John Locke, in his Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) argued that the rule of law and the imposition of religion ought to be two different things, and only the former ought to be a civil matter. All religions were to be tolerated. Having done a good thing in the context of the religious wars of Europe, Locke then did a bad thing which continues to echo today. He wrote:
Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.
At present, Locke's vision of any religion but none is becoming rapidly the only apparently acceptable view in American society, and to a lesser degree elsewhere. But as the father of secularism, Locke ought to have known better. Perhaps he was pandering to the religious hegemony of his day. As I argued elsewhere, it was not possible to be a public atheist until some time later. But in recent days, there has been a lot of talk about the "New Atheism" and how they ought to approach their opponents. I'd like to make some comments...
There are, in my view, a host of distinct issues here that get run together. In an interview in The Times, Richard Dawkins is asked whether he is preaching to the choir or not. He accepts that he is, but that he is empowering atheists in what ought to be a secular society to stand up for their views and not make exceptions for religious belief. Should we, in fact, make exceptions for religion? What does that actually mean?
As Dawkins presents it, it means to not except faith from critical analysis, nor religious practices from moral scrutiny. Further, it means to not give religion special standing that is not also given to non-religion. And I agree - religion should not get special standing as religion. If we are, for instance, working out what funding should be given to Catholic schools, or to private schools of which the Catholic church is a large part, then they have standing, just not because they are religious but because they are providers of private education. At the other extreme would be banning, say, abortion solely because the Catholic church does not permit it doctrinally. The issue here is how far from the acceptable end is acceptable in a secular society. Likely this is not a nice sharp boundary, and it will shift from time to time, but it is worth keeping in mind that it is not exceptionalising the Catholic church if we include it (along with other stakeholders in social issues, and that includes the areligious) in a debate over medical ethics. We would be, though, if we accepted the moral principles of the Catholic church as being binding on all members of society just because most people were Catholic or very like it. That is the issue of exceptionalism.
There is another issue, though. This gets tied into the question of the rationality of religious worldviews: should we exempt religious views from criticism? Obviously not, and for centuries religious views have indeed been scrutinised by philosophers without, in the last century or so, fear of retribution. So it is not in the intellectual sphere that religion gets a free pass. Where, then? In the public sphere, of course. Which makes Dawkins' attempt to criticise the theology of populist religion somewhat suspect. People like Flew have been attacking religion for decades intellectually; why raise these issues now in this context?
And the answer is because Christian apologists do. But this stream of apologetics, while rampant today, is hardly universal. In a nicely written piece, Mike the Mad Biologist (a tautology, really, for those who know biologists) notes that none of PZ Myers' attacks on Christianity's supposed impediments to science apply to his Jewish religion. Mike's view of religion is, in fact, the kind of sophisticated (but not sophist) religion that Dawkins states quite clearly is not widespread enough to be worth arguing about*. His experience and mine (and Mike's) must be very different. In fact, I find most religious people are like Mike - able to cope with science and reality (a point made by William Rees-Mogg in a good natured rebuttal to Dawkins, also in The Times). Only a vocal and unfortunately influential few are the evangelical fundamentalist absolutist kind, and most of them when pushed don't push back all that hard (except, maybe, in America). Attacking the many for the sins of the few is some sort of informal logical fallacy - I can't now think which of many would be most appropriate in this case.
So I refuse to accept the premises of the Courtier's Reply argument of PZ - the reductio that the child who noted that the Emperor had no clothes ought first to have studied the tradition of underwear styles. In fact, the Emperor sometimes has clothes and sometimes doesn't and sometimes even the little child is unsure, although, clearly liking the attention, he no doubt will claim again and again that there are no clothes there of any kind. Maybe the Emperor wears a sheet and calls it a fine suit... that doesn't mean the little child is always right.
