A Conversation about religion and christianity - Ignorance and Self-Deception: What's the harm?

For those who like to read:  Back in June, I posted the following comment to my facebook page.  I tagged several of my friends in it, three or four who I know to be atheists/skeptics, and three or four I know to be christian, to solicit some conversation with them about the point I was making.  The comment I made was in response to a recent statement President Obama made, comparing Republicans in Congress to the Flat Earth Society.

I thought this was a great example of the kind of self deception we are all  susceptible  to if we do not guard against it, even me.  Especially me...


In response to being tagged in that post, one of my friends replied with the following comment to me:

I responded with the following comment:

After those two comments, I noticed I was no longer able to tag her in facebook posts (she must have changed her settings), so I sent her the following message to ensure she saw the comments I was posting in response to her, and also to ensure she understood where I was coming from:

She responded to that by sending me the following message:

I decided to move the discussion here for two reasons: 1.  Facebook is good for sharing articles and short, snappy comments, but it's an extremely poor venue for real discussion.  This forum allows me as much space as I require, and allows me the ability to format what I have to say, and a better way to provide links to what I'm talking about.  Anyone who knows me knows that references, sources, and context is very important to me, and I like to be able to those using links, and my weblog allows me to do that.  2.  I really value this kind of discussion, and I wanted to preserve it so I could re-read it, refine my points over time, and share ideas with others by linking them to this article.

The following is my response to the last message she sent me, posted above:

"The way you have approached this "feels" malicious to me"

Believe it or not, I do appreciate your point of view, even if I do not share it. I appreciate it because I appreciate you. I value your point of view, only because I value you. You are correct, the tactic I choose is not always edifying, uplifting, and nurturing. It is often critical, suspicious, skeptical, even cynical at times. That fact does not say anything about my motives.

In my life, when I feel defensive about something, I use that as a red flag that gets my attention and prompts me to look at myself and examine why that circumstance would/could provoke that defensive reaction in me. 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. There is a great weblog that I enjoy reading and in one of the articles he writes about someone who comes out to his parents as an atheist, and their defensive reaction to what he told them. In that discussion, he relates this analogy:

-----
Let’s consider, as we so often do, an analogy. Everyone I’ve ever known my whole life has always told me that when I drop something, it will fall down. I have always believed that gravity is real, and while my understanding of gravity has grown slightly more refined as I’ve gotten older (to incorporate special circumstances such as one’s apparent weightlessness while in orbit or in a zero-g aircraft, which I have been taught to interpret as the subject falling at the same rate as their environment), it has always been a fundamental part of my understanding of the world around me. I honestly don’t know how I would conceive of the physical world and its phenomena without
gravity existing. Now let’s suppose someone comes to me and says, “NFQ, I have to tell you something: I don’t believe in gravity. I just don’t think it’s real.” How am I likely to react?  

I might laugh, or if I were able to keep it together, stifle some laughter. I would certainly be surprised. I would also be sad that this person’s scientific literacy is so poor. But would I get defensive about it? I highly doubt that. What would I even be defensive about? Someone else’s ignorance, which doesn’t impugn me in the slightest? The idea hardly makes sense. Even if someone wanted to argue with me, to try to convince me to stop “believing in gravity,” I wouldn’t be offended — mostly just amused, and eventually bored.
-----

It's so much different with religion because not only can a person not defend irrational religious belief, often times their ties to family/community, their self esteam, and their sense of self are tied to their religion.

Imagine for a second that I suggested to you the earth is the center of the universe, and that everything else in the universe revolves around it. Of course you know that's a foolish idea. You have been taught about the immense amount of replicable, peer reviewed evidence to the contrary. You would probably think I was ignorant and that I should keep that sort of irrational belief to myself. I submt you'd be right about that. Now imagine, I was spouting off that nonsense (really, it is nonsense, isn't it?) in public, like in the hall way outside your class room, or on my facebook page. If you cared about me at all, even a tiny little bit, wouldn't you have some obligation, however slight, to say something to me about the ignorant shit I had been saying? Would you not challenge me on any of it?

