Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Religion, real and unreal

Ophelia Benson has been discussing a wonderful paper, Religion and Respect (pdf) by Simon Blackburn. I don't have much to add, but I found the same parts of the paper extremely appealing—this is exactly how I feel about it all.

'Respect', of course is a tricky term. I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well-placed for ideological purposes. People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions.

We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, andwe am poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them.

"Respect" is such an awkwardly fluid word, as he says. For his first use of the term, in the sense of "letting you get on with it", I prefer to use the word "tolerate"; I'd rather reserve respect for those things I find admirable. It at least puts up a flimsy semantic barrier to block that odious respect creep. So, I tolerate religion, and think it's fine if people adopt dotty beliefs and confine their practice to home and church; I do not respect religion, and find no virtue in it.

As the Blackburn paper illustrates in its opening anecdote, though, showing a lack of respect for religion in the sense above is one of those things that drives the acutely religious nuts. It is not enough to let them be, you must also acknowledge the vast and weighty import of their history, their rituals, their majestic all-powerful Tooth Fairy. And since their god is infinitely malleable, they can attach him to anything to add his incalculable mass to whatever end they want. Little kids get told to say their prayers before bedtime—a meaningless ritual backed by the Lord of the Entire Universe. People are killed en masse in wars because they address same Lord by a different name or title than other people.

But equally perhaps 'God exists' functions largely as a license to demand respect creep. It turns up an amplifier, and what it amplifies is often the meanest and most miserable side of human nature. I want your land, and it enables me to throw bigger and better tantrums, ones that you just have to listen to, if I find myself saying that God wants me to want your land. A tribe wants to enforce the chastity of its women, and the words of the supernatural work to terrify them into compliance. We don't like our neighbours, and it works if we say that they are infidels or heretics. This is religion used to ventilate and to amplify emotions of fear, self-righteousness, vengefulness, bitterness, hatred and self-hatred. If this is how the religious language functions, we on the sidelines should not want people to be using it, and we should not use it ourselves.

We just go along with it all, accepting religious mythology as an implicit part of our culture, and now we're at the point where Wolf Blitzer can ask in all seriousness "if the recent natural disasters…were indication of END OF DAYS" on a major news network, and damn few question the insanity of the question. We can have a president nominate someone to the Supreme Court, and the apologists point to the fervency of her belief in Jesus as one of her qualifications.

"She is a deeply committed Christian," Dobson said. "She has been a believer in Jesus Christ since the late 1970s. I know the person who led her to the Lord. I know the church that she goes to. I know it's a very conservative church. I know that she is a tithe-paying member at that church. I know that she has deep convictions about things. I have talked at length to people that know her—and have known her for a long time. Some of them have been a close personal friend of hers for 25 years. I trust these people because I know them—I know who they are and I know their character and I know what they stand their heart for the Lord."

Try substituting "Hindu" for "Christian" and "Ganesh" for "Jesus" and rereading that if your own religiosity prevents you from seeing how deeply weird that stuff sounds to some of us. Why is uncritical devotion to the unseen and unevidenced considered a benefit for a secular position that requires scholarly analysis of evidence and history? (OK, I know the newest qualifications are for a fanatical adherence to an ideology in spite of the evidence, and in that case religiosity may indicate a predisposition to that…but I'm an idealist and would like to imagine that many people oppose such corruption of the court.)

Speaking of idealists, Jeanne has a good criticism of Hitchens (I am not a fan of Hitchens, but I am a fan of Jeanne—I guess I'm not as fanatical an adherent of atheism as I could be) that brings up a different Christian ideal.

But out here in the real world, most Christians practice their faith quietly, awkwardly, without display, never quite positive what they should do let alone what anyone else should do, without forcing their beliefs on anyone else, often without even mentioning their beliefs to anyone else, and can make no sense whatsoever of Hitchens' sense that somehow that is an unserious way to live a life of faith.

That's very nice. I'm not sure how true it is, though—after all, by definition the humble, modest Christians would not be flaunting their humility and modesty at me, so I wouldn't see it—but what I do see of the ordinary Christians in my little town are ostentatious billboards and letters to the paper condemning others for their sexual orientation and attempts to twist school curricula to fit their religious beliefs (in subtle ways so far—no overt anti-evolutionism, yet). On a larger scale, religious beliefs are an implicit prerequisite for political office everywhere. The Republicans in particular jump at every whisper from such exemplary Christians as James Dobson, and wear their flamboyant Christianity on their sleeves, while on the Democratic side, if Barack Obama were atheist, everyone would be dismissing his obvious talents and sending him back to do committee work in Chicago.

