We frequently hear complaints that by critically examining ideas and rejecting them, we are thereby attacking the individuals who hold those views. Church people often claim they have been insulted by what people say about their notions of supernatural beings, miracles, and the like. An attack on the irrationalism of Islam is interpreted as an attack on both the rights of muslims to worship, and an attack on the muslims themselves. It is neither.
The reaction is understandable because where positions of influence depend on the respectability of the ideas advanced, as they do in political circles, criticising widely accepted beliefs undermines the credibility of those posts. To put it more concretely, if we demonstrate that bishops are neither expert nor even consistent in matters of ethical judgement, it is hard to justify their presence in the House of Lords, as least as far as they claim any sort of right to be there. In the same way, an Imam who is shown to be prejudiced or denigrating the rights of others, will find their claim to be a leader undermined. So it is no surprise that those who hold positions of power based on an irrational set of beliefs, are somewhat resistant to rational debate, and are keen to conflate the ideas with the people holding them.
By defining themselves in terms of their faith, they assume that others should also define them that way too. If indeed that happens, then any question of their faith is interpreted as an insult. It’s a very convenient tactic to deflect criticism from the core religious ideas and claims.
But what happens if ideas are treated this way? What happens if ideas are insulated from critical assessment because those who sincerely hold them might feel insulted in the process? Anyone claiming sincerely held strong beliefs could use the defence against insult as an argument for being free to live by those beliefs. So what about racists? Should they be allowed to be free of insult just because they are racists? Of course not. Ideas are not people, they don’t have rights.
But why should we concede a right not to be insulted? Whether or not someone feels insulted by an argument against something they believe, that cannot be an argument against the expression of the criticism. If the state used such an argument, we’d have repression and censorship such as existed under fascism. No-one seriously wants that. There is no right to be free of insult.
Ideas should be criticised and attacked mercilessly to identify weak argument, fallacies, non-sequiturs, and so on. The people engaging in those debates deserve full respect, even those who are adamantly trying to resist change, doggedly defending what seem to many to be absurd ideas. We involve ourselves in those debates to increase understanding. It’s only when we pin ideas to our egos that we risk insult.
Daniel Dennett advanced the position that religion is a social phenomenon that deserves scientific investigation, in his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Well worth a read. For those who feel insulted by such scrutiny, they need to remember that these are only ideas.
