Religious Tolerance

I have been thinking from time-to-time about how we achieved religious tolerance in the western industrialized countries, and how we can preserve it here, and possibly introduce it in Muslim countries. So I decided to blog about it.

Religious tolerance is a remarkably complex phenomenon which I can't hope to address in a single blog posting. Nevertheless I'm going to start with some thoughts and see where it takes me. The reason it is so important is that it seems key to avoiding war with Muslims and perhaps others, not to mention certain kinds of political conflict within the US.

The odd thing about tolerance is that it seems like a rather untenable position for a religious person to take. If you think your religion is right, and it involves an all-powerful deity who has set down laws for you to follow, and who condemns you to eternity in hell for failure to do so, then surely you will do everything in your power to follow these laws. If other people have different laws, then there is a serious conflict. This conflict ultimately resolves into the laws of the state. Each religion must surely want the laws of the state to include all of their religious laws. Surely it would be wrong to allow the will of the majority to override the will of the supreme deity.

Yet, in spite of this logic, we find that in the western industrialized world, the vast majority of people have in fact become willing to submit to the will of the majority in almost all cases. In the US a somewhat smaller majority accepts the constitutional separation of church and state, although many fundamentalist Christians do object to this provision.

I am going to argue that, even though people think that their morality comes from God, it actually comes from society, and it changes over time. Even though people may think that God's morality is unchanging, they are wrong. Bible literalists can always find quotes that can be interpreted to support current morality, but these are rationalizations. In reality, the quotes and the interpretations change over time.

After fighting religious wars and persecution in Europe for hundreds of years, people have come to accept religious tolerance as a preferable, if imperfect, alternative. Over time people have come to believe that God favors tolerance. The old testament clearly commands God's people to kill other people who have the wrong religion. But the new testament is taken to override this, even though this seems to be saying that God was wrong when he wrote the earlier rules.

Let me just give two further examples which show that current morality is unrelated to scriptural morality: adultery and abortion. The bible makes it very clear that adultery is a serious sin and is punishable by death. People still think it is a sin, but very few think it is a capital crime. If you did think it was a capital crime, you would have a serious problem with the secular state, which not only tolerates adultery, but if you do God's will and kill an adulterer, it is you who are guilty of murder. Yet no one has any problem with this.

Now abortion is a different matter. The bible actually says nothing about abortion at all. It is never mentioned. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" advocates can find quotes in the bible that can be interpreted to justify their position. Now the pro-life side is adamant that abortion is murder, and it drives them crazy that the state refuses to treat it as such. They have somehow become convinced that this is God's will and God is really pretty upset about it.

What about the Muslim world? It would appear that, despite fighting among themselves for 1400 years over the question of the inheritance of religious authority from Mohamed, they have not yet developed widespread religious tolerance. Sunnis and Shiites remain mostly divided along national boundaries, and where there is substantial mixing, there remains a high level of inter-sectional violence -- i.e. Iraq. There is sometimes a grudging acceptance of other religions in some cases, but they are treated as second-class citizens.

How can we account for this? It is a gross simplification, of course, but I believe that the single most important factor is education. There is generally no secular public education available in Muslim countries. If a poor boy gets an education at all, it is often in a Muslim school called a madrasa. In a madrasa, the education consists exclusively of teaching and reading the Koran and other religious texts. So it is no surprise that this sort of education results in religious intolerance.

Of course there are many religiously tolerant people to be found within Muslim cultures. The reason is the same as it is in the more affluent countries. Among the better educated, more affluent middle and upper classes, religion tends to lose its standing as the sole source of moral authority. When they emigrate to non-Muslim countries, naturally they have little choice but to tolerate the religions that dominate in their new homes. Unfortunately, the religiously tolerant do not have either the political power or the moral conviction to establish tolerance as a secular imperative.

Is there any solution to this? Perhaps the best hope is education. If we could introduce and support secular education without appearing to interfere with local cultures this would have tremendous long-term value. This would take some years to have a significant effect, but it would almost certainly be cheaper and more effective than paying for endless wars. In the short term, we could attempt to support secular leadership wherever possible, again without interference.