Imagine for a moment that it was my sincere belief that Jews were like a plague on the earth and should be treated by the government as less than human. 

Do I have a right to that irrational belief? Absolutely! 

Do I have a right to speak my mind in public about that? You bet I do. 

Do I have a right to be free from criticism for making statements like that in public. No way! 

Even if those ideas are based in my religion? Absolutely! 

No topic is offlimits. Nothing is sacred. If anyone makes statements/comments in public (public = within ear shot or within sight of someone else, or on facebook, for example), they should be challenged on those statements, and they should be prepared to back them up. If it shouldn't be criticized, it shouldn't be said in the first place.

"Keeping religion immune  from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous."  -Lawrence Krauss

Of course, you'll probably respond to that as most christians would by saying, "you're analogy doesn't work because you're comparing apples and oranges."  

No, I'm not.  What I'm doing is using an example that is so abusrd that the conclusion is obvious to both of us to illistrate the point of a similar situation where the answer may not be so obvious.  It's called using the absurd to demonstrate absurdity, a slight deviation of Reductio ad absurdum.

You might say, "ok, I'll concede that christians suspend logic in order to embrace faith, just to shut you up." You may also stipulate that if something is said in public, it's not protected from being challenged or even ridiculed. You would probably then suggest, "So what?? What's the harm? Who am I harming by suspending logic and clinging to a 2000 year old religion written by people who could not read or write, who believed the earth was
flat?"

My answer is there are several ways that harm is being done.

1. Christians being public about thier religious ideas, values, etc, when not publically challenged on those ideas, values, etc give the impression (they love it when you get this impression) that these are common ideas and values, and in order to be part of the larger group, in order to not feel like an outsider or a wierdo, you must share these ideas and values. Most people have a desire to be accepted by their community, and christianty and
islam superbly exploits that need we have in order to suck you into the religion.

2. Religious moderates provide financing and political cover for religious fundamentalists. From muslims flying planes into buildings, to christians bombing abortion clinics, to priests molesting the children they are supposed to be protecting, the moderates who sit in church every Sunday, pay their tithe into the churchs coffers, and prosteletyze the church's message, enable the fundamentalists to commit their crimes and to operate with impunity.

3. U.S. Public policy is made is made based on these delusions. Laws ranging from the prohibition of government funding for embryonic stem cell research, to laws restricting abortions, to laws prohibiting homosexual sex are based on a single set of religious values, but apply widely to everyone regardless of religion. How is that possible in a country that is supposed to have a seperation of church and state? It's because in order to be successful in ANY national election, and most local elections, the voters must believe you are a christian, just like them. It's a litmus test even liberal candidates, like Barack Obama, must pass in order to get elected. My suspicion is, like many christians, Obama doesn't really believe half of the religious crap he says. He has to say it if he's going to become president, if he's going to be re-elected as president, and if he wants to achieve his political goals as president. He has to look and sound like a christian, even if he really doesn't believe any of it.

"This is where IM 100% completely the opposite of rational people."

Would you concede that something that is 100% opposite of rational, is irrational? Why would you want to be irrational about anything? 

 Take your husband for example. Imagine for a second that your husband wearing his
shoes inside the house made you irrationally angry, and you recognized it as irrational. Would you recognize that as being a problem, or would you suggest being irrationally angry about that was not a healthy, not a reasonable state of being? Why would being irrational about something else not also be an unhealthy, unreasonable state of being?  

Why would you stubbornly insist on being irrational?  What would you think of someone who stubbornly insisted on being an alcoholic?  Is it legal?  Yes.  Is it fun?  Possibly, at times, but why would anyone stubbornly insist on it?  Illness.  Could illness be the answer.  One, more serious and potentially harmful than the other but in both cases, the illness results in self deception.

"That being said, your approach Does not come off as genuine curiosity or openness. The way it reads to me is that your goal is to out-prove, outwit, and out- rationalize anybody that may disagree with you. It does not seem to me a genuine desire to understand somebody's blind belief."

