I really enjoyed reading this article. I agreed with perhaps 2/3rds of it.

For one thing, simply believing that something is true, does not make it true. Agreed. However, just because there are contasting beliefs on a matter does not mean that none can be absolutely correct.

If person A and B have a different opinion on issue C, perhaps A is correct, perhaps B is correct, perhaps both are partially correct, and perhaps neither is correct (correct me if I've missed out a few possibilities here). But the thing is, it is possible for at least one of these people to be [even absolytely] correct.

Belief does not make something true, but it is possible to believe something that happens to be true. If the only reason you believe something is purely for the fact that you believe it, then yes, you should have a lot of humility in talking about your point of view. But I don't think a lot of people operate like that. Most people will seem to believe something almost innately, whether due to nature or nurture, and then look up for "evidences" to back up their belief system. I think very few people are truly unbiased. But I also think, the more you are willing to look into reasonable, rational reasons to defend what you believe, the more of a right you have to try and convince others likewise (so long as you graciously allow them to try and convince you of their point of view as well).

I like your idea that all people are equal regardless of their belief system. Totally agree. But that doesn't mean all belief systems are equal.

Also, one minor squibble, I didn't like the generalisations you made about females. Whether in my favour or not, I don't like my opinions/attitudes/behaviours to be judged on the basis of my sex.

One more thing. Australia is a polycultural society (multicultural has had too many political references of late). That means we are welcoming more and more people from different belief systems. These people are mingling and teaching/learning from others. As I mentioned on another forum, most of my Gen Y friends who converted to Christianity have non-Christian parents. So I think the nature/nurture debate will become more and more irrelevant in the future as we're exposed to lots of different points of view. People will just decide for themselves.

Thank you Chris - but I doubt that too many will take note of your thesis.

Reality is a social construct - my reality would have been constructed by the environment into which I was born whether in Ethiopia or Australia, whether a male or a female - my life would have been charted from that moment - an accident of history.

Perhaps Chris could have explored a little more deeply given the title of his essay - opinion, or our 'world view', is delivered much by experience but is also tempered by what we might hope given our personal experience.

In other words, a starving male orphaned shortly after birth in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan might likely be led by the circumstances of what is on offer - not much other than a slave for the local warlord - well he has to keep alive and has no education.

And for those who might disagree you might explain how you would have survived.

Chris says -

"In order to advance as an intelligent, functioning society, we need to cherish our strongly held personal worldviews and be prepared and able to shout them from the rooftops if need be - but always with a touch of radical doubt, knowing that there is no chance we alone can have got it right. It is lack of humility that leads so many to absolutist positions and general intolerance of others."

There lies a fundamental problem - those who hold strong personal worldviews within the roofshouting category are most unlikely to hold any radical doubt. Is it really an issue of lack of humility or is it more an issue of the nature of the human condition? Why are there so many beliefs and worldviews - often contradictory? Why is it that people who believe strongly in an issue cannot usually be persuaded to change their minds? It is not so much an absence of humility as it is the need to believe strongly in something bigger, better and beyond ourselves.

The issue of gender is curious. I agree with Chris that yes, more men have led ideological flag waving. But is that because they are male per se - possessing the xy chromosomes - or is it because of the way in which society has been constructed and the role of women in the public sphere? I think it is the case of the latter - and it is not so much an issue of gender but an issue of gender roles.

But I agree with Chris' sentiments and the need for a more mature society. It is disheartening to see though that people of the iGeneration - 18 to 30 - are largely ignorant of politics (at least in the state of WA). As reported recently in our daily rag, some here think that Beattie is our premier ...

For an article that purports to steer clear of the nature v nurture debate this seems to swing solidly on the side of nurture.

Paradoxically I think the question about religious beliefs simply illustrates a flaw in your logic. Sure, depending on where you a born determines what religion you will adhere too but it's the bigger question: why are religious beliefs adopted universally? Cultural? Or is there really a gene for religiosity as some (including Robert Winston) suggest. Perhaps the same for all our other beliefs. They may be culturally expressed but are they genetically determined?

On the question of why so many men are commentators. I see two answers in this: firstly I don't think that the percentage of men is as high as you a seeking to claim. I simply see that as your internalised sexism: why haven't you listed the Beatrice Faust’s. Miranda Divine’s, the Eva Cox’s, and any number of ABC/SBS commentators?

The other aspect as to why so many men: I'd reverse the question a to be "why so few women?" and the answer to that is simple: we still live in a patriarchal society that---ironically, given the article---is dominated by religious dogma.

On the issue of why so few women - is it because women are still the primary caregivers to the family? What time and energy is there left to participate in the public sphere after washing clothes, cooking and looking after children and home?