant served bad food. However it is possible that all three of those times there were random conditions unknown to you, that caused you to be sick; things that had nothing to do with the restaurant. [/font]It would probably be difficult for you to ever believe the restaurant was good.

Because we cannot see the whole picture, we make assumptions based on experience. Sometimes we are completley wrong. Experience is a guide but not 100% reliable. )

I would love to explain more, but I have to fly to Sri Lanka tonight. Maybe in 10 days if this thread is still warm I will add some more."

Yes, I thought that's what you meant, CM. I am not in disagreement.

Following up on Will's post above, I would say he reflects my own views regarding science and experience. I think science is just a hypothesized version of experience and observation that is tested under controlled circumstances. However, even under the most pristine scientific process, there is no way that science can completely account for the myriad and simultaneous combinations of variables that are present in life.

So, yes, I agree Will and CM. I will be back to discuss more later

[Suszzy]

Myself I believe there are many things out there we can't explain,

that's so true!!

[Ave]

This is a nice, very emotionally acute, thing to say. But (you knew there would be a "but"), where two of us disagree on a question which can only have a true or false answer, one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong. I guess, maybe, you mean something special here by the word "knowledge". I guess what you really mean is "access to truth". For me, knowledge is a contested concept, but at any rate it is at least a justified belief. I think it is not right to say that some people don't have beliefs which are more justified than other people, since this would result in us all being identical.

Yes! This brings me to reflect on something I have been reading recently:

"One cause of people's misfortune today is that they confuse knowledge and wisdom..Knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge may serve as a door that opens the way to wisdom, but knowledge itself is definitely not wisdom. For example, reading many books on children rearing doesn't guarantee that someone can parent well. We are all equally liable to fall into the trap of pursuing knowledge for its own sake."

A lot of what scientists discovered and historians wrote in the past had been manipulated, strumentalised and distorted by the authorities for centuries and for this reason we have become a lot better at filtering and questioning information and notions that are being thrown at us nowadays.

My main belief lies in a philosophy that has the purpose of helping people become self-sufficient. A teaching that explains how people can develop themselves through their own effort and experiences. We cannot develop a truly profound state of life if we have a spirit of dependence on a specific science, mentor or by simply having very strict beliefs that do not take into consideration other beliefs.

I don't intend to ruin the relevance of this thread here..but..my point is not so much to find out whether women are more believers than men but that beside the fact that what we experience might be tangible, credible or not it has to have a constructive reason, a valuable purpose so that we can benefit and learn from such experience.

[suegha]

A good post though!

[DirkGently]

So! What is the verdict?

Is there something else or not? Are the non-beleivers missing out or are the beleivers seeing something that isn't there?

[suegha]

So! What is the verdict?

Is there something else or not? Are the non-beleivers missing out or are the beleivers seeing something that isn't there?

I don't think there should be a 'verdict'. Each person is entitled to their opinion. Some are believers (like me) and feel fulfilled. Some are non-believers and feel fulfilled. Each to their own!

However, back to the op, woman do seem to be 'more likely' to be believers.

[sbk]

So! What is the verdict?

Is there something else or not? Are the non-beleivers missing out or are the beleivers seeing something that isn't there?

I don't think there should be a 'verdict'. Each person is entitled to their opinion. Some are believers (like me) and feel fulfilled. Some are non-believers and feel fulfilled. Each to their own!

However, back to the op, woman do seem to be 'more likely' to be believers.

Excellent point suegha. Why does there have to be a resolution or solution to something that can only ever be variable due to the great differences in opinion human's always have?

Sounds like man thinking to me there

[canadiangirl]

Do you

This is partly due to a TV programme I caught today & partly due to an experience I had this week, so I thought it might be interesting to get other ladies' views.

I have always believed in the paranormal/unexplained/call it what you will. I"ve seen ghosts & had "strange" experiences ever since I was a young child. I have got used to being ridiculed however, so rarely mention it.

I've found, since being in Thailand, the "spiritual" side of life is more readily accepted & embraced, which is great, but I've also found that women (of all nationalities) are more likely to accept "there are more things in heaven and earth, (Horatio) than are dreamt of in your philosophy" than men, in most cases. Whether it be alternative therapies, psychics, ghosts, spirit guides, angels, intuition, reincarnation - I've found women just seem to accept the possibilities more.

Am I right or barking (up the wrong tree!!) ?

believe in those things that cannot be proved? If women are more open to possibilities beyond our knowledge, why is that? Do you have any inexplicable experiences to share?

A very interesting question, November Rain!

I can only answer for myself. I believe in intuition, maybe in reincarnation, but I rarely believe in alternative therapies, psychics, ghosts and most of the rest you mention.

Alternative therapies range from the ridiculous to the pretty good. I've had great results treating repetitive strain injury with shiatsu massage and yoga, where modern medecine by itself did almost nothing for me. But I'm pretty iffy about other therapies.

