One common answer to the question of respect to religious belief that I have encountered in many an argument is an unqualified No. It is a simple argument with little persuasive rhetoric. Religion should not be respected or even much tolerated due to its track record of human harm and its basis in that which has, in the common parlance of the argument, not one shred of evidence. This seems to be the foundation for the entire whirlwind of extremism regarding the theft of a consecrated Eucharist wafer and the less than hospitable reaction from one PZ Myers. Ken Brown tracks much of the debates here and here.
In previous debates with agnostics, atheists, anti-theists, apatheists, etc. I have heard one refrain that is puzzling: "I do not and should not have to respect your belief in God." The root of this lack of respect comes from the proposition that any kind of belief in that which has no empirically substantiated evidence that essentially meets the rigor of external verification and validity deserves no real respect at all. In short, it is an argument that states that one should not respect any belief or system of belief rooted in criteria that are not supported by an observer or interlocutor. This seems to be the font of wisdom from which PZ Myers' reaction has its origin.
So why is this puzzling? It is puzzling because it assumes that only one set of available criteria of making any claims on the nature of reality are constitutive of what would otherwise deserve respect. There are two ways in which this view of how the atheist should relate to the religious makes absolutely no sense at all.
First, what is the outcome of assuming that those who hold religiously and/or theistically motivated beliefs by default earn no respect? Moreover, and perhaps prior to this outcome, what is the motivation for not granting a sense of mutual respect to the theist in this regard? I would argue, and I think Terry Eagleton has raised this as well, that both the source and the outcome are rooted in a neo-liberal stance towards the freedom and rights of the individual, and a sense of improving the social conditions for all peoples based on secular democratic processes. Myers does, after all, identify himself as "a godless liberal". However, one primary foundation of this neo-liberalism is the notion of mutual tolerance and respect for any system of belief or actions based on whichever system of belief that conform to this notion of the state.
Not granting respect to any form of belief that does in fact conform to this assumed liberalism therefore betrays the very motivation and outcome of lacking respect for religion and theism in the first place. To this end, if the wafer had not been stolen and the Catholic mass thus respected and tolerated, there would be no issue here. Rather, Myers reacts with the same disrespect towards the Mass as the person who stole the wafer. Rather than a mutual respect for differences of belief which would have supported the neoliberal ideals of tolerance and respect, this live and let live ideal of tolerance and cooperation among intentional altruistic responses to civil harmony, we have two shots of mutual disrespect followed by hostile defensive reactions that are also quite disrespectful of the initial disrespectful event!
The second problem has to do with the assumed justification that the neo-liberal ideals that Myers would no doubt espouse are the most proper and just ways to manage a society. Where is the empirical evidence that this is in fact indubitably true? Is this a scientific claim? It is not. An artist could support the same set of values with the suggestion that if everyone would have a mutual respect for each other as symbols of beauty in the world, that actions of disrespect would have to decline and with them, violence towards one another and to the world. A simple embrace of Confucianism would perhaps suffice, or even, spare the thought, Catholic social teaching perhaps even in the tradition of the Sisters of Mercy.
The entire notion of the secular state which has an assumed level of respect by this line of atheist argument was not founded by the same principles that appear to be the criteria for the mutual disrespect of religion. In fact what works in the secular state is a mutual respect for all belief systems that conform to the idea of the secular state; a state that should not favor or disparage any belief system that does not run counter in deed to the harmony of the state itself. This is clearly not a scientifically substantiated principle in the same way as the idea that religious belief should receive no respect.
The question is how one comes to the conclusion that certain political and ethical values should be normative that exclude religion from the equation as something deserving of respect? It seems to be a betrayal of the very source and outcome of the position of lack of respect for religion itself. Thus, if we grant that the neoliberal ideals of the state are just and supportive of human rights and freedoms, we must therefore respect religious belief that does not run counter to these ideals. It is only when religion produces a conflict of interest with the ideals of the state that it does not deserve respect without correction.
If an atheist of whatever dimension of disbelief in God is to maintain the liberal values that fuel the notion that religion should not be respected, then by those values, an atheist must respect those values that conform to the liberal ideals of the state. Not to act in accordance with mutual respect so conceived not only undermines the the function of the state to maintain civil order, its outcome undermines democratic processes overall. The civil outcome of a lack of respect for religion must be a political system that itself cannot respect religion or any beliefs that do not conform to the criteria that regulate beliefs worthy of respect. Thus, it must result in a tyranny of unbelief which undermines the very individual freedoms any liberal democratic state is sworn to protect. The keystone of this is the freedom to believe in those things that do not meet the criteria that regulates the disrespect of religion that is the likely wellspring for Myers' reaction.
No related posts.