That may be because I was a christian myself for so many years of my life, and I've been an atheist discussing christianity for so many years of my life, that there is very little christians could come up with that I haven't previously heard/considered. Being intimately familiar with the bible and with christianity (especially fundamentalist christianity, and being a person who contantly reads about the subjects of atheism and christianity, I think it's safe to say I do understand blind belief. I've suffered from it myself. 

When someone is able to make a compelling argument, present compelling evidence, provide a new way of looking at things, I stop and take notice. I consider it. I ask questions about it. I try to understand it from all angles. I discuss it with other people. I google it. I search for it on youtube. I check it out at the library and watch for it in magazines and weblogs. But when people constantly spew the same tired recycled arguments I've been hearing for decades, and used to make myself, I can see why you watching me discuss something with someone
woudn't get the impression that I'm digging for answers.

I wonder why, instead of examining my motives, why you wont examine the information... Why do you refuse to be curious? Why you insist that faith is more valuable to you than reason. Religion, more useful than facts. It just perplexes me why a beautiful, intelligent, educated woman such as yourself refuses to seek to understand that religion from all angles, not just from the pretty side that is given to you by the church leaders. Why such an
intelligent woman refuses to acknowledge and seek answers about the inconsistencies and contradictions in both logic, and evidence, before deciding to cling to a religion that rejects science, literacy, curiousity and learning.

It feels as if you are trying to change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to provoke you to think. I'm trying to encourage you to think critically. To understand and evaluate the evidence, independently of what the bible says, or what church leaders tell you, or what your gut tells you. I don't care if you're a christian, or a muslim, or a budhist, or an atheist. All I care about is that you think, and that you think critically. Dana, WHAT you think isn't important. What's important is HOW you think.  As the late Christopher Hitchens wrote and enjoyed saying often, "'views' do not really count; that it matters not what you think but how you think".  My favorite example that Hitchens used to illustrate this point is the story about Fr.Georges Lemaître talking to the Pope about the big bang, and when the pope suggesting that should become a pronouncement by the vactican as a revelation from god.  Lemaitre asked him not to, according to Hitchens, because it's not what you think that's important, it's how you think.  

What is measured, and what is proven does not, and will never mean more to me then what my intuition or my gut or my feelings tell me.

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone thought like that... We used to you know. Everyone used to operate exactly like that, but gut feelings and intuition. We refer to that period in our history as the dark ages. When we believed the earth was flat, and doctors widely believed bleeding sick patients would drain illness and evil spirits from their bodies and help them heal. These days doctors and scientists and managers of successful businesses use information, evidence, and data to come to conclusions and make decisions. Why do you suppose they do that? Why do you supposed doctors use evidence and successful business managers use  financial  data instead of gut feelings or intuition to make their decisions?

Do you really believe we would have ever walked on the moon if we hadn't started using evidence and data to make decisions? Do you really believe we would be as successful at curing/treating serious medical conditions, and be so close to a cure for AIDS if we still treated patients using superstition and intuition instead of evidence and data? If you do not (and I seriously hope you do not), what does that say about the method of decision making you have chosen? Do you wish to be successful in your endeavors, or would you rather be one of the last doctors using leaches to cure someone of an infection that antibiotics would quickly heal?


Just think about that for a moment. Put aside the christian vs atheist stuff for a second and consider that. You have two choices for making good decisions. You can measure something, you can ask questions, seek out evidence, attempt to understand the problem from all angles and consider all options, or you can rely on your gut feeling.

Now say again what you just told me a moment ago and tell me that still makes sense to you... "What is measured, and what is proven does not, and will never mean more to me then what my intuition or my gut or my feelings tell me."

Ok, so if you were arrested for committing a horrible crime that you were not guilty of, and you are now sitting in front of a jury who is charged with determining your fate. They will decide whether you did commit this crime or not. 

 What kind of decision making process would you like them to employ? Would you want them to consider the DNA evidence? Would you want them to insist the ballistics of the gun recovered at the crime scene was tested for fingerprints? Would you want a expert blood splatter analyst to demonstrate how the crime happened the way the prosecution says it did? Would you want the jury to seriously evaluate the evidence, or would you rather they just use their intution and go with their gut feeling?

