What does "respecting other people's beliefs" actually mean?

[Hakluyt]

I am often told I should - and I have been told that I haven't. But I genuinely don't know what it means.

I am a great believer in good manners, and I would always be polite if I was attending some sort of faith based event. I never go on prayer threads. I do try never to be rude. But the threshold for "disrespect" seems extraordinarily low- sometimes mere disagreement seems unacceptable.

Also, what constitutes a "belief"? The major world religions- OK- I get that. But do I also have to respect "new" religions made up in the 1970s/80s? Kabbalah? Is homeopathy a belief? If I say, for example "homeopathy is discredited bollocks and this is why" is that a public service or disrespecting someone's beliefs? Is astrology a "belief"?

Atheism isn't a belief system, obviously, but am I entitled to be offended and report the post if someone says that atheists lead empty lives devoid of joy? Or if someone says that science is evil and devoted to hiding the evidence for the paranormal/ the cure for cancer/whatever for it's own selfish ends?

"Rpitchfo - so to take Martin Luther King as an example, you wouldn't respect him because he believed in something "so stupid and ignorant"?"

errm what? i respect the equal rights movement so that passes the first test.

let's look at a more appropriate example..

i cannot respect homeopathy..

i cannot respect the person for believing in homeopathy because they lack the ability to be rational...

i respect the persons right to that belief.

"I feel respected when someone says something like: 'I can't agree with you because I see things differently from you, this is the way I see things...'"

But what if it is something that's not a matter of opinion? Like homeopathy? Some people think that it works- but actually, empirically, provably it doesn't.

Are you saying that it's up to the believer to decide whether or not what the non believer says is disrespectful?

And what about people who say that atheists must lead dull, joyless lives? Or have no moral compass? Or scientists are evil and are concealing the evidence for the paranormal/cure for cancer for their own evil ends? Is that being disrespectful to me?

There's a huge difference between respecting belief and respecting of a person. I don't think you have to show respect for beliefs, but I do think that being kind and respectful to others is important.

I don't have a big problem with my beliefs being called bollocks, really. The difference for me is something like 'madhairday believes in a load of bollocks' and 'madhairday believes in a load of bollocks therefore she is a thick brainwashed buckethead.'

I have been personally attacked in the latter way but very rarely, and that's when it hurts, that's when the respect for the person is simply not there. My beliefs can take the rap, I am quite happy for someone to tell me what they think of my faith, and quite happy to engage in debate about it - it's important to me to do that to keep engaging with my own faith.

However, while I don't much care if I'm told my faith is a load of old bollocks, I wouldn't say that to someone else unless they were a UKIP follower with a different faith or no faith at all, because for me, respecting the person means showing a level of grace and kindness to them even when I disagree with their belief/lack of.

I know some people of faith would get very offended when their faith is belittled, but for me the crunch comes if the person is belittled. For example, a poster above says

'I do not respect the belief itself. I usually don't respect the person for believing something so stupid or ignorant. '

How does that play out in how you treat that person? I find it sad when I read that I am not respected as a person - but not sad when I read that my faith is not respected. Huge difference.

Hermione

I think you might Foucault's comment on insanity very interesting. He commented that madness has never had a definition which relates to 'absolute truth'. Instead by acquiring the power to define it, people have been able to use diagnosis of madness to gain control over people.

Hak, if you are canvassing opinions and want to offend nobody, ever, I'm afraid you are going to have to dilute what you say so much that it will lose its meaning.

To me it's not necessary to describe something falling within accepted laws of science as "the way you see the world".

And obviously saying that atheists lead dull joyless lives is a gross generalisation and demonstrably not true.

I think all you can do is be true to your own standards here.

Any person of faith saying that atheists must lead dull, joyless lives and have no moral compass are talking bollocks being silly.

Hak, earlier you said you think I should take my own advice. What did you mean?

I meant that you might find it helpful to consider your own posting in the light of Transactional Analysis.

Hak

But what if it is something that's not a matter of opinion? Like homeopathy? Some people think that it works- but actually, empirically, provably it doesn't.

This is very dependent on whether you believe that empirical research can absolutely prove something never does or can work ever in all cases. So there is still a belief / matter of opinion element in there. Still best off referring to your source.

I started out being polite to believers. Saying as nicely as possible things like "but.. doesn't that contradict this other thing you also claim? Surely they can't both be true? How does that work?"

But when you get replies such as "it's a different kind of true" it can be a bit frustrating.

And my problem with woo anyway is most often the real world consequences. I have offended many religious and/or woo people by pointing out that their practices and claims are directly or indirectly harmful to other people.

If you hear someone telling everyone who will listen that "the right thing to do if the car ahead of you brakes is to accelerate and close your eyes" you would surely feel duty bound to say "that's just wrong. Don't listen to him/her!". I doubt anyone here would expect me to say "oh well you can't prove these things are right or wrong".

Most of the healing stuff and much of the religious stuff is bad or even dangerous advice.

In particular I think that to teach or otherwise convince people that evidence based knowledge should be ignored and decisions should be made on the basis of impulses that come into your head (from god usually) is a terrible thing to do.