I'm not sure that the greater religious community can claim the high ground when it comes to respecting atheists. Our basic beliefs tell us essentially that atheists are going to hell. Many religious folks aren't afraid to throw that in the face of atheists.
Respect is a two-way street.
I'm not sure that the greater religious community can claim the high ground when it comes to respecting atheists. Our basic beliefs tell us essentially that atheists are going to hell. Many religious folks aren't afraid to throw that in the face of atheists.
Respect is a two-way street.
Thanks Drew for the links and the interesting post! I've added a bit of a respose here.
Thanks Drew for the links and the interesting post! I've added a bit of a respose here.
[...] Tatusko has a very good post , linking to a university altercation that had escaped my notice, addressing whether or not [...]
Mark, I totally agree with that, and I think that's part of what I am arguing here. But your point about salvation raises another question: Can we be effective witnesses without disrespecting other religions or lack of belief in religion that many in the world have? this is where I think waving the flag of immortal damnation if we do not behave or believe correctly in this contingent world is probably not the best way to witness a God of love.
Mark, I totally agree with that, and I think that's part of what I am arguing here. But your point about salvation raises another question: Can we be effective witnesses without disrespecting other religions or lack of belief in religion that many in the world have? this is where I think waving the flag of immortal damnation if we do not behave or believe correctly in this contingent world is probably not the best way to witness a God of love.
I would say that the hang up on "respecting beliefs" papers over the importance of respecting people. The former without the later is mere rhetoric. Those who earn respect should receive it. Those who are self-important blowhards, not so much.
I would say that the hang up on "respecting beliefs" papers over the importance of respecting people. The former without the later is mere rhetoric. Those who earn respect should receive it. Those who are self-important blowhards, not so much.
Respect is a bit of a fuzzy, emotional, and interpersonal concept and thus open to misunderstanding, failures to communicate, and hypocrisy. Often I think that Drew is a bit TOO sensitive about atheistic disrespect, but in many cases, he is right on target.
One practice I find particularly distressing is the US vs. THEM blame game. Divide humanity up into two mutually exclusive groups. Compare the very best of US and the very worst of THEM – US wins! But wait! There's more! Now it's THEM's turn – pick the very worst of the US team and compare to the very best of the THEM team! Now THEM wins.
This can go on forever… in fact, it has!
Respect is a bit of a fuzzy, emotional, and interpersonal concept and thus open to misunderstanding, failures to communicate, and hypocrisy. Often I think that Drew is a bit TOO sensitive about atheistic disrespect, but in many cases, he is right on target.
One practice I find particularly distressing is the US vs. THEM blame game. Divide humanity up into two mutually exclusive groups. Compare the very best of US and the very worst of THEM – US wins! But wait! There's more! Now it's THEM's turn – pick the very worst of the US team and compare to the very best of the THEM team! Now THEM wins.
This can go on forever… in fact, it has!
Except that in his case I am not using respect as an emotional term, but one that is necessary for any neo-liberal idealism and that is where many atheist arguments must fail or admit non-empirical value claims.
Except that in his case I am not using respect as an emotional term, but one that is necessary for any neo-liberal idealism and that is where many atheist arguments must fail or admit non-empirical value claims.
While I would use the term respect for the appropriate civil attitude towards most "comprehensive doctrines", the minimum political regard for other's ideas and convictions would be toleration. Some convictions, such as, for instance, racism, require only toleration, and even then the "practice" of such doctrines may be prohibited within limits (for instance, public accommodation.) Of course, religious practice is to be given the widest latitude possible, but one can find examples of religious practice, not mere belief, being proscribed.
I'm not sure why an atheist would not be allowed non-empirical value claims, but the consequences that you project for mutual disrespect are indeed a real possibility and constitute more than enough of an argument as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, diversity of belief makes the world an interesting place and mutual respect makes that diversity all the more enjoyable.
While I would use the term respect for the appropriate civil attitude towards most "comprehensive doctrines", the minimum political regard for other's ideas and convictions would be toleration. Some convictions, such as, for instance, racism, require only toleration, and even then the "practice" of such doctrines may be prohibited within limits (for instance, public accommodation.) Of course, religious practice is to be given the widest latitude possible, but one can find examples of religious practice, not mere belief, being proscribed.
I'm not sure why an atheist would not be allowed non-empirical value claims, but the consequences that you project for mutual disrespect are indeed a real possibility and constitute more than enough of an argument as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, diversity of belief makes the world an interesting place and mutual respect makes that diversity all the more enjoyable.
[...] Should Atheists "Respect" Religion? [...]
"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."
–H. L. Mencken
"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."
–H. L. Mencken
[...] the world in such a way). I do find it rude and disrespectful of other people. This gets back to Drew's post which first brough Myers to my attention, "Should Atheists 'Respsect' [...]