Please explain to me how a person as intelligent and educated as you can bring hear themself say "What is measured, and what is proven does not, and will never mean more to me then what my intuition or my gut or my feelings tell me" without having any alarms or red flags raised in their head alerting them to a possible problem with that statement?

if I perceive something to be my truth, than it is my reality. I don't call that self-deception. I call that seeking my own truth.

That right there my dear is what most doctors and educators call "rationalizing."  

Rationalize:  V.  to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes: He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.

even if you you do want to call it self-deception, which you do

It's not that I call it that... Who cares what I call it, I'm a nobody. Listen to what Michael Shermer has to say about self deception.   Here is an interesting article about a study that was done on self-deception.  

what doesn't matter to you if I am happy in my ignorance? It doesn't make a difference in your world. It doesn't affect you in any way.

You are wrong. It makes a difference in my world because I live in the same world you do. You vote for politicians that create legislation that becomes laws I have to live by. You give money to the churches that have an enormous amount of influence and power in the world I live in. You educate children who are going to grow up to become the leaders of the country my children will live in. 

 Do you really not see a connection in the way your religion motivates your actions, and the way your actions affect your neighbors?   We're not talking about you deciding to smoke a little weed in the privacy of your own home, or enjoying homosexual sex.  Ignorance has a huge impact on everyone around us, usually manifesting itself socially and legislatively, but also in very subtle ways.   Please read what Sam Harris says about the need to speak out against religious ignorance in our society.

There is no way to completely escape ignorance.  We're all ignorant of some things, many things in fact.  But the desire to dig your feet in and relish being ignorant instead of being willing to consider and analyze new information, or information that may conflict with our current point of view is fascinating, isn't it?  Why would anyone want to remain ignorant about anything?  Could illness be the answer?  Possibly.  I submit no one wishes to be ignorant.  I think it's more probable your question is a straw man.  You really don't believe you are ignorant, do you?  More importantly, in order for you to ask that question, you really must believe there is no way you could possibly be wrong.  So a better way to attack this question is probably to ask yourself, is there literally no chance you could be wrong?  With an eye toward avoiding self deception, do you really believe that out of more than 10,000 gods mankind has chosen to worship over his 100,000 years on this planet, that you've chosen one of those gods as the only legitimate god, and there is  absolutely  no way your choice was incorrect.   Everyone else on a planet of over 7 billion people, most of which are not christian by the way, and hundreds of billions that have  preceded  them, who chose not to embrace your choice of the only legitimate deity, are wrong?  How is that possible?

The truth is the reason you happen to be a christian is almost entirely dependent on the facts of when, and where you were born.  Had you been born in the middle east instead of North America, you would almost certainly be a muslim.  Had you been born in India, Muslim or Hindu most likely, possibly Sikh.  Had you been born in North America 500 years ago instead of the 20th century, you would certainly not be a christian.  When you look at it like that, it's obvious that you being a christian is due to random events.

So, not only have you correctly chosen an answer that tens of billions or hundreds of billions of other people have gotten wrong, but your making that choice was based on events that were totally random.  Wow!  Do you play the lottery?

I'm saying that it's personal, because it is.

No sweetie, masturbation is personal. Your religion is quite public. How is it I've never heard you talk about masturbation, but I know exactly what your religious views are? I have no idea if you do masturbate, if you've ever tried it or not... I have no idea if you perform oral sex for your husband or not, or if you've ever experimented with anal sex. Now that's personal. 

Why is it I know you're a christian and not a jew? You could be a mormon, but I know you're not. Your religion is only personal when you feel like you're being challenged on it or when you feel like it's being questioned. Otherwise, I bet you're quite happy to talk about it, to offer prayers, to ask for prayers, or even to lead a lost soul to Jesus....

If my belief in Christ helps me get through my day, without wanting to blow my head off, then I should be able to believe that without having to justify that to you.