I'm sure the uncertain and sincere Christians exist, and in principle I can appreciate their virtues, but the operational reality of what we see from Christianity in America is arrogance, exclusion, intolerance, and lunacy. What may well start out as an honest humility like Jeanne describes is subject to Blackburn's "respect creep" and the God-amplifier effect, and what we actually get is monstrous and unchristian, using Christianity's own ideals of their faith.


Trackback url: http://tangledbank.net/index/trackback/3116/54W7yEFX/

Comments:
#43573: — 10/12  at  08:17 AM
Try substituting "Hindu" for "Christian" and "Ganesh" for "Jesus" and rereading that if your own religiosity prevents you from seeing how deeply weird that stuff sounds to some of us.

I'm sure if this were true, you wouldn't have linked to it.
Nary a word. Now be honest, your screeds are strictly anti-Christian. You aren't an equal opportunity atheist. I don't recall reading anything ant-Islamic on these pages. I may be wrong



#43574: wolfangel — 10/12  at  08:31 AM
This works remarkably well to describe patriotism, too.



's avatar #43575: PZ Myers — 10/12  at  08:34 AM
Christianity is the religion that is in my face all the time here in America. I think Islam is a nasty brand of mythology, too...but the only reason people ever bring it up is to make excuses for Christianity. "My religion isn't as crazy as that other religion"…sorry, guy, but yes it is.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#43576: — 10/12  at  08:36 AM

For his first use of the term, in the sense of "letting you get on with it", I prefer to use the word "tolerate"

abide

The dude abides.



#43577: — 10/12  at  08:39 AM
As people have discussed in the comments before, it's interesting that the US, which has no state religion, is much more aggressively religious than European countries, which often have state religions.



#43579: — 10/12  at  08:42 AM
Let's lay the cards on the table, Nature: next only to Islam, Christianity is in fact one of the most aggressive and altogether noxious of religions. But the idea that it is necessary to make a rhetorical genuflection to the badness of Islam every single time that one mentions the badness of Christianity can only be described as cretinous.



#43580: — 10/12  at  08:47 AM
We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it.

I'd have to disagree. Of course, if one holds rationality to an exceptional standard of admiration, I guess there's some disappointment but, based on observation, "we" makes that a generally hypocritical standard.
The soldier's wife that irrationally hopes a mistake was made and he's coming home can indeed be respected for that belief. I'm not saying mustbe respected but can be for reasons that are manifold but include rationality.

There's an additional category (or maybe it's the same). There are those who hold to irrational beliefs that help them get through the day. That you or I might be able to find an alternative, perhaps even a rational alternative, is rather arrogantly besides the point. This isn't an endorcement of irrationality itself but it is a rejection of a condemntation of any irrationality and that's what's really being discussed with this backhanded slap guised as diminished respect.

Take whatever slaps are appropriate for whatever rational or irrational beliefs have negative consequences but this attempt to lump it all irrational beliefs together is a sloppy sophism



#43581: — 10/12  at  09:01 AM
No, Wade, Blackburn is both clear and correct on this point. Nowhere does hs call for any sort of "condemnation"- that would be prtty close to the opposite of what he does call for, respect-in-the-sense-of toleration. Nowhere does he indicate that he would be inclined to reproach those whose irrational beliefs help them to get through the day. Neither would I. But you seem to be edging awfully close to the claim that I should somehow be admiring them for needing those beliefs to get through the day. Why? And if you claim you're not saying that, then exactly what do you want over and above passing by in silence?



#43582: — 10/12  at  09:05 AM
I heard an interesting little piece on our local wacky morning show here in Los Angeles about a woman who's started a ministry for strippers and other sex workers called "JC's Girls." And, like many people who despise zealous evangelists, I was cringing a little before she got on the line with the deejays.

What I found fascinating is that she said her work is very difficult because it's hard for her to find a church where the girls who contact her will be accepted and not judged. There are a lot of "Christians" out there who are obsessed with figuring out where they stand on the sinfulness scale and judging those they feel are "beneath" them. So even though these strippers would like to go to church and maybe change their lives, it's very difficult because most churches throw them out the instant they find out what the girls do for a living.

Which, I shouldn't have to say, is completely antithetical to everything Jesus said in the Bible.

And then "Christians" wonder why their blatant hypocrisy makes the rest of us hold them in such low esteem ...



