Respecting someone's beliefs does not mean you have to like them - Why are there so many heated debates about different belief systems?

Because people with different beliefs make them question their own beliefs.

To play a bit of devil’s advocate here-
“As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith.”
Richard Dawkins

@crisw – Well, I wasn’t just talking about religious belief systems. There are others not based on religion, like humanism or transhumanism.

I haven’t read much if anything of richard dawkins. but i have to say that i distrust his definition of religion already. if his definition of religion and faith are sloppy then i don’t know that any of his arguments are worth considering.

People perceive something as the truth and strive to protect it. I think thats the reason for heated arguments.

@ninjacolin – Dawkins might be a brilliant scientists, but some of his views are very narrow-minded. What is the deeper meaning of life? His answer: selfish genes eager to survive.

His term “God delusion” is actually very unscientific. No scientist can prove that God doesn’t exist.

I think you can prove that some gods don’t exist. for example, you can show how the god that someone thought was true when they were a kid is no longer the true god that they know now. Or people who change religions. The god that they believed was true has disappeared in their own minds and a new one replaces it. or in the case of people who become atheists, nothing replaces it.

i agree with discover. i think things get heated when people get affraid that someone with a warped world view threatens to ignorantly affect their perceived “objective” reality.

You may find some answers in Nietzsche. Your question most certainly crosses the border from scientific to philosophic (if there is such a thing). Noam Chomsky certainly too.

A belief system, by its very nature, is not based on empirical evidence, but much rather ideas and theorems. Thus, the follower of one belief system will undoubtedly feel his/her belief system threatened by the presence of a belief system based on other or contrary values.

Long story short, heated debates over certain beliefs very much appear to me more like individuals asserting themselves, as opposed to communicating in an outward manner.

The practice or adherence to a belief system contrary to that an individual adheres to/follows will inevitably lead that individual to perceive his/her own system as being questioned.

The modern notions of tolerance and acceptance merely reflect the willingness of an individual to respond to such a being in question in a benign manner.

The Dawkins quote from above exemplifies the point the question is asking. He tries to draw a correlation between the belief systems of Osama Bin Laden and every other religious belief. The problem with this is that it isn’t Dawkins’s or anyone else’s business what someone believes. While OBL’s faith may have been what pushed him to mass murder, it is the mass murder that is the problem, not the faith. Intolerance such as Dawkins’s is exactly the point of the discussion.

@Poser – I couldn’t agree more. You see, I consider myself to be a modern, non-dogmatic, enlightened Christian because I believe in God and in the teachings of Jesus. Occasionally people make accusations that I too am responsible for everything that has happened in the name of Christianity whether it’s the crusades or any other form of murder in the modern age. When atheists make that accusation (and most don’t) I remind them that Stalin was an atheist too. So you’re absolutely right, the mass murder that is the problem, not the faith. This applies to non-religious belief systems as well.

@mattbrowne

When atheists make that accusation (and most don’t) I remind them that Stalin was an atheist too.

Priceless! Lurve

@TaoSan – What we need is mutual respect. I respect the atheist view and I would hope they respect mine. What matters most is the character and the behavior of a person and it’s my observation that there’s no correlation between good/bad people and the belief/non-belief in God.

@mattbrowne

For the religious part, I am zealously agnostic. I think for every sane, scientifically thinking being agnosticism is the only logical solution, for the utter absence of empirical evidence that there is NO god.

When it comes to other belief systems, say moral values within a given society, the problem’s complexity increases exponentially. I find myself leaning on Nietzsche A LOT. You may find God is Dead interesting. Now whether you lean towards Nietzsche’s views or take a more Hegellian approach, it will always boil down that since belief systems are build not on evidence but theory, even the most docile creature will have “troubles” accepting that which is contraire to what they believe.

It is also the question, how you define the concept of respect. Only a minority of humans derive respect from the “mere existence” of another being. The vast majority derive respect from authority, as in, the capability of the other to efficiently inflict severe adverse consequence for a perceived transgression/non-compliance.

Such consequence may manifest in many shapes. From blatant brute force to public isolation for non-compliance etc. etc.

Now, in a sociological context, the very fact that that this respect is derived from authority, lays the foundation to what Nietzsche calls master-slave morality.

To make a long long story short, true respect can only be extended by those that are truly secure in their convictions and beliefs. Thus, in order to achieve true respect and acceptance for and of each other, we need to find a way to follow our believes and principles without perceiving them as being in question by the mere fact that not everybody believes in them.

Am I making sense at all?

