Atheists Should Respect Religious Differences and the Right to Disagree
Monday September 29, 2008
There is no reason to think that religion and theism will disappear any time soon, which means that godless atheists must remember to respect and tolerate religious differences between themselves and others as well as between adherents of various religions. Accepting the existence of these differences doesn't mean tolerating discrimination, bigotry, violence, or hatred, but it does mean not mistaking sincere -- if mistaken -- beliefs as an excuse for personal attack or bigotry themselves.
Read Article: Atheists Should Respect Religious Differences and the Right to Disagree
Comments
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Religion, at its core, is the teaching of untruths and it should not be tolerated.
The, “Religion isn’t going to disappear so don’t even try,” argument is lame. It’s the Argument From Lay-Down-And-Die.
What do you mean by “tolerated,” and in what way do you disagree with what I wrote about i?
Quite frankly, I question whether you even read the article. Consider, for example, your statement that religion “should not be tolerated” because it teaches “untruths” and then look at what I wrote:
Now, what is it again that you “could disagree with … more”? The only way I see that a person could so strongly disagree with the article’s basic position is if they take the position that religion should not be allowed to exist and differences of opinion on religion or religious beliefs should not be allowed to exist. Is this indeed the position you wish to defend?
I didn’t offer a “religion isn’t going to disappear” argument so much as a “religion isn’t going to disappear” observation.
Austin,
In your reply to Reed, you say “Quite frankly, I question whether you even read the article.”
Conventionally, on a blog such as this, comments are on the page for that which they are comments about. Links off to other pages are typically seen as “supplemental” material by readers, and not required reading before commenting. Furthermore, the link to the full article easily blends in with all the other page riff-raff that people are accustomed to skimming past in search of the meat of the page. It’s easy to unconsciously mistake it as not being directly related to do with the post and thusly ignored.
Also conventionally, when someone clicks a link in an RSS feed reader, they expect to be taken to the full article. If this case, we’re brought to a summary and comments page and required to click on yet another link to see the full article, then click our back button to leave comments. That’s far from standard procedure at any other blog I’ve seen.
For both of these reasons, I can easily see how Reed, myself, and others would read your one paragraph post, and then feel justified in commenting on it. If it’s expected that readers read the entire article before commenting, then the entire article should be here, with the comments section, on the page that the RSS feed links to.
I realize that the actual functionality of the site is probably beyond your control, but consider this a critique to be passed on to the developers at about.com, as well as something for you to consider when reviewing comments.
The RSS feed only carries material published via the blog software. The article is published via entirely different software. The blog is thus being used (in cases like this, not always of course) to direct people to material that is published here.
Aren’t you contradicting yourself just a little, though, when you admit that people miss things when they skim? If I can expect people to read an entire article that is published here, then can’t I expect people to read the link that (in effect) says “click here to read the entire article”? And if I can point out that someone hasn’t read something that appears on this page when it’s part of the “entire article,” can’t I also point out when someone appears to not have followed the link to an “entire article” elsewhere?
Moreover, I disagree that there is anything odd about expecting people to read linked-to material before commenting. Quite often, it can be very important to go read full original of something that is merely quoted before weighing in. The quotes may be taken out of context or there might be something in the rest of the material which you, unlike the blogger, recognize is very significant.
But I’m not assuming that Reed definitely did or definitely didn’t read the full article. I question it, because if so then that likely means he’s proposing a very extreme position (more extreme than I’ve ever seen him express), but if he says he did then I’ll accept that. Maybe he’s changed his mind about something?
I don’t want to make lots of assumptions about what he’s thinking; I just want to lay out what seems to be the likely possibilities and ask him what’s really going on. The way is thus open for him to say something like “Yes, that’s what I mean and it’s not nearly so extreme as you seem to think” or “whoops, you’re right, I missed that” (or even perhaps something else that I failed to think of).
This is nothing specific to him or you or anyone else - it’s what I try to do generally. I don’t want to appear to be picking on you, Reed, even though it might seem that way. No offense intended.
Actually I have mixed feelings about this. I see what you are getting at: you can’t be constantly at odds with people over any issue. Just as a vegetarian won’t go to dinner and lecture people about the ethics of eating meat.
It’s difficult to constantly swim against the tide. I usually respect religious people who are sincere and don’t regard me with veiled pity.
As you say:
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to change people’s minds and seeking to educate them about atheism and godlessness, but becoming a godless missionary bent on proselytizing atheism wherever you go will not always be a good or useful idea. Respecting religious differences thus means that, sometimes, it’s better to simply let such disagreements slide by and not make a big deal about them.
