Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricia
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.
|
Good analysis and well put, although I think the original post was really a little confused with regard to the idea of tolerance. I still believe that there was nothing intolerant about Sony's putting that particular book excerpt in as a sample. My opinion and I'll stand by it.
But, what you say about those religions that have, as a tenant of faith, a view that they are the only path to "god" (and that is, after all, what makes it a religion rather than a philosophy) are less likely to tolerate expressions of views contrary to their own. It's the nature of the beast and not likely to change.
It really becomes more a matter of how the individual chooses to express their faith. If they express it with intolerance directed at others, then that's what we get from them. If they express it with kindness and understanding ... then, they usually end up being friends of mine.
I was in a discussion with someone in Berkeley about the difference between a religion and a philosophy. The two main distinctions I could think of (and, anyone who can add to this, please chime in) were the definitive one -- a "religion" being defined as a reunification and path to a god, and a more subjective one concerning the mythos. In any religion I could think of, believing in the mythology was a necessity to be a true member of the faith. I think that was when I knew I wasn't going to be a Christian anymore .... right about the time I turned 15 and started having serious doubts about the Christian mythos.
With a philosophy, on the other hand, if the myth stories are disproved, you are free to go on believing them, if you like, or leave them in the dust. They are not key to the core beliefs. For example, whether Buddha sat under a tree and meditated for 7 minutes or 7 years is of no real importance ... no one really cares, certainly not enough to start a war. But, whether or not Mary was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Ghost, that makes a big difference in the basis of the Christian religion.
I had a long talk with my mom when I was in my teens because I had to work to convince her that the Christian church really didn't want people like me, who just saw Jesus as a really nice guy who had some good ideas, sitting in at their services every Sunday. She finally got the message after the pastor came over and asked that she not allow me to set foot in their church because I kept asking questions that were making people "uncomfortable." Things like, "if Jesus got half of his DNA from Mary, where did the other half come from? If there was some magical parthenogenesis process, then why didn't Jesus have two X chromosomes?" And, those were some of the easier questions.
Well, night night all. Long day tomorrow.