Respect and Religion

[BRUTE]

in a few threads now here, brute has observed humans exchange about the topic of religion and respecting each other's religions.

brute finds this very interesting and wants to start a discussion on the topic.

as brute understands, the modern western idea of "respecting religion" or "respecting faith" comes from the historical incidents where disrespect meant setting humans on fire. for the record, brute does not set any religious humans on fire. brute doesn't even go out of his way to confront them.

but brute finds it hard to "respect" humans of faith. in the sense that brute would find it hard to respect an adult who still believed in the easter bunny. brute couldn't care less if those humans believe whatever they want, and brute does not wish to set them on fire or even debate them. but respect? brute cannot choose who he respects, and humans who believe in santa clause are usually not among that group.

for the record, there are humans that brute knows to be religious/faithful whom he respects. two of them.

[C40]

I'm in the same group. I also have a hard time respecting people who smoke or who are very overweight. If I already know the person well, those things don't bother me. If it's a person I don't really know, those things have a huge weight on my opinion of them.

[GandK]

This may be partly a semantics issue.

Per Uncle Google, respect (as a verb) has four possible meanings:

1. admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
2. have due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of.
3. avoid harming or interfering with.
4. agree to recognize and abide by (a legal requirement).

I see most people here saying "I can't respect religion/religious people" (or some variation of this) meaning an emotion. They tend to use the word feel, which seems to imply definition #1.

As one of what appears to be only a handful of religious people here, however, I am not seeking admiration or approval from unbelievers, either here or offline. When respect comes up (rarely), I would be seeking definition #2, a "live and let live" type of respect... preferably with minimal heckling.

[IlliniDave]

I respect everyone until/unless they do something to lose it in my eyes. Being religious, non-religious, rational, or irrational, agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, has no bearing on that (the way they go about their beliefs and such might, i.e., the "how" of it, but not the "what"). Being disrespectful to those who don't deserve it is something that will make me lose respect. By "respect" in this instance I generally mean at the level of items 2 and 3 in the list from GandK's post.

[Dragline]

The antonym of which would be "shun":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB8Jor8tPs

You can substitute "believer" for "non-believer" if you like. Attempts to rally a shunning of the believers were already attempted here and there may not be much point in rehashing all that:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7078&hilit=religion and

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5570&hilit=Devil%27s+Advocate

I agree its semantics. I commend the reader to the very lengthy earlier threads for more back-and-forth.

[BRUTE]

shun - to avoid deliberately and especially habitually

that's not even what brute does. brute mainly just doesn't want to know, so he doesn't have to put up with the cognitive dissonance of humans' cognitive dissonance.

semantics might be it.

[thrifty++]

People dont necessarily need to respect the religion of other people, but they need to respect religious people. Its another life choice like deciding whether to smoke cigarettes or to drive cars. Non smokers and non drivers may regard those activities as things they do not wish to do and they have their reasons for doing so. But they still respect the people who smoke or drive cars, yet know those choices are not for them.

[jacob]

I respect beliefs in the 1st amendment sense; that people have a right to believe in whatever they want(*)

That doesn't mean that I consider all beliefs equally valid. In terms of religion,

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --- Stephen F Roberts

https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_bi ... ll_of_them

(*) The kicker is: What if people believe in things that harm others ... to which degree should that be accepted?

[thrifty++]

(*) The kicker is: What if people believe in things that harm others ... to which degree should that be accepted?

I think in that case religion needs to be subjugated against all other human, environmental and animal rights because religion is the one right that has the potential to destroy all others, and it is due to choice rather than nature.

[Tyler9000]

In the thread on rejecting reality and substituting your own, Jacob observes (rightly, IMHO) that the subject of religion is a good example of a left-wing topic analogous to climate change on the right. In both situations, the groups in question are easily prone to highly passionate opinions on a topic they actually know very little about and don't really care to learn.

When people here ask for respect when it comes to religion, it has nothing to do with acceptance of our beliefs. We simply do not appreciate being stereotyped or ridiculed based on the factually incorrect assumptions of people not genuinely interested in exploring the topic deeper.

[jacob]

@Tyler9000 - Also see Haidt.

@thrifty - Believers in human, environmental, or animal rights are plenty capable of destruction as well. The defining character/driver of destruction seems to be ideology or fundamentalist beliefs. Not religion per se. It's perhaps interesting to note that some cultures/religions have been much more accepting of alternative beliefs than others. For example, the Romans were quite fine [initially] with Christianity since it was just yet another god to add to a polythestic belief system. Similarly, the Chinese were happy to introduce Buddhism insofar it was compatible with/adaptable to/useful to the teachings of Confucius or Taoism. Conversely, monotheist/fundamental (there can be only one truth) beliefs like Christianity, Islam, communism or neoconservatism have caused quite a few deaths in the name of belief.

[thrifty++]

@Tyler9000 - Also, see Haidt.

@thrifty - Believers in human, environmental, or animal rights are plenty capable of destruction as well. The defining character seems to be ideology. Not religion per se.

The difference with those believers though is that their actions are questioned on the basis of logic. With religious actions and instructions they can be issued on an irrational basis as "gods law". Gods law cannot be questioned by logic. Religious instructions cannot be questioned at all or be required to be justified unlike any other rights when in conflict. That is why religious actions and instructions overriding any other rights are especially dangerous. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The other difference is that other rights do not conflict with everything. Religion has conflicted and continues to conflict or has the potential to conflict with all other rights.