I agree with this to a point. But given the damage that religion is doing to the world, we can’t always sit back in silence.
……… It’s a mistake, however, to simply assume that because a person accepts baseless religious doctrines, then they must be one of those stupid or evil people. We should respect religious differences because we should try to respect other human beings.
Ok, so we don’t need to attack with Dawkensian venom. But being good, intelligent and well-intentioned doesn’t make the damage that religion does any less.
When a rape victim can’t get an abortion, a gay man can’t marry his beloved, or a child is brought up in ignorance of scientific truths, the good intentions of the people responsible are meaningless.
I’m trying to remember which writer spoke about our tolerance of moderate religion making extremism possible.
You’re absolutely right that we shouldn’t always sit back in silence. We shouldn’t always be pushing in a proselytizing manner, either. Whether we speak out or are silent will depend on the circumstances.
If, for example, you’re at a family wedding and one of your aunt’s is going on about how Jesus has helped her through some difficult times over the past year, that’s probably not a good time and place to pull out Dawkins.
On the other hand, if the same aunt goes on about evil homosexuals and quarantining people with AIDs, you should speak out, just as you should speak out over someone expressing analogous racial bigotry. It’s probably still not a time for debate (about gays or race relations), but it is a good time to speak out against bigotry and say that you don’t appreciate hearing it.
It’s interesting to me how many people suggest Richard Dawkins’ writings when debating. I read The God Delusion, and found it pretty darned good, but I also think Dawkins is a bit heavy handed, and arrogant.
If anyone wants to read a similar, and MUCH easier to digest book, I suggest Christopher Hitchens’ “god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. Awesome book. I wish I could get my christian friends to read it.
All these references to Dawkins’ “venom” and “arrogance” are very common, and I really don’t think they’re justified.
I think Dawkins hit the nail bang on the head in the preface to the paperback edition of The God Delusion.
In response to critics who accuse him of being “strident” or “shrill”, Dawkins quotes some restaurant reviews that he just found in a newspaper close to hand. The nastiness of the language in the reviews really beggars belief.
Also, the reviews are often aimed at specific real people with feelings that can be hurt. They’re not aimed at ideas like theism that are placed in the public domain and should therefore be dubject to criticism, or alleged all-powerful superbeings whose very existence is highly suspect and who, you’d hope, could take a bit of abuse if somebody was dishing it out.
Nevertheless, those kind of truly nasty reviews are accepted without any protest. Dawkins challenges critics to find anthing in his book that’s even remotely as vicious as the reviews he quotes, or to show that the overall tone of the book is remotely as bad.
It’s not, of course. TGD is a sober, well-written discussion of an important topic that occasionally features some comparatively mild jokey sarcastic asides.
There’s nothing in TGD that’s even remotely as nasty as the kind of writing that’s routinely accepted in restaurant reviews, or discussions of politics, films, TV shows, scientific research, etc.
Funnily enough, the worst parts of the book are those where he merely describes a bible story (The girls get their father drunk and then both fuck him? Because they need to have children RIGHT AT THAT SECOND? REALLY???)or biblical character (so God sacrificed himself to himself to save humanity from himself? That’s insane! Who did he need to impress?) which should tell you everything you need to know about the Bible.
There’s also nothing in TGD remotely as nasty as the descriptions of atheists you find in the Bible. The often-quoted Psalm 14:1 says:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
So it’s actually important to bear in mind that, no matter how nasty Dawkins may be, as long as he refrains from saying “ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE MORONS, THEY ARE ALL IRREDEEMABLY VILE AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM THAT IS EVEN CAPABLE OF BEING REMOTELY DECENT, EVEN BY ACCIDENT!” Which he does not even come close to saying, he remains within the bounds of polite discourse as defined by the Christian god.
So why, Dawkins asks, all the accusations of “arrogance” and “venom”? It’s because religion has somehow managed to carve out a privileged place in discourse, so much so that it’s impossible to say anything remotely critical of religion without appearing “shrill”, “ranting” and “arrogant”.
If Dawkins was discussing politics, for example, in exactly the same manner as he discusses theism in TGD, nobody would DREAM of accusing him of “venom” or “shrillness”.
Daniel Dennett says the same. Read “Breaking the Spell” and you will be left with the impression that Dennett has gone out of his way to be as nice as possible to religious believers.
Dennett devotes a lot of space just to attempting to placate religious believers. Read “Breaking The Spell” and you will see that Dennett literally COULDN’T have been nicer to the faithful and yet still criticise religious beliefs.
