Towards Religious Tolerance (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

This is a deep issue and one long debated.

If we are to live amongst each other in relative harmony, how best can we be "tolerant" particularly on political/legal issues where there is a clash of core beliefs. Is tolerance really viable or a hard-line left, relativist dream?

As an atheist and a professed humanist I am trying to work towards a core-value framework where I approach people on all sides of lifes deepest questions with a baseline level of respect, notwithstanding how "illogical" or scientifically invalid I may see their belief as being. In light of discussions I have had with atheist and theists alike, do you actually enjoy real-life arguments? Those who thrive (particularly on the atheistic side here) do you enjoy attacking the theistic framework due to ego-creedance or are you able to hold a logical, well-paced discussion on theology without it becoming heated? Conversely, it can be very difficult, given that many theistic viewpoints are inherently intolerant when fully undertaken- ie A Conservative Christian meets an atheistic (yet trying to be tolerant) homosexual.

Is it best to avoid these discussions altogether, to accept that a variety of spiritual beliefs are what in many ways defines mankind, that they give comfort to those who are seeking and (in general promote good works etc charities).

This seems dandy, but how do we then solve the issue of religious groups lobbying to make issues such as abortion illegal, creationism in schools, Islamists rioting over the use of "free-speech"?

How do you approach religious tolerance? Is open-minded philosophical criticism which strikes at the core questions of theology (eg questioning whether God exists) rightfully "intolerant" or simply a requirement for a rational, modern society with an inherent value for free-speech? Do you view the notion of religious liberty as also entailing the ability to live a life fully uninfluenced by religious agenda- in our laws, our education systems, our government policies?

Essentially, can we all live together happily, yet sharing starkly different core-value systems, in a practical sense? Or must one eventually avail and repression persist?

 

[Cookie182]

I reflected upon a post I found at Richard Dawkins "clear thinking" forum:

You might want to reflect on the evidence that his turn to theism gave him relief, even if not complete, from the apoplexy he was suffering. Religion exists because it offers something to individuals beyond what science, psychology, medicine and atheism have to offer. It's fine to speak philosophically about how deluded religionists may be and how their beliefs are not founded in any (to us) critically robust evidence supporting their claims, but the simple fact is that religion brings solace and comfort, not to mention joy and pleasure, to billions of human beings, irrespective of it's scientific validity.

Why would anyone presume to disabuse anyone of a belief that, peacefully practiced, gives them joy, solace and comfort? Is that not arrogant cruelty made manifest? If your friend suffered from apoplexy, and found relief in religion that he could not find in science, seeking to turn him from religion would be exceedingly inhumane and cruel, don't you think?

Why can you not either accept him as he is, and let friendship and compassion cause you to hold your tongue and suppress your atheistic zeal to argue with him about his belief, and simply be his friend and rejoice in the fact that he has found purpose and happiness, at least to some degree, and freedom from the torment that he once had, or do him the service of simply disconnecting with him entirely, rather than try to argue him out of his belief. What is gained by doing so except to throw him into turmoil and torment to satisfy some egoistic need of your own?

What is it about atheists that drives them to arrogantly presume that their way of life and system of belief is so superior to that of a religious believer that they are morally justified in interfering in the lives of religionists? As a Tolerist it seems an incredible arrogance and disdain for the rights and feeling of others to me.

I knew a beautiful girl in college who suffered from schizophrenia and multiple personalities. She talked to herself constantly and struggled with her disease all the time I knew her. She had been to doctors since she was a small child and medication was not completely effective in controlling her problems. She turned to religion as a way of finding a group that would be uncritical of her, who would love her in spite of her disability, and who would support and help her as best they could. And they did so. Their "casting out of demons" and prayer sessions were effective only for short periods, and why they were effective at all is a matter of conjecture, but for a few weeks afterwords she found relief and was calm, rational and able to function much better than when she was alone and using only medication.

Her religious friends never gave up on her, and took her in, helped her to cope, supported and loved her uncritically and gave of themselves constantly because that is what their religious beliefs demanded of them and what their hearts told them to do. When she became too much for one set of roomates, the church rotated her to another, and found her housing and gainful employment, and made sure she took her meds.

This went on for three years, until she successfully graduated from college and, on her own decision, moved away. But even then, the faith of the church followed her and she was referred to another church in her new town, which also took her in and accepted her and helped her in selfless love and compassion.

Last I heard, she was employed and living in a group home supported by the church, which beats what atheism had to offer her, which is disdain, ridicule and a home under a bridge somewhere until she froze to death some winter.

I ask you, when has any atheist organization been one-thousandth as supportive or compassionate towards anyone in trouble as religion has been consistently throughout history?

Where are the Richard Dawkins Soup Kitchens and Homeless Shelters? Where are the Daniel Dennett Group Homes for the Mentally Infirm? Where are the Atheist Rescue Missions for the Addicted, where are the Madyln Murry Ohair African Outreach Missions?

They don't exist, do they? That's pretty significant to me when it comes to judging the moral and social worth of atheism.

And they don't exist because for all atheism's high sounding principles, in reality atheists have absolutely nothing positive, helpful or supportive to offer humanity. Atheism offers emptiness, ridicule, disaffection towards others, lack of community, anger, hate, conflict and all manner of negative emotions, but absolutely nothing positive or helpful to real people in crisis.