To me, there are two different realms of importance to human beings: knowledge and meaning, and they are very different things. I think that science can tell us a lot about knowledge (how does the universe works, etc) but it's not really equipped to comment on meaning -- how to live a good life, how to love, how to deal with death -- which to me relate more to matters of the heart and the soul. Knowledge is objective, but meaning is subjective, I think.

[suegha]

So! What is the verdict?

Is there something else or not? Are the non-beleivers missing out or are the beleivers seeing something that isn't there?

I don't think there should be a 'verdict'. Each person is entitled to their opinion. Some are believers (like me) and feel fulfilled. Some are non-believers and feel fulfilled. Each to their own!

However, back to the op, woman do seem to be 'more likely' to be believers.

Excellent point suegha. Why does there have to be a resolution or solution to something that can only ever be variable due to the great differences in opinion human's always have?

Sounds like man thinking to me there

Good point from you too there SBK. The 'man's thinking' comment is correct. I think that's why there are fewer male believers (in whatever) and women are more spiritual. Men want the 'perfect' solution to be logical and explicit, and belief is not always like this!

[OxfordWill]

You are only entitled to your opinion if the argument which formed that opinion in your head is deductively sound or inductively sound. All other types of opinion are bad, wrong, annoying and in many cases downright dangerous (Nazis, Fascists, Anti-gay, Anti-muslim, etc etc).

You have to really think about what it would mean to entitle everyone to their opinion. You would have to start listening and giving time/respect to all sorts of nonsense.

Im sure someone will reply saying "Well, Oxfordwill, you're entitled to your opinion!". Ha ha.

Edited September 10, 2007 by OxfordWill

[sbk]

You are only entitled to your opinion if the argument which formed that opinion in your head is deductively sound or inductively sound. All other types of opinion are bad, wrong, annoying and in many cases downright dangerous (Nazis, Fascists, Anti-gay, Anti-muslim, etc etc).

You have to really think about what it would mean to entitle everyone to their opinion. You would have to start listening and giving time/respect to all sorts of nonsense.

Im sure someone will reply saying "Well, Oxfordwill, you're entitled to your opinion!". Ha ha.

Well, I am sure that others would come up with some other criteria by which to deprive people of their opinions. What a shocking idea, giving time and listening to people you don't agree with. Imagine what disasters could happen to the world if we all did that?

[OxfordWill]

That's not what I mean. I'm also not talking about being polite, which is separately important. I'm talking about this word "entitled". I expect what is really meant by it, is "entitled to express", especially since we only hear the phrase "Well, you're entitled to your opinion" once someone has voiced it. But if you mean you are happy for people to think whatever they want so long as they don't try to express it, that's different. If you and I disagree, you think you are right and I think I am right. By sharing our different points of view, it is a possibility than one of us will change our view, or both of us will.

The converse of a "right" (ie. "entitled") is a "duty". So the minute you say "Everyone has a right.." you are also saying "Everyone has a duty.."

Now imagine an impressionable young child in a similar position, or any individual however strong minded they might be. Imagine they are in the poorer areas of London listening to a hate preacher or cleric spreading their hate-filled opinions. Or just in the pub listening to a racist old man (maybe who happens to be their father). Even the law doesn't let him express opinions which will incite violence etc. But according to you, we should all give his opinions the time of day and as much respect, out of some innate natural "entitlement" or "right" as we would each other.

How can you know if you agree or not until you listen to them? So obviously this is not me saying don't listen to people.

Im tired so I might not be explaining well. But surely you can see the problem with giving everyone the right to express whatever opinion they may have. When people say things, and people listen, it has a real effect and you cannot control who hears what opinions. The only solution is to educate people about how to think critically, but unfortunately we are a long way off that being an educational standard, although the Int. Bac. is doing it better than most.

I think this expression "everyone has a right to their opinions" is borne out of a fear that, if you do not attribute this right to others, one might not be listened to oneself. Noone wants to be ignored. But the truth it, most of us have opinions about things which we really should not have formed opinions about, thanks to how ignorant we are of what we talk.

And I ask again- if PersonA has the opinion that it's ok to kill black people just because they are black, and PersonB has the opinion it is not ok to kill black people simply because they are black, do you really think both people have equal rights to the opinions in question. Or maybe, does one person have more or less of a right to their opinion in that case (for example because, one opinion is more logical and convincing than the other)?

edit: My cousin interviews students for university courses and one of the questions they use to test the students thinking is to ask "does everyone have a right to their opinions?". The ones which answer "no" and back it up with the recognition that right to express = duty to listen, since otherwise rights cannot work, pretty much get put straight to the top of the admission lists

Edited September 10, 2007 by OxfordWill

[suegha]

Philosophical clap-trap! However, you are entitled to your opinion. I hope this proves the point!

[sbk]

Seems Oxfordwill doesn't know about the Bill of Rights. I am American and yes, I believe that people have the right to express their opinions. Google the ACLU and study up a little bit what they are trying to accomplish. They support the right of free speech regardless of how offensive that speech may be. Direct threats are obviously not opinions and should be acted upon by the authorities. But otherwise, no, OxfordWill, I do disagree with you. As is my right