So you’re left with the inescapable conclusion that the religious, after centuries of absolute power over the thoughts and lives of whole populations, have engineered social mores and niceties so that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to say anything that’s less than glowingly praising of religions without being considered a vicious, arrogant venomous monster.
Ask yourself if you really think Dawkins is so “venomous” and “arrogant” when compared to routinely accepted criticisms of politicians, etc. And if he’s not, why do you think he is when he discusses religion? Why give religion special treatment? If anything, religions make far GRANDER claims than any other area of discourse (ETERNAL LIFE! IMMORTAL SOULS! MEANING AND PURPOSE BEHIND THE UNIVERSE!!) and with far less evidence, that they should be routinely subjected to MUCH HARSHER criticism than other areas that make less extreme claims.
Religious believers, even the most moderate and open-minded ones, don’t just want respect and they don’t want their views to compete in the marketplace of ideas. They want total deference and obedience in all things. Talk to even the most moderate believer long enough and you’ll discover that they only tolerate dissent for the time being, but look forward to the day when everyone is on their knees praying in the same direction and not asking any uncomfortable questions.
Don’t play along with this.
“Religious believers, even the most moderate and open-minded ones, don’t just want respect and they don’t want their views to compete in the marketplace of ideas. They want total deference and obedience in all things. Talk to even the most moderate believer long enough and you’ll discover that they only tolerate dissent for the time being, but look forward to the day when everyone is on their knees praying in the same direction and not asking any uncomfortable questions. ”
Careful now. As a neo-pagan I couldn’t care less if anyone else believes what I believe and I know very well that much of what I believe has little scientific support. I’ll agree that I don’t particularly want it to compete in the marketplace of ideas, but more because I’m not trying to sell it to anyone. It’s not in competition for anything.
I am strictly opposed to any kind of belief that attempts to hinder scientific progress or degrade scientific knowledge. I also strongly oppose anything that causes pain or difficulty for others. This is the predominant opinion, so far as I have seen it, in neo-paganism.
I have had this discussion before with a strictly atheist friend of mine who honestly does feel that even my beliefs will be the source of prejudice and a hindrance to human progress. Perhaps he’s right, but so far I haven’t seen it of paganism (at least the way it is practiced in the states).
I can’t stress enough that I really don’t care even one tiny bit if you do or don’t become pagan. In fact, I have actively discouraged people from pursuing paganism if it really didn’t seem to me like this was a good fit for them. If it really just seems like a load of garbage to you, I don’t think there’s a pagan out there who would find it a good idea for you to pursue it further. It’s not good for you or for paganism.
You are at least correct in that I do have an image of an ideal world where everyone believes what I do, but only out of the sheer convenience of it. It’ll never happen, and unless the whole world was like me (and how boring would that be), I don’t want it to. It’s a true utopia. Nice to think about, but realistically untenable, even undesirable.
Aremis
That last part is not true. When I click on “Comments” on the summary page, I get a page with the full article AND the comments.
You remind me of the people who post book reviews on Amazon after admitting that they haven’t read the entire book. I refuse to read such reviews. Why should I?
What about comparing Dawkins’ writings to “routinely accepted criticisms” of atheists? Talk about venom and lies! Furthermore, many apologists intentionally lie to discredit atheists and justify doing so with the time-honored “Anything goes when defending the faith” rationale. If I’m not mistaken, that rationale is a variation of “the ends justify the means.” Unfortunately, apologists’ lies are often repeated by the masses of uncritical believers. The lies then become “conventional wisdom” and remain unquestioned (except by atheists).
Ok… As a pagan clergy I wish to say this; I don’t care. I don’t care if you think I’m wrong. I don’t care if you think I’m evil. I don’t care if you insult my religion. I don’t care what you think is truth.
I do care though as soon as you try to take away my right to think the way I wish. That is all.
Well, I for one don’t plan on taking away anyone’s right to think the way they “wish”. That’s usually what theocrats do, isn’t it?
I’m a ranting venomous arrogant shrill secular fundamentalist, and the whole point of secularism is that anyone can practice any beliefs they want to as long as they don’t try to impose any perverse ritualistic practices or life-hating rules they may follow on everyone else in a state, believer or non-believer alike.
Believers giving their kids the opportunity to leave the faith is usually required, as well. After all, if your religion is right your kid shouldn’t need to have it beaten into them or to be protected from competing ideas.
The point of secularism isn’t to protect the atheist minority, it’s to protect religious nutters from each other. But you don’t get to be protected from criticism or offense.
