Respect for you and your crazy beliefs

[rug]

Julian Baggini
guardian.co.uk
Friday 2 December 2011 12.00 EST

We all know the difference between nice seekers after fundamental truth and nasty fundamentalist crazies. We reasonable folk value "open dialogue" in a spirit of "mutual respect", finding the "common ground" where we can have a nice little kosher, halal vegetarian picnic. Nasty zealots, on the other hand, just want to abuse and insult each other and increase conflict rather than soothe it.

This is a caricature, of course, but reading Jonathan Chaplin's response to my articles of 21st-century faith made me realise that the absence of a more accurate drawing leads to all sorts of confusions. Chaplin, for instance, seems to confuse my more general desire for "constructive dialogue" between any reasonable person, irrespective of their beliefs, with my narrower project of specifying "the kind of religious faith that explicitly rejects the kinds of things atheist critics think silly" and is "entirely intellectually respectable".

I think it is pretty clear that I do not see agreeing to the articles of faith as a precondition for meaningful, respectful discussion, but Chaplin doesn't seem to get it. He says, for instance, that "no discussion between atheists and believers could get started" if "atheists insist that such a belief in God as creator be ruled out in advance". But simply for discussion, I insist on no such thing.

It seems to me that Chaplin's apparent confusion is rooted in a more general lack of clarity about what is meant by each part of the sacred trinity of open dialogue, mutual respect and finding common ground.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/dec/02/respect-for-you-and-your-crazy-beliefs?newsfeed=true

[inademv]

1. Isn't the assertion that there IS a God...

the starting point of the discussion? I mean, I've tried to have numerous arguments on the subject and I am tempted to agree with Chaplin that a discussion cannot begin until that initial point is settled because the possibility of being wrong there doesn't seem to be an acceptable starting point for any theist I've talked to.

[MarkCharles]

2. Assertions like: "belief in God as creator [should] be ruled out in advance"

belief in God as creator
UPON WHAT EVIDENCE?

Of course, this is where the believers decide that rational discussion is not possible, because believers should NEVER be subjected to such strict rules of evidence and logical argument that non-believers, philosophers, scientists, and cours of law and rules of peaceful society require.

Religionists require exemptions from the rules! They require two dribbles on the way to making a basket. Two near-pins in wrestling that old wrestler logic to count twice against logic's one solid pin, three line drives and single base advances to count as a home run.

The ONLY way religionists can win is if they insist, before the contest, that the rules be changed in their favor.

[geckosfeet]

3. Calling someone who believes something different than you crazy is

not a good starting point for any kind of discussion.

Buddhists do not believe in god, and there are plenty of them in the world, and they are not crazy zealots. Buddhists are the nicest people I have ever met.

[darkstar3]

4. Um, no

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x240069

The debate's been done here.