The first element of your argument only holds water if you cannot separate religion from the religious. I'm perfectly capable of separating the two. Tolerance isn't about accepting others beliefs and giving them equal credibility; it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. Tolerance is about accepting that they're entitled to those beliefs and not prejudging them because of those beliefs. Taking my argument one step further, I find it totally unacceptable that religion is able to hide itself away from critique on the basis of intolerance.
Secondly, throughout my postings on this topic I have defended the rights of Muslims (and anybody else for that matter) to wear whatever they like in public and in private. However, I will more strongly defend my right to critisise their beliefs and hold them accountable to the same set of standards as the rest of society. On this point it is worth noting, again, that I'm perfectly capable of disagreeing with someones beliefs (and quite strongly so if needs be) whilst having no issue with said person on a personal level.
On your two points regarding religion in general, these are an aside to the topic at hand but interesting nonetheless so I'll address each.
1) There are lots (an infinite number) of "coulds" in the scientific world. Take the people away from the science and you have a system that is by its very nature open to all ideas. Take the people away from religion and you have a system that is open to just one idea. I don't think Hawking was suggesting that religion as it is understood today has any basis in fact, only that such "Godlike" entities could exist and are not excluded by science. I wouldn't profess to speak for him however and have not read the piece in question.
2) This point seems to be going down the "we need a God to give us a moral compass" road and is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. Aside from the societal and evolutionary benefits of common morals amongst mankind, the argument itself is demonstrably false as history tells us so. Moreover, the "morals" provided by religion are, in many guises, objectionable in their own right; even without historical context. I particularly object to your statement "when his absence so obviously promotes undesirable behaviour." History would suggest otherwise.
On your final paragraph, you're largely correct that people are ignorant of the teachings of Islam (and all other religions for that matter). It must be noted that all religions can be made to look both morally incorruptible and morally corrupt if you pick and choose the parts at will. I take your final point with regards to democracy etc without objection.
Dave
|
|