Is Religious Tolerance A Bad Idea?

[Sunstone]

I have yet to read his book, but I've heard that Sam Harris, in Letter To A Christian Nation, makes an argument against tolerance of religion. He believes that tolerating moderate religious views is dangerous because those views are ultimately irrational and thus pave the road to tolerating even more extreme and dangerous views. For instance: If we start by tolerating the notion that wine and bread can turn into blood and flesh, we will end by tolerating the notion that flying planes into the Twin Towers is a legitimate defense of our religion. According to Harris, once we have decided to tolerate irrationality in the name of religion, there is no end to the irrationality that we must tolerate.

Has Harris committed a slippery slope fallacy of logic here? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I have yet to read his book, but I've heard that Sam Harris, in Letter To A Christian Nation, makes an argument against tolerance of religion. He believes that tolerating moderate religious views is dangerous because those views are ultimately irrational and thus pave the road to tolerating even more extreme and dangerous views. For instance: If we start by tolerating the notion that wine and bread can turn into blood and flesh, we will end by tolerating the notion that flying planes into the Twin Towers is a legitimate defense of our religion. According to Harris, once we have decided to tolerate irrationality in the name of religion, there is no end to the irrationality that we must tolerate.

Has Harris committed a slippery slope fallacy of logic here? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think he slipped on taking the communion ceremony too literally. He then went on to the slippery slope fallacy.

It's illogical to assume that all people will tolerate acts of violence in the name of religion. There's a difference between tolerating a harmless belief in a symbolic ceremony, and tolerating a suicidal act. That some people will make a connection between the two is normal, it doesn't take religious tolerance to bring that about.

 

[jacquie4000]

Hmmm Well If Religious Tolerance is such a bad idea.. This site would not be so popular

 

[Mathematician]

I have yet to read his book, but I've heard that Sam Harris, in Letter To A Christian Nation, makes an argument against tolerance of religion. He believes that tolerating moderate religious views is dangerous because those views are ultimately irrational and thus pave the road to tolerating even more extreme and dangerous views. For instance: If we start by tolerating the notion that wine and bread can turn into blood and flesh, we will end by tolerating the notion that flying planes into the Twin Towers is a legitimate defense of our religion. According to Harris, once we have decided to tolerate irrationality in the name of religion, there is no end to the irrationality that we must tolerate.

Has Harris committed a slippery slope fallacy of logic here? If so, why? If not, why not?

The "tolerant" crowd has already showed it's not a push-over by blocking dogma from being taught in science class and not allowing adults to just drop what they're working on to pray - - I think he's just spitting out rhetoric.

 

[Comet]

Toleration of others is only a bad idea if YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST!!! It is the extremists that give the others of that faith a bad name by association from others not of that faith.

There will be people of extremes no matter where you go or what you believe.... it is up to the rest of us to come together.

 

[crystalclear]

if everybody tolerated each other, there would be no reason for terrorism.

 

[Comprehend]

I think the problem with arguing that something is *irrational* is that it is so subjective. Athiests think that thiests are irrational and thiests think athiests are, democrats/republicans, creationists/evolutionists, socialists/capitalists, etc etc etc.

It seems a little misguided to say that something should be done away with because you think it is irrational, I think he needs to use a better argument.

The biggest reason I dislike his idea is that it would need to be a totalitarian police state in order to inforce it. 1984 anyone?

 

[Revasser]

Well, I've read Harris' book and he doesn't ever actually argue against tolerance that I can see, though some may disagree.

The gist I got from it is (and this is a point a lot of high-profile atheists are making at the moment) that he thinks we shouldn't let religious ideas go unchallenged just because they're religious ideas and that they should be open to criticism just like every other idea. He basically thinks that the social "free ride" that religion gets purely by virtue of being religion needs to end.

The point he makes about the "moderate to liberal" or "tolerance crowd" is that they tend to push this notion that we shouldn't criticise religious ideas because that is "intolerant" or "disrespectful" of somebody's faith. Harris explains that he thinks this is a problem because because if everyone is scared of criticising religion for fear of being labelled "intolerant", then there is the potential for us to be unable to get at the root of the causes of things like 9/11.

