Let's have a little post about respect...

[Cleobulus]

I think there's great confusion as to what respect is, and the different levels of it exist in conversation, especially when it comes to belief and religion.

Now, to illustrate this point, I'm going to make analogies that, to some people, may be offensive, but its to illuminate a point. If you wish to complain, well, that's what the reply button is for, so fire away!

Respect can be too often used as a weasel word of sorts, basically meaning that someone accords a belief or argument to be as valid as their own and yet not agree with it. The problem, of course, is when people can't regard that belief or argument to be valid at all.

There's also a difference in respect in this regard, I can respect a person, but not the beliefs they hold, but ONLY if those beliefs don't jeopardize the respect I have for them AS a person. I can respect someone who believes in a God, and is otherwise a decent human being, I can't respect someone who believe interracial marriage is wrong, its simply not possible.

That is about people, and frankly this is something too many miss, respect has to be earned, not given. I meet a stranger, that stranger may earn my respect or not, depends on their attitude, how nice they are, etc. I've lost plenty of potential friends when I found out about their racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.

Now, as far as respecting beliefs, this is done in a way similar to how we judge people, and everyone judges, don't fool yourselves, we also judge beliefs, sometimes combined with how we judge individuals, but also on their own as well.

If someone came up to you and had said they had an epiphany that God is talking to them, and tells them the secrets of the universe, and that he needs to spread the word, what would you think? Be honest here, even most religious people will think the guy is crazy, and will accord his belief absolutely no respect. Now the guy in question may be the nicest guy in the world, but it doesn't matter, our opinion of him and/or his belief may be that he is insane. As long as he's not an immediate danger to those around him, we may respect his right to be crazy, but it doesn't change the fact that he is crazy.

Now, extend this to other beliefs, removed from the conduct of the person in question. Think about this honestly, would you respect the belief that the Earth is hollow, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old? How about the belief that the moon landings were faked? Or even better, that Atlantis existed?

Now many people will say that such beliefs are harmless, and they would, more or less, be right, except for the indirect harm caused by spreading misinformation in abstract or theoretical grounds. This doesn't mean we should accord those beliefs with any respectability, indeed they should be derided as being stupid, because they are either assertions without evidence, or assertions made in spite of contrary evidence. The idea that "both sides have good points" or "both sides are valid" is stupid, harmful, and untrue when it comes to claims made that are unsupported by the evidence or run contrary to the facts.

Let's up the stakes a little bit, what about the false link between MMR vaccine and autism? Should we respect the beliefs of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Even when it could kill, and has killed, other people's children? What about the priest in Africa who says that condoms fail to prevent the spread of the HIV virus? Should we accord that belief with respect? Even when more people become infected everyday because of this misinformation? Hell, what about those who say there is no link between HIV and AIDS, refusing treatments for themselves, and trying to convince others to not take treatments, should their beliefs be accorded respect?

Now, notice, I said nothing about respecting the individuals who hold these beliefs, they may be the nicest people in the world, however, some of their beliefs can cause unbelievable damage to the world. Hell, there are measles and mumps outbreaks in Europe, people have died of measles, for the first time in a generation, over that false belief alone. Only time will tell how many, possibly millions, will die of AIDS in Africa over the beliefs I mentioned above as well.

Yet even here, I made a distinction that isn't really there, between harmless and harmful beliefs, beliefs that have a commonality, that they are assertions with either no factual basis, or who run counter to the evidence. The problem is that having beliefs that have no basis in evidence or reason are dangerous all on their own. Some could be considered less harmful than others, but all, in the end, can and do cause harm.

The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it. If someone says a belief comes from the Bible, and you find it there, then why can't you judge the Bible on its own merits and assertions? Same can be said for any holy book or creed of any religion. Why should they be accorded automatic respectability?

Its the assurance that you are right without evidence to back it up that is the true problem, because it can lead to absolutism and doubt in the veracity of evidence, science, and reason. Oh, and before anyone accuses me of this, I don't sell assurance, I sell doubt, for I never claimed to have all the answers, indeed, there is quite a bit I don't know, at least I'm smart enough to know NOT to make statements of beliefs I know I can't prove.