Other than that I wholeheartedly second your statement. People just need to start to accept each other as people, and let go of old association fallacies.

There are as many Christian cannibals as there are atheist child molesters or Muslim mass murderers.

I don’t see any obligation to respect beliefs. The respect, in my view, is of the intellectual autonomy of the individual, his freedom to come to his own conclusions. The beliefs themselves are rightfully subject to debate and criticism.

The problem is that belief becomes the basis for action, and it’s in recognition of this fact that people squabble so intensely over belief. We certainly aren’t obliged to respect all actions, so we do in effect ask some people to put up a firewall between their beliefs and their actions. We respect their right to have beliefs which we don’t respect, but they can be held to account if those beliefs cause them to act in violation of the rights of others.

In my experience, when religious people whine about how “intolerant” atheists are, it tends to be a defense mechanism, a cover so they don’t actually have to address what atheists are actually criticizing about their beliefs. Namely, that their beliefs are nonsense and cannot be rationally or morally defended. Thin skin is a convenient excuse for ignoring such criticism.

And frankly, it boggles my mind that Christians even have the gall to complain about Dawkins’ so-called “intolerance” when they believe in a book that not only calls unbelievers “evil” and “fools” but actively calls for their deaths and celebrates their torture.

@mattbrowne, you’re mischaracterizing Dawkins’ views on the meaning of life. He does not draw meaning, especially moral meaning, from the fact of gene-driven biological evolution; in fact he explicitly says in the book that the fact that genes behave “selfishly” is all the more reason we need to teach morality and altruism to our children.

As for the title “God Delusion,” again, I think feigning hurt feelings by the title is a convenient way to ignore the argument that he makes—that it’s just as silly, irrational, and “delusional” to believe in gods like Yahweh as it is to believe in fairies, unicorns, or alien abductions. Though personally I disagree that most religious people are “delusional.” I think they are more often ignorant about the content of their own religion, or just outright dishonest.

One final note: the word “tolerance” does not imply agreement or even respect. I “tolerate” the annoying kids on the train. I “tolerate” Holocaust-deniers posting on Fluther.

It is incredibly important that people with vastly different worldviews be able to live together in a functioning society without resorting to violence. That, to me, is the essence of “tolerance.” I have zero respect for Klansmen or Holocaust deniers, but they have the right to believe and say (almost) whatever they want and I will never support using violence to change their minds.

I strongly, strongly disagree with religious people and I believe the Bible and the Quran are two of the worst works of literature ever written. I think the world would be a much better place if such beliefs went the way of the ancient Greek religions. But I will always tolerate such views (though I do draw the line at views that directly call for violence or things like FGM).

@mattbrowne Toleration and tolerance are terms used in social, cultural and religious contexts to describe attitudes and practices that prohibit discrimination against those whose practices or group memberships may be disapproved of by **other factions**

Ultimate all factions, be they religious, cultural,or social, are fighting for the privilege of imposing their social order on the larger society.

Pluralism doesn’t work as it negates many framework’s notion of social capital. Take piety, filially or modesty for example. If their social value is set to zero, the social orders/frameworks that depend on them(and thus value them very highly) collapse upon themselves.

Which is why very ordered states, such as theocracies, have religious police or why social conservatives have so many political action committees

@TaoSan – I understand your point of view and yes you are making sense. I would slightly rephrase your intitial paragraph. As a scientist to me agnosticism is the logical conclusion because science doesn’t know whether God exists or not. As a spiritual being to me religion or atheism or humanism or transhumanism or any other value system or philosophy (you mentioned Nietzsche) can offer individual answers. For example for the question: what is the deeper meaning of life? I’m both a scientist and a spiritual being.

@Harp – Yes, that’s what I actually mean. To respect the person and the free will to choose his or her belief system. So the phrase “respecting someone’s beliefs” as the initial part of my question might be somewhat misleading.

@Qingu – I know many tolerant atheists. I don’t complain about Dawkins’s intolerance. I don’t think he’s intolerant. All I said was that the catchy title “God Delusion” is an unscientific statement. But catchy titles are meant to be thought-provoking which is actually a good thing to get people to exercise critical thinking and engage in controversial debates. Heated debates can be a good thing.

The selfish gene makes total sense to me. In the hierarchy ecosystem, species as a whole, group, individual’s set of genes, the gene clearly is the founding block which drives evolution. My point was that biology can only answer one part of the question ‘What is the meaning of life?’ which is basically about the survival instinct. I’m looking for other answers as well.