You don't have to justify anything to me, and you can believe anything you want to...  But how can you block out all dissenting opinion?  How can christians cut off any discussion of the claims they make, while making good use of their "freedom of speech?"  What is the point of making those comments/claims in public if you're going to choke off any discussion of them?


Hitchens put it beautifully while talking about Socrates being executed for making the same kind of challenges to christianity that I have made in this discussion.  This kind of conversation (one that explores the truths and the beauty of our reality) is the only kind of conversation worth  having.  I couldn't agree more.

Speaking of Socrates, I guess I have it pretty good.  I only face the danger of being de-friended on facebook, but Socrates was executed because christians cannot allow any discussion of the merits of christianity if those discussions might expose it for what it really is.  There is a huge list of people who've suffered for similar reasons.  Gallileo was imprisoned by the inquisition for writing a book in which he ever so subtly agreed with Copernicus's observations of the universe.  That's all it took to offend christians in 1632 and end up thrown in prison, or worse.  Even in our modern age, I have even lost a really good job when the boss found out I was an atheist....  Oh the shame of not being a sheep, blindly following a 2000 year old religion created by people who couldn't read or write.  The shame!!  Anyway, back on track....

perhaps that is a bad way to live, but it is who I am. I don't want my faith challenged.

Well you're in good company.  Pope Urban VIII couldn't stand that shit either.  But lets put that logic in another context and see if it makes sense...  


Lets try this:  "perhaps that is a bad way to live, but I don't want my drug addiction challenged."  

or how about:  "perhaps that is a bad way to live, but I don't want my desire to shoplift challenged."

If you really cared about me, and you heard me say that, how would you respond?

I want people to say, "well, she's not perfect, but she does her best to do what is fair, kind, and reasonable. She cares about others, and she is doing the best she can."

Is it reasonable for a person to demand their irrational and faulty thinking not be challenged? Is it fair that a person often makes religious statements, and talks to someone they call god, but wont allow anyone to discuss any of those statements, or the fact they talk to "god", unless that discussion is guaranteed not to challenge or question any of the irrational ideas or faulty thinking? Are you really doing your best, or have you given up control, and with it, responsibility and accountability, to someone/something else, and breathed a heavy sigh of relief that burden has been lifted from your shoulders?

Even bigger than all of that though is the fact that you have a very textbook definition. (as in the bible) of 
what Christianity is. Your definition does not allow any sort if flexibility, and is constrained by these absolutes. you keep using labels and insist on a flow chart sort of classification system. If "a" is yes then it goes in this box. If "a" is no, it goes in that box. I can call myself a Christian, but I don't feel the need to check off every single little box on the bible's exhaustive list of tenants of the Christian faith. In order for it to resonate for me, in this day and age, zillions of years after the bible was "written", I have to take what resonates for me, and leave what doesn't behind. I don't feel like I have to fit into a mold to be a Christian.

Yeah, I'm with you!  What on earth does the bible have to do with christianity anyway??  Oh I get it. I am very familiar with the concept of the "cafeterian christian." The christian who picks and chooses what parts of the bible they like, and tosses the parts they don't like. That's one of the hallmarks of the religious moderate. Islam has theirs too... Yes, Islam is a religion of peace... Never mind the book that I believe is the absolute word of the prophet mohamed, peace be with him, inspires people wage holy war against my country and fly planes into buildings, I don't believe in any of that... I just believe in the other parts of the
Koran. The fun parts. Oh I don't believe accept everything the bible says... I only like the parts that make me feel good! You know, love thy neighbor and honor thy parents, and don't steal and all that stuff. I know, I know, I could still have that kind of morality and not be a christian, but I like being a christian... What? The bible instructs you to beat your wife? Yeah that's one of the parts I just toss out. You know, it's not like it's the word of god or something... Don't be silly.