You might conclude from the above discussion that I think religious intolerance is the only factor fueling anti-western fervor and terrorism. Clearly there are other factors, including nationalism and a justifiable anger over western interference in local governments. However, religion remains a factor, and the others are not within the scope of this blog.

Sarah Palin

Please, please, please don't vote for Sarah Palin. Even if you are religious, if you value religious freedom, you don't want Sarah Palin in office. You may think that statements like "the Iraq war is part of God's plan" are innocent reflections of her faith. While she may not fully understand the import of this statement personally, it actually reflects the position of a subgroup of Christians, with whom she is well connected, who believe that war in the middle east is part of a prelude to the return of Christ and the Rapture. Now it is already scary enough that she would use religion to justify endless and pointless war, but it gets much, much worse.

It is clear from her connections that Sarah Palin either is, or would be, under the control of her handlers, a dominionist. Another part of God's plan, apparently, is that society should be ruled by his law, as expressed in the Bible. Dominionists actually want this to be literally true, in the U.S. The one thing in the bill of rights which drives these people crazy is the separation of church and state. Of course they have no hope of passing an amendment that removes this explicitly, so their strategy is to get a supreme court that will effectively interpret it out of existence.

Imagine what it would be like if the Bible was the law of the land. Most people are not very familiar with the parts of the old testament where God spells out his laws. It is not a pretty picture. The punishment is usually death. The worst offense, of course, is having the wrong religion. Apostasy is especially bad. Adultery? Death. And so on. Interestingly, Bible literalists who are familiar with the laws seem to have no problem with it. If you ask a knowledgeable fundamentalist whether it seems right to execute someone for adultery, he will be OK with that.

Of course this conversion is not going to happen overnight. It would be a gradual process in which intrusions would be introduced incrementally. Each change would seem small once the previous one became accepted. Right now the mania of the moment is overturning Roe v. Wade. Of course this alone should be reason enough to vote against McCain/Palin. But you shouldn't think that they'll be happy once that is done. That is just the beginning.

Now it does not appear that John McCain is a dominionist or is associated with them. Although he has tried to associate himself with some of the fundamentalist leaders, they all know that he is not really on board, which is why the religious right was never very happy with him. He would, however, appoint supreme court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. But his reasons for supporting the Iraq war appear to be more patriotic than religious. Wrong either way, of course, but understandable as a kind of stupidity, rather than a mission from God. In any case, one might hope that a McCain presidency would be less damaging than the Bush one has been. But McCain could die, and then there would be hell to pay.

My Visit from Jehovah's Witnesses

Yesterday I got my wish to have a discussion with two Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door. There was a man and a woman. Only the man chose to argue with me. I warned them that I was a devout atheist, but this only served to spawn the discussion with a comment on my use of the word devout. I explained that Christians often say that atheism is just another kind of religion, complete with its own dogmatism and closed-mindedness. I freely admit that I am just as passionate about my position as most theists are about theirs, so I have adopted the term to indicate that. But I do try not be be dogmatic or closed-minded.

So this guy basically expounded the JW philosophy, without really trying to convert me. Theirs may be a brighter, more peaceful version of Christianity. They seem to be Bible literalists, but want to separate themselves from other denominations which have distorted, modified, and misinterpreted the Bible to the ends of power, greed, and war. But of course they have their own interpretation, which seems to me to be no less distorted, even though it seems to allow for a somewhat more modern liberal morality, as well as for modern science, including evolution. They do the latter by saying that we are still in the middle of the seventh "day" of creation, and God is resting.

I tried to get him to say what made him think that the Bible was literally true, but he wouldn't. I enumerated all of the usual sources of faith, with the counter-arguments for each. He seemed to politely agree with all of my arguments, but only kept trying to read from the Bible that he had with him, claiming that each passage was marvelously accurate. I tried to point out in each case how he was twisting the interpretation, and that there was no real scientific accuracy. I even pointed out the circularity in Bible belief, that if you start out convinced, then you can find interpretations that justify your conviction.