[jacob]

@thrifty - I could make a logical argument that 6 billion people should be terminated for environmental reasons. Logic only serves underlying axioms or fundamental values. The strength of logic is that its conclusions are self-consistent with its assumptions, not that its conclusions are necessarily correct.

[thrifty++]

Realistically that would never happen. It would also be tested against many other arguments. There could however be a religious instruction to wipe out one nation of believers or non believers and it could not be questioned once it is proclaimed as god's law otherwise it can be found to be blasphemous. This is not an exaggeration as that is how religion works once it is powerful enough, but religion in western countries (especially outside of USA) is watered down by the secular majority. Religious instructions of this nature occur all day every day, genital mutilation, female oppression, animal abuses, opression of other believers or non believers, blasphemy against freedom of speech, stoning, oppression of gay people. All of this cannot be questioned on the basis of blasphemy where religion is powerful. Logic and natural morals go out the window and become irrelevant to religious instruction.

[Ego]

I definitely do NOT want to shun anyone. Period.

In many ways this topic is quite similar to the Political Correctness Run Amok thread where we, like the college students in the thread, have different views on the point where a conversation becomes offensive or shunning. Moderating the different views so as to minimize offense without homogenizing the conversation is the hard part.

I enjoy discussions that push the boundaries of my understanding and I realize that sometimes discussions like that make me uncomfortable with my worldview. I have no good solution.

But I think it bears repeating that I do not want to shun anyone.

[Dragline]

I think in that case religion needs to be subjugated against all other human, environmental and animal rights . . .

This is a tautology or an example of the fallacy of begging the question. As Yuval Harari discusses in Sapiens, the idea of "rights" is just another narrative that is based on some belief system. His discussion of Locke and Hammurabi, and the three forms of humanism (individual, social and evolutionary) that duked it out in the 20th Century was brilliant.

Consider where the Western (Lockeian) idea of individual human rights comes from. What you are saying is that certain belief systems need to be subjugated to other systems of belief.

[thrifty++]

Consider where the Western (Lockeian) idea of individual human rights comes from. What you are saying is that certain belief systems need to be subjugated to other systems of belief.

I would agree with that. Rights based on natural morals and natural laws not on religious arbitrary "gods law". I admire western rights based secular systems and think they are the pinnacle of world development thus far. Enhanced freedoms, liberties, compassion, empathy, tolerance, scientific development. I also do not think it is merely coincidence that innovation has increased on an exponential scale in the last 100 years and that such innovation has aligned with a marked decrease in religion in the countries where almost all the innovation has come from. I also notice that the largest amount of innovation in the USA comes from states with low levels of religion, eg West USA and Massachusetts etc, not the South.
Religion can be a serious threat where it is allowed to override a conflict with compassion, empathy, liberties, tolerance and innovation. And I do think it should be subjugated where that occurs.The fact that freedom to practice multiple religions is allowed is because of the western secular rights based system. Freedom to practice religion does not mean freedom to embed religious notions into the laws affecting everyone else.

[Dragline]

Um, yeah -- you just confirmed my suspicions that you don't know the history and origins of the ideas you are espousing. Your so-called "natural laws and morals" are simply regurgitated Christianity filtered through John Locke. Here is your source: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-c ... ration.pdf

Let me know if you have other sources you would like to reference that are not religious in origin. This stuff is not new and is not secular. As Harari noted, the difference between Hammurabi's code and what Locke said is that Hammurabi said that some humans have a lot more value than others based on their position in society and Locke said all humans have similar value in the eyes of a creator God that the law should also accord. Hammurabi's view is still the dominant view in most of the world. Locke's is the exception incorporated largely in the West.

The reference to "natural law" is interesting, though, as it is a purely religious idea that is often criticized due to its basis in religion: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... aw/283311/

[thrifty++]

I have studied philosophy at university, including Locke, and HLA Hart and many other philosphers. I don't remember them all being religious though. And I remember the analysis of philosophy being more scientific in nature, rather than being based on "the bible says x so we must y". From what I remember of the religious philosophers the religious element of their contribution was more simply that they were religious rather than that they were extracting from religious scriptures. I can't remember all the details though.

[fiby41]

Religion, faith and god are always taken to mean the same in most threads on the topic I've read so far here.

Faith also exists without god and religion without faith.

So distinguishing which is which will help decide weather to respect or not.

-Muslim considering nationalism haram because a hadith says so: No respect

-Atheist insulting or making fun of his Church going friend : No respect

In this case, the vocal atheist may not belong to any religion but is very religious like adherents/proponents of religions have been previously in bashing world views other than their own

Regarding the back and forth between Dragline and Thrifty, there are also other concepts that have come out of attempts to rationalize religion but are also as good stand alone.

Example:

Free will exists is a generally believed concept to explain the nature of humans in relation to the world. There is another concept also like karma, so it is reasonable to believe there were other models to explain the same in different cultures we could use, had they been allowed to exist.

Now, free will is a purely Christian idea invented by priests to explain the perfect nature of god.
If god is perfect and all powerful, then how does he allow for so much evil to exist?

In comes first mentions of free will 300-400 years after death of Christ clarifying that god loves you. So he gave you choice to select between good and evil. Oh but, humans are born sinners. So make sure you don't default on your 10% tithe/bribe to church, so we may talk him out of sending you to hell.

So its not necessary to throw the baby with the bathwater. Although they were invented to explain religion, they may still be useful without it.