I read a little paper by Leiter on whether religious freedom is based on tolerance or respect. In the course of things, more as an aside I think, he talks briefly about beliefs being based on reasons and evidence, not caused by threats. (There is a serious emendation shortly after that focuses on advertising and related propaganda). It is a common enough statement, but I do not think it is right. I think threats are a good way to bring about changes in beliefs -- whether guns of otherwise, most people seem to go with the views of the guys with guns when they have guns. One of the things we can discern from the essays coming the now oldish Red Guard participants is the degree to which an atmosphere of violence alters beliefs. I do not mean feigned belief to stay out of trouble, but just ordinary belief. I would like to think that my beliefs all run down to reason and evidence, but that is not true. Not just that none of us ever could, but that there is much that is just the result of habit, common talk, etc. We all want to be heroes when that challenge comes, but not so many are obviously, and that means, in part, that people change what they believe because it is safer to do so. That is not what Leiter was interested in -- he was interested in whether we should take a stance of respect for religion or a stance of tolerance. Hard to quarrel with the conclusion that is tolerance, at least if reason and evidence count.
Recent Comments