Comments on: On Opinions

By: Jeff Clarke

Jeff Clarke — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:52:27 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy Rodell

Jeremy Rodell — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:33:25 +0000

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.

By: 1minion

1minion — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:37:44 +0000

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look for that one.

By: Jeff Clarke

Jeff Clarke — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:10:59 +0000

Dear Iminion,

A comprehensive, up to date translation of the Epic by Andrew George is available from Penguin Press – published 1999.

Regards, Jeff.

By: humbob

humbob — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:36:41 +0000

Thanks 1minion.
Somehow the removal of some MS Word code jibberish managed to duplicate parts of this post! We’ve fixed it now.

By: 1minion

1minion — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:48:00 +0000

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?