So what should we do about those who are intelligent, educated and religious? That depends very much on who the "we" is. If by "we" one means atheists, the answer is, debate them! Discuss! And tolerate their inclusion in civil society the way Locke refused to tolerate atheists. Attempting to exclude them or lump them in with the Pat Robertson variety of religious will merely serve to polarise society - if you draw a line in the sand, you are begging people to choose sides, and if you make it a condition that to be on your side of the line involves abandoning core beliefs that do not harm you or society in general, you are just asking to be excluded from social access by a theist majority. Toleration serves to make the marginalisation work for you rather than against you if it means you get to have the bulk of civil society on your side.
For myself, I do not care if people believe in invisible sky daddies, mystical spirits, or The Secret, so long as no harm is being done. Therein lies the problem, though - what counts as harm? Dawkins will say, with no small historical and psychological justification, that imposing religious views on children is a form of very severe harm. I'm not so sure - humans will always learn by taking the vast bulk of their "common sense" knowledge base from the immediate society (on the evolutionary assumption that if they have it, it must not be too deleterious in this environment), because nobody starts from first principles (not even philosophers). This means that, for any ideological milieu, one is going to pick up those beliefs with no rational justification other than it is cheaper to do this than try to do 10,000 years of learning in a single childhood. The question is whether all religious beliefs are harmful, and if there are any realistic scenarios in which some harmful beliefs do not exist anyway, irrespective of religion.
A hard question. For now I'm going to just assume that there is a fuzzy line above which religious beliefs are no more harmful than trainspotting or, to be on-topic for science here, an obsession with animal behaviour or field lepidoptery. In short, everyone has some arationally obtained beliefs. So all we are debating here is what are actually harmful (and I suspect I won't disagree with Dawkins or PZ on most of this).
But there's a special instance of this which I want to point out - the influence of religion on education. When we educate our populace, we do so in order for them to make relatively informed judgements about matters that are science-dependant such as global warming. When religion (or politics) interferes in public policy it is the right of the citizen to have a solid education in order to tell shamfoolery from science. Moreover, it is the right of the citizen to learn the results of the scientific research that their society supports. People should know that humans evolved in Africa around 6 million years ago. They should know that mass extinctions can occur, and so on.
So when religion interferes with science education, on evolution or anything else such as global warming or reproductive biology, then harm is being done, not only to individuals but to the health of the body politick. And the "we" in "what should we do" has to include those who agree with us science-literate types but happen to have religious beliefs. In short, attacking all religion when the bulk of it (in countries other than America or the religiously intolerant Islamic, Hindu and Catholic nations) is benign is just bad strategy, bad philosophy, and bad for science. I want Francis Collins in my camp, even if he's a theist, just as Darwin wanted Asa Gray in his camp even though Gray was a theistic evolutionist. And I want the best Jesuit scholars there too, even if Ratzinger-Benedict rejects the hard core of science, for they do not, and one day, one of them may become Pope, and the world will become a little bit more rational thereby. Exclude them now, and down the track, polarisation will come back and bite us in the arse in the form of renewed intolerance for the secular. I'm not suggesting that Gould's view of the Non-Overlapping Magisterial Authority is either historically true or workable, but we should allow full freedom of belief so long as science, and civil toleration, is left unharmed, and people are free to believe as they see fit.
Okay, I'm rambling a bit now, so I'll summarise:
The essence of a free society is tolerance for other views even if they are obviously stupid, so long as they do not get imposed on others. We should not only tolerate theism in public society, but in science, so long as it doesn't cause harm. Now let's discuss what "harm" is in this context...
* "If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible." From the Times article
- Log in to post comments
"The essence of a free society is tolerance for other views even if they are obviously stupid, so long as they do not get imposed on others"
I have to wonder though if this is why Locke rejects toleration of atheism, in that it interferes with society, which is based on a morality and ethics that extends from beleif in a diety. "Humanisn", ethics divorced from religion, wouldn't have really been a workable solution in Locke's time, no?
I am reminded by Locke's statement that (regular) Freemasonry forbids Atheists, but permits everyone else to join, and this on the basis that Atheists can't morally improve them selves through masonry because the ethics, and the system of oaths, branch out of the authority of diety. In fact, Masonry is something of an outgrowth of the enlightenment itself, so perhaps we can understand Locke's position a little bit by considering why masonry doesn't tolerate atheists in its lodges.
