activism-promotion, advice, education, tolerance, proselytizingRe-reading many questions and answers on this site, it seems to me that there is a wide range of views on the topic of respect towards religious beliefs and associated behaviours. Let me explain.
Imagine I am an atheist. If someone talks to me and expresses a deeply ingrained religious belief, do I “respect” them and just nod, or is it ethical to try to persuade them away from their nonsense? If it is not just the person talking, but children being indoctrinated and women or gays being discriminated against in the name of religion, am I supposed to be respectful again, or should I stop being respectful and raise my voice?
Some have argued on this site that we atheists “should not be jerks”, because respect is extremely important. I do not buy that. Frankly, I am sick of being called a jerk just because I take action against what I believe to be aggresions from organised religion. As Dawkins famously said, “let’s stop being so damned tolerant”.
This position is supported by the fact that one of the pillars of most (all?) organised religions is the “conversion of the infidels”, i.e. the proselytising of their own values, the belief that they own the only universal truth, and the censorship of others as simply wrong. It would be arguable that atheists should “proselytise” (I’d rather say “educate”) as well in order to counteract the effect of organised religions.
At the same time, I think that respect is a great value, and I believe in a civilised approach to things in general. So, the question that bugs me no end is, where is the fine line that separates respect from indolence? Is atheism just a personal conviction, or is it also a social and cultural stance? If the latter, then I think that atheism pushes us away from the laissez faire and extreme relativism that some want us to believe. What do you think?
The fine line is actually quite bright, in my opinion. It falls into three neat maxims.
Don’t push your religious (non)beliefs on others. This advocates against “actively” proselytizing for any religion OR for atheism… with the caveat being that what a religious person sees as proselytizing for atheism is not likely to be what I would consider proselytizing for atheism. I WILL have discussions, when others broach the topic, that most theists would see as proselytizing… see points 2 and 3)
Teach critical thinking in as many ways as possible (not proselytizing atheism). Anyone objecting to teaching kids because it opposes authority, goes against their holy texts, etc. can be asked to practice their faith on their own time, elsewhere. This assertion that I do not have to abide by their rules will of course be cast as proselytizing or blasphemy, by the religious.
Stand up, defend, rebut when assertions by religionists cast non-believers as wrong, evil, second-class citizens, immoral, etc. (Again, not proselytizing… resisting.) It is here that I think most conflict occurs, and again blame is usually placed upon the atheist by some believer who thinks resistance/disagreement to their actions is equivalent to an attack. Not true, and we (non-believers) lose immensely when we allow religionists to set the rules of how religion can or cannot be discussed.
I think that a good balance should be the “equal respect” rule. Give as much respect as you are given.
This has the added benefit that makes the rule adaptive to the situation. There is clearly no steadfast rule that works in all occasions.
“Some have argued on this site that we atheists “should not be jerks”, because respect is extremely important. I do not buy that. Frankly, I am sick of being called a jerk just because I take action against what I believe to be aggresions from organised religion. As Dawkins famously said, “let’s stop being so damned tolerant”.”
You aren’t being a jerk then. A jerk goes up to someone who wants to have a group prayer at company picnic and tells them that they are being an insensitive fool. A non-dick-move would be to either keep your mouth shut, or if you think it really matters say something like:
“Pardon, since not everyone here is likely of the exact same faith, perhaps we can have a moment for personal prayer or perhaps even give a representative of another faith a chance to be represented instead?”
Broadening someone’s world-view shouldn’t be trapped in insults.
In the case of a debate or discussion about religion, it is important to respect the PEOPLE who have arrived at faith. You don’t need to respect the faith itself. But calling anyone who believes in Young Earth Creationism a moron will not win you the argument. And it also happens to be false.
People aren’t faithful out of stupidity, they are faithful out of ignorance. Sometimes this is willing ignorance, and sometimes this is being led astray by authoritative sources within their community. How one evaluates a legitimate source of information differs in different situations. This is why Critical Thought is so important.
Systems that don’t teach it, are always subject to rampant disinformation. And those that are poorly informed are not any less intelligent because of it. They just lack the tools to self evaluate.
There are two ways to “convert” people: words, and works.
Words don’t work on anyone but idiots. People develop deeply cherished beliefs, and you’re not eloquent enough to go up to them cold and convince them they’re wrong. No one is, unless the person is dumb as a stump, and then the next schmuck to talk to him will convert him right back. In the end, everyone makes up their own mind about this stuff, and there is nothing you can do about it. People who lean atheist will lean atheist regardless of you, and people who lean theist will lean theist despite you.
Works work. Getting out in the world and making of your life an example that others would follow will convert more people than trite argument every time. The reverse is also true: going out in public and being a dick will make people disregard everything you say.
Now, for most people, religion is going to win. It’s simple, it’s happy, it’s friendly, and the works thing is a core tenet of theirs, so while atheists are out protesting christmas trees at the courthouse, church people are out fixing old ladies houses for free, and paying for schools in Haiti, etc, etc. Atheists have a few charities that do some of this stuff, but they’re small and poorly funded.
I know everyone here likes to paint all religious people as Fred Phelps, but the vast majority of religious people aren’t like that, and when you go up to someone and tell them they are, they’re going to get pissed. Atheism has very little community feeling, atheism does very few good works as an organized group. All we have is reason, and that’s not going to cut it for most people. A comfortable lie beats an uncomfortable truth any day.
For those reasons, I think pushing atheism on theists is counterproductive. It doesn’t work, and you give them a nice negative example, the way annoying evangelical southern baptists give us a nice negative example. But there are very few good positive examples to counterbalance it, so it just makes the rest of us look like dicks.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.