Instead, you think they have this effect on everyone. Suppose you’re deathly allergic to strawberries, but are never told it’s an allergy. However misguided or wrong they might be, their actions are motivated by a desire to make our lives (and afterlives) better. Their proselytizing is a moral act, even when we consider it a nuisance. They are truly convinced that you are in danger and that they possess the keys to salvation. For them, every encounter is of paramount importance.
What does it really mean to tell someone not to share their deeply-held beliefs through their words and deeds? We rarely think about this from the perspective of the believer. Again, that’s understandable, but there are moral implications to this proscription. Relationships are often strained as a result of these conversations, and it’s easy to think we’re better off avoiding them. Many of us also don’t like arguing about religion or politics because it’s exhausting and unnerving. When we shoo Mormons away from our front doors, we’re doing so because we’re convinced they’re peddling nonsense and don’t want to waste our time. Keeping our beliefs to ourselves isn’t just impossible, it would be unethical if it were possible. They are simply acting on their belief in the greater good, which supersedes their religions. Aren’t they setting their beliefs aside for the sake of the greater good? No. There are Jews who observe the sabbath, but won’t attack Jews who don’t. There are devout Muslims who condemn jihadist violence. There are pious Catholics who nonetheless vote for a woman’s right to an abortion. You might argue that plenty of believers successfully keep their beliefs to themselves. How would you do it? Could you? Should you? Imagine someone telling you to keep your Enlightenment values to yourself. But we should acknowledge how difficult this task really is, and take note of what must be happening in the minds of those we’re forcing to act in opposition to their beliefs. Some beliefs are incompatible with modern society, and enforcing secular values is the only effective way forward. In the case of religious dogmatism, for example, that may be what we must do. We’re asking them, in effect, to not believe what they believe. We’re asking that they ignore the way they see the world in favor of how we see it. When we tell others to keep their beliefs to themselves, we don’t seem to understand what we are demanding of them. It’s why a school teacher was decapitated on a Paris street for showing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. It’s why Christian Scientists, who reject modern medicine, often die of curable ailments. That’s why people who believe in the Second Coming are difficult to motivate about climate change. They’re foundational to how we think and behave, and they have consequences. Even if we could, we shouldn’t want to.īeliefs, insofar as they are genuinely believed, are the engines of our actions. Keeping your beliefs to yourself is like convincing yourself you need sunglasses in a thunderstorm rather than an umbrella.
Much like moral relativism, however, it is a fundamentally flawed, albeit well-intentioned idea. Indeed, the notion sounds like a quintessentially tolerant win-win, and many good-hearted liberals espouse it for those very reasons. Many skeptics have had religious dogma forced upon them, sometimes violently, so it’s no shock that they would take to the admonishment, “Believe what you want, just don’t bother me with it.” For the faithful, it’s a more egalitarian tack for their skeptical brethren to take-a balm against the more caustic strains of atheism and antitheism they’re likely to encounter. On its face, it’s an understandable sentiment, particularly given the source. It’s often repeated in secular circles that people should keep their beliefs to themselves.
0 kommentar(er)
