Mailbag: Respecting Religion
Subject: Intolerance
u say "irreligious atheists disagree with religious theism, say it is wrong, argue that it's harmful, and want people to change"
to say that religion or religious beliefs are wrong and harmful to people is disrespectful to someone who bases their life off of religion. To say its wrong FOR THEM is a different story. Also to call it harmful has already put the religious person on the defensive. Disscusion is good, disrespect is not.
that is more tolerant than blatantly instigating someone by calling his/her beliefs idiotic and evil.
I apologize for how this email looks, but I decided to leave the spelling, grammar, and text-message-speak exactly how they appeared in the original. At least I added in spaces in all the places where words were completely run together!
I disagree with Sam here: it's not disrespectful to a person to say that their religion is wrong or harmful — no more than it is disrespectful to say that their political or philosophical beliefs are wrong or harmful. Such statements may not be very respectful to the religious beliefs themselves, but no beliefs of any sort deserve automatic respect in the same way that human beings do. If a person sincerely believes that a religion is wrong or harmful, can you think of any good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to say so? Isn't it "disrespectful" to say that such beliefs should be kept quiet?
What sort of "respect" does Sam think nonbelievers should accord religious beliefs, and why? Sam isn't the only person to insist that atheists should be "more respectful," but what's commonly missing from such demands is any specific recommendations of what sort of respect they are looking for and why.
Sam is correct that "discussion is good," but there cannot be honest, genuine discussion if one side is expected to keep quiet about what they think because it's "disrespectful" to honestly say that some belief system is wrong, misguided, irrational, harmful, etc. There are no ethical obligations to tell people that their beliefs are right even when you think they are wrong.
Also to quite a few atheists believe that since science "proves" their beliefs that their beliefs are the best and all shhould accept that. that is one of the most intolerant things it is possible to say
This is a difficult assertion to address because it could mean different things. Is Sam saying that atheists believe that science proves that no gods exist, or that science proves other beliefs (such as evolution)? Either way, Sam is locating the alleged problem in the wrong place: if in fact science does prove the truth of some position, then why is it "intolerant" to say that everyone should accept this position? Is it "intolerant" to say that everyone should accept that the Earth orbits the sun, or that Jupiter is larger than Venus?
The problem, if there is a problem, it lies with saying that science "proves" something when it doesn't. In such a situation, however, the person making the false claim is best described as just wrong, not "intolerant." If I say that Mars is farther away from our planet than Saturn, I'm not intolerant I'm just woefully ignorant of the facts.
also to say that all religion is one of the problems of the world and to stop all religion would bring peace is basically saying "all follow atheism and the world will be a better place" to say that calls for ultimate conformity and is no different than the Christians during the crusades! Be Christian and the world will be a better place!"
Sam is making the common error of confusing atheism with being irreligious. Getting rid of religion would not cause everyone to be an atheist because people could still be theists without a religious context. Furthermore, this is no more a call for "conformity" than saying that everyone should stop believing in astrology or Bigfoot. The absence of belief in gods, Bigfoot, astrology, and other things is compatible with a wide range of philosophies, ideologies, belief systems, politics, etc.
while ill agree homnesty shud be present during a discussion. It is possible to say to me ur idealogy dosnet make sense, because......................... Instaed of saying ur beliefs and how u base ur life is harmful. By staing that u acknowledge that the view u represent is urs and not fact. Maybee fact to u but not everyone. by not saying "to me" u are implying that u asre right so blatantly and on all accounts.
When i explain my religous views in contrast to others i say to me that is not correct, or that dosent makes esne to me. To me will easen the conversation and not put someone on the defensive. IT is kinder and more respectful to say that it is ur opinoin.
Sam is talking about two entirely different things here. Something which is not harmful may not make sense while something that is harmful may make plenty of sense. It's not legitimate to substitute one for the other as if one were simply a "more polite" form of the other. What Sam is saying, though, is that a person who thinks religions are wrong/harmful shouldn't say so and should, instead, make the completely different complaint that a religion makes no sense.