I think he deliberately exaggerates to make a point in this instance (and it's a common rhetorical theme throughout the book.) I think the point he is making is that turning "tolerance" into a kind of de facto wishy-washy acceptance of everything is the problem, not tolerance itself.

 

[Comprehend]

Well, I've read Harris' book and he doesn't ever actually argue against tolerance that I can see, though some may disagree.

The gist I got from it is (and this is a point a lot of high-profile atheists are making at the moment) that he thinks we shouldn't let religious ideas go unchallenged just because they're religious ideas and that they should be open to criticism just like every other idea. He basically thinks that the social "free ride" that religion gets purely by virtue of being religion needs to end.

The point he makes about the "moderate to liberal" or "tolerance crowd" is that they tend to push this notion that we shouldn't criticise religious ideas because that is "intolerant" or "disrespectful" of somebody's faith. Harris explains that he thinks this is a problem because because if everyone is scared of criticising religion for fear of being labelled "intolerant", then there is the potential for us to be unable to get at the root of the causes of things like 9/11.

I think he deliberately exaggerates to make a point in this instance (and it's a common rhetorical theme throughout the book.) I think the point he is making is that turning "tolerance" into a kind of de facto wishy-washy acceptance of everything is the problem, not tolerance itself.

Wow, I would like to visit that planet someday. I don't see to many people who have any problems criticising and attacking religion around this one. What would Harris say about the 100 million deaths caused by athiestic communism from the last century? I wish people would criticise socialism and communism like they criticise religion.

 

[Revasser]

Wow, I would like to visit that planet someday. I don't see to many people who have any problems criticising and attacking religion around this one. What would Harris say about the 100 million deaths caused by athiestic communism from the last century? I wish people would criticise socialism and communism like they criticise religion.

If you would care to read his book, he does actually address communism and attempts by people to foist the atrocities of Stalin and his ilk on "atheism".

I'm really rather gobsmacked you think people don't criticise socialism and communism. You've never been involved in a real, tooth and claw political debate, have you? Heck, you've never seen Average Right-Wing Pundit on TV or listened on radio?

If you get a fiery socialist and a passionate free marketeer together and they start talking politics, not only is itacceptable that they would tear into each other's dearly held ideals, it is expected.

Your average economic liberal with an interest in politics is bound to go off on long criticisms of communism, and it's perfectly acceptable for him to do so. The reverse is also true. Politically interested Joe Socialist is likely to have many criticisms of capitalism up his sleeve too, and it's perfectly acceptable for him to give them voice.

But if Reginald Catholic starts to criticise Muslim doctrine or, heaven forbid, Sally Atheist starts to criticse Catholic and Muslim doctrine, they are liable to receive the frowning of a lifetime in "polite society" and immediately be labelled intolerant, where as our poltically interested friends above are far more likely to simply receive an interested audience.

 

[Comprehend]

If you would care to read his book, he does actually address communism and attempts by people to foist the atrocities of Stalin and his ilk on "atheism".

I'm really rather gobsmacked you think people don't criticise socialism and communism. You've never been involved in a real, tooth and claw political debate, have you? Heck, you've never seen Average Right-Wing Pundit on TV or listened on radio?

If you get a fiery socialist and a passionate free marketeer together and they start talking politics, not only is itacceptable that they would tear into each other's dearly held ideals, it is expected.

Your average economic liberal with an interest in politics is bound to go off on long criticisms of communism, and it's perfectly acceptable for him to do so. The reverse is also true. Politically interested Joe Socialist is likely to have many criticisms of capitalism up his sleeve too, and it's perfectly acceptable for him to give them voice.

But if Reginald Catholic starts to criticise Muslim doctrine or, heaven forbid, Sally Atheist starts to criticse Catholic and Muslim doctrine, they are liable to receive the frowning of a lifetime in "polite society" and immediately be labelled intolerant, where as our poltically interested friends above are far more likely to simply receive an interested audience.

ok. I see that. I do think people criticise socialism, just not as much as religion. but I see your point about people of different religions criticising, that is pretty frowned upon. I have been beat up on this website a few times for it .

but I would like to hear why you do not think the communists were athiest or why their athiesm had nothing to do with it. If it was just "evil" men like Stalin that were responsible and not the philosophy, then one could say the same thing about Bin Laden, or any of the things the author is blaming on religion. (IMO)

 

[Pah]

I think he slipped on taking the communion ceremony too literally. He then went on to the slippery slope fallacy.