"And what about people who say that atheists must lead dull, joyless lives? Or have no moral compass? Or scientists are evil and are concealing the evidence for the paranormal/cure for cancer for their own evil ends? Is that being disrespectful to me?"

Yes, all of the above is disrespectful if put in those terms - imo. It's a question of tone/choice of words.

"Still best off referring to your source."

Why doesn't this apply to believers, too?

I don't respect beliefs or religions, but I do try to respect PEOPLE.

so if you are Jewish and come to my house, there won't be lard in the fry up. If I am visiting a church (nice architecture) and there is a service going on, I will keep quiet and stay out of the way. If I am visiting a mosque, I will cover up.

but I am allowed to state (if asked) that there is no god and no afterlife. If you find that offensive, your 'faith' isn't that strong.

Foucault's comment on insanity

Capsium, you are getting on a plane. Would you prefer a qualified pilot or someone currently being treated for believing lampposts are alien invaders?

Take your time to think about it.

(was that rude? it was certainly sarky)

I do. It is in my interest that the conversation continues, so I try my best to ensure that my contributions do not close it down. Also I have no desire to disrespect people, their beliefs or lack thereof.

Did you watch the YouTube clip Hak? Do you think that I have switched ego states during this conversation? If so, when?

"Capsium - This is very dependent on whether you believe that empirical research can absolutely prove something never does or can work ever in all cases. So there is still a belief / matter of opinion element in there. Still best off referring to your source."

And this is the crux of the matter - rational people way up the evidence - at this moment in time there is no evidence to support homeopathy - so i don't use it.

If - by some miracle - it turns out diluted water can cure cancer - and the evidence supports this - i will change my stance.

You don't get to say "aha i don't told you so - i was right" - because i held the rational position in the first place.

there will be instances where conventional science is turned on it's head and irrational people use this to beat us over the head with.

Back I take it you would recognise the placebo effect, which demonstrates the positive effects belief can have.

I have also read about the nocebo effect, which shows how negative beliefs can have have negative effects.

If you hear someone telling everyone who will listen that "the right thing to do if the car ahead of you brakes is to accelerate and close your eyes" you would surely feel duty bound to say "that's just wrong. Don't listen to him/her!". I doubt anyone here would expect me to say "oh well you can't prove these things are right or wrong".

Most of the healing stuff and much of the religious stuff is bad or even dangerous advice.

In particular I think that to teach or otherwise convince people that evidence based knowledge should be ignored and decisions should be made on the basis of impulses that come into your head (from god usually) is a terrible thing to do.

Nobody here, to my knowledge, is advocating this kind of dangerous activity. Christian belief does not prohibit taking mainstream medicine either, at all. In fact many hospitals were set up by the church. The Christians I know use mainstream medicine. Acknowledging the effects of belief does not negate an acknowledgement of the physical effects of medicines.

Back Yes you are being sarky. However there are political motivations that must be considered regarding definitions of insanity, for the diagnosis to be remotely unbiased.

specialsubject - I don't think anyone expects people to share their beliefs, but rather to try to make some sort of accommodation for them. Eg you might think it is ridiculous that Muslims need to go off to pray at various times during the day, but respecting it would mean trying to enable it to happen, without necessarily making your life miserable (and they should try to ensure the same). No one would expect that, eg, you should pray with them or even believe it's a worthwhile use of time.

op. I think that you are essentially talking about offence.

And everyone has different levels of that.

Of course atheism is a belief. It's a belief that there is no God to believe in. It is a belief that when you die you are snuffed out forever.

Dictionary.com says:
BELIEF:

• noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief

a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Atheism fits as follows:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that there is no higher being and we all die once and there is no eternal life
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement like existence of God being considered unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his ability to know that his/her decision/wisdom about God's existence can be relied upon to be trusted and right and correct.
4. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief

a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. this is the only sense atheism is not a belief. However it fits all of the other first 3 descriptions.

As for respect? Again, examination of the dictionary definition states:

Respect:
A particular, detail, or point (usually preceded by in ): to differ in some respect.
relation or reference: inquiries with respect to a route.
esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
respects, a formal expression or gesture of greeting, esteem, or friendship: Give my respects to your parents.
favor or partiality.
Archaic. a consideration.

So in short it seems that respect is about "esteeming worth" and "differing views".

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with the bath water. There is usually something about a person that
you can find to hold in esteem, even if it's just that they are a fellow human, worthy of kindness.

Interesting points about homeopathy too. While I don't use it, I do know that placebo is quite powerful. Did anyone watch the horizon program about professional cyclists who performed their best records as a result of Placebo? Really interesting programme. So, if scientists are right, then homeopathy could work as a placebo for some people. Potentially.

Well, if you asked me whether a placebo worked I would say yes, sometimes.

That 's very different from asking whether homeopathy works.

True. Very true. However if someone said they believe homeopathy change a health condition, I would repeat them as a fellow human, even if I thought they were misguided. But I think I'd tuck that one away in my memory bank so that if another person said the same thing about the same complaint and homeopathy also worked for them, I'd assume it was placebo effect. The truth is, it wouldn't hurt me if they were right or wrong - it wouldn't make me treat them like the scum of the earth