Respecting religious beliefs

[atheist buddy]

Why is it that in every field of human knowledge, a belief is only respected when it has been established that it's true, but when it comes to religion, we have to respect it even when it's not true?


In the field of history, the belief that the Holocaust never happened is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

In the field of astronomy, the belief that the moon is made of cheese is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

So why do the beliefs that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Mohammed rode a flying horse, or that Balaal had a talking donkey have to be respected even if they are false?


If I said "Believing the Halocaust didn't happen is as absurd as believing in Peter Pan", nobody would chide me for being disrespectful of a holocaust denier's beliefs.

If I said "Believing the moon is made out of cheese is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy" nobody would chide me for being disresepctful to a moon-made-out-of cheese person's beliefs.

So why do I get scolded for making comparisons between the Talking Donkey and the Gingerbread Man, or the Virgin Birth and the Three Little Piggies?



Is it because people are very emotionally attached to beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births, and I should be mindful of not hurting their feelings? If that's the case, then what if a holocaust denier is very emotionally attached to his beliefs? Should I refrain from expressing my sincere opinion that his beliefs are absurd, to safeguard his feelings?

Is it because beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births are held by millions whereas holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon is made of cheese are thankfully very rare? By that token, should I have been respectful of the typical white american's belief about race relations in the 19th century, because those unjustified and inexcusable beliefs were the beliefs of the majority?


Why is there a double standard? Why is belief that Elvis is still alive cause for imediate social ostratization, but belief in the virgin birth respected even by those who don't share that belief?


It seems to me that in all aspects of human discourse, this parameter is used: If a belief is justified, it's respected. If it isn't justified, it is not respected. Why aren't religious claims subject to that same standard?


If I compare the Bible to the Three Little Piggies, the only valid rebuke is that the Bible is a more literarily interesting work of fiction than the Three Little Piggies. Of course, if I compared the Bible to, say, Shakespeare, the inverse would be true, and if anything, I could be accused of insulting Shakespeare.

IF the talking donkey and the virgin birth actually happened, then comparing them to fictional events that didn't happen, is indeed disrespectful. But if the talking donkey and the virgin birth are fictional, how is it disrespectful to compare them to other fictional stories? How is comparing fiction to fiction disrespectful?



Can we agree that there is no universal requirement for respecting somebody's mathematical, scientific, historical, geographical, beliefs if they are unjustified?

Can we agree that while I do have to be respectful to a person who believes 2+2=5, it is perfectly socially acceptable to be disrespectful of the belief itself?

So why can't the same apply to religion? Why is it not ok to say to a Muslim "I respect you as a person, but in my opinion your belief in Mohammed's flying horse is as absurd as a child's belief in Santa's flying reindeer".

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to atheist buddy]

Like many atheists, it seems it's all about propositional truth with you. What does it even mean to respect/disrespect the belief that 2+2=5?

There's a lot more to respecting someone's vegetarianism than respecting a propositional belief than it's wrong to kill animals for food. As I suspect you won't think there are objective moral truths you probably already understand that it isn't about truth or falsehood. A vegetarian may put considerable effort into the practice, demonstrate integrity and see it as a large part of their identity. If so they would more worthy of respect than another person who also thinks it's wrong to kill animals but enjoys meat and so eats it anyway.

In the same way, I might believe in God but not practice religion, showing again that it's not about propositional belief. And religious practice often has much in common with practices like vegetarianism, plus it can be deeply bound up with cultural identity.

Your error is the similar to that of the Pastafarian who wanted to have his passport photo taken with a sieve on his head, thinking it was the same as wearing a turban or hijab. It isn't.

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

Your error is the similar to that of the Pastafarian who wanted to have his passport photo taken with a sieve on his head, thinking it was the same as wearing a turban or hijab. It isn't.

I think you missed the point of the sieve-photo-thing.
The point there was simply to show how problematic it is, to allow certain behavior that we would otherwise not allow, just because it's done under the protection of religion.

See, there is a rule about passboard-pictures: You are not supposed to wear anything on your head. All of your head/face needs to be entirely visible. This is a very simple rule, and EVERYBODY has to obey to them...
And then, of course, you have religous people who will tell you that, sure, everybody has to obey these rules... except for them! Because they don't want to obey it because they believe that their god doesn't want it!
But sorry, do we really want to do that? Do we really want to start playing "Whos realigion do we want to respect" when it comes to rules that simply everybody shoud obey?
Because if we do, then suddenly somebody will start claiming that their god wants them to wear something silly on their head that clearly doesn't fit the rules... and you have to allow it, just because apparently religous believes trump regulations.