Religion, on the other hand, has a century's-old tradition of reaching out and helping the destitute, the disabled and the scum of the earth that others revile and kick to the gutter in their arrogance and lack of compassion, and religion offers this solace free of charge and at the expense of those who participate. Religion is, in fact, one of the largest contributors to worldwide charitable aid, and always has been.

Whether or not such people are deluded, whether or not their God exists, they are for the most part good people who do good things and wish to live good lives, something that cannot be said of atheists as a group, because of course atheists believe in nothing, quite literally and insistently.

So, when it comes to "clear thinking," it's highly debatable who wins that contest, religionists or atheists.

I agree with the majority of the article here, although of course tolerance is not exactly permeating from the theistic side of things either, yet that is beside the point.

Over the last several months when I really read quite deeply on atheism, I admittedly had a "militant" feeling to "spread the word" (something I see now as just as bad) and very much thrived from engaging in any religious argument I could. Admittedly, an ego drive does kick in- the logical proofs, the many exceptional arguments strike at the core of theistic beliefs, and although IMO the conclusion is correct, I often felt quite horrible afterwards having left many theists (including friends) feeling quite upset and/or angry/confused. I have a few apologies I think I owe.

Recently (and aided by the above post) I have felt quite different on the issue and wonder how others did. Although, there certainly needs to be work put in on both sides of the debate.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Good post, raises some very interesting issues.

In terms of 'avoiding' certain points in the interests of being politically correct or whatever, here's an interesting quote by Obama which offers what I see as being an important point on the issue:

When we abandon the field of religious discourse—when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum. And those who do are likely to be those with the most insular views of faith, or who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

 

[Serius]

I dont see religious views as exempt from criticism, if an atheist wants to call a theist delusional for beleiving in something without evidence...Thats the broadest example i could think of, on the whole, christianity is quite capable of taking criticism, they dont try and behead people for making fun of jesus for example. Religion shouldnt have any sort of special laws or treatment or protection just because those particular sets of organised beleifs are held strongly by some.

Of course, i do beleive that we should have a right to absolute freedom of speech so fundies can feel free to spread their message, as long as they dont try to legally gag me when i make fun of them for it.

 

[Iron]

Essentially, can we all live together happily, yet sharing starkly different core-value systems, in a practical sense? Or must one eventually avail and repression persist?

This is very rich coming from you. Joking or not, youve said a few times that youd like all religion and belief in God to be totally, violently, annihilated.

For the Christian, we may occasionally tell you that youre sinning and suspect that you already know, but your reformation is not on our head. Yet the athiest sees the Christian - at peace with himself and his role in the world - and is filled green with envy

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Essentially, can we all live together happily, yet sharing starkly different core-value systems.

I would argue that, essentially, we have similar core values, at least in Australia, yet different ways of applying them.

I mean, even though I disagree with the things that people such as Iron say about homosexuality, it's obvious they do so because they see themselves as being compassionate etc. So I'm willing to bet we similarly value the importance of being a good person, helping others etc.

 

[Iron]

not on yer life fairy

 

[Silver Persian]

Respecting someone shouldn't mean passively accepting anything they say; everybody should be expected to critically reflect on their beliefs.

Fine line between critiquing an argument and attacking a person.

I have said this before
/flies away on broomstick

 

[HumanDichotomy]

not on yer life fairy

Hmm. That's interesting. Because I would have thought that 'Love your neighbour' nicely encapsulates the values of being a good person and helping others.

 

[Iron]

Hmm. Very interesting, I will think upon it hmmmm

 

[Cookie182]

Hmm. Very interesting, I will think upon it hmmmm

Such antagonism though.

I highly doubt that you would be so sure in a real-life debate however.

Point being, I've consolidated my beliefs to the point where I'm not perturbed the slightest by any theistic preaching etc. I'm also no longer inclined to debate, it's highly frivolous.

The only time I will critique-

1) Academic purpose- ie a political debate invoking religious reasoning

2) Religion being enshrined in law

3) Being told "I'm a sinner" etc and having an evangelizing theist in my face.

 

[Iron]

you fat-headed secular heathen

 

[saberbladexx]

I wish someday all humans will respect each other and each other's beliefs.
Theres just too much hate in the world, what have we as a race come to.

Atleast things are changing, people are more tolerant than they were say a century ago, progress is progress any which way you look at it, so atleast we have that to be thankful for i guess.

 

[Lentern]

Most agnostics are allright, more interested in understanding than any real wars on religion, they can get generally get along with the religious folk without too much inner conflict. The onus is really on us the religious folk to be reasonable. We need to become more trendy and progressive like me and less institutional and scary like Iron.

 

[Iron]

Oh lentern I weep for your weakness.
The Church must never compromise truth. This would be the greatest betrayal of our saviour since Judas. Leave the world to itself, I impore you

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Leave the world to itself, I implore you

The same could be implored of you.

 

[Iron]

Cant you go over 5 seconds without humiliating yourself?

 

[spyro14]

Religious tolerance can never be achieved unless one of two circumstance arise.

One, the entire world uniformly turns to one religion

or alternatively

Two, the trend in human behaviour is broken where we stop instinctively telling everyone else with different beliefs and sometimes in wierd circumstances people with the same beliefs that they're wrong.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

tolerate people who believe in zeus? k.

 

[spyro14]

Anyone who believes in zeus at this time is either retarded or is characterised by insanity. You like making fun of retards and insane people?