It's illogical to assume that all people will tolerate acts of violence in the name of religion. There's a difference between tolerating a harmless belief in a symbolic ceremony, and tolerating a suicidal act. That some people will make a connection between the two is normal, it doesn't take religious tolerance to bring that about.

Slippery slope? Ask Victor about transubstantion (sp?) After all it is stated biblically that the bread IS the body of Christ and the wine IS the blood. The problem of not taking this literally is that a moderate Christian who may concetrate on the symbol of body and blood would be guilty of cherry-picking biblical verse.

The problem is also that the tendency to think in literal biblical terms and supernaturalism may not adequately counter the acts of violence for they both share the same thinking process and many of the same assumptions. Saying that scriptually based violence is wrong opens up the moderate or liberal religious to criticism of their views.

 

[Revasser]

ok. I see that. I do think people criticise socialism, just not as much as religion. but I see your point about people of different religions criticising, that is pretty frowned upon. I have been beat up on this website a few times for it .

Well, you have to remember that the population of atheists who will speak their minds on the internet is probably greater than in "real life." The anonymity helps a great deal, since the social consquences of receiving the "intolerant" label online are basically nil.

but I would like to hear why you do not think the communists were athiest or why their athiesm had nothing to do with it. If it was just "evil" men like Stalin that were responsible and not the philosophy, then one could say the same thing about Bin Laden, or any of the things the author is blaming on religion. (IMO)

Me personally? Well, it's a bit off-topic, but if I keep it short, I think it'll be okay.

Marxist-Leninist communism is an atheistic political philosophy and I don't think anyone really disputes that. I would personally say that the way, say, the Russians implemented it is responsible for the atrocities, because it encouraged the formation of a powerful beaurocracy and had no mechanisms for removing murderous autocrats like Stalin. It concentrated power into the hands of small elite (something communism is supposed to prevent) and gave that elite free reign to exterminate threats to their power. It's one of the big problems with political change-through-violent revolution.

But, saying "atheism" is to blame is rather nonsensical. "Atheism" is not a philosophy, nor a religion. There is no complex set of doctrine, no moral code, no organisational structure. Saying "atheism" is responsible really implies that people were killed because "atheism" taught that they needed to be killed. It's a descriptor, not a prescriptor, if you see what I mean? It's as silly as saying "theism" is responsible for 9/11, when "theism" entails nothing but a belief in some kind of undefined deity. Does that make sense?

 

[Sunstone]

but I would like to hear why you do not think the communists were athiest or why their athiesm had nothing to do with it. If it was just "evil" men like Stalin that were responsible and not the philosophy, then one could say the same thing about Bin Laden, or any of the things the author is blaming on religion. (IMO)

Has any sane atheist ever said, "Atheism is my reason and justification for murdering people"? Yet, many Christians and others have said (at least in the past) that their religion was a reason and justification for murdering people. Stalin was not motivated to murder people because of his atheism, anymore than he was motivated to murder people because of his shoe size. The myth that he was motivated to murder people because of his atheism is an extension of the myth that atheists are especially immoral people.

 

[Pah]

Wow, I would like to visit that planet someday. I don't see to many people who have any problems criticising and attacking religion around this one. What would Harris say about the 100 million deaths caused by athiestic communism from the last century? I wish people would criticise socialism and communism like they criticise religion.

He does address that familar myth in The End of Faith.

I don't suppose that you think that the exterminination of Jews in the Holocast is NOT religious? Five million wasn't it? Or maybe 3-4 million if you discount gypsies, gays, atheists, etc.

 

[Comprehend]

Well, you have to remember that the population of atheists who will speak their minds on the internet is probably greater than in "real life." The anonymity helps a great deal, since the social consquences of receiving the "intolerant" label online are basically nil.

Me personally? Well, it's a bit off-topic, but if I keep it short, I think it'll be okay.

Marxist-Leninist communism is an atheistic political philosophy and I don't think anyone really disputes that. I would personally say that the way, say, the Russians implemented it is responsible for the atrocities, because it encouraged the formation of a powerful beaurocracy and had no mechanisms for removing murderous autocrats like Stalin. It concentrated power into the hands of small elite (something communism is supposed to prevent) and gave that elite free reign to exterminate threats to their power. It's one of the big problems with political change-through-violent revolution.