I liked the comments on how people of one faith will consider peopel who are of a different faith to be atheists. It seems a hard thing to conceptualize at first though. I think it is similar to the situation where many protestants consider catholics to not be christians, and therefore that they must be worshipping statues and the like. Its a similar distortion, perhaps in the other direction from the 'you're not in my sect, therefore you are an atheist' reaction though.
Very good and no doubt soon to be helpful. I finally managed to get a copy of The God Delusion out of my local library and, once things calm down at work some, I will doubtless be stirring up trouble for myself.
This is a nice guide but there is a sticking point that's not easy to get around, namely: whether we are, in fact, exceptionalising if the moral principles of certain churchs are made binding on all members of society just because most people are members of that religion or similar ones.
Public ethics have to come from somewhere -- in a democracy supposedly from the people. If most people in a society share an ethic, how are they not allowed to make it official in some sense, though presumably with some wiggle room for the minority in some cases? There is always a spectrum of such issues: on one hand, some minorities might think bombing or shooting infidels is perfectly okay (which, it is to be hoped, the majority will have little tolerance for) while, on the other, the majority might think it is perfectly okay to deny full rights to certain groups because of race, creed, and various "orientations." The American Constitution attempts to strike a balance but, as a lifeboat for minority rights, it mostly resembles a sieve.
You can't help imposing some moral code but the negotiations over just whose can get quite messy.
John P. - I guess you should read an introduction to political philosophy after The God Delusion. It won't give you the answer to how to deal with minorities, but your confusion will be more sophisticated.
Here's a thought born of ignorance: is the difference between Locke's day and now that humanism has given a foundation for a-religious moral codes? This would then be what allows morals and religion to be separated.
On whether religion can be a good thing, it's clear that society has a set of rules for what constitutes normal, acceptable behaviour that most of us accept (i.e. a social contract, to get back to Locke). Although now the rules aren't laid down by religion, it can be used as a way of educating children as to what these rules are. It that sense, it may well be a good thing (even if it is far inferior to "be good, or you won't pass on your genes"). Certainly in reality, it's more likely to have a positive effect than mass conversions to atheism. And I'm troubled by the idea that we should be condemning people who go round trying to get everyone to be nice to each other.
Bob
So, Bob, we should actively encourage Anglicans and reform Methodists? ;-)
I personally think that the notion of a social contract is incoherent, and if that is the supposed foundation of society, then society is unjust. Rather, we have always been in society, and it has evolved. There is no social contract, nor ever was, but only an evolving shifting standard caused by the interactions of many individuals both past and present, forming a convention. Since conventions can change over time, it is worth bearing in mind that a religious convention can be changed too, so even if in the past we founded, say, torts on it we need not now do.
Religion has shifted back to the major cause of disequilibrium in society. I think that exceptionalising it is therefore not presently a good thing (contrary to Griffiths) except insofar as we exceptionalise all manner of views, religious or not. There are always some cohesive forces in society, but they are usually economic or based on football.
No matter how rational Locke's other thinking may seem we must not forget that his consciousness was forged within the particular context of the time where atheism was simply the absence of religion rather than a valid alternative philosophy. The 'new atheist' of today in contrast is not someone who simply doesn't believe in religion, it usually signifies the acceptance of a rationalistic, scientific, secular view of the world - as distinct from Pol Pot - the epitome of what believers think an atheist icon should be).
I remember growing up in a Catholic household and being taught the words of Jesus regarding turning someone against their religion:
"It would be best for that person to be thrown into the sea with a large stone hung around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to lose his faith."
This particular phrase, while not preventing me finding my own way to rationalism, was definitely an impediment for me in discussing rationalism with religious people - even now I have a feeing that it is somehow bad or wrong to cause doubts to appear in the minds of believers. Funny how Jesus or his current followers never took that message to heart when preaching to people of other religions.
Strictly, Jesus never engaged with other religions - I think there's only one instance of him talking to non-Jew in the Gospels apart from Pilate. And Jesus' immediate followers are reported to have not done so either before Paul hit the scene.