Incidentally, and this is directed at the “neo-pagans”, could you give a summary of what you believe? Just out of interest. If you did that it’d be easier to determine if you are, in fact, “wrong” or “evil”, if your beliefs are the “source of prejudice” and a “hindrance to scientific progress” and if we want to “insult your religion”.
Just saying “I’m a neo-pagan” is super vague and impossible to engage with. We all know vagueness is the theist’s best friend, as it makes it hard to pin them down on specific doctrines or truth claims.
@ Mark Barratt - excellent defence of Dawkins, thank you for that.
I’m a fan of his and while I think you are right in your assessment of his tone, I guess the problem I have is that in personal conversation, it doesn’t help me much. If I try getting any Christian friends to read it, they’re going to throw it at the wall.
I’ve been reading ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’ and I’m finding it much more positive - looking at the wonders of nature and science.
Maybe we don’t want to ‘proselytize’ but I think most of us would like to see our deluded friends see the light. I for one would like a short, digestible guide to gently showing them the truth, and dealing with their biblical arguments, without having to waste hours studying the bible and lengthy discussions about theology and logic. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer and most of the time I end up stumped or confused!
Thanks Helen.
The problem is, of course, that it’s impossible to say anything critical of religion without being considered venomous or ranting. The kind of person who would throw TGD against the wall would throw anything against the wall including BTS which, as I said, is almost ridiculously placatory.
That’s why I think RD is smart to aim his book at the undecideds, those who put “C of E” down on census forms or call themselves “agnostic” but have never really thought about it and don’t have a passionate commitment to the beliefs of a particular sect.
You’re right that it’s important to emphasise the wonders of a reality-based worldview, but there are serious problems with presenting that to the religious without challenging religious assumptions.
The first problem is that if basic theistic assumptions aren’t challenged a believer will simply interpret the wonders of science as yet another reason why their god, assumed to be the creator of everything, is awesome. It’s the assumption that a creator god exists and that it’s THEIR god of choice that need to be challenged or else any discussion is pointless.
The second problem is that if believers are presented with the facts of science they will, if they’re honest, see that science and [insert religion here] cannot be reconciled without fatally undermining either one or the other. They will then choose faith without a second thought because they are raised to see faith as the ultimate virtue, and reason is “the Devil’s bride, that pretty whore” to quote Luthor. That’s why the primacy of faith must be challenged.
The third and, probably, the most difficult problem is that religions offer a more palatable view of existence than reality does. Religions tell you that you, as a human made in God’s image, have a privileged place in the universe; that the universe is on your side; that there’s an ultimate force of Justice and Truth behind existence that cares about you and will ensure that everyone received just rewards; that you don’t cease to exist after you die and you actually unite with your loved ones; and that your problems can be solved by keeping the faith.
Science undermines all those comforting illusions and tells you that you are irrelevant to the universe, which got along well before you arrived and will get along well after you completely cease to exist, which you will; that once people you love die THEY cease to exist as well; that there is no ultimate personal force of Justice and Truth so that if a criminal gets away with it they will never be punished, etc. People inclined to wish thinking will consider this very relevant.
There’s a lot to be said about accepting these unpalatable truths and carrying on with a reality-based life as best you can but there’s no denying that religion offers people a much rosier image of themselves than science and reason do. So the idea of basing your views on wishful thinking rather than evidence must be challenged, or discussion is just a waste of time.
“Respecting religious differences thus means that, sometimes, it’s better to simply let such disagreements slide by and not make a big deal about them.”
To the extent that I may be talking to someone who knows nothing of my religious attitudes, I can certainly agree that allowing someone a different religious belief is reasonable, acceptable, and even necessary.
However, to allow someone to override my “inalienable rights” because they demand a special place over me due to their belief in a god, or require that I remain silent because I do not believe in a god, is wrong to me. I should be able to speak out in defence of my position as easily as any religious adherent does, and it should not matter where or when I should decide to do so.
Our remaining quiet is why so many of our rights have been circumvented in schools, in politics, and in our businesses.
Respect for another person, and your own personal comfort with others, will largely guide how you decide to speak out on your religious attitudes and beliefs, but I should hope its not due to a fear of being an atheist.
And, why use the term…”godless atheist?” Isn’t atheist enough to signify your lack of belief in a god?
Fernando Aguilar
I also couldn’t disagree more. Austin Cline, how can you write articles like this one here, clearly outlining that we do indeed suffer discrimination in the legal system, as well as other areas, and then go all concern troll on us?
We need MORE scandals like “Crackergate”. The god-botherers are frauds and we all know it.
Feel free to point to what, exactly, you disagree with and why.