But, saying "atheism" is to blame is rather nonsensical. "Atheism" is not a philosophy, nor a religion. There is no complex set of doctrine, no moral code, no organisational structure. Saying "atheism" is responsible really implies that people were killed because "atheism" taught that they needed to be killed. It's a descriptor, not a prescriptor, if you see what I mean? It's as silly as saying "theism" is responsible for 9/11, when "theism" entails nothing but a belief in some kind of undefined deity. Does that make sense?

yes, it makes sense thanks for the explanation. I disagree for this reason. while athiesm has no set doctrine or moral code, I think the descriptor (removing God) is precisely the problem, godlessness is what I think leads to the depravity witnessed not only with Stalin but Pol Pot, and Mau in China. Wholesale slaughter of human beings was the norm with communism. I think it was the godlessness that lead to the poor leadership that lead to the murder of millions rather than simple implementation problems.

I do not think it is silly to say athiesm was responsible for the deaths because I think not believing in ANY God is more likely to lead to despotism and murder than belief will. Note that buddists, christians, muslims, jews, pagans, etc when properly practicing their religion are non-violent. None of them believe in the same god but the belief in *a* god seems to lead one to peace. Conversely, it appears that if the last 100 years has anything to say about atheism, the opposite may be true. That is my argument. I know you will disagree and I also know this is probably off topic so I apologize and you do not need to respond unless you feel like it.

 

[Sunstone]

yes, it makes sense thanks for the explanation. I disagree for this reason. while athiesm has no set doctrine or moral code, I think the descriptor (removing God) is precisely the problem, godlessness is what I think leads to the depravity witnessed not only with Stalin but Pol Pot, and Mau in China. Wholesale slaughter of human beings was the norm with communism. I think it was the godlessness that lead to the poor leadership that lead to the murder of millions rather than simple implementation problems.

I do not think it is silly to say athiesm was responsible for the deaths because I think not believing in ANY God is more likely to lead to despotism and murder than belief will. Note that buddists, christians, muslims, jews, pagans, etc when properly practicing their religion are non-violent. None of them believe in the same god but the belief in *a* god seems to lead one to peace. Conversely, it appears that if the last 100 years has anything to say about atheism, the opposite may be true. That is my argument. I know you will disagree and I also know this is probably off topic so I apologize and you do not need to respond unless you feel like it.

You might want to start a thread on that, Comprehend. It would probably be an interesting one.

 

[Comprehend]

Has any sane atheist ever said, "Atheism is my reason and justification for murdering people"? Yet, many Christians and others have said (at least in the past) that their religion was a reason and justification for murdering people. Stalin was not motivated to murder people because of his atheism, anymore than he was motivated to murder people because of his shoe size. The myth that he was motivated to murder people because of his atheism is an extension of the myth that atheists are especially immoral people.

you qualify athiest with *sane* but you do not afford Christians the same qualification? Looks like you are hedging to me.

 

[Sunstone]

you qualify athiest with *sane* but you do not afford Christians the same qualification? Looks like you are hedging to me.

Well, qualify Christian the same way, then. Do you think all the inquisitors during the inquisition were insane? Or were at least some of them sane? Is it plausible that everyone through out history who has found in Christianity an excuse for murder was insane?

 

[Comprehend]

Well, qualify Christian the same way, then. Do you think all the inquisitors during the inquisition were insane? Or were at least some of them sane? Is it plausible that everyone through out history who has found in Christianity an excuse for murder was insane?

of course I could not hold that position, I was just giving you a hard time. I agree with you that there has been terrible things done by religious people in the past, (no sane person could deny it). I was trying to speak to the overall trend of things. But it seems to me that the only thing that communism in Russia, China and Cambodia was athiesm. Russia and China had such vastly different ideas about communism that they hated each other for a long time. It was common though in all of the athiest societies that human beings lost their value. The society as a whole was all that mattered but the individual was worthless. If they believed in God, it would not be very likely that a people would accept that a human being was worthless. Anyway, I am sorry for wrecking your thread and thanks a lot both of you for the good natured discussion. I will delete these posts in the morning to clean up.