In all seriousness, how can you really call yourself a christian, if you don't believe the bible is the literal inspired word (2 Tim 3:16) of an all knowing (Job 37:16), all powerful god (Rev 19:6) who counts every hair on your head (Mat 10:30), and desires to have a personal relationship with you (Jam 2:23).  A desire so strong, he created a son to send to earth (John 3:16), born to a virgin (Mat 1:18, Luke 1:26-35), who ended up living a sinless life (2 Cor 5:21) and giving up his life as a  sacrifice for you (Rom 4:25) so that your loving god wont sentence you to an eternity of horrible punishment (Rom 6:23, Rev 20:14-15) because you are a horrible person incapable of not committing sins against him (Rom 3:23).  Thanks alot Adam (Rom 5:12) and Eve!!  

That's kind of the point, right?  You call yourself a "christian" or a little christ because you want to be "christ like" and because you believe being a christian means you have confessed with your mouth and you believe in your heart that your god  resurrected  christ from the dead  (Rom 10:9).  

If you really don't believe that, wouldn't that be like me calling myself a football player, even though I don't have a uniform, don't like to run or get hit, I've never thrown or catched a ball, and don't particularly like the smell or feel of pig skin, but dam it, I'm a football player!  Who has time to worry over details like that?

Assuming you do believe that, how did you come to that belief if not through the bible?  If it was through the bible, how did you choose to believe those parts of the bible, but not the other parts?  How does one who believes they are sinful and flawed, take a book they believe to be written by, or at least inspired by, an all powerful, all knowing god and decide to toss out sections of it as not relevant or not accurate?

I wonder if the reason you insist on calling yourself a christian, even though you say you really don't believe in christianity at all, is because you want to have benefits of being a member of a particular social group, but do not want to experience the costs of really being a member of that group, so you say stuff like that and hope no one is paying enough attention to catch the  inconsistency.  More Information   

I have spent my entire life trying to fit into a box that pleases everyone else and I have discovered that it 
is an  impossible to do. So I can't  worry about that anymore. That's it. 

I'm not asking you to fit into anything. That's what christianity calls you to do. I'm asking you to think.  That's what the leaders of your church would rather you not do. I'm asking you to discuss, and to consider new information. To evaluate information, and re-evaluate old ideas and assumptions. I'm asking you to to use the wonderful brain you have, and the gift of a terrific education you've been given, to think for yourself and come up with your own religion instead of recycling that tired dog most people call christianity. If, after honest, thoughtful consideration of the evidence, after applying critical thinking skills, your knowledge of science, and all the reason and rationality you can muster, you decide that god has called you to fly air planes into buildings in the name of Jihad, I'd be satisfied. But I know that if you allowed any amount of science into the equation at all, if you allowed any amount of reason, rationality, logic, or critical thinking to be part of the decision making process, there's no way you'd do that. There's no way you'd condone praying over a sick child instead of taking them to the doctor. There's no way you'd sit in church and let priests tell you what a sinner you are, and how much you to sit in a confessional and ask them for absolution of your sins,  after they have just come from molesting the young sons of their parishoners.

There's no way you'd support or claim as your own a religion that has slaughtered millions of people in the name of your god, and continues to disenfranchize women and gays, exploits the poor, or claims to offer a reward for you after you die in exchange for enslaving yourself to it for the rest of your life.

But honestly when I look at your comments about Obama, about self-deception, and about "Christianity" , and I see the condescending attitude you have towards them, it doesn't look like that was your intention.

The criticism you've offered is well taken, but please consider the context of what we're talking about here.  The post you responded to was in response to remarks the president made about Republicans in Congress rejecting sound science on climate change.  He called them "flat earthers" referring to people who, in-spite of clear evidence to the contrary, have decided to "believe" the earth is indeed flat, and not round, as all those dam scientists have claimed for all these years.

Talking about climate change, the president I voted for twice said, “The question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements, has put all that to rest, So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late.”  He referred to people who reject the science he just mentioned saying, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”The president was right about climate change. Science is much more reliable than political agendas when it comes to steering us away from an ecological and economic disaster caused by climate change. Data and measurements are much more reliable than "gut feelings" or "intuition" I agree with him 100%. But I am perplexed how he can be so keen an observer of irrationality and faulty thinking when we're discussing climate change, yet he continues to
support, both by publically claiming the name and by financially supporting, a religion that prides itself on rejecting science. 