One of the passages that he read to show how the Bible was scientifically accurate was this: the water comes down from heaven as rain and snow, and it waits to nourish the plants before it goes back up to heaven. The idea was supposed to be that the Bible is teaching about the water cycle, which was not well understood at the time. I think it is safe to say that this is not only inaccurate (the water doesn't really wait to evaporate), but it is a stretch to think that such a statement could not have been written by ordinary people over 2000 years ago.

In addition to other reinterpretations, the JW seem to have a different view of heaven, hell, and revelations. They seem to think there is a heaven, but that it is reserved for a very select few, which does not even include themselves. Apparently there either is no hell, or it is not such a bad place. We didn't discuss this. They do, however, believe there is some sort of rapture-like event coming soon. The difference is that the earth, rather then becoming hell, will become a paradise, and be unified and ruled by heaven and the few people who are taken there to be angels.

So, despite being non-confrontational and mildly interesting, the discussion was somewhat disappointing. I really want to understand the source of people's faith, because I think that this is the key to any hope of breaking it down. And this guy succeeded in keeping this well hidden.

The Sam Harris Debates

Recently I have watched some of the debates between Sam Harris and various well-known theists. I have been disappointed in his seeming inability to directly address the main claim of the theists, which I would describe this way: we all have a soul, which is the seat of consciousness, and which also serves as a portal to the supernatural, and thenceforth to god. I have an idea about why he does not address this claim. To properly refute it, you must really take a position on the other side of the mind-body problem, and Mr. Harris is personally unable to do that. To say that we have a soul of this kind is to say that mind and body are dual -- i.e. two separate entities that are connected in some mysterious way. A mind-body duality not only gets you contact with god, but also, potentially, life after death, where only the soul persists. Mr. Harris is known to be ambivalent about life after death, and, of course his meditative experience is suggestive of some possible contact with something transcending the body as we normally understand it. I do not know if he has a precise philosophical position on the mind-body problem itself.

So the debates go something like this: Sam says that some bit from scripture is problematical and the respondent says that cherry picking scripture is fine because the proper interpretation always comes from social context. In my mind the proper response to this claim is as follows. If you read scripture as literature then you are of course free to cherry pick whatever you like. But if you use it as a basis for morality then you must have some separate moral basis for the cherry picking. It seems to me that the only possible separate basis is that god gives modern people additional morality via their souls. If you can't make an argument against the soul then you are stuck accepting the possibility that theists really are talking to god, and that if your own soul fails to make the connection then perhaps there is something defective about it. You can argue that different people seem to hear different moral instructions, but this is simply countered by saying that god tailors his morality to fit the social context of the people he is talking to. No one gets a perfect morality but instead they get one that they can use and that incrementally improves on whatever was already in place.

The simple counter argument to all this is just to say that mind, including consciousness, are simply emergent properties of our immensely complex physical brains. There is no duality necessary to understand any of it, although we obviously understand very little today about how it actually works. In this context we have to understand the very real, and extremely convincing, sense that people have of a personal contact with god. We can hardly have a detailed explanation for this without first having a detailed explanation for, e.g., consciousness, but there is plenty of evidence to the effect that "trance" states can be induced in most people using a variety of techniques, and that people generally have surreal experiences in these trance states. There is no evidence that I am aware of, however, that any knowledge is gained during these trance states which could not be known independently of them. The fact that these states often seem very convincingly real is just an observation about the (still unknown) workings of the brain. This is easy for me to say, because I have never experienced such a state. People who do research on it, and who experience it personally, often find it so compelling that they prefer to believe that they are contacting another part of objective reality than that the experience is confined to their own brains. Remarkable.

Is a Religious Discussion Even Possible?

I seem to recall that when I was in college religious and philosophical discussions were fairly common, especially after a few beers. But it has been a long time since I have had such a live discussion. Here are some thoughts on why it is difficult.

