Respect

I have come across a number of discussions recently about the idea of “respecting other people’s beliefs” which set me thinking about the strands of meaning that are tangled up in that much used phrase.

• “Anyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe free of any legal sanctions.” This should apply to beliefs about any and all subjects and to people who believe contradictions, absurdities or odious things about other people. We could call this political freedom of belief and I can’t really think why any civilized person would oppose it.
• “Anyone should be allowed to express any belief free of any legal sanctions.” (Political freedom of speech.) This is a key political freedom, possibly the most basic of all. In practice almost everyone accepts that there are some things which should not be said because, for example, people might be misled and incited to violence by some utterances. But any restriction on this freedom carries dangers and I think we have probably become too ready to accept restrictions on freedom of speech.
• “No one should use abusive or demeaning personal rhetoric in discussing another person’s views, whether with that person or more widely.” This seems to me one of the core meanings of “respecting other people’s beliefs” and it is the essence of civilized discussion. Sadly, it is often forgotten or deliberately flouted now in the attempt to stir up publicity - much of the debate on both sides of the “God Delusion/New Atheist” argument falls into this category, for example. But respect in this sense is respect for the person not for the view: it doesn't cover denying the truth of a person's views or simply saying they are wrong, let alone producing arguments or evidence against their view, or demanding the arguments or evidence in favour. It might be likened to abstention from verbal violence in discussion, rather like abstention from violence in playing a physical game, which is not at all the same as abstention from the game or in this case from discussion.
• “Everyone should bear in mind that they could be wrong, however convinced they are that they are right, and conduct discussion accordingly.” This is a rule many people express and very few follow. It is particularly unpopular in today’s age of soundbite politicians and celebrity-driven careers, when people feel it is essential to be seen to be right. But the salutary insight that we could be wrong is about keeping our minds open to evidence. It doesn’t follow that we always are wrong, or that all views are equally true, or should be treated as such. If we come across a strange point of view which differs from what we are used to we should not dismiss it just for unfamiliarity, because it might offer a different way of looking at the world which is better than our current belief. The new view needs first to be understood in sufficient detail, demanding a certain respect for it which will be broadly proportional to how cogent the view itself is - a suspension of criticism until we have properly understood what is proposed. But then, the new view needs to prove itself, show its evidence, the reasoning behind it, it’s predictive power and so on. The world views of different cultures for example often have practical consequences which are superior in some respects to ours so we can often learn something from them even if in the end we do not accept them. They can help us to look critically at our existing view and perhaps improve it. This can happen without such beliefs being true or being embraced in every detail - that might be the right conclusion, but it needs more work!
• “No one should disagree with or challenge another’s beliefs.” Many people think or behave as if this were what respect amounts to but it can't be quite as simple as that. As a general maxim it would amount to having, or at least expressing, no beliefs at all. Do we have to agree with everyone, including two sides with mutually incompatible positions? There is a time and place for disagreement and a time and place for keeping silent, of course: no one would suggest it’s right to go into the middle of a religious service and loudly start to dispute the relevant faith, for example. If this aspect of good manners is all that is intended, fair enough. But if we disagree with someone it is surely often a mark of respect for that person and for their views (rather than the reverse) to engage in a discussion of why they think that and why they reject the reasons which lead us to have a different view. It depends on our motives. If for example we just want to prove someone wrong for our own entertainment or aggrandizement, or worse humiliate them, then challenging their beliefs is certainly not respectful, it might even amount to bullying. If we are genuinely curious about their beliefs or about why they hold them it is a very different matter and the questioning is itself respectful. The difficult cases are those where our motive for discussion is to change the other person's mind about their views. But whenever we do so to be helpful there can be no disrespect even if the person finds our concern unwelcome.
• “If someone does not want to discuss or justify their views they should not have to.” Again, this might simply be an aspect of good manners. To press someone on an abstract point which has no immediate consequences when they are uncomfortable with the situation is rude. But if for example the belief in question has practical consequences, particularly consequences for others apart from the believer, it is surely necessary to challenge the view. If John does not want to discuss his political opinions in the pub it might be good manners to talk about football (again), but if he says it is safe to let his young children play on the railway that is surely a belief that any friend would question.
• “There are certain categories of belief, including supernatural beliefs, which should not be challenged.” This is a half truth and possibly a dangerous one. Since supernatural belief does not depend on evidence in any straightforward way we have no agreed way of deciding supernatural questions. Some, including many theologians, would say it follows that so-called supernatural facts are not really facts at all but something else - metaphors, myths, doomed attempts to express an inexpressible truth, meaningless babble, whatever. It does seem to follow that there must come a point at which further discussion of supernatural matters is pointless (I don’t include the exegesis of agreed texts) and people have to accept disagreement. But before that point is reached there is surely a great deal that can be done by way of clarification of positions, demands for consistency, separation of empirical from supernatural points and so on. So, if someone wants to say that they have an inexpressible faith based (say) on personal spiritual insights there is nothing more to be said, but if they produce a string of propositions about the world based on their supernatural beliefs, they are surely subject to the same demands of rational discussion as if they were talking about geography. And someone who claims that they and only they know certain truths because they have supernatural insight denied to everyone else should be sent straight to Jeremy Paxman for questioning.
• “All supernatural beliefs are equally valid”. This might possibly be true if the beliefs in question were “purely” supernatural, although it might mean that all are equally meaningless so it might not offer much comfort to holders of exotic beliefs. But since many such beliefs are an amalgam of supernatural and empirical it will usually not be true, quite apart from the demand for internal consistency.
• “It is (morally) wrong to question or cast doubt on anyone’s supernatural or religious beliefs.” It might be rude, it might be unwise, it might be vicious if intended to incite or justify violence against against them, it might be cruel if for example someone’s beliefs are their only comfort in some present grief. It could be wrong for any such specific reason. But can it be wrong in general? How can it be, for no one, even the most fervent believer, can think that it is wrong to doubt any belief of any religion? Some religions of course believe that it is morally wrong to doubt their doctrines, which is the essence of blasphemy. But to insist that everyone subscribe to that view is to insist that everyone subscribe to that particular religion. This is where rationality and discussion end. If a religion believes that it is wrong to question or doubt it there is no possibility of discussion, but there is no possibility of persuasion either. Such a religion is either closed or aspires to grow by force.

There are probably many other strands: let me know your favourites.