I bet a society of Anglicans and reform Methodists is the surest way to create atheists. Oh, wait a minute ...
Bob, I always knew the law was an ass ... but I never thought it was as big an ass as a sophisticate.
The problem, as John correctly points out is that laws and other enforcers of public morals are the result of a complex struggle between many competing individuals, ideas, private and civic moralities, socializations, economic interests and what-all. We don't necessarily know the actual unit of selection or at what level selection is taking place. But from 30-odd years inside the law looking out, the notion of a "social contract" is a nice bit of sometimes useful rhetoric that has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going on.
My point was that I don't know how, in a democracy, you can go about excluding or even limiting religion or religious ideas from that free-for-all ... or whether you should.
And, John ... my experience of religious people is also mostly like yours -- people who able to cope with science and reality and, where it seems they can't, it is usually the result of the acceptance of other people's woo out of ignorance, not out of an unwillingness to learn. But I may be biased by four years of having Jesuits kick my butt every time I tried to avoid thinking.
Whether or not we agree with Dawkins' conclusions about religion and child abuse, it does raise an important point - to what degree are children 'property' of their parents? To what degree to parents have the right to bring up their children as they wish? In terms of moral and social development, I find this to be very hard issue; we think its fine if parents teach their children not to kill, so why can't they teach them some of their more idiosyncratic moral beliefs? I don't know. But in regards to eductaion, education is the right of the child, not of the parent.
Of course, parents want the best education for their children, but surely we cannot allow them complete control over what their children learn; surely the child's right is to learn the best of what we know, whatever else they also learn. What do people think?
Second, one can be tolerant of other people's beliefs and accept that they have a role in the public sphere and yet criticise them. I think that the issue is of how we criticise them. An all-guns blazing attack isn't going to go down so well, yet a subtler, more humourous, more charming approach will, as it allows us to accept that these people have something to contribute and yet disgaree with it in strong terms without being antagonistic.
Dawkins' et al's polemics were useful in motivating atheists to voice their opinions and be noticed, though I just hope that motivated atheists will take a rather more charming, more engaging route.
I think tolerance is much easier to achieve if a person can avoid confusing their own learning with some kind of absolute truth. It is simple hypocrisy to expect to be the only human who is given a chance to explore ideas about reality, to make mistakes, to hold provisional conclusions, etc...
The most obnoxious of rhetorical strategies involves the participants trying to pass their own ideas off as the verdict of impersonal, ahistorical abstractions: "Science tells us...", "Religion has always...", "According to logic...". The uncertainty and imperfection of the individual understanding is, more often than not, lost in these arguments about the 'proof of god' or 'the value of religion'. I guess anyone who has made the move from 'agnostic' to 'atheist' has already taken the critical first step in abandoning themselves to reckless delusions about certainty and perfection of understanding.
Real tolerance (or more: real appreciation of difference) is based on humility, on the notion that I don't personally have all the answers, that my judgment has failed me in the past, that my perspective is bound to change as long as I am learning, and that my values about what is interesting, important, beautiful, etc... may be legitimately rejected by others.
That is more than social or political strategy, is it about honesty. I don't want to learn about the 'facts' from the deluded, who claim to have access to some absolute truth independent of human understanding. I prefer to learn from honest people who recognize their own place in the progress of human understanding. I have found that type of honesty in both religious and non-religious people.
boo, that came out more preach-ey than I'd like.
How ... magnanimous of you. :-)
(Yes, I know that you argue for no exceptions. It was just such a perfect example of a parochial attitude.)
Let me see if I get this. You conflate persons with their views, but that is besides the point here.
Here, you argue that since Dawkins didn't cover all aspects of religions, PZ's description of how theologists dismiss instead of engage Dawkins argument are invalid. And since PZ's description is invalid, Dawkins general argument is invalid too.
