Should We Respect Religion? Does Religion Deserve Respect?
-
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/RespectReligion.htm
Religious Believers Demanding Respect:
An increasing source of conflict in the world today is centered around religious believers’ demands for respect. Muslims demand “respect” that would forbid criticism, satire, or mocking of their religion. Christians demand “respect” that would amount to something very similar. Nonbelievers are caught in a bind when it’s not clear what “respect” is supposed to entail and how it is supposed to be achieved. If respect is so important to believers, they need to be clear about what they want.
Respect vs. Tolerance:
Sometimes, a person who wants respect is simply asking for tolerance. The minimal definition of tolerance is a state where one has the power to punish, restrict, or make something difficult but consciously chooses not to. Thus I may tolerate the barking of a dog even if I have the ability to stop it. When it comes to non-violent, consensual behavior, religious believersÂ’ demand for tolerance is usually reasonable and should be granted. ItÂ’s rare, though, that this is all that is desired.
Going Beyond Tolerance:
Respect and tolerance are not synonyms; tolerance is a very minimalist attitude whereas respect involves something more active and positive. You can think very negatively about something you tolerate, but there is something contradictory about thinking very negatively about the exact same thing you are also respecting. Thus, at the very least, respect requires that one have have positive thoughts, impressions, or emotions when it comes to the religion in question. This isnÂ’t always reasonable.
Should Beliefs Be Respected?:
There seems to be a popular impression that beliefs deserve automatic respect, and therefore that religious beliefs should be respected. Why? Should we respect racism or Nazism? Of course not. Beliefs donÂ’t merit automatic respect because some beliefs are immoral, evil, or just plain stupid. Beliefs may be able to earn a personÂ’s respect, but itÂ’s an abdication of moral and intellectual responsibility to automatically accord the same respect to all beliefs.
Should the Right to Believe be Respected?:
Just because a belief is immoral or stupid doesnÂ’t mean that there is no right to believe it. Belief may be unwise or irrational, but a right to belief must cover such beliefs if itÂ’s to have any meaning at all. Therefore, a personÂ’s right to believe things and to hold their religious beliefs must be respected. Having a right to a belief, however, is not the same as having a right to not hear criticism of that belief. The right to criticize has the same basis as the right to believe.
Should Believers Be Respected?:
Although beliefs must earn respect and should not receive automatic respect, the same is not true of people. Every human being deserves some basic minimum of respect right from the beginning, regardless of what they believe. Their actions and beliefs may lead to greater respect over time, or they may strain your ability to maintain that minimum. A person is not the same as what that person believes; respect or lack thereof for one should not lead to the exact same for the other.
Respect vs. Deference:
The most significant problem with believers’ demands for respect for their religions and/or religious beliefs is that “respect” too often amounts to “deference.” Deferring to religion or religious beliefs means according them a privileged status — something understandable for believers, but not something which can be demanded from nonbelievers. Religious beliefs merit no more deference than any other claims and religions do not merit deference from nonbelievers.
How Religion Can and Should Be Respected:
The increasingly raucous demands from religious believers that their religions be accorded more “respect” in the public square and from non-adherents is a sign that something very serious is going on — but what, exactly? Believers apparently feel that they are being slighted and insulted in a significant manner, but is this true, or is it instead a case of mutual misunderstanding? It may be that both are occurring at various times, but we won’t get to the root of the problem without being clear about our terminology — and this means that religious believers must make it clear what sort of “respect” they are asking for.
In many instances, we’ll find that religious believers are not asking for something appropriate — they are asking for deference, positive thoughts, and privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their religions. Rarely, if ever, are such things justified. In other instances, we may find that they aren’t being accorded the basic tolerance and respect which they deserve as human beings, and they are justified in speaking out.
Respecting religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers does not and cannot include treating them with kid gloves. If believers want respect, then they must be treated as adults who are responsible and culpable for what they assert — for better and for worse. This means that their claims should be treated seriously with substantive responses and critiques, if criticism is warranted. If believers are willing to present their position in a rational, coherent manner, then they deserve a rational and coherent response — including critical responses. If they are unwilling or unable to present their views in a rational and coherent manner, then they should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
Related Articles -
Your topic is a misnomer. It should be "Should we respect those that do not consider the views of others?"
-
As with the other article, the topic was the title of the article.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Your topic is a misnomer. It should be "Should we respect those that do not consider the views of others?"
However, I think the topic is accurate. The post was a discussion of whether religion deserves respect and it explains the difference between respecting religion and tolerating it. -
http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/office_hours/a0000611.html
Not sure if you'll read this, but why not? -
I don't quite understand what you are getting at? Are you trying to show that there's reason for religious belief?
"I start with the fact that God is the source of all truth, all knowledge. If you say that we can learn things by reasoning about them, I agree, but reasoning can't prove that reasoning works. It works because of God. First He fashioned a world that makes sense, then He fashioned our minds so that it makes sense to us. The only reason we can trust what we know is that the Fashioner Himself is trustworthy. Do you follow me so far?"
That's the problem. You start off with various 'facts' that have no substance. You assume that a God does exist and that God is the source of all truth and all knowledge. However, there is no reason to believe that. There is also no reason to believe that we were given the ability to reason for the purpose of understanding that the world makes sense. And it does not follow that the "Fashioner Himself is trustworthy" even if that Fashioner were to exist.
"Revelation means whatever God makes known. The Bible is 'special' revelation — it’s what God reveals to His people. But He reveals some things to all human beings, even apart from the Bible. That's called 'general' revelation."
The Bible was written by man and there's nothing in it that reveals any evidence of divine revelation. It's full of error and inconsistencies, just like any book written and revised by almost countless authors. As for 'general' revelation, what evidence is there that 'general' revelation is divine in nature?
