Religion and Respect

Posted on March 12, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Religion |

I’m slowly getting back into reading blogs. One of my favorite ‘blogging central’ sites is Science Blogs. While I sometimes wish there was a tad more diversity in political viewpoints among contributors (it sometimes seems like nearly everyone is a partisan liberal Democrat) there really is a lot of diversity of scientific views. It also is interesting when a particular topic comes up and several posters write about it in different ways.

The topic I noticed today that was interesting was EvolutionBlog on religion and respect discussing a paper by the philosopher Simon Blackburn.

Now let me say in advance that one problem I see with many religious people is that they want respect without necessarily wanting to give respect. They attack the Dawkins and Dennets without condemning the vastly more numerous number of theists who make their points in equally annoying ways. (Or often worse)

That out of the way though, it is an interesting question of what it means to respect religion.

The problem doesn’t just apply to religion or religious issues. It’s a general problem of human interrelations. As Blackburn notes, “the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence.”

I think we’ve all seen that rather regularly.

On the one hand, like Jason, I favor a kind of libertarian ethic of “do what you will so long as it doesn’t affect me.” On the other hand though I think John Donne’s classic statement “no man is an island” is quite true as well. To some degree everything affects me. Often we just don’t want to admit it does.

Libertarians often try to ease this problem by distinguishing between affects that I could potentially escape if only I thought differently versus those I can’t escape from at all. However this doesn’t really work. We all recognize, for instance, the effect on people of racially insensitive statements that discourage and demoralize some. They might only be words but words often have an effect and we’re typically not completely free to decide how we react to words.

I think atheists recognize this and I think that many believers often don’t realize how our talk hurts them. Consider Mitt Romney’s comments about thinking someone running for President ought be a person of faith while simultaneously condemning and being hurt by insensitivity towards Mormons. There often is a double standard. Mormons, who have been the brunt of so much persecution and insensitivity over the years really ought be more aware.

Blackburn touches on what I think ends up being key. Being willing to sacrifice based upon our recognition that some things are so important to other people. Thus we, as a society, ought allow people to take off Christmas because we recognize how important it is. But are we willing to do this equally? And does it resolve everything? Probably not.

For one we often have clashes of what is important. Think gay marriage where being able to marry is tremendously important and valuable to homosexuals but a ‘traditional’ marriage is important and valuable to conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims. Can we adjudicate this in a way satisfactory to everyone? Probably not.

The other problem as Jason notes is that religion (or to a religious person, atheism) might well promote “ways of thinking and behaving that routinely lead to very bad consequences.” (With, I suspect, often disagreement over what the consequences are) Consider for example religions that teach one to avoid modern medical care. Can one disrespect that behavior and simultaneously respect the religion? I don’t know.

One should probably also read Razib’s post at Gene Expression and Chris’ at Mixing Memory as well.

Comments

2 Responses to “Religion and Respect”

Also check out these comments at the Brood Comb.

I agree. We often hear great LDS expositors like Truman Madsen (whom I love but don’t always agree with) describe experiences he has had with non-Mormons. Invariably, after he describes Mormonism, the non-Mormon has an “Aha” moment, but it is never the other way around. Our understanding of Mormon culture or doctrine (it’s often the same) precludes our ability to genuinely accept novel additions to our religious understanding from non-LDS sources. I’ve recently begun to break out of this mold and it is refreshing.

On the other hand, when we do attempt to engage in interreligious dialogue we often hold hands and sing Kumbaya. This is what Paul Knitter calls the Mutuality Model of religious pluralism, trying to focus only on the commonalities two religions share. He advocates the Acceptance Model, where we confess to our idiosyncracies and admit to being positioned in certain ways. Only then can fruitful and informative dialogue really take place.

I like Knitter’s approach, but I think we should go further. We should build one another’s temples, add to and explain one another’s doctrines and theologies, transform each other’s spiritual lives. We in no way have to compromise our core beliefs and practices to do this. Of course, is there a way to continue the “only true church” rhetoric if this were to happen? I suspect not, but that rhetoric doesn’t seem necessary to promoting what we really believe.

Leave a Reply