Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
To get to the ultimate point - there are two sustainable models of tolerance for belief. In one, beliefs are subordinated to common practice, and beliefs outside that practice are suppressed - for example, the Romans incorporated local gods into their own pantheon, and you were free to worship as you would, as long as you acknowledge the primacy of the Roman gods and especially the emperor as regent of ALL gods on earth - which is where the Jews opted out, and eventually were repressed for their trouble. This is also how most Western societies functioned up until the middle of last century - you could be non-Christian, but you were marginalized and were forced to conform to some degree to Christian ideals.
In the second model, all belief is acknowledged to be equally invalid, and none of them is given serious consideration as a source of legitimacy. This is the model I, and I suspect almost all, atheists prefer. Should we be ashamed to reject the unsustainable "tolerance" model for one that not only doesn't relegate us to becoming fringe citizens, but destroys the power of mutually incompatible beliefs to use society as a platform for conflict?
|
I think that there is only one model. The group that is in control will always set the Norms of society whether they be religious belief, Rights or even something as simple as language. For a long time religion has been very effective at maintianing control so other groups were forced to live in a Christmas and Easter centric society.
It doesn't really matter if society is centered around belief or a society that only accepts things that can be observed measured and tested. You will always have the minority group beliefs being marginalized.
If what you call a second model of rejecting all belief as invalid beomces the majority social norm you will definately like it more because you won't be a fringe citizen but fringe citizens will still exist they just won't count because they believe in things that can't be measured.