“I also think that “in acceptance comes understanding” is an incredibly stupid concept. So religion doesn’t make sense until you accept it?”

It IS a stupid concept if you think of that in terms of a scientific mindset and you have a firm grasp of the english language and all the vocabulary words at one’s disposal to communicate.

But I know from my studies, that when people speak in terms of spirituality or social harmony and the like, and they say, “acceptance promotes understanding”… I don’t think they’re trying to communicate that you will somehow be instantly taught the whys, wherefores, cause & effect issues of something through your acceptance of it.

In this context, they mean the word UNDERSTANDING = TOLERANCE.

In other words, literally, Acceptance promotes Tolerance. And this, I think, is a fair logical statement, and perfectly in line with what is generally known about psychology.

Like I said, this isn’t a very good usage of the english language to use the word “understanding”. But it IS the gist of most religious assertions that promote acceptance.

Of course the more fundamental dogmatic believers in whichever religions, or even in science or any other topic of study, will contort some quote or other, some slogan or other, to fit their agenda, regardless of how inaccurate or untrue.
And frankly, I personally think that’s what happened here with that little interchange. That’s my opinion.

But the original meaning of that assertion is true – acceptance promotes tolerance. I know this to be true because of my own practice, my own thoughts, and my own feelings.

BUT, I think there’s psychologically tendency for many people (at least among people that I have known), to STRONGLY DESIRE that understanding promote tolerance. Many people want that badly.
In that, if one could only understand why someone did something, it would be acceptable, and therefore tolerable. This strong desire keeps a lot of people stuck suffering, I think. It keeps people stuck in hope misplaced. Seeking answers they’ll never like, and maybe never believe. It keeps people stuck in putting up with crap. And then if left to fester in that stuck state, it leads to war – of one kind or another.

It’s why sociopaths/psychopaths are so frightening to many people – because the answer of “why” behind many heinous actions, just isn’t acceptable or even fathomable to most people. “Because I wanted to and it gave me pleasure”, for most people, just won’t be an understandable reason for committing heinous crimes. Yet there’s ample evidence it’s absolutely true of some people deemed sociopaths/psychopaths.
Which is why people get really riled in calling for punishment of them, they want revenge (war). It brings up very deep feelings. They feel the presense of evil.
Perhaps justifiably, I don’t suggest allowing known serial killers who’ve mass murdered to roam the streets freely. And I don’t suggest that it’s a desirable attitude by any stretch of the imagination.
However, non-acceptance, is not very logical, not for the survival of the many, and not for mental peace either.
It makes far more sense to accept that other people may be beyond your ability or desire to understand. And that acceptance can help you SAFELY tolerate people like that in the world. Not tolerate what they do, but tolerate that they exist.
First, by being more conscious and aware that there are people who operate and think differently, and protect yourself from them in whatever ways are reasonable considering the fact they do exist. And second, in not “taking it personally” – ie: this person wronged me/my fellow/society because they are fundamentally different from me in a way I don’t understand, not because they’re the same as me, think like me, so they must really hate me/my fellow/society and they must be evil… and therefore I am urged to war/resentement/mental discontent.

In this way, acceptance not only promotes tolerance. It’s actually a viable intellectual reasonable rational method of approaching the world of SOCIETY.

Does this concept/method work in “hard science”? I don’t know that there’s any parallel or not. And it’s irrelevant in this discussion, I think.
Because whoever first asserted the concept of “acceptance promotes tolerance” was definitely talking about practical matters of human interaction and mental ease, and at the time of conceiving the concept, probably NOT AT ALL concerned with the geology of mars, the chemical make-up of human blood, string theory, possible dimensions in the fabric of the cosmos, nor the effects of electricity through conduits. It is concerned with the practical matters of human interaction and personal peace.

That’s not to say there’s no advantage to acceptance – and moreover leaving go of attachment, in the scientific process. Just as some people’s attachment to Earth at the center kept them from believing Galileo’s observation, scientists, too, can become too attached to some theory or whatever, be unwilling to accept (and therefore unable to see) new evidence, and therefore remain stuck. It’s not unheard of. Human failings can befall most humans at some point or another, so it’s best not to judge too harshly.

How else could someone possibly “make sense of things” if not on their own terms? Do you mean that what you are saying only makes sense to you, but others should accept it anyway, even if it’s nonsensical to them?

I don’t understand…

I also think that “in acceptance comes understanding” is an incredibly stupid concept. So religion doesn’t make sense until you accept it? That’s like saying “X doesn’t make sense unless you accept that X is true” – of course X is true when you have defined it as such!

Insulting others isn’t a very good argument form either.

Chimpanzees ‘hunt using spears’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6387611.stm

Yes. It’s highly intuitive to imagine a dualistic mind-body, or physical-spiritual system, so it makes all kinds of “sense” to us to imagine that we are eternal beings that exist temporarily in finite bodies.

However, there’s just no evidence for that to be true. It’s sort of like how it’s intuitive to think that the sun revolves around the earth, or that everything in nature had a “designer.” From our perspective, all that makes sense!

One problem: it’s all wrong.

There is some great work being done now in terms of studying consciousness – how it arose, whether other species have it, etc. Certainly the large primates, dolphins and elephants have some amount of self-awareness, which is interesting.

Epiphanist, poem isn’t the ideal argument form. Do you have anything to say? If so, please say it in cleartext.

Not so. Love is no secret.

http://epiphanist.wordpress.com/self-portrait/secret/