THAT was the point of the pastafarian-sieve-action.

[Divine Insight]

Sam Harris spoke to this issue quite frequently. And I tend to agree with him.

Religion is really the only area of human thought that has traditionally been considered too sacred to criticize. Fortunately, we do live in a time now when this has changed dramatically. At least to a large degree. And this is largely due to freedom of speech and the Internet.

The only line of defense left now for these religions are claims of "incivility" if you speak too harshly of a religion. And I think that is a very fine line to be sure.

The problem I have is that the reason I reject the religion is not because its claims are "scientifically impossible". I will even grant that a supreme creator of reality could override the physics of reality. I have no problem with that.

My problem is with the reasons why this God supposedly overrides the laws of physics. It's my position that this God does so for absolutely absurd, immoral, and basically insane reasons.

That is my argument against these religions. Therefore if I'm not permitted to make that argument then I have no argument against them.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to atheist buddy]

Like many atheists, it seems it's all about propositional truth with you.

It's not ALL about propositional truth, but doesn't truth matter at least a little bit?

What does it even mean to respect/disrespect the belief that 2+2=5?

I don't know! But I feel that if somebody says "I believe 2+2=5" I will not lose my job for telling him "You are completely wrong, 2+2=4".

On the other hand if somebody professed belief in the virgin birth I could very easily be fired from a typical workplace for saying "You are 100% wrong, that's not how human biology works".

Put another way, if I fired my company's accountant for believing that 2+2=5, nobody wold accuse me of unlawful termination. If I fired my OBGYN for believing in virgin births, I might.

There's a lot more to respecting someone's vegetarianism than respecting a propositional belief than it's wrong to kill animals for food. As I suspect you won't think there are objective moral truths you probably already understand that it isn't about truth or falsehood. A vegetarian may put considerable effort into the practice, demonstrate integrity and see it as a large part of their identity. If so they would more worthy of respect than another person who also thinks it's wrong to kill animals but enjoys meat and so eats it anyway.

I don't see why I can't take somebody's actions and somebody's beliefs, and treat them separately.

Let's say somebody is a vegetarian because he believes killing animals is morally wrong. In that case, I can respect his belief in the immorality of killing animals, and I can respect his actions of following his own moral rules and not eating meat.

Let's say somebody was a vegetarian because he believed that eating meat tranformed people into a warewolf. In that case, while acknowledging that by not eating meat he is incidentally foregoing the immoral action of killing animals, I can nonetheless point out that his belief in warewolfs in totally laughable.

If that person's belief in warewolfs didn't just cause the person not to eat meat, but also to occasionally fly airplanes into buildings filled with 3000 meat-eaters, then my distaste for his irrational beliefs would be even more founded.

In the same way, I might believe in God but not practice religion, showing again that it's not about propositional belief. And religious practice often has much in common with practices like vegetarianism, plus it can be deeply bound up with cultural identity.

So what? I have to respect false beliefs because they are part of a cultural identity? Anti-semitism is a belief that is part of Islamic countries' cultural identity. Should I respect that?

Your error is the similar to that of the Pastafarian who wanted to have his passport photo taken with a sieve on his head, thinking it was the same as wearing a turban or hijab. It isn't.

Why not? How is it different?

[Unhand Me Sir]

I don't know! But I feel that if somebody says "I believe 2+2=5" I will not lose my job for telling him "You are completely wrong, 2+2=4".

On the other hand if somebody professed belief in the virgin birth I could very easily be fired from a typical workplace for saying "You are 100% wrong, that's not how human biology works".

Certainly the laws on discrimination here in the UK see religion as a protected area similar to race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. It doesn't extend that protection to people who practice non-standard arithmetic. Sometimes this goes a bit over the top, but in view of a history fraught with religious discrimination and bloodshed you can see the intention.

Note also that none of the other protected groups are defined by propositional belief which, as I've said, isn't all that relevant.

Put another way, if I fired my company's accountant for believing that 2+2=5, nobody wold accuse me of unlawful termination. If I fired my OBGYN for believing in virgin births, I might.

Again, I can only cite UK law but here you'd need to demonstrate that they couldn't do their job. A gynaecologist who can get the job done is entitled to believe privately as they like. You can't fire people for their beliefs. That would be thoughtcrime.

