Ethical Issues in Religious Skepticism

There is much that one can say regarding the epistemic dangers of adopting a dismissive attitude toward others' beliefs. At this stage, it suffices for me to express my concern about the ethical issues relating to the rudeness that is often expressed in these debates. Of course, these rules apply to religious believers as well. However, it is just too often that one reads the mockery and even expletives used by skeptics to refer to religious belief and it is time to emphasise that this is unacceptable.

In an article for the Tablet, agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny reviewed the book 'Darwin's Angel' which is itself a critique of Richard Dawkins' The G-d Delusion'. In the review, Kenny makes a most crucial point. He notes that the prime rule of intellectual debate is that one should attack the opponent's arguments, not his personality. Now, Kenny is clear that this rule is violated not only by Dawkins but also by his critic and, indeed, religious believers must take care to abide by this principle. But how often does one read on the skepical blogs a constant denigration of the dignity of religious believers with the presumption that the latter are deluded and intellectually dishonest.

One interesting radio discussion which can be accessed online is one that was broadcast on Boston University radio and involved the Anglican philosopher Alvin Plantinga and Hilary Putnam, a Harvard philosopher who was not a believer for much of his life but later came to belief in G-d and commitment to the Conservative Jewish movement. Putnam voiced his concern over the fact that religious skeptics phoning into the programe simply make no effort to understand the views of the religious believer. No effort is made to see things from a different perspective and the result is a dismissive mockery.

Readers are also referred to the writings of Stephen Carter, particularly the book 'Civility'. In this book, Carter argues convincingly that, while we may disagree with people, we have a responsibility as moral beings to express our disagreements respectfully. As many skeptics in the blogosphere fail in their moral responsibility in this area, it is essential to point this out before proceeding to the formidable ethical pitfalls in such preumptiousness.