#43583: — 10/12  at  09:06 AM
I think your views on respecting vs. tolerating religion are a little rigid and ignore human psychology. For the most part, I respect rather than tolerate others' religions at least insofar as it serves as a proxy for other virtues that allow them to function as a community. While you can have all this within a naturalistic worldview, that has historically been the exception rather than the rule, and it's more important to me that people treat each other decently than to go around policing their reasons for doing so. By contrast, I don't believe in having respect or tolerance for harmful religious beliefs (e.g. racial theories or apocalyptic views) so I do see the main issue as respect.

To remove this from the context of Christianity in the US, suppose I'm visiting an ancient Buddhist temple. People come periodically to burn incense, say, or release turtles in a special pond. I'm quiet to avoid disturbing them, avoid flash photography, etc. Is this "respect" or "tolerance"? I feel respect and reverence, standing in awe of thousands of years of the sacred history of a people. The same would be true of a cathedral in Europe. I don't agree that their beliefs are literally true (they couldn't be with all the contradictions) but I accept it as the language in which people talk about their values.

As for evangelical billboards, to begin with I think it's a mistake to assume that they represent the majority of American Christians (but maybe I would have to move to a red state to be certain). There are a lot of Christians of one form or another, and most don't go around proselytizing. I respect these people and their beliefs. I don't "respect" the billboards, because I consider them to be in-your-face near intolerance in their own right. I do tolerate them because we have a first amendment, but that's where it stops in the case. However, it's a mistake to conflate the billboards with the practices of Americans, most of whom are just people, right about some things, wrong about others, and mostly using religion as a language for values, just as humans have done through most of history.



#43584: — 10/12  at  09:14 AM
What do I over and above silence?

I'm not saying I want anything. I'm rejecting the contention that
we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it.

I'm rejecting the absolute, categorical nature of that statement.
Strictly on rational ground, I can respect the holding of irrational beliefs that help one get through the day. The defense is not against irrationality in toto. Believing that your next lottery ticket will get you out of debt won't inpire respect. Believing that someday things will be better can, even when it's a far less than rational belief. Or maybe I'm just obsessing over how I respect people who believe that very thing when I don't.



#43585: — 10/12  at  09:15 AM
PZ: "while on the Democratic side, if Barack Obama were atheist, everyone would be dismissing his obvious talents and sending him back to do committee work in Chicago"

This may be something of an overstatement, since Durbin gets elected here without any frequent call to religious values, but I'll happily grant you that Obama's moralistic appeal combined with his amazing public speaking skills put him over the top.

Speaking as a strongly agnostic person from a Jewish upbringing, Obama shows exactly how and why someone with a secular mindset can respect someone from a religious one, and it is not directly due to the faith or belief in and of itself. Instead, I deeply respect Obama's commitment to morals, just as I did with a rather conservative and religious guy with whom I had a fascinating conversation on a plane ride this past week. In both cases, I could care less whether they believe in God, and which version of such, even though they both think it central. Instead, I am happy to judge them, and hope to be judged by them for that matter, on the basis of moral choices. As one of the recent threads went into, morality transcends religion, even though the two are so closely linked in the public imagination. If Obama, or a conservative, or anyone makes a moral choice I agree with, I will respect him regardless of the reasons for that choice. If someone has a strongly held belief that I firmly disagree with, I see no need to respect it for its strength (though in some cases a grudging respect for consistency in an often hypocritical world isn't uncalled for). In short, you can respect a person for what he/she does, rather than for what he/she believes, and it can lead to some common good instead of arguments at times.



#43586: — 10/12  at  09:18 AM
Wade, you're contradicting yourself. You claim not to want anything over and above the "thin" respect of passing over in silence, yet you continue to complain because Blackburn wants to grant precisely this but not "thicker" forms of respect. It's really not clear at all what you're asking for that Blackburn fails to grant.



#43587: — 10/12  at  09:25 AM
I'll stand up and take a good punch to the face... smile

I'm one of those "humble, modest Christians." (At least I pray I am every time I pray.) It's hard for us. I was once having a conversation with a friend who is gay, who was telling me about how difficult that label can be in our society. I joked to him: try being moderately liberal, fascinated by evolutionary theory, Christian, growing up in west Texas... Everybody hates you. I've definitely had the feeling of being caught between two sides -- science and religion.

One of the most exciting things I've seen happen in this whole Dover trial was the testimony of Ken Miller. Now there's a guy I respect. He's a Christian. Seems like a good scientist to me.