The MRI scanner was invented by a YEC, which shows that the world is even stranger than it first appears.

I don't see why I can't take somebody's actions and somebody's beliefs, and treat them separately.

Let's say somebody is a vegetarian because he believes killing animals is morally wrong. In that case, I can respect his belief in the immorality of killing animals, and I can respect his actions of following his own moral rules and not eating meat.

Let's say somebody was a vegetarian because he believed that eating meat tranformed people into a warewolf. In that case, while acknowledging that by not eating meat he is incidentally foregoing the immoral action of killing animals, I can nonetheless point out that his belief in warewolfs in totally laughable.

If that person's belief in warewolfs didn't just cause the person not to eat meat, but also to occasionally fly airplanes into buildings filled with 3000 meat-eaters, then my distaste for his irrational beliefs would be even more founded.

It's a question of personal taste, but I'd respect the werewolf guy a lot less than the traditional vegetarian.

I have no respect for Westboro Baptist Church and similar examples but great respect for Christians I know who, because of their religion, do a great deal to make the world a better place.

Make of that what you will.

So what? I have to respect false beliefs because they are part of a cultural identity? Anti-semitism is a belief that is part of Islamic countries' cultural identity. Should I respect that?

You don't have to respect anything religious. It seems pretty clear that you don't. It's just a question of courtesy sometimes.

Why not? How is it different?

That's an interesting discussion, but perhaps for another thread.

[atheist buddy]

I don't know! But I feel that if somebody says "I believe 2+2=5" I will not lose my job for telling him "You are completely wrong, 2+2=4".

On the other hand if somebody professed belief in the virgin birth I could very easily be fired from a typical workplace for saying "You are 100% wrong, that's not how human biology works".

Certainly the laws on discrimination here in the UK see religion as a protected area similar to race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. It doesn't extend that protection to people who practice non-standard arithmetic. Sometimes this goes a bit over the top, but in view of a history fraught with religious discrimination and bloodshed you can see the intention.

It's precisely because of a history fraught with religious discrimination, that we shouldn't make special exceptions for religious discrimination!

If the rule is "You may not wear a hat for a passport photo", but you make an exception for some guy because of his religion, but you make no exception for me, I'm being religiously discriminated!

Note also that none of the other protected groups are defined by propositional belief which, as I've said, isn't all that relevant.

Exactly, all the other protected classes (gender, race, sexual orientation) are absolutely not about beliefs. It's about who these people are.

To the contrary, some people get special treatment because of what they believe. That is discriminatory.

Put another way, if I fired my company's accountant for believing that 2+2=5, nobody wold accuse me of unlawful termination. If I fired my OBGYN for believing in virgin births, I might.

Again, I can only cite UK law but here you'd need to demonstrate that they couldn't do their job. A gynaecologist who can get the job done is entitled to believe privately as they like. You can't fire people for their beliefs. That would be thoughtcrime.

So you don't think it's reasonable to preemptively assume that a gynecologist who believes in virgin births may easily not be able to do their job?

What about a structural engineer who believes that cotton candy is sturdier than steel beams? Would you hire him to build your house?

The MRI scanner was invented by a YEC, which shows that the world is even stranger than it first appears.

So what? How is that reevant. Newton believed in alchemy. The fact that the MRI scanner works and Newtownian gravity works, doesn't mean we should respect alchemy or young earth creation. Why not? Because they aren't real!

I don't see why I can't take somebody's actions and somebody's beliefs, and treat them separately.

Let's say somebody is a vegetarian because he believes killing animals is morally wrong. In that case, I can respect his belief in the immorality of killing animals, and I can respect his actions of following his own moral rules and not eating meat.

Let's say somebody was a vegetarian because he believed that eating meat tranformed people into a warewolf. In that case, while acknowledging that by not eating meat he is incidentally foregoing the immoral action of killing animals, I can nonetheless point out that his belief in warewolfs in totally laughable.

If that person's belief in warewolfs didn't just cause the person not to eat meat, but also to occasionally fly airplanes into buildings filled with 3000 meat-eaters, then my distaste for his irrational beliefs would be even more founded.

It's a question of personal taste, but I'd respect the werewolf guy a lot less than the traditional vegetarian.

I would respect the two equally, as human beings, but I would not respect the belief in warewolfs, because it's not a true belief. If warefolf vegetarians expected to be allowed to wear tin-foil hats because they thought it was the only way not to get contaminated by the warewolf aura of meat-eaters around them, I'd laugh SO hard at them.