First of all, it seems like nowadays the subject matter of social talk is extremely limited. In fact I can summarize what is allowed in a single phrase: personal activities. You are allowed to describe things you have done, or things that people you know have done. But even this is limited to brief descriptions of each item, before it is required to change people, or at least change subjects. So basically it amounts to reportage, with no extended discussion, and certainly no argument or opposition. So no science, no philosophy, and, above all, no religion. I am allowed to mention that I am writing a book, and to say the title and give a sentence or two about the subject matter, but then the discussion must change.

Now I can imagine a situation in which some people might wish to have a religions discussion with me. But who would this be? It would be evangelical Christians who want to convert me. Now I wouldn't really mind having a discussion with them, but I think it is pretty unlikely that I would end up converting them instead. Perhaps in another post I'll discuss what I think it is that strengthens and preserves the faith of an extemist.

So is there any chance to have a religious discussion with a moderate? It seems like you need some excuse to bring up the subject. Even in a one-on-one context in which the social rules do not preclude such a discussion, most religious moderates are not really interested in a religious discussion. They would have to be drawn in somehow. But I have an idea. If I say that I have just finished writing a book, and the subject is god and space aliens, then that might actually sound interesting enough to discuss further. I have found that it doesn't work in groups, but I can imagine it working in a small group. Now of course I would have to find someone who isn't already an atheist, and who I'm not afraid of offending. This may be the null set.

So you can see why writing a book on this subject is a lot easier than actually getting to have a live discussion. I have, however written the book as though I were having such a discussion. The downside is that I have to provide both sides of the argument myself, and most likely I am not being fair to the other side.

Perhaps next time the jehovah's witnesses come to my door I should invite them in.

What About the Other Recent Atheist Books

Three "atheist" books have recently attracted a lot of attention. These are by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. While all of these will appeal to atheists, none, I think, will much appeal to people of faith. The Hitchens book is filled with legitimate outrage, often humorous, but almost always cynical and negative. The fundamentalists of all religions already have answers to his facts, and the religious moderates will feel offended and compelled to try and fight back. No one is likely to contemplate their faith as a result of reading this book.

The Dawkins book I have not read, but from the reviews I have seen, it appears to be focused on disproving the existence of god, or at least on proving its improbability. This will never convert a theist, because the theist knows that god exists, and therefore knows that there must be flaws in all proofs to the contrary. This entire line of reasoning is as old as the hills, and, in my opinion is not one which is either necessary or useful.

The Dennett book is really of another sort altogether. It is not really an atheist book at all. It is actually an academic exploration of the roots and evolution of religion. It never comes right out and suggests that a person of faith might want to rethink this as a consequence of the insights in the book. So I don't think it really connects to anyone's personal belief system. Besides this, I think it is much too academic for most readers.

Do Sam Harris Books Convert Theists?

Sam Harris' books (The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation) are a pleasure to read, for an atheist (at least for me, anyway). The arguments are so clear and articulate, and he directs his attention to many of the really important issues. I am pretty sure that quite a few Christians have read his work or heard him speak, and yet very few of them were converted or otherwise persuaded by his discussion. I spend a lot of time pondering how this can be. I have a few ideas. Here is one of them. For most people their religion is intensely personal, and includes a core certainty that is not really subject to question. For them, religions arguments are simply side-stepped by a sense that their religion is not like that. The arguments are really about other people's religion.

Is there any solution to this problem? In many cases the core certainty is simply too strong, and comes with a community support system that helps prevent any serious doubts. It may be possible, however, to engage the derivative beliefs by engaging them one-on-one such that the discussion is personal, and, in so far as possible, non-confrontational. I have the idea that if someone takes the time to think about what their personal god is like and what (s)he actually does in the world, then people can be shown that there are mistakes in their specific view. If the belief system can be stripped away, then the core belief might become more fragile. If a person somehow agreed that god was irrelevant, but despite that, still existed, then is not such a person already an atheist in some sense?