Humility and "cultures of debate"

One of my favorite metaphors for intellectual interaction occurs in Plato's Republic in the Allegory of the Cave [Book VII(514a–520a)].  Socrates, the great philosopher of ancient Athens, is telling this story to Glaucon, Plato's brother.  (Here's a link to the story.)  At the heart of the philosopher's dilemma is the problem of what to say to those still stuck in the cave, who are looking at shadows on walls manipulated by the cave's stewards, and thinking all along that this is reality.  Once you've been out of the cave, and experienced a "higher" reality, you know too much to ever be happy again in the cave.  Yet this knowledge obligates you to share it.  However, your new knowledge threatens those still in the cave.  Plus, your inability to adjust to the darkness (as you go back in) marks you as defficient in their eyes.  As Socrates tells it, the philosopher will be attacked and even killed by the others.  So, how will you proceed to interact with them?  Lifted to the level of intellectural exchange, how do you get people to talk about their most cherished convictions so that they can be examined, tested, and maybe even relinquished?

If we frame this in terms of interfaith dialogue, we might ask what it would take to encourage people of different faiths (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc) and different worldviews (theist, atheist, secular, etc) to engage with one another in healthy forms of dialogue, instead of unhealthy attacks on the beliefs of those they disagree with?  What does it take to get people to open up to the possibility that their convictions are potentially like another's convictions, i.e. that might be found lacking? 

Crucial here is the ability to humbly admit a lack of knowledge while maintaining a good faith effort to stay engaged in dialogue.  I was reminded of this intellectual position of humility in a recent NYTimes edition of the Stone, its philosophy blog.  Carlos Fraenkel, professor of Philosophy at McGill University, describes how societies might create cultures of debate in which people would be encouraged to engage with others who differ from them about their philosophical worldviews.  Of course, there is a difference between interreligious dialogue and philosophical debate, but I'm thinking of the way they overlap.  [Also, interreligious "debate" is often what interreligious "dialogue" devolves into.  If you've ever experienced this, you know how uncomfortable and frustrating it is.] 

I'm drawn to the problem that Fraenkel raises about taking our convictions for granted.  Just like those still stuck in the cave, we hate to learn that we take for granted our own philosophical worldviews and don't really examine them.   How sure are you that the world is the way you think it is?  How sure are you that your religious beliefs are viable?  When you think about it, you have to admit that many of your convictions remain simply that, convictions about a certain state of affairs.  Is there proof?  If so, they're not really convictions, but factual knowledge.  Fraenkel says if you take this idea seriously, you are a fallibilist, someone who countenances the possibility that their views might be false.  He writes, "...and if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting."

I believe these "cultures of debate" could entail both dialogue and debate between religious and non-religious worldviews.  The bottom line for all participants is the same: in the spirit of Socrates' story of the Cave, are you willing to submit yourself and your view's to rational scrutiny?  If you think you are, Socrates would say that you are more like the true philosopher than the crowd stuck in the cave!