Hmm, I don't know, but it seems like a technicality that ends up in something vaguely resembling PZ's description in the first place. Fortunately, you dismiss your own conclusion and actually engages Dawkins. :-)
Of course I personally don't agree that we should not be able to discuss how and why religions are suspected to be generally harmful for societies and science. The unsupported claim that "the bulk" is "benign" doesn't impress. I am certain that we can quantify many aspects.
Well said - sometimes I think the whole issue is the difference between some using tolerance and some seeking respect. Too simplistic by far, but perhaps also with a kernel of truth.
Torbjörn - regarding "the difference between some using tolerance and some seeking respect," it is worth noting that in traditional liberal thought, respect is shown for persons by upholding their "right" to believe what they will. Respect is _not_ owed to their beliefs, which can and should be subjected to ruthless criticism. Too many people think they are being "disrespected" when we reject their beliefs as so much nonsense.
"The essence of a free society is tolerance for other views even if they are obviously stupid, so long as they do not get imposed on others"
I am not so sure about that, if by tolerance you mean they go unchallenged. I am also not sure that someone who does hold stupid or absurd views on one subject can be considered to be able to hold meaningful views on any subject, at least not without being subject to considerably more scrutiny that would otherwise be appropriate. To give an example, a person who thinks the earth is only a few thousand years old clear knows nothing at all about science. That person may well be an expert on economic matters but he is going to have to a lot more persuading than usual to convince me that he is. BBy holding stupid views on one subject he looses the right to be taken seriously on anyother until proved otherwise.
Matt - Referring again to "traditional liberal thought," tolerance most definitely does _not_ mean that anybody's views "go unchallenged." And nobody has a "right" to have their beliefs "taken seriously," if by that you mean given credence.
And these hypothetical temporary clothes that sometimes appear are...? This is a kind of evasion, too. Are there sometimes arguments for the existence of gods that are valid on Tuesday mornings, or that perhaps appear when little children aren't around to see?There's also a problem with your premise. None of the "New Atheists", as far as I know, are preaching intolerance. Nobody is saying we need to put Catholics in concentration camps (an idea I find repugnant, even though I've had people claim I'm explicitly advocating such a thing). Nobody is saying Francis Collins shouldn't publish his book, or that we don't want him fighting for better teaching of evolution. What we do is point out in our cruel and uncompromising manner the complete inanity of Christian teachings and Francis Collins' pathetic apologetics.Pay attention. What atheists haven't been doing is advocating anything even close to "those are not at all to be tolerated who [affirm] the being of a God" -- we've been arguing loudly with them. It's nice of you to tell us what we should do, but since it is what we've been doing all along, it's both redundant and a little patronizing.Maybe I need to write a post yelling at the agnostics to go sit on a fence somewhere...
Nobody is saying we need to put Catholics in concentration camps (an idea I find repugnant, even though I've had people claim I'm explicitly advocating such a thing). Nobody is saying Francis Collins shouldn't publish his book, or that we don't want him fighting for better teaching of evolution. What we do is point out in our cruel and uncompromising manner the complete inanity of Christian teachings and Francis Collins' pathetic apologetics.
I guess we won't be hearing too much more sniveling about the 'persecution of atheists' if these are the standards of toleration.
PZ Myers said,
Pay attention. What atheists haven't been doing is advocating anything even close to "those are not at all to be tolerated who [affirm] the being of a God" -- we've been arguing loudly with them. It's nice of you to tell us what we should do, but since it is what we've been doing all along, it's both redundant and a little patronizing.
I agree with PZ. It is not intolerant to challenge someone's ideas. You seem to be falling onto the same trap as some of the more vocal appeasers. Do you believe that religion deserves some special status such that the mere criticism of it ranks as intolerance?
Is it intolerant to criticize astologers or homeopaths? Are you being intolerant when you criticize atheists?
I thought you two couldn't care a Courtier's ass about the finer points of apologetics and, yet, here you are claiming sufficient expertise to be capable of cogent criticism.
You are as free to spout off in public on matters of you are proudly ignorant of as any young-Earth creationist is to do so about science. The rest of us are free to point and giggle.
And, by the way, just who is it that goes around crying that any criticism at all, no matter how mild, is an attempt to have his ideas "banned"?