My Christianity gives me my morals, my purpose, and my philosophy. Part of that philosophy is the belief that "God did it." (Perhaps 99% of you don't like that statement?) But that philosophy certainly doesn't tell me HOW God did it. That's what has me so enraged over all these so-called Christians that think they can speak for all of us. I swear, if I read one more Christian lawyer tell me about evolutionary biology, I just might have an aneurism. That's what keeps me lurking at blogs like this, and Panda's thumb. There's so much great information. But it is disappointing to see the hostility, though I understand that hostility is directed at people who, well, I feel a little hostility towards myself.

I'm about to start grad school, pursuing a master's in biology. My thesis will probably involve ecology of birds. After that I hope to go for a doctorate. So, I'm about to "take the plunge." More than anything, I hope I can be a "go between" for biology and Christianity. I've observed over the years that many, many Christians simply need someone they trust to patiently explain how evolution works. They're shocked because they had no idea of the evidence for the theory, and they're generally interested in learning about it. Some of course seem to be lost causes. But then again, my philosophy tells me that God's still working on all of us.

On the science side, it's a little scary to see some of the reactions that people have. I'm used to being the "liberal guy with crazy post-modern ideas" when compared to my west Texas church culture. In fact, I enjoy that label. I'm sure it'll be a little shocking to get to grad school and be "the crazy, right-wing Christian nut job."

But in the end, all you can do is find your own beliefs, and stick to them. My hope for all of us is that we can enjoy those things we agree about. I've certainly enjoyed learning more about science here. Perhaps you guys can accept and even respect those religious folks who don't try to ram it down your throats?



#43588: covington — 10/12  at  09:28 AM
There's another type of "respect" that the religious do deserve. The respect that an animal handler shows towards dangerous beasts. Be extra careful when you get in a cage with people who believe it's the end of the world.



#43589: Kristine Harley — 10/12  at  09:38 AM
"There are a lot of 'Christians' out there who are obsessed with figuring out where they stand on the sinfulness scale and judging those...strippers [who] would like to go to church and maybe change their lives, it's very difficult because most churches throw them out the instant they find out what the girls do for a living."

Yeah, geez, what an opportunity. Maybe atheists should step in where Christians fear to tread? Let the strippers and other "marginal" types come unto us? Maybe we should stress the life-changing virtues and the pleasures of clear thought, critical analysis, and the striving for knowledge?

After all, I grew up in a deeply-religious atmosphere, and while I respect (tolerate) my family's views, I see how their beliefs inhibit them and make them content to watch other people do interesting things. Atheism allows me to be an active participant in a changing cosmos. One doesn't often hear someone being interviewed on television about how atheism changed his or her life.



#43591: — 10/12  at  09:43 AM
Steve, no, I'm not contradicting myself. I did not say I only want this thin level of respect. I didn't say I wanted any respect. I say it's incorrect to say we can't respect (and I'll add even profoundly respect and admire) a belief purely because it's irrational. Next time, read what I actually write, not what you think I'm writing.



#43592: — 10/12  at  09:52 AM
Still being incoherent, Wade; you're having an emotional reaction that is not lending iteslf to clear thought. You can admire whatever you like, but Blackburn, PZ and I are under no compulsion to join you. My position in a nutshell is that while I can greatly respect, say, Barack Obama, he certainly does not get extra points from me for his religious beliefs. How you allocate your "respect points" is of course your business.



#43593: — 10/12  at  09:59 AM
I'm sure the uncertain and sincere Christians exist, and in principle I can appreciate their virtues, but the operational reality of what we see from Christianity in America is arrogance, exclusion, intolerance, and lunacy.

What we see when we only bother to skim the congealed skin off the turkey broth of Christianity. Popular punditry in our media selects for loudmouth jerks: Pat Robertson and his ilk. So we are getting a non-representative sample if we just listen to the loony proclamations of that sort.

I haven't done the study, but my guess would be that a good sized slice of the Christian-in-America pie would be the sort of non-fervent and just-go-to-church-by-default sort of folk who kind of go through the motions and basically believe it but don't really examine it or fuss about their religion much. Sure, there are zealots, many, in the U.S., but many of the standard issue Christians think they are sort of goofy. That's why terms like "bible thumpers" and such are around. I really suspect Christian belief fervency and belief control (how thought-through or pondered one's beliefs are) follow the typical distribution, with most within one standard deviation from middle of the road
non-fervent basically rational believers.