"Oh, I get it. Creation witnesses to its Creator."
That assumes that we are a creation. I addressed this issue in another post. We are not a creation in the sense that a Coke can or a car is a creation. We are not designed in any sense of our normal understanding of the word 'design'.
"Godward longing. Ecclesiastes says God has 'set eternity in the hearts of men.' We have an empty space in us that can only be filled by God."
I'm lost here. Certainly as conscious beings we wonder why we are here and we search for meaning in our lives. I'm not sure I would call it 'godward longing'.
"Okay, I'm beginning to see it. We base our reasoning on the trustworthiness of God. First He gives us general revelation, which is common ground even with nonbelievers. Then he gives us special revelation — the Bible. But you still haven't answered my question. What does the Bible add?"
I can buy this. Okay so what is this General Revelation that is the common ground? This makes sense if the General Revelation allows us to know that the special revelation is true. However, this is obviously not the case or there would not be so many religions or denominations for that matter.
"It shouldn't be. The Bible mentions at least three moral witnesses. First is the witness of conscience — what Paul calls the law 'written on the heart.' Second is the witness of the harvest — God has so arranged the world that eventually our deeds catch up with us. Third is the witness of our design. For example, you don't have to read the Bible to recognize that men and women are complementary to each other — each provides something lacking in the makeup of the other. Men can't do that for men, and women can't do that for women. All these things are available for reasoning."
But again, you presuppose that God exists. I could argue that the witness of conscience was developed through evolution. Witness of the harvest is natural law. And as for witness of design, it only works because you presuppose that god is the designer. If evolution is the 'designer', then the argument fails.
"It tells us more about God and His moral requirements. It makes even what we know already harder to ignore. Most important, it tells us the plan of salvation. You see, the reality of God isn't good news if we don't know how to be reconciled with Him. And His moral requirements aren't good news if we know we haven't lived up to them. We need the real Good News, the Gospel. We need to know that we can be forgiven and made whole."
Let's for the sake of argument say that god exists. There is nothing in all the previous arguments and explanations that show why the Christian religion, or any other religion for that matter, is the right one? Where is that General Revelation that tells us to look to the Gospel?
And finally, why do we need to be forgiven? -
Not really, I thought this might be an insight to how some Christians reason.Originally posted by Phaze:I don't quite understand what you are getting at? Are you trying to show that there's reason for religious belief? -
I would not use the word respect in the issue.
First, Atheists has to acknowledge that religion exists today in many types and it has been here for a very long time in the history of mankind.
Atheist simply have to focus on their own explanations towards religious people and coming up with different ways of explaning until a good way is found that will enlightened them.
Atheists should not harbour any hatred or dislike towards religious people, no matter how much counter reasons they throw back at you which you feel is illogical. -
Oh okay. Gotcha.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Not really, I thought this might be an insight to how some Christians reason. -
I'm not exactly sure what is the issue you would not use the word 'respect' for?Originally posted by january:I would not use the word respect in the issue.
First, Atheists has to acknowledge that religion exists today in many types and it has been here for a very long time in the history of mankind.
Atheist simply have to focus on their own explanations towards religious people and coming up with different ways of explaning until a good way is found that will enlightened them.
Atheists should not harbour any hatred or dislike towards religious people, no matter how much counter reasons they throw back at you which you feel is illogical.
Just because we don't respect religion doesn't mean we don't tolerate it. And of course we should not hate or dislike religious people as long as they do not try to impose their religious views on others. -
Religion deserve respect. but that doesnt mean every1 will respect..
psst..wah, just found out there's this forum
btw what's the difference of agnotism(sp) and atheism.. -
Hi rathcycle,Originally posted by rathcycle:Religion deserve respect. but that doesnt mean every1 will respect..
psst..wah, just found out there's this forum
btw what's the difference of agnotism(sp) and atheism..
Welcome to the forum.
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.
Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
These are probably the most simplistic definitions.
Most atheists I believe can be termed as 'weak atheists', or 'agnostic atheists'. In this kind of atheism, we acknowledge that you can never disprove an omniscient, omnipotent being. However, the probability of God is so low that for all practical purposes, you can make the positive claim that god does not exist.
Atheists usually a tend to be more open to the idea of a deistic god than a theistic god. A deistic god would be a creator who does not interfere with the natural world. The 'blind watchmaker' who builds the watch and leaves it to run, without seeing how runs. And atheist would accept the claim that a deistic god exisits, but that it does not matter.
A theistic god is how we normally understand the concept of god. A theistic god has an interest, and interacts in the world.
A very rough overview can be found here/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Most atheists are also skeptics, and reject the supernatural. So we also reject astrology, homeopathy, the Secret, faith healing, psychics, etc.
Finally, why do you feel that religion deserves respect? -
I think H.L. Mencken said it best:
"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."
Douglas Adams also puts respect of religious ideas in a more humorous context:
"...
Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.
..." -
Originally posted by malayatheist:
Well, if you put it that way, it's a good way to describe how we ought to deal with subjective matters. No point in raising wars over it.
I think H.L. Mencken said it best:
"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."
Douglas Adams also puts respect of religious ideas in a more humorous context:
"...
Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. [b]If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.
..."[/b] -
If only your views were shared by all religious people. Unfortunately. many religions prohibit such a tolerant view.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Well, if you put it that way, it's a good way to describe how we ought to deal with subjective matters. No point in raising wars over it.
You may argue that the intolerant religious followers do not follow the 'true' . However, you must realise that they would say the same of your brand of religion and are equally 'valid', as much as religion can be 'valid'. -
I think religious people who are self-righteous need not be respected by anyone.
And next, religion should not be respected as it is a waste of time.