Christianity rejects physics, yet here is Obama using physics to explain why his public policies are better for us than those of the GOP. Christianity, as you said earlier, prefers faith and belief over evidence and reason. It requires obedience instead of curiousity, agreement instead of debate. 

The comment I made in June that got you so upset in September wasn't even a critique of christanity, as much as it was a critique of Obama clinging to christianity when it benefited him, but relying on science when he needed it. He doesn't even seem to make the connection that the flat earth society's irrational belief that he criticizes so  eloquently  was imposed and enforced by the religion he publically claims and financially supports. How on earth can a person as intelligent and educated as him so clearly criticize his own religion and not even realize it?  It's unbelievable. That was the point I was trying to make.

I don't think understanding comes from trying to disprove anything that is said that is in opposition to your own perspective.

I don't think a person truly understands an issue if they can't convincly argue both sides. I can argue passionately, convincely both sides of the gun control debate... Capital punishment, abortion, climate change.

Don't take my word for it, call me on the phone and try me. Any of the topics I care about, I can argue both sides of. That's because in order to have an educated, informed opinion on any subject, you must be  knowledgeable  of that subject from all angles, from all perspectives, and how are you to gain any information of other perspectives if you live in a bubble, surrounded only by back slappers who tell you how right you are and how
awesome you are all the time; if talking to anyone you know sounds like an echo chamber.... Discussion, debate, reading, analyzing, considering, contemplating... All of add to understanding.

Don't you encourage your students to discuss things and debate things? Why would you do that if discussing and debating and arguing important topics didn't lead to anything positive?

No, you don't really believe that doesn't lead to anything positive.  You don't really believe that arguing a particular position indicates a lack of empathy, or an inability to experience empathy.  If you don't really believe that, what was that comment about?  Was that another instance of rationalizing?

by asking questions that in such a way that demonstrates respect for their beliefs, no matter how different they are from yours.

That's right, because everyone's beliefs are equally legitimate, regardless of how irrational or unreasonable they may be, or how disgusting or perverse they may be, isn't that right?  Everyone's beliefs should be respected right?

No I disagree with that.  I don't agree the belief that blacks are an inferior race and should be treated as 3/5 of a person should be respected.  I have absolutely no respect for a person who believes it is ok to harm a child or beat on their spouse.  I don't agree that the belief of the people in the Salem area of  Massachusetts  in the 1600's that lead to young girls being burned alive after being accused of being witches is worthy of my respect.  I don't believe any of my respect is deserved for a religious ideology that leads Scott Roeder to enter a church in Kansas and shoot George Tiller, or a religious ideology that inspires a U.S. Army Officer to shoot and kill American soldiers preparing to deploy to Afghanistan.

I don't agree the belief of fundamentalilst muslims that it is their duty to wage war against infadels, including killing women and children deserves to be given respect.

I don't agree that I should respect the beliefs of a person who rejects science, the evidence of evolution, the evidence of the origin of our solar system, and insists they know better than my wife and I and our doctor whether a pregnancy should be terminated, or that they know better than I do whether I should be in love with a woman or whether I should choose another man as my lover.

I don't agree with the suggestion there is something wrong with me if I don't respect the beliefs of a person who sits in church every sunday and fills the collection plate while listening to a service performed by a person who uses their position to victimize children, or continues to support a church that protects child predators and allows/enables them to continue victimizing children.

Yeah call me intolerant if you like, overly reliant on logic and reason...  I'll wear that with pride.

The truth is I really don't care what you decide you "believe."  All I care about is the process by which that determination is made, and my arguments and criticism  are designed to provoke critical thought, examination, and curiosity.  They are designed to provoke discussion.

I sincerely hope you don't delete me from your friends list, or even keep me on your friend list and completely ignore me like my good friend Chad does.  I really hope you'll remain my friend, continue discussing things with me, sharing the things we agree on, and engaging on things we disagree on, and by all means, challenge me on what I have to say.  I am open to criticism. 

--- Update 9/28/13---

             
             Religious experience is natural product of the brain