It's Sam, however, who is making no sense. If something doesn't make sense and is incoherent, then I'll say so. If something is harmful, then I'll say that instead. If I say that something doesn't make sense when it does make sense but is harmful, then I'm lying. Sam is thus suggesting that atheist critics of religion mislead religious believers about what our real complaints are — and why? He doesn’t appear to have any reason, except that accusing religion of being wrong/harmful makes believers feel bad while saying a religion makes no sense won't make believers feel bad.
At least, it won't make them feel bad until Sam decides that it really is disrespectful after all...
but our diffrences will explain the "incoherrantnece" of whatever im saying. u base ur belifs off science. I base my belifs off the torah and oral law. I take those two things to be wholely true, u dont. better to ssay "i understand where u come from but still disagree..." then to say "your belif makes no sense!"
First atheists should say "your belief makes no sense because..." instead of saying that a belief is wrong; now, atheists shouldn't even say that a belief makes no sense and should instead simply say "I disagree." This is arguably a good example of "respect creep" which I have discussed elsewhere: once a certain level of respect is demanded, the extent of what "respect" entails keeps growing larger and larger until one isn't allowed to do much more than state that they disagree because direct, substantive, and pointed criticisms are prohibited as "disrespectful."
I reject all of this, from the beginning to the end of the "creep." If you sincerely think that some belief or ideology is harmful, you should say so. You should be willing and able to support that claim, of course, but if you can then you should not be pressured into not saying so simply because others don't like to hear it. If you think that some belief or ideology makes no sense, you should say that — and of course be prepared to support it. Again, that others may not like to hear this just isn't relevant.
It sounds like what Sam is ultimately trying to argue is that I should say what makes others feel better about themselves and their beliefs, not what I actually think — at least when it comes to religion. I don't know if Sam would apply the same standards to other topics, like politics and philosophy.
not neccassarily to only say what makes others feel better about themselves and their beliefs, but to be nice about it. If u have a relationship with someone disscusion good and if u put it more respectfully its better, still say wat u want but be as respectful about it as u possibly can
I'll agree here with Sam that one shouldn't be unnecessarily vulgar or abusive and a good example of where it's important to take extra care in how you word things is when you're in a discussion with someone you have a relationship with (family, neighbor). However, I find that there are plenty of people who would regard certain criticisms of religion as not being "nice" no matter how they are phrased. This only leaves the options of not being nice, or not being honest.
Sam (and others) might concede that I shouldn't pay any attention to them, but why not? Why are their feelings less important than others'? Why is their demand less reasonable than others'? Once I adopt the principle that I shouldn't make criticisms of religion that hurts others' feelings, I see no basis for only taking some feelings into account but not others.
When it comes to being "as respectful about it" as I possibly can, though, the question which Sam never answers is: respectful to what or to whom? If to the person, then I agree; if to the beliefs in question, then I disagree. There is no ethical obligation to respect everyone's opinions about everything.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
I agree that using phrases like “in my opinion” can help smooth over the tone of comments people make about most anything, religious or otherwise. But “in my opinion” or “as far as I know” should also be implied whenever someone is speaking (or writing in this case). What other viewpoint can anyone really offer except their own? That obviously means they are drawing upon their own pool of knowledge. Thus, they are already stating their opinion based on what they already know. Aren’t these sort of phrases already implied?
When writing an article full of such material, Austin would have to use these phrases a lot and it would get old real fast. Imagine if every sentence in every article began with “in my opinion…” or something like that.
Imagine if every line in a history book, science text, or even the Bible or the Torah began with “in my opinion…” The phrase would quickly degenerate from an extra dolip of consideration for the overly sensitive to just plain annoying. Plus it is just one step away from an apology to the reader. It’s like saying “I’m really, really sorry that I disagree with you, and I apologize for the very existence of that opinion or any outward sign of it that you might actually stumble across. There it is, just lying there for any sensitive person to find. I’m just awful for leaving it out there. Shame on me. Please forgive me for daring to speak out loud. I’m so very sorry for disagreeing with you. I hope I haven’t given you any sort of deep psychological damage. Oh, please forgive me!” (Weeps bitterly…)
That’s more about deference than respect. Demanding that atheists defer to believers is…well…really disrespectful in and of itself.
At least, that’s how it seems to be in my opinion, so far as I know. Please forgive me if you don’t mind me asking that of you.
