Well, "gift" might not be the best word but it fit the subject line.

I should say that it's more of a skill that can be developed and is instrumental in participating in productive discussions.

It's difficult for many to accept others' points of view and easy to become defensive of their own.

But if everyone is defensive and not able to at least try to let go, there is no discussion to be had, just shouting.

Thus, my favorite luminaries are quite broadminded and respectful of others' points of view.

Each of us is an expert in our own experience, and each experience is as valid as the next.

My apologies to any and all.

it's the ability to tolerate ambiguity and to think holistically rather than strictly in linear progression. Those are right-brain functions, and not everyone is equally willing to trust them. One of the manifestations of North Americans' original Puritan culture is an insistence on absolute dichotomies of right/wrong, true/false, fact/fiction, etc. That viewpoint is also highly emphasized by the hard sciences. That's where we get statements like "If you practice Religion A, then you necessarily believe that Religions B-Z are false." Not so, but apparently incomprehensible to some.

We teach young people that there is one right answer, it's at the end of the chapter or the back of the book.

Standardized testing and adopted curricula practically require this "one or the other" way of thinking.

Thanks for the kind reply.

about the educational system. I taught for many years, and found that one of the hardest things for my wrting and (particularly) my literature students to understand was that "any answer you can support from the text is a right answer."

Thirteen years of standardized testing had damn near destroyed their ability to think. Pulling them out of that quicksand was the hardest part of my job.

I think the author is proceeding from an assumption that religious belief is Fundamentalist in nature, i.e. the myths and tenets of the religion in question constitute literal, established fact. The author then compares belief in established religious fact with belief in empirically-derived fact, and then draws predictable conclusions.

For myself, I consider religious myths and writings to be symbolic and allegorical in nature. The cornerstone of religious belief is revealed truth, which is diametrically opposite (though not opposed!) to empirical fact - the first is presented as unquestioned, the second is the result of constant questioning. Two different ways of considering the cosmos that only come into conflict when religious belief claims to refute empirical fact.

It's pretty common for humans to hold a variety of mutually exclusive beliefs. I could explain the psychology behind why but I'd imagine you've read it before.

I would argue further that factual beliefs and religious beliefs have an important difference. While those of us who believe experience interaction with our deity in the form of personal gnosis, that experience is only valuable to the individual. While I could, say, write a book about my experiences with my deity, those experiences are filtered through my mind with it's own biases, experiences and infirmities.

Factual beliefs, on the other hand, can be held to be the same and can be reproduced by anyone.

that might be characterized as religious. I've taken to calling them non rational beliefs, because I do clearly understand that they are not completely rational, but I like to believe those things anyway.

One is an accepted body of evidence.

The other is the denial of evidence so XYZ faith (which is provably factually wrong) can be preserved.

Take that, established evidence!