Beliefs and Action [View All]

[varkam]

I know that theists and atheists tend to get on one another's nerves, both here and elsewhere. One of the most frequently leveled charges at atheists is that we can not stand it when people believe differently than we do (ala atheist "fundamentalism") and that we wish to prohibit people from believing differently.

I've been doing some thinking on that, and I think there are actually two separate issues at work that can blend together and obscure the debate - leading to bomb-throwing and ad hominem attacks. The first issue is - as illustrated in the oft repeated accusation against atheists - is simply a difference of belief. This is perhaps the clearest example of what differentiates theists and non-theists - a disagreement regarding the metaphysical veracity of the notion of God.

For my money, I do not have absolute knowledge whether or not God actually exists, so that would technically make me an agnostic. However, I do very strongly believe that there is no God despite my lack of knowledge (hence, agnostic atheist). That being the case though, I am fine with people believing differently than I do. After all, I could be wrong (or we all could be wrong, for that matter). I honestly believe that the vast majority of theists and atheists have no problem with the fact that many people hold different beliefs. I know I don't.

The second issue, however, is what I think is often responsible for the escalation of hostilities and - as I tried to point out earlier - cloaks itself in the issue of a simple difference in beliefs (thus leading to hostile argument rather than cool-headed debate). As best as I can conceptualize it, the second issue is in regards to what the appropriate limit is for putting one's beliefs into action. This is the issue that gets under my (and I would presume other people's as well) skin.

Here's a concrete example: Many of you have probably heard the story about the woman in Tampa, FL who was raped and then jailed on an old arrest warrant. While she was in custody she was denied emergency contraception because of the nurse's religious convictions. This is just what I understand about this story. Whether or not I have the particulars correct is irrelevant, as issues just like this one have often surfaced here and elsewhere.

What makes me upset about such situations is not the fact that the nurse has religious convictions. I respect the fact that she believes that human life begins at conception, though I disagree vehemently. If she were to be the victim of a rape and become pregnant, but would carry the child to term because of her religious convictions I would not try to stop her. Indeed, I would probably think highly of her for having the courage of her convictions. Unfortunately, good people doing good things on the basis of their convictions has nothing to do with the objective truth of those convictions. That is why we all rely upon evidence in making decisions every day.

Why do we think it is safe to eat our cereal? Because we have eaten it several times before and we are still alive. Why do we believe our car will start this morning? Because it has started without fail for the past several hundred days. Why do we think that punching numbers on a phone will allow us to talk to a specific person? Because it has several times before. These are all examples of evidence that we use unconsciously in our daily lives.

In most aspects of all our lives, we have good evidence and, hence, good reasons for the things that we do. In the area of religion and belief, however, evidence is a tricky word. Both sides of the debate tend to agree that there is no evidence that points to the existence of a God such that it can be used as a proof. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just to be clear. I'm not trying to persuade anyone into abandoning their personally held religious beliefs.

What I am trying to point out is simply this: When it comes to putting our beliefs into action with other human beings, evidence must be taken into account on the basis that we all should respect differences in religious (or lack thereof) convictions. This is simply because there is no way that we know of to resolve religious differences on the level of metaphysical debate. This should be plainly obvious to all of us. For all the debates that I have been involved in, I have never had someone send me a message that said they were renouncing their faith on the basis of something I have said nor have I re-converted to Christianity on the basis of things that were said to me.

So it seems to me that the field upon which daily decisions should be made when deciding how to deal with fellow human beings is the physical field simply because others might not believe the same way as you and, in addition, you might be wrong.

Going back to the example - if the nurse believes human life begins at conception on the basis of what is written in the bible, then I respect that. The fact that she would believe something that I think to be inaccurate is not what bothers me. What bothers me is that she would put those beliefs into action against another human being who might very well not believe those same things. It smacks of religious paternalism - and it is the worst kind of paternalism in my opinion. Such activities occur when there is either an inability or an unwillingness to admit that one might be mistaken in their beliefs that have, at least as I see it, no support in the world around us.

The purpose of me writing this was to try to differentiate between the two issues that tend to blend as one, and to try to explain how I see the second issue of the ethics of putting beliefs into action. I hope I was clear, and it was not my intent to inflame anyone's emotions but rather to try to bring a little more clarity to conversations here.