On the surface, I think some of Sam’s suggestions might seem fair. But, in my opinion, they are pretty unreasonable as far as I can see. Don’t you agree in your own opinion? I’m deeply, deeply sorry and ashamed for having offended anyone by writing my opinions where others might find them. Please don’t kill me. I break easily. So do you if you need all of these disclaimers.
You get my point?
Well, IsaacJ…
This atheist, if you’ll pardon my breaking in here, with my paltry opinion…
feels that I at least come closer to assuming that MY interpretation…albeit imperfect…of your ‘point’; is reasonably gotten. Of course, I’m certainly challenged by my, albeit limited, individual ability to properly conceive of what you’re trying to convey in your obviously more lucid observation.
Anyway…thanks, in my lowly opinion, for further enlightening all of us.
(slinks away…tentatively watching for any, formerly unnoticed, lurking theists carrying…possibly concealed…suspiciously superior weaponry.)
Besides, opinions are like *** ****s. everybobys got one.
And they all stink.
This discussion brought to mind the following H. L. Mencken quote: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
The problem though is that if someone believes his kids are smart, that doesn’t hurt anyone. So, I can let him believe his kids are smart–even if it’s plain by their test scores that they are not.
But if, as Austin is pointing out, I perceive harm or the potential of harm from someone’s beliefs, I don’t see a problem with stating that. In fact, it almost seems like an obligation to me in some situations.
If I point out that getting masses of people to respect gullibility as a virtue (i.e., faith), could end in harm–because these people are more likely to blindly follow, not ask questions, and believe whatever they are told. Such a group might go through all eternity only doing good. But I don’t think it’s unfair or disrespectful for someone to point out that there is a potential there for abuse/harm.
Basically, I don’t think that pointing out that I think something is harmful or senseless is insulting–but most especially if I’m willing to explain in a calm and rational fashion WHY I hold such views. My own atheist view is often called “foolish”–and even EVIL. Rather than get upset or offended, I’m open to discussing with people WHY they think this, and seeing if there is any merit to their claims. I have not yet found that merit; and if someone aims a meritless accusation at me, I see no reason to feel offended or disrespected.
For example, I’m a very thin person. So, if someone wanted to offend me, calling me “Fatso!” likely wouldn’t do the trick. I’d simply find their assessment to be strange/wrong. I might even wonder if they understood the meaning of the insult themselves. But while I would recognize their intention is to be insulting–how could I be insulted by an accusation that SO obviously doesn’t even apply to me?
The problem I find in Sam’s argument is that it is just as disrespectful to insist that atheists not question, challenge, or criticize extraordinary assertions that are made without any supporting proof. What Sam really wants to argue is that HIS beliefs are exempt from criticsm, not that we should be respectful of each other’s right to disagree. Argument by special pleading, I think. Next.
I guess I must be next, if it doesn’t offend anybody … (okay, the joke is getting old). I have often wondered exactly what people mean by the word /respect/. There are lots of dictionary definitions, but the expectations people seem to have of that word do not always match. In my humble opinion, it seems to come from a contradiction between the idea enshrined in the US Constitution that all religions should be treated equally, in spite of the fact that almost all religions claim superiority and exclusivity (Judaism, Christianity and Islam compete with other religions this way, Buddhism, and to a more limited extent Hinduism, claim that salvation is individual so there is no single belief that is “superior” or even correct for everybody). If /respect/ means to simply refrain from insulting, anyone who is convinced they know the unknowable, divine Truth would be insulted by any disagreement of any kind. Divine Truth, after all, is not mere opinion. Or does /repsect/ mean to not discriminate against? I have seen enough people lose jobs for having the wrong beliefs to know that this sort of /respect/ is not compatible with “superior” and “exclusive” belief systems. In fact, this is why I usually keep my mouth shut (what am I doing?)
Pandering is not respect. It is condescension and manipulation. It is possible to testify with humor and respect.
I think Sam is somewhat disrespectful in the way he writes and spells so poorly.
I can understand if someone says that English is not their first language, but if you are going to express an opinion in a forum like this, it is YOUR responsibility to be clear and write so that HOW you write doesn’t muddy what you are trying to say. This is where I come into conflict with the PC brigade who say that it duzzent matta abart spelleng as long as the meaning is clear.