On Opinions
BHA member Jeff Clarke
Not all opinions are equal, in the opinion of Jeff Clarke.
Whilst I am often tempted to laugh when I hear someone praised for being ‘Devout’ or taking his/her faith ‘very seriously,’ it has made me ask why other people – and not necessarily the religious – maintain respect for such sentiments. After all, religious belief is an opinion and we all have opinions.
But a major difference between secular and religious opinion is institutionalisation. Religious belief is institutionalised by the passage of time and by its incorporation into the machinery of power and the state – the monotheistic religions being the worst offenders. The class system in this and other countries existed for the same reasons and some trade unions, on a lesser scale, appeared to be heading that way until the 1980s.
Now I will be stating the obvious to Humanist readers but to most others, institutionalised belief involves acceptance without question and this is where we differ from the gullible and the credulous. A recent article in Scientific American – and Richard Dawkins may be aware of this – suggested that a predisposition toward religious belief might be genetic. Though having no more than a layman’s knowledge of the subject, I am not entirely convinced. I think it is basically cultural – pressure to conform, to take the easy way out that matters. Generally speaking, whichever of the several One True Faiths a person adheres to is a matter of political geography, though I don’t claim that has to rule out genetics. I’m convinced, however, that if my Catholic friend had been born south of the Mediterranean, she would be just as ardent a Muslim as she is at present a Christian, although I doubt she would accept the proposition. Equally, my Tunisian friend would have been a Christian had she been born over the water in Spain.
Returning to opinions: I readily accept that those of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and, of course, mine, are also opinions. The difference is that side we support is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence whereas the religious side has, after many centuries in which to demonstrate it, practically none. I have had the Bible waved in front of me as ‘proof,’ together with back-up verbal quotations, but I then have to point out that the Bible, in particular the Old Testament, is by and large a compilation of someone else’s opinions. Opinions that do not even have the backing of fundamental scientific knowledge. Opinions that are not even original. Any one who has encountered the Epic of Gilgamesh – oldest story recorded from anywhere in the world – will be aware not only of its antiquity but of the flood and destruction of mankind episode so blatantly plagiarised by the writers of Genesis in their off-the-shelf account of Noah’s adventures. Not to mention hints of the Adam and Eve myth, and possibly the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Having heard at last of the Epic, two Jehovah’s Witnesses informed me that it was later than the Old Testament. It came as a minor setback to them when I pointed out that I have almost completed a novel based upon the Epic and have researched it to a far greater extent that they ever would. But mere historical evidence never got in the way of religious opinions. It was only back in the 1960s if I remember correctly, that the Pope, taking time off to peer into the landscape of reason, admitted after more than three centuries that Copernicus and Galileo were right with their ungodly assertions of the sun really being centre of our planetary system.
Is there anyone to who we might turn for guidance in the formation of opinions? I would suggest Socrates, whose alleged system of questioning still works well after 24 centuries. But that is only my opinion.
Jeff Clarke, a BHA member, is a self-employed graphic designer, photographer and writer. Apart from his work, he also enjoys philosophy, science, art and travel.
I thought I was having a deja vu moment, until I realized a couple paragraphs were actually identical…
I think I read that genetics article, too. I think it’s a fine theory, to suggest some people are more likely to become believers than others. I think it could have had survival merit if it meant a group would be more cohesive and cooperative if they all thought someone or some thing had a vested interest in their success and well being.
I’ve never read the Epic of Gilgamesh but I suppose I should find a copy. I’ve been meaning to try it. Any suggestions on a good translation?
Thanks 1minion.
Somehow the removal of some MS Word code jibberish managed to duplicate parts of this post! We’ve fixed it now.
Dear Iminion,
A comprehensive, up to date translation of the Epic by Andrew George is available from Penguin Press – published 1999.
Regards, Jeff.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look for that one.
While of course supporting the rational reasons for the atheist view I share with Jeff, I’m afraid I don’t agree that you can equate opinions and beliefs. Beliefs are premises that are in most cases not open to argument (though I like to think that, like Richard Dawkins, if there clear evidence of the existence of a deity suddenly emerged, as a rationalist I would be prepared to change my belief).
It’s interesting to speculate whether religious beliefs and their political and institutional manifestations, have their origins in genetics/evolution or culture or politics, or a mix of all three. But for many religious people, their beliefs are profoundly held to the extent that they are a part of the person, almost an aspect of their personality – which is also moulded by genetics and culture. To attack those beliefs can therefore feel to the believer like an attack on them personally. Given that many (maybe most) believers are just ordinary people, and many of them kind and good people who are or can be
Of course, that does not mean that challenging beliefs, and particularly challenging malign organisations such as the Roman Catholic church, the Religious Right in America or Al Qaeda, or malign beliefs, such as God-given rights to other peoples’ land in the Middle East, or lack of provision of condoms in Africa, is off-limits. Far from it. And because Christianity and Islam are both expansionist, it’s often essential to push back.
But as Humanists, I think we should be wary of confusing respect for religious institutions and political movements – they need to earn it – with respect for good people whose personal beliefs are religious and not malign as far as the rest of society is concerned.
While Cardinal Cormack Murphy O’Connor deserves all the flack we can give him for telling us that inability to believe in God is the one of the greatest sins (the day after the publication of the enquiry into Catholic child abuse in Ireland), I’m not about to start challenging the Christian beliefs of my CofE friends for whom I know their faith is important and who I know would be hurt if I did so (others enjoy the argument).
At a wider level: we live in a plural country in a plural world in terms of belief. Contrary to Daniel Dennett and others, religion is not dying out, far from it. The real enemy is not the vast majority of the global population who hold some sort of personal irrational religious belief, but fundamentalism and religious privilege in its various forms. In attacking that, we’re on the same side as many liberally-minded religious people and should be prepared to give, and earn, their respect.
I neither strongly agree or disagree overall with Jeremy’s comments on my ‘Opinion’ article. Why? – because like the abstract concepts of Just and Unjust, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, there is no clear dividing line between Opinion and Belief. It is mostly a grey scale with black and white at each extreme. At one end, Belief may be part of a person’s cultural personality as it is with most Muslims as well as fundamentalist Christians and Jews, but the facade is weakened by a lack of historical and scientific foundation, which brings me back to the reasons why I do not regard religious belief as any better than opinion. We might also consider the fact that, whilst an entire society can for centuries hold fast to a system of rigid belief, history teaches that this can change rather quickly when faced with the right kind of encouragement – often a choice of life or death. In other words, an old One True and Only Belief is replaced by a newer One True and Only Belief. Religion is that hollow. And whilst I would never go out of my way to offend any religious person’s opinions or beliefs, if you prefer, (I have Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends), that consideration is not offered to me or anyone else by the proselytizers who knock on my door or from time to time appear on the media. It may well be that a religious person regards criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack but then are Atheists not entitled to react in similar manner if, as often happens, someone ridicules their opinion, or belief, in the principal of Evolution by Natural Selection? No? Then perhaps we are more secure in our opinions.
Must rush as my Chinese stir-fry is almost ready – so please excuse any spelling errors.
P.S. Suggest religious instruction in schools is replaced by, amongst other things, study of the Periodic Table. It exists! Also Socrates. He existed.