Perhaps Humans Can Never Truly Understand One Another—The Limits of Coexistence Through the Lens of Christian Doctrinal Disputes
The other day, I watched a YouTube video explaining the conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism within Protestant Christianity.
As I understand it, the debate is broadly about how far God determines the conditions of human salvation and how much room remains for human free will.
To be honest, I have no interest in Christianity itself. Once the discussion gets into the finer points of theology, I can no longer tell exactly what people are arguing about.
Even so, I occasionally watch videos like this.
This time, too, I found what the debate revealed about human nature more interesting than the doctrine itself.
Perhaps human beings are ultimately incapable of understanding one another at the most fundamental level.
Sensible People Living in an Incomprehensible World
The Japanese commentators in the video spoke in a highly coherent manner.
They chose their words carefully and argued logically. They were mild-mannered. They appeared to be intelligent people with perfectly sound social judgment.
And yet, as I listened, I suddenly reached a point where I could no longer follow them.
Take, for example, the idea that God created the world.
Modern science holds that the universe began around 13.8 billion years ago and that Earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago. There is also an enormous body of scientific evidence for biological evolution.
Some Christian traditions, however, interpret the Bible literally and reject these scientific explanations.
Of course, not all Christians think this way. Some denominations accept evolution and modern cosmology. But the people in the video apparently took a fundamentalist position and interpreted the biblical account literally.
They seemed so sensible in ordinary conversation, yet the basic framework through which they understood the world was entirely different from mine.
It was as if we were looking at the same screen but running different operating systems.
The assumptions I considered self-evident meant nothing to them.
What is more, those assumptions may be among the most important foundations supporting their lives.
Debate Can Fail Even Between Logical People
What makes this difficult is that it is not simply a matter of being unable to communicate because the other person is irrational.
Even as an outsider, I could just about follow the logic of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. The problem was that they differed in the fundamental premises that came before the logic.
If I present scientific evidence while the other person regards the authority of the Bible as absolute, we will simply talk past each other.
Conversely, however carefully they explain the biblical text, it does not provide someone without faith like me with evidence that the account is factually true.
Both sides may explain their positions sincerely, yet the conversation will run on parallel tracks forever.
This is not limited to religion.
The same thing happens with political ideologies, interpretations of history, and views of life.
If opinions diverge halfway through a discussion, there may still be room to correct the disagreement. But if the starting points themselves are different, a gulf will remain no matter how many words are exchanged.
People do not always come into conflict because logic fails. Sometimes they clash precisely because each side is reasoning logically from a different set of premises.
The Harder We Try to Understand One Another, the More We Fight
Looking back through history, countless people have fought over differences in religion and ideology.
Each side tries to make the other acknowledge the truth it believes in.
At first, there is debate.
If the other side still refuses to change its mind, its very existence gradually becomes intolerable.
In the end, people reach for weapons instead of words.
Of course, differences of opinion do not inevitably lead to war. But there is no doubt that denying another person’s fundamental values and trying to force them to change can cause serious conflict.
Perhaps it is arrogant to assume that we can easily rewrite, with our own reasoning, the beliefs on which someone else has built their life.
The Secret to Coexistence Is Not Digging Too Deep
How, then, can people with different values coexist?
My answer is simple.
Engage with one another where mutual understanding is possible, and do not intrude on the core beliefs where it is not.
At work, talk about work. If you share a hobby, talk about that hobby.
Whatever religion someone follows or whatever political beliefs they hold, is it not enough if we can get along in everyday life?
We do not need to understand everything about one another or share the same values.
In fact, trying so hard to understand another person that we ultimately end up denying their beliefs may be far more dangerous.
People like to say that dialogue allows us to understand one another.
But I do not have that much faith in human beings.
Dialogue may help us understand another person, but it does not guarantee that we will agree with their ideas. And surely we can coexist even without reaching agreement.
Do not try to change the other person. Do not plan to change yourself, either. Even so, interact normally in the areas you can share.
It is a rather detached kind of relationship, but perhaps that degree of distance is just right.
Those were the thoughts I had while listening to this debate over Christian doctrine.
In the end, I still could not tell whether Calvinism or Arminianism was correct.
But there was one thing I did understand.
Humans have spent centuries debating the will of God, yet apparently we still cannot even agree among ourselves.