I don’t respect people who are intolerant. I don’t respect neo-nazis and holocaust deniers. I actually fight them with the power of my words. I don’t respect people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers committing mass murder waiting to meet a group of virgins in paradise.

@HarmonyAlexandria – Great to see again, Harmony. Well, I believe that pluralism can eventually work. Of course Saudi-Arabia is at the other extreme of the spectrum. Wahhabism is a very intolerant, dangerous and perverse ideology. To me it looks more like a political agenda. Though countries like the US, Canada, UK, Sweden, the Netherlands or Germany are by no means perfect, many citizens or politicians of these countries are not fighting for the privilege of imposing their social order on the larger society. If someone is fighting in that direction it’s greedy, unethical managers of global companies.

@mattbrowne

“All I said was that the catchy title “God Delusion” is an unscientific statement.”

I don’t think so. As you know, science can’t prove that something doesn’t exist; it can only offer data that supports one view or the other. Thus, while science can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it also can’t prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

A “delusion” is defined as a belief that is still held despite strong evidence to the contrary. An adult human who believes in Santa would rightly be called delusional. An adult human who believes in the Christian God usually isn’t called delusional, but, in reality, there is no more actual real evidence that the Christian god exists than that Santa does. So, unless such evidence can be presented, religious people may be affronted that their beliefs are called delusional, but this doesn’t invalidate the label.

I think exposure and attempts at understanding are really the key to moving forward globally. There will always be ideologues who espouse their view over all others and will fight, sometimes to the death, to maintain those beliefs. This is not the way to engender cooperation and reduce conflict.

Political agendas are definitely a big factor in maintaining the culture wars, there is still a lot of money to be made by being in charge. Opinions can change over time, however. Forty years or so ag owhen Bobby Kennedy said that we could have an African-American (not his words) as President, who would have believed that to be true?

Today, we are one of only a handful of countries who have elected a minority candidate to lead the country. As nations realize our interdependence and, hopefully, recognize the futility of going to war against business partners, we will move closer to the center globally. It may take another 350 years to accomplish, but I do see it as a very real possibility.

It all comes down to the willingness to share ideas and attempt to understand another point of view. As we engage in honest dialogue, without getting caught of in the trappings of emotion, commonalities can be found and built upon.

@crisw Maybe I’m out of the loop, but what evidence has science provided to deny the existence of spiritual beings?

@Poser
It’s more the opposite- science hasn’t found any evidence that they do exist. And, as they are unnecessary to explain any real phenomenon in this world, it’s not necessary to assume that they do.

Oh, cool. So Science has identified explanations for every “real phenomenon in this world”.
I must have missed that article.

My personal take is tolerance has come to be synonymous with being wishy washy, tolerance isn’t respected.

@crisw and @Poser – Science can prove that some things or concepts don’t exist. There is no computer program that can check any computer program and find out whether it terminates or not. There is no black dwarf in our universe at the present time. There is no perpetual motion machine. It doesn’t exist.

Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. And it cannot prove that God exists. It remains an open question.

@mattbrowne, is “do fairies exist?” also an open question?

Also, no black dwarfs in our universe at the present time? What if Sin, the Babylonian moon god who is associated with time and who may or may not exist, according to you, sped up stellar cooling in a localized area? You can’t prove it didn’t happen!

@Qingu – It depends on the definition of “fairy”. And you are correct, a Kardashev III civilization could build a stellar refrigerator and pull a white dwarf into it. But in my opinion even a Kardashev III civilization can’t change the first and second law of thermodynamics. And they can’t solve the halting problem.

Can you prove there are no exceptions to the first and second law of thermodynamics?

That seems a lot harder than proving there are no exceptions to the “people do not magically come back from the dead and then fly up into a nonexistent heaven” rule

@Qingu – One classic approach are proofs by contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

When looking at SETI we have to realize that “absense evidence” is not “evidence of absence”. When looking at the perpetual motion machine the question is a 1000 times harder. All current evidence of our universe leads to the conclusion that this machine doesn’t exist. Now people speculate about a multiverse. Things could be different in other universes. Sure.

I don’t see how that’s an answer to my question. Why is thermodynamics less inviolable than “people do not magically come back from the dead”?

In other words, why are you “atheist” about violating thermodynamics, but “agnostic” about people magically coming back from the dead?

@Qingu One describes an observable phenomenon that, so far, has yet to be proven wrong. The other attempts to explain something that can’t even be observed.

Apples, meet oranges.

People magically coming back from the dead cannot even be observed?

What on earth do you mean?