|
As usual this thread has developed a life of its own, and has wandered far from msmith's original courteously-phrased question.
I think that a very important issue has been raised, which is exemplified in msmith's original question and in the various replies.
If you are an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist (or member of a faith which doesn't claim an exclusive path to salvation) then tolerance is a straightforward matter of principle. In western liberal societies, each person is largely left free to decide what is their good (with caveats, such as, provided that they don't cause harm to others, etc.). And it is fairly easy for the atheists, agnostics and others to be tolerant. They may feel (as Mr Dawkins does) that the believers are believing in a fairytale. But that a choice that believers are entitled to make. So Mr Dawkins publishes his views and leaves others free to dissent.
On the other hand, if a person is a believer in a faith that claims it has an exclusive path to God, then they can sometimes have a much harder time being tolerant. This is because they are operating in an entirely different paradigm.
If a person honestly believes that all unbelievers are damned, then they can feel an imperative moral duty charitably to try and prevent damnation at all costs.
This explains the intolerance shown in certain non-liberal societies like 17th-century Calvinist Geneva, or Afghanistan under the taleban. If, say, dancing is sinful, then a religious authority would 'charitably' ban it. A lot of religious censorship is motivated by the desire to 'save people from themselves.' If the religion has an exclusive hotline to salvation, then it makes sense for church and state not to be separated: it is the state's job to do the best for its citizens, and the church provides the blueprint.
But in a liberal society, then a believer is faced with a problem. He or she can be surrounded by people who are apparently heading for destruction, in his opinion. Yet the society is based on the idea of leaving people free to choose their own paths. A thoughtful religious person can be pulled in two directions. And there is no easy answer for them.
We can see this clash of paradigms in the conflict between some (not all) Islamic perspectives with some liberal western values. And between some (not all) Christian perspectives and secular values. I suspect that resolving these conflicts will be one of the major challenges of the 21st century. And I honestly do not see how it ever can be resolved.
|