When it comes to matters of beliefs and faith, god and existence, meaning and purpose, humans are in a conversation. Or I should say, some are in the conversation; some have taken themselves out. Those who are in have decided to keep asking questions, keep challenging their own beliefs, etc. Those who are out have decided to stop challenging their beliefs and stick to the ones they have. My point here is to encourage both those in and out of the conversation to respect each other.

We’re in a conversation because, when it comes to this topic, no human has ever known, or will ever know, anything for certain. Those still searching will need to honor and respect the dignity of those who are exercising their freedom to stop asking questions. It is nobody’s business what anyone else has chosen as their life philosophy, their worldview, their religion. It gives them satisfactory meaning and purpose to go on living with the hope and/or joy that they garner from their beliefs.

Those who would rather not have their beliefs challenged will need to honor and respect the dignity of those who are exercising their freedom to keep looking.

I think of the U2 song “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.” While Bono has not (or at least he hadn’t in 1987), many have found what they were looking for, or to be proper, that for which they were looking.

I will highlight two challenges to this mutual respect and amiable agreement to disagree:
1) Emotional attachment to the beliefs
2) A pressure to be right

If someone is really excited about their beliefs, it is natural that they would want to share them with those they love and those for whom they care deeply. Their beliefs provide them with strength, joy, hope and purpose, so much so that it is hard for them to imagine how anyone could attain such a high life without sharing these beliefs. Thus, there is an energy around the agreement to disagree that can have an unsettling effect on the truce and often the relationship.

If one’s beliefs constitute something like answers on an exam—an exam with substantial consequences—then an energy is created around the relationship that threatens the peaceful nature of the relationship.

The first challenge—emotional attachment to one’s beliefs—is understandable and tamable. Both parties can easily recognize the innocence of someone wanting to share good things with their loved ones. In fact, atheist Penn Gillette asks, “How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize?” It’s possible to actually interpret their attempt to convert you as a gesture of love. The desire to share things we love is a virtue and should not be squelched by the protagonist nor shamed by the antagonist. It simply must be acknowledged as real, as human, and met with understanding and compassion. However, both parties will need to keep their emotions in check in order to avoid harming the relationship. This is very doable and rather benign.

The second challenge—a pressure to be right—is much more serious and threatening to the relationship. Its potential to disturb the peace is directly related to the severity of the consequences. If the punishment for being wrong is severe and/or the reward for being right is invaluable, this is going to perpetuate tension between the parties and nullify any agreement to disagree.

So to answer the question, does religion have to be divisive? I would say yes and no. No, as long as the agreement to disagree is peacefully upheld by the more important bands that tie the relationship together. And yes, any religion that, by its own doctrines, creates a high-stakes pressure to be right, and is loaded with severe punishment for being wrong, will always be divisive to human relations. The agreement to disagree is not an option—you’re either right or wrong, and there’ll be hell to pay.