Splat

After caring for my mentally ill sister for the past three months (bipolar disorder, with paranoid delusions), I've been thinking a lot about the degree to which we are obligated to respect people's beliefs when we find them to be implausible to the point of absurdity.

My sister suffers from the delusion that there is a conspiricy to murder her. It is as real to her as the computer I'm typing on is to me, but I'm absolutely convinced that there is, in fact, no such plot.

I love and respect my sister, but our relationship has been strained to the breaking point because I simply cannot give her beliefs the respect she feels they deserve. To pretend to do so would require me to lie to her, which would be patronizing (and thus disrespectful on a deeper level).

Similarly, I respect many of the people in my life who hold theistic beliefs, but I cannot respect their beliefs because I find them untenable (at best) and absurd (at worst).

Part of the problem is semantic: "respect" is a pretty fuzzy word that covers a lot of ground.

Two relevant Websters definitions (verb form):

"1. To take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence, to care for; to heed."

and

"2. To consider worthy of esteem; to regard with honor. "

So in short, I can accord theists (and my sister's conspiricy theory) with #1, and try to avoid hurt feelings by keeping my true feelings to myself, but not # 2.

But this is simply a practical decision to avoid cutting myself off from theists important to my life (my wife, for example), and I'm as likely as not to withold even this degree of respect from strangers, especially strangers who knock on my door and want to try and convert me to their absurd belief systems.

So my question is, to what degree should we be morally obligated to respect theists' beliefs?

(I hope this is clear--it's hard to convey exactly what I mean here!)

JusticeMachine

I completely understand what you are saying.
The problem is that either morality is subjective or objective.
If it is subjective, then any response you feel is correct, is moral right (for you) and if someone feels that your response is moral wrong, then that is their personal issue to deal with, since your subjective moral response is right for you and no one can judge you for that, you are just being yourself.

If morality is objective, then there is a correct response on wheather you are showing respect to someones beliefs or not.

Problem is todays social atomosphere teaches that all peoples beliefs are to be held on an equal statis, and no one seems to be right or wrong, moral just or unjust.

I come from the belief in objectivity. I think people can agree to disagree, but respect is separating the value of the persons belief with valueing the person themselves. I value people, even though I disagree with some of their beliefs.

It's late so my spelling might not be exact.

Amie

Hi Splat

probably to the same degree that you would want theists to respect your beliefs.

I think everyone's beliefs should be respected. we may not always agree with one another but no ones beliefs are any better or superior to anyone elses. They're just different.

Amie~

JusticeMachine

As I stated above, Amie is a poster child for today's social pluralistic, everything is equal, point of view.

Amie

I never stated everything to be equal.
They will be considered points of view that I do not share, but they are someones beliefs and I think they should be respected as such...

now to your statement
out of curiosity, what would be your main problem with that teaching? do you find it harmful to society in some way?

Infinity Lover

You and I may believe we should respect other's views. But some people believe THRUTH is on their side; thus they needen't respect other's views.

How do you respect someone's disrespect? How do you tolerate intollerance?

Splat

Hi Amie,

I disagree with this.

I think: 1) being alive is better than being dead, 2) there is some external reality that is independent of our beliefs, and 3) that the closer our beliefs reflect that reality, the more likely we are to survive.

If you agree with these three points, then surely you can agree that beliefs that are congruent with external reality and allow us to survive are better than those that are at odds with reality and put us in danger (if you disagree with #2, then we have nothing to discuss, I suppose).

Stepping back from life-or-death issues, it becomes a little fuzzier. But still, I think it's fair to say that beliefs with no basis in reality that cause us to suffer are inferior to those that don't (barring oddball cases where people enjoy suffering).

My sister's beliefs about the danger she is in have no basis in reality (otherwise she would be dead by now, since her "assassins" have had ample opportunity to get her). Insofar as they interfere with her ability to live independently (something she valued very highly before the brain injury that started all of this), they are inferior to the belief that nobody is out to get her and thus she can, for example, take her meds without fear that somebody has poisoned them.

I find it impossible to respect those beliefs because they cause her pain and misery and cause my family and me a lot of stress and heartache (and insofar as going off her meds could end in suicide, this could be a life/death situation). This makes it impossible for me to respect and support her choices about how to deal with her fears: I think the only route to improving her quality of life is via her psychiatrist and therapist. She thinks it is via the police, more locks on the door, etc. (neither the police nor more locks brought her any relief).

The case with theists is even fuzzier, since their belief brings them some sort of positive feelings (or so I assume). And at that level, I don't disagree with you: if it makes somebody happy to believe in Jesus, Vishnu et al., Isis, Mamawati, or Green Mushroom Fairies, that's fine with me, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else or interfere with my life.

When that's the case I can, as Justice Machine says, agree to disagree and respect the person seperate from their beliefs.

But too often that isn't the case, particularly with christians who believe they have a vested interest in converting me to their beliefs, or shunning my kids because of my beliefs, and the like. At that point, their belief begins to interfere with my life. Why should I respect those beliefs?

Moving beyond the personal level to a social one, religion has a long history of serving as the justification for inflicting misery. This is especially true when, as Infinity Lover put it, a group believes that it has a lock on the capital T Truth. I see no obligation to respect those beliefs, in the sense of either of the definitions in my OP. In fact, I feel a moral obligation to oppose them.

But that's the easy case. What I'm really wondering about are the cases where we are expected to respect and tolerate beliefs that hold us non-theists in contempt. I'm not looking for moral absolutes here, since I don't think there are any. Just opinions.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Splat ]</p>

Pseudonymph

What exactly is the problem with that?

If you are in some way attempting to relate that particular situation as being on the same level as a theist's beliefs, then sorry but that's a faulty analogy.

Then what exactly is the problem? If someone came along who thought that green monkeys ejaculated in thier cereal every morning I sure wouldn't respect that either. Theres nothing wrong with finding someones beliefs strange...letting it cause you to think you can judge people or condescend on them, is where a problem starts.


Why do you rely on a moral absolute to tell you what's right? Do what you know is right. And it would seem logical that you would respect your friends and people you know for who they are as people. If their beliefs interfere with who they are to a point where you cannot relate to them, well then that's just like anything else that could tear a relationship apart isn't it?

Splat

I'm not equating religious belief to mental illness, if that's what you mean. But in both cases, belief is independent of verifiable reality. The analogy rests on that parallel.

It would depend. Have you ever spent any time around green monkeys (or any other monkey species, for that matter)? They masturbate. If the person had a green monkey and ate cereal for breakfast, it would at least be within the realm of possibility.

As for judgement, I laid out my criteria for judging value in the post above. Please read it.

Allow me to repeat myself:

Pseudonymph

Hello again Splat...


I did notice that you said that, but it honestly does seem to contradict the statement of


You are seemingly looking for some sort of absolute here. Why should we do anything at all?


I know monkeys masturbate(lol...I am so sorry to all passerbys for mentioning masturbating monkeys in the first place ) but my point was...if the person was insisting to me that green monkeys were indeed leaving spooge in her cheerios and that's ALL she was saying...what harm does it do to me?

If she's punching me in the face insisting that I myself have to believe in the happy green monkeys then I have a problem! So in the context provided...you have to pick your battles.