I have no respect for Westboro Baptist Church and similar examples but great respect for Christians I know who, because of their religion, do a great deal to make the world a better place.

I don't believe that anybody who does great good, does so becuase of his religion.

But even if they did, their good actions would be borne of false beliefs, just like Westboro immoral actions would be borne of false beliefs. I can applaud the good actions of the good people, and condem the bad actions of the bad people, but if in both cases the actions are based on false beleifs, then in both cases I do not respect the false beliefs.

So what? I have to respect false beliefs because they are part of a cultural identity? Anti-semitism is a belief that is part of Islamic countries' cultural identity. Should I respect that?

You don't have to respect anything religious. It seems pretty clear that you don't. It's just a question of courtesy sometimes.

Why should I be more corteous towards the beliefs of a religious person than to those of a holocaust denier? Both of those beliefs are false.

Sure, a holocaust denier is likely to be a bad person as well as a person who holds a false belief, therefore as well as not respecting his beliefs I should also not go out of my way to be nice to him as a person either. Whereas religious people in the west today are likely to be totally decent persons, and deserving of my respect as humans.

Of course, let's not forget that throughout the majority of history, if I told a religious person that I didn't respect his beliefs, he'd try to kill me.

Never lose sight of the fact that religious people are down to whining about their beliefs not being respected, because they have lost most of their influence. If I had writtne these words not today in America, but today in Iran or 500 ago in Spain, or 200 years ago in Salem, I'd be under the knife of an inquisitor right now.

Why not? How is it different?

That's an interesting discussion, but perhaps for another thread.

Actually, it's perfect for this thread.

If the rule is that no headgear is allowed for passport photos, why is an exception made for hindus or muslims, but not for pastafarians? Why not for me if I wanted to say that I believe in Poseidon and my religion requires that I always wear a fish on my head?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to atheist buddy]

Like many atheists, it seems it's all about propositional truth with you.

It's not ALL about propositional truth, but doesn't truth matter at least a little bit?

What does it even mean to respect/disrespect the belief that 2+2=5?

I don't know! But I feel that if somebody says "I believe 2+2=5" I will not lose my job for telling him "You are completely wrong, 2+2=4".

On the other hand if somebody professed belief in the virgin birth I could very easily be fired from a typical workplace for saying "You are 100% wrong, that's not how human biology works".

Put another way, if I fired my company's accountant for believing that 2+2=5, nobody wold accuse me of unlawful termination. If I fired my OBGYN for believing in virgin births, I might.

There's a lot more to respecting someone's vegetarianism than respecting a propositional belief than it's wrong to kill animals for food. As I suspect you won't think there are objective moral truths you probably already understand that it isn't about truth or falsehood. A vegetarian may put considerable effort into the practice, demonstrate integrity and see it as a large part of their identity. If so they would more worthy of respect than another person who also thinks it's wrong to kill animals but enjoys meat and so eats it anyway.

I don't see why I can't take somebody's actions and somebody's beliefs, and treat them separately.

Let's say somebody is a vegetarian because he believes killing animals is morally wrong. In that case, I can respect his belief in the immorality of killing animals, and I can respect his actions of following his own moral rules and not eating meat.

Let's say somebody was a vegetarian because he believed that eating meat tranformed people into a warewolf. In that case, while acknowledging that by not eating meat he is incidentally foregoing the immoral action of killing animals, I can nonetheless point out that his belief in warewolfs in totally laughable.

If that person's belief in warewolfs didn't just cause the person not to eat meat, but also to occasionally fly airplanes into buildings filled with 3000 meat-eaters, then my distaste for his irrational beliefs would be even more founded.

In the same way, I might believe in God but not practice religion, showing again that it's not about propositional belief. And religious practice often has much in common with practices like vegetarianism, plus it can be deeply bound up with cultural identity.

So what? I have to respect false beliefs because they are part of a cultural identity? Anti-semitism is a belief that is part of Islamic countries' cultural identity. Should I respect that?

Your error is the similar to that of the Pastafarian who wanted to have his passport photo taken with a sieve on his head, thinking it was the same as wearing a turban or hijab. It isn't.

Why not? How is it different?

