You discover that your new doctor writes legibly. You know an engineer who writes good English. You hear a sermon – or read a blog – that is not boring. You meet your friend’s mother-in-law and find out that she is a pleasant, non-intrusive, non-domineering woman. You encounter a believer who takes your atheist objections seriously. You meet a priest who is not pedophile.
That last example is a cruel joke that is neither valid nor funny. But it and all the others would usually be followed by the cliché : “the exception proves the rule”. We understand and use the expression to suggest that though doctors, as a … rule, are renowned for their illegible writing, yours has hand-writing you can read. Engineers, according to a widespread prejudice, do not usually have a great command of the language. The one you know does. And so on.
As John Bremner points out in his “Words upon Words”, “an exception doesn’t demonstrate the truth of a rule; it tries to demonstrate the opposite”. He goes on to point out that exceptions do TEST a rule : “an exception puts a rule to the test”. From time immemorial we have been saying “De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum” (“There is no point in arguing about tastes and colors”). But if you have a meal with French friends, someone will usually start holding forth on the wine, on the flavors he detects in it, and expressing his preference for Bordeaux rather than Bourgogne. Someone will necessarily disagree. When I see people talking at great length with a salesman of electronic cigarettes, they all seem to be engaged in long discussions which can only be about the savors of the flavors they favor or disfavor. Whether we approve of it or not, people do argue about tastes, and women in particular spend inordinate amounts of time arguing about the colors of the clothes they and rivals wear, and of the wallpaper or paint they want in the living room.
After all that, it should be obvious that we ought to be wary of generalizations and prejudices (including those about women . . .). Some atheists are convinced that non-atheists are all either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that God does not exist. Some believers are convinced that non-believers reject religion because they prefer to lead immoral lives and are so afraid of going to Hell that they deny the existence of an afterlife. It is however possible that people who disagree with us have very good, solid reasons for their belief or disbelief. There must be no exception to the rule that disagreement about opinions should not imply disrespect for the person who holds them.
P.S. The comments provoked by this post, notably from Thom, have modified the author’s point of view on this subject.
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Thom said:
The last sentence in the post set me thinking. OK, it sounds great and only a nasty bigot would disagree with the implied exhortation to reasonableness and gentlemanly tolerance.
But then I thought of a case in point. A capable, academically qualified person who has applied his mind to difficult practical problems and come up with practical solutions – in other words a rational thinker. This same individual believes in the literal truth of the Adam and Eve creation story in the Old Testament. This same individual also believes in the literal truth of the Creation myth of the Old Testament to the exclusion of Darwinian evolution. I could go on and list at length the extraordinary catalogue of extraordinary things that this practical, well-trained, literate person believes.
And I now ask myself where I stand vis-a-vis this individual in the context of the last sentence of the post. And I have a sneaking suspicion that I do not in fact respect this person.
LikeLiked by 3 people
frankomeara said:
Thom, a gentleman as well as a scholar, respectfully expresses disagreement (politely reduced to “sneaking suspicion”) with my punch-line. I have often in this Blog expressed my view and defended my personal practice in dealing with non-atheists and their religious beliefs that I respect the believer but cannot be expected to respect his (absurd) beliefs. “Nice try”, Thom could have said. Instead he said “it sounds great etc”, The “but” that follows that sentence spells out the difficulties of accepting my dichotomy, before concluding that in fact he doesn’t.
He and I, and no doubt some of our readers, are aware of the long history of our clash with Jim, recently self-designated “Lumen de lumine”, virtually since the beginning of this Blog. I have a feeling Jim will read the post and especially our comments here with great interest. He could very well be the “capable, academically qualified person” in question, a … respected engineer with a ferociously traditionalist, Tridentine, outdated Catholic faith. Jim has not hesitated not only to reject our broadsides against religion – as is his right – but to insult and belittle us, often with the cheapest of low-level blows, as in dismissing my credibility as a theologian because, after being awarded academic degrees, including a Masters in Theology, of “high distinction”, I did not complete my doctoral thesis. His disrespect for Thom, himself a respected engineer but also a jurist, has been even worse : Thom is nothing but the “echo” of myself !
Clearly Jim respects neither of us. Do we, do I, respect him ? Thom has hit a sensitive nerve here. We both totally disagree with Jim’s fundamentalist religious stance, and have not hesitated to ridicule his firm belief in “miracles” due to the supposed “Miraculous Medal” and others including the bleeding host of Lanciano, to mention only the most spectacular evidence of his hypercredulity. But we have not descended to name-calling, to insults, to contempt, to manifest disrespect for the person he is. This is not enough for Thom. And he has made me wonder whether it is enough for me.
Let me take the risk of thinking out loud about all this by reflecting on the following : does Hillary Clinton, who clearly rejects Donald Trump’s ideas, respect him as a person ? I think not. Few of us would agree with Saudi Arabia’s wahhabite beliefs and its inhuman application of the charia; can we claim to respect the people who hold these beliefs and practise these crimes against humanity ? My “former friend” Jim cannot be compared with either Trump or theocratic governments. But like them he has lost the right to our esteem. Thom would agree, I’m sure, that all of Jim’s rights as a human person must be respected, including that of the freedom to express his opinions in whatever way he chooses. We claim the same right, but prefer to leave the use of insults to him.
Thank you, Thom. This Blog needs you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
atheistsmeow said:
I generally respect most people until they begin the belittling, name-calling, or threats of hell.
I do not respect people of violence in any form, religious, or otherwise.
As for the lumen guy, I would not be the least bit interested in personally meeting anyone like that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thom said:
Frank’s use of the Clinton/Trump example neatly highlights the issues in play regarding respecting (or not) individuals (or groups) whose opinions or beliefs one rejects or ridicules.
Frank believes that the lumen guy, to use the catlady’s description, could be the subject of my speculation. Be that as it may. My knowledge of the lumen guy is based almost exclusively on what he has revealed of himself (his beliefs and his career) in this blog. The personal tragedy of a severely disabled grandson is something one can and does sympathise with. Professional expertise and business acumen can be acknowledged and respected. Personal respect is a more complex issue and is , in the main, usually only ever provisional. It is also an ongoing iterative process, multi-factorial and qualitative rather than quantitative. Hence my use of the provisional “sneaking suspicion” in my inexpert appraisal.
An Islamic preacher, visiting Sydney, who had preached in Orlando, has confirmed his acceptance of the Koran’s judgement that homosexuals should be executed. I can say unequivocally that I respect neither the man nor his beliefs. No sneaking suspicion about that.
LikeLiked by 3 people
frankomeara said:
God said “Let there be light”, so He made Thom.
LikeLike
stephenbrodie said:
I do try and show respect to everyone I meet in life as well as online. I do my best not to descend to personal insults. And when I do have a disagreement with someone I try to keep it civil. Oh but guys they do make it bloody hard, really, really hard.
LikeLiked by 1 person