Atheism and tolerance

[rug]

A recent post on Slacktivist accusing Greta Christina of “purest evil” for arguing in favour of atheist evangelism has highlighted several major issues with the tolerance community.

Bruce Gorton | 07 February, 2012 07:56

There is not a single line I agree with on Froborr’s post. Not one. But it does raise several issues that have been plaguing the secularist left in increasing intensity, issues which deal with pluralism, the role of public debate, and whether it is okay to proselytise one’s beliefs.

This is going to be a long column because it deals with a lot of issues, so without much further ado, here is my take on why the principles behind that post aren’t workable.

Live and let live – why neither side of the religious debate can

A lot of religions teach that non-believers will end up in hell, where God will torture them for all eternity. For these believers it is thus a moral duty to win converts to their beliefs because a few minutes of irritation on a Sunday morning is pretty small potatoes compared to an eternity in hell.

Other religions teach that they have hit upon objective moral truth, and that not spreading such moral truth will lead to the decay of society as a whole. These too can reasonably say that a few minutes annoying the neighbours is hardly a big deal when one considers the alternative.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2012/02/07/atheism-and-tolerance

Proselytizing sucks.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. No, proselytizing is a great idea; we need more on all sides.

Trying to force people to accept that what you believe is true is true, and to live accordingly, is something to be cautious with (it's *not* necessarily a bad thing; there are lots of my values that I desperately want to impose on people by force, like "no killing", but many others where I think the harm from the forced imposition would outweigh the gain from people living by that value).

But trying to explain to people who disagree with you why it is that you think what you do (and hence why what they think is wrong) is a great idea, and something that needs to be destigmatised, in my view.

I am somewhat worried by the extent to which it is currently viewed as rude and offensive to say to someone "I think you are wrong, and here is why" rather than "while I respect your beliefs, blah blah blah"...

[cbayer]

2. I honestly can't tell whether you are being sarcastic here or not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Definitely not.

I think that people with different views - religious, political, what have you - generally get on better if they agree to argue about their views than if they agree to pretend that their disagreements aren't there.

[cbayer]

4. I see your point. You are using proselytize in a kinder, gentler way that I was thinking of it.

So often I see proselytizing as more of a strong arm attempt to convert from a position that there is not another way, than a discussion about disagreements.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I mean "trying to convince other people they are wrong, by argument alone".

The red line not to cross is when you go from explaining to someone why they are wrong and you are right and why they should agree with you of their own free will, to trying to compel them to agree with you or impose negative consequences on them for not acting as though they do.

I'm not sure about "strongarm" - I certainly don't mean "intimidate" or "pester", but I do mean "telling other people that they are wrong".

There are many situations where that line *should* be crossed (all criminal law is trying to impose values by force, for example), but one needs to be aware when crossing it that one is doing so, and not do without damn good cause.