#43594: — 10/12  at  10:03 AM
Speaking as a life-long atheist, I love the cries that Christians deserve more respect. After years of being looked at in horror and then denounced as "foolish" or "lost" because I refuse to look at myself as a meat puppet, I wonder who should really be demanding more respect in our society.

Christians have gotten all the respect for nearly two millenia. The only people who ever substantially disrepect Christians in Western society are other Christians, the different sects of which cannot seem to decide just how "great" God is.

The best I can offer Christians is common decency, which is a lot more than most of the Christians I have met have afforded me. Respect, however, went out the window a long time ago.



#43595: pdf23ds — 10/12  at  10:07 AM
Steve, it seems to me that the only thing Wade is claiming is that one is not wrong to respect--in any sense--irrational beliefs in someone. So when Blackburn says we "cannot respect", he's technically wrong. Now, we can disagree as to whether irrational beliefs can ever be wonthy of respect, and under what circumstances, but simply stating that they are is not incoherent, and I think that's all wade is doing.



#43596: — 10/12  at  10:15 AM
JP- nice post, you seem like a nice fellow. A few comments.
'As for evangelical billboards, to begin with I think it's a mistake to assume that they represent the majority of American Christians (but maybe I would have to move to a red state to be certain). '

To me this is a version of the 'One true scotsmans' fallacy. It applies to every other Christian but not me. This has proven itself over and over again. I'm a Christian but not a 'nutball' Christian. I think we all think this way, if your Christian that is. As I grow I begin to understand the 'tribal' lanquage.


'My Christianity gives me my morals, my purpose, and my philosophy'

No your parents gave you your morals, I fail to see how you get purpose from religion but ok, and if your philosophy is based on a religion that can't be proven it's on shaky ground.

'But that philosophy certainly doesn't tell me HOW God did it'

Or anything else either. At least not anymore than believing in the Flying pasta monster would.

'More than anything, I hope I can be a "go between" for biology and Christianity. I've observed over the years that many, many Christians simply need someone they trust to patiently explain how evolution works.'

Thats good. I think that is to be applauded. But it's a game you won't win. There is no go between because really, if people were honest, they are incompatible. Hence the problem. You can't apply science to religion without making any case for religion fall apart.

'Perhaps you guys can accept and even respect those religious folks who don't try to ram it down your throats?'

Respecting people isn't the problem, it's the bizarre beliefs people ask other people to respect. A big difference.



#43597: — 10/12  at  10:15 AM
Blackburn nowhere proposes forcing people like Wade to be part of that "we". If people want to accord "thick" respect to obviously false beliefs, that will certainly make it more difficult for me to respct them, but on the other hand they're certainly under no obligation to care about what I think. The really curious thing, which is one of the things Blackburn is trying to analyze, is that there are so many Wades (not to speak of all those much more deeply committed to irrational beliefs who behave in excactly this way as well) who for some reason do care. It's as though they have some need for validation from those outside the circle of people who already think as they do. I really don't understand that craving, and I certainly don't respect it.



#43598: pdf23ds — 10/12  at  10:17 AM
yorktank,

The persecution complex of many Christians--those who think that Christianity is under continually attack from all sorts of various infidels, that it doesn't get respect from mainstream society, that most people outside their sect are immoral and evil sinners--is truly one of the defining features of fundamentalism. That they cry out for lack of respect is only one of many symptoms of this.

PaulC said:
"For the most part, I respect rather than tolerate others' religions at least insofar as it serves as a proxy for other virtues that allow them to function as a community. While you can have all this within a naturalistic worldview, that has historically been the exception rather than the rule..."

I'd like to take exception to this. Historically atheism itself has been the exception, but that's only because religious myths are very likely to crop up a lot. I'd say that in groups or communities who eschew dogmatism of any kind, the morality on the whole is likely to be much greater. God-beliefs in themselves probably don't have much causally to do with the morality of groups. In fact, there was a crooked timber thread on this a few days ago.



#43599: — 10/12  at  10:17 AM
Steve, I don't respect your irrational inability to read the words I actually wrote. You don't seem to comprehend things like "I'm rejecting the absolute, categorical nature of that statement." You are inventing things not written to presume I'm saying youmust respect anything or anyone. I never told you or anyone else who or what they must respect. I did reject the notion that "we" cannot respect certain beliefs for the sole reason that they are irrational. But my perisistence in repeating something to someone who has a mental block is not rational and I don't respect myself for bothering to repeat something when all indications are that they are incapable of understanding it.



Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Next entry: Educated and medicated

Previous entry: Report in, skeptics

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college