I have read the OP, along with most of the responses, and I fail to see the big deal here! First I am a Christian, but I do not in any way expect you to respect my beliefs! In fact, I do not want you to respect my beliefs! I expect, that you as an unbeliever would not have any respect at all for my beliefs. There is no way for you, being an unbeliever to have respect for my belief, and if you said that you did respect my beliefs, then you would be less than honest! Now you can have respect for my right to hold to my beliefs, but this is far different from having respect for my beliefs themselves. You could also have respect for me as a fellow human being, but again this is far an away different than having respect for my beliefs.

Lets look at it like this, I can tell you plainly as a Christian, I have no respect at all for your beliefs as an unbeliever! However, I do respect your right to hold to your unbelief, and I also respect you as a fellow human being created in the image of God! So then, thus far we are on the same page. Now you say,

On the other hand if somebody professed belief in the virgin birth I could very easily be fired from a typical workplace for saying "You are 100% wrong, that's not how human biology works".

I highly doubt you could be fired for simply saying, "You are 100% wrong, that's not how human biology works". I cannot imagine any court upholding that in any way, however if you continued to harass, and badger this person in an unwanted conversation, then you could possibly get yourself in trouble, but this street runs both ways!!!! You do realize that as a Christian, I could be fired myself if I were to criticize to harshly, someone who does not believe? So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder. In fact, it is getting to the point where we cannot even discuss what it is we believe in the work place, or any where else for that matter whether believer, or unbeliever!

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe? In other words, could it be that the Creator intervened, and by passed the laws as we know them, and this would have been a miraculous event? A miracle is defined, "as an act of God."

I truly hope that I have not offended you in any way by not having respect for your unbelief!

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 6 by Unhand Me Sir]

Official UK sources on individuals' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in the workplace

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your- ... rimination
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your- ... ed-against

https://www.gov.uk/acas
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/f/l/religion_1.pdf
http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=306&p=0

• direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others
• indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage
• harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someones dignity or creates an offensive environment for them
• victimisation - treating someone unfairly because theyve complained about discrimination or harassment
  
  It can be lawful to have specific rules or arrangements in place, as long as they can be justified.

(Protected characteristics are: Religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, and race)

Bullying may be characterised as:
Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.

Most relevantly

Q - Should we ban discussions about religion and belief in the workplace? We are concerned that someone might complain about harassment.

A - If harassment has been explained to staff they should be able to distinguish between reasonable discussion and offensive behaviour. Staff should be aware that if their discussions cause offence then this may be considered to be harassment and therefore unlawful. A ban on discussions about religion or belief may create more bad feeling amongst staff and cause more problems than it solves.

Also of relevance:

Section 10 of the new Act defines Religion and Belief as follows
(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.

If someone brings up their religious beliefs in the workplace, there should be no problem reasonably explaining why you disagree. If they don't wish to take it further, you must stop to avoid harassing them. If they continuously bring up their religious positions, and do not allow discussion, you could accuse them of harassment.[/list]

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to post 7 by atheist buddy]

You seem a little confused on the employment point, saying you would pre-emptively assume that a believer in virgin birth would be an incompetent gynaecologist but that the weird beliefs of Isaac Newton and Raymond Damadian don't matter as long as they get results. Which is it to be?

Secondly, you say that religion differs from the other characteristics protected by discrimination laws because it's about what you believe not who you are. That's one thing in internet debate and another entirely in real life.

There's an old joke about a guy stopped late at night in Belfast by a gang of skinheads who demand to know whether he's a Protestant or a Catholic. He replies that in fact he's a Jewish atheist. "Aye," comes the response "but are you a Protestant Jewish atheist or a Catholic Jewish atheist?"

The long conflict in Northern Ireland was never a debate on transubstantiation or the immaculate conception. It was one in which people were killed because of the street they lived in, the school they attended, the football team they supported. Some of the Jews who died at Auschwitz would have been atheists. Clearly that didn't save them. The same could be said of the Sunni/Shia conflict across the Middle East today.

For these reasons we have laws that equate religious discrimination to racism.

Some privileged Americans who haven't experienced real discrimination respond to this by saying "Look at me! I've got a sieve on my head! Don't persecute me!" Whatever. Go and tidy your bedroom.

Compared to real world problems all your examples are contrived and silly. 2+2=5? Cotton candy as a construction material? Hardly relevant, and as I've said, only relevant at all if you equate religion entirely with propositional belief.

Maybe you would laugh SO hard at a person who felt they had to wear a tinfoil hat to protect them from evil auras. I'd love to live in a society where that person received compassion and help.