Gordon Brown's 'deep respect' for views devoid of evidence

[Undesired Walrus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7406773.stm

Mr Brown said he had "deep respect" for those who did not agree with some of the provisions in the bill because of religious conviction


The next time I get in a position of power and threaten to overule a vote on the basis of my deep conviction that mint-condition copies of the first Private Eye circulate in the atoms of humans, I can count on Gordon Brown's respect for my position!

[Egg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7406773.stm

The next time I get in a position of power and threaten to overule a vote on the basis of my deep conviction that mint-condition copies of the first Private Eye circulate in the atoms of humans, I can count on Gordon Brown's respect for my position!

Mr Brown said he had "deep respect" for those who did not agree

He doesn't say he respects their views, he says he respects those holding such views.

[Undesired Walrus]

I did notice that, but in what other situation do you declare you have deep respect for those who oppose a major vote by basing their decision on non-evidence?

It's a clear attempt at avoiding angering the church, when presumably many christians are strong enough to take it on the chin.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But Mr Brown said he respected those MPs opposed to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which will update embryology laws, for religious reasons.
This sentence says that Brown has religious reasons why he respects the MPs. Copyeditor, anyone?


He doesn't say he respects their views, he says he respects those holding such views.


Mr Brown said he had "deep respect" for those who did not agree with some of the provisions in the bill because of religious conviction, but he believed Britain owed it to future generations to introduce the measures.
Since the reporter only quoted two words of Brown's statement, we have no idea what Brown actually meant. Given the writing style above, I wouldn't want to take any guesses. :D

~~ Paul

[geni]

It's a clear attempt at avoiding angering the church, when presumably many christians are strong enough to take it on the chin.

Nyet attempt to limit damage within the labour party due to people voteing against his position.

[Egg]

Since the reporter only quoted two words of Brown's statement, we have no idea what Brown actually meant. Given the writing style above, I wouldn't want to take any guesses. :D


I stand corrected :). You're quite right, if we're going to analyse what Gordon Brown meant, we need the whole statement.

[tkingdoll]

Nyet attempt to limit damage within the labour party due to people voteing against his position.

Precisely. He'd be an idiot not to say something appeasing, and this is about the most generic and non-committal thing he can say while disagreeing with them on what they see as fundamental issues about the very value of life.

He's a politician, this is his job. What's he meant to do, say "actually you're all idiots"?

He's quite pro-religion though, as he showed yesterday:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7405547.stm

He told the General Assembly there was a "a consistent ethical core" in all the world's great religions, from which billions of people derived inspiration, "showing that we are not moral strangers but there is a shared moral sense common to us all".

But he's not the first person to mistakenly believe that morality comes from religion.

[Wolfman]

Actually, I'd say (and have said) similar things myself.

For example, I state that I have far greater respect for those who have beliefs with which I entirely disagree, but who have put a lot of thought, research and consideration into forming those beliefs, than I do for those who may have exactly the same beliefs as me, but who have never really questioned those beliefs, or the reasons for holding them.

The idea that "respect" means accepting or condoning such beliefs is shallow and simplistic. Two soldiers on opposite sides in a conflict can have great respect for each other...yet still do their utmost to defeat/kill the other person.

And as I've argued elsewhere, I feel that respect for the beliefs of others is essential; why should I expect others to show me enough respect to listen to my beliefs, and my reasons for them, if I will not show equal respect for them?

The idea that "we are right", and therefore have no need to show respect towards those who disagree with us, is a step on the road to totalitarianism. Respect doesn't mean that "I agree with you". Respect doesn't mean that "Your beliefs are equal with mine". Respect simply means, "I am a human, and you are a human. And I cannot expect you to treat me with any greater consideration, regard, or respect than what I am willing to demonstrate towards you."

Come on, guys...we're supposed to be the ones who are "right", who have "the truth" (or at least, a greater fraction of the truth than those who are theists). How shallow and pointless is our 'truth' revealed to be, if we just turn around and repeat the mistakes of every religious group that has come before us -- "We are right, and therefore have no need to respect or listen to those who disagree with us."

UW -- Let me point out an implicit conclusion for any theist who reads what you wrote: that you expect them to listen to, and seek to understand your beliefs, and the reasons for those beliefs (in short, that they should respect you)...but that you yourself see no reason or purpose in respecting them, and their beliefs? How exactly do you expect this to bring about any sort of dialogue, or meaningful interaction.

I used to be a Christian myself. And I'll tell you, on the road to atheism, I met many atheists. Some had attitudes like yours -- a refusal to respect my beliefs, treating me as inferior -- and some had attitudes like the one that I am championing here -- treating me as an equal, demonstrating respect for my beliefs, even while making it clear that they disagreed with me.

I'll leave it up to you to guess which of those two approaches bore greater fruit.

[Southwind17]

The next time I get in a position of power and threaten to overule a vote on the basis of my deep conviction that mint-condition copies of the first Private Eye circulate in the atoms of humans, I can count on Gordon Brown's respect for my position!

"Mint condition"? As in fully-digested After Eight, I'd say! ;)

[Civilized Worm]

The next time I get in a position of power and threaten to overule a vote on the basis of my deep conviction that mint-condition copies of the first Private Eye circulate in the atoms of humans, I can count on Gordon Brown's respect for my position!


When was the last time you were in a position of power?

[Undesired Walrus]

UW -- Let me point out an implicit conclusion for any theist who reads what you wrote: that you expect them to listen to, and seek to understand your beliefs, and the reasons for those beliefs (in short, that they should respect you)...

Yet that is showing respect to a person. That is not respecting certain beliefs when you reach the end of the road and understand them.

You have fallen into the trap of religous 'respect creep', which assumes that after a certain person understands your beliefs, they have to respect its principles.


but that you yourself see no reason or purpose in respecting them, and their beliefs? How exactly do you expect this to bring about any sort of dialogue, or meaningful interaction.

I used to be a Christian myself. And I'll tell you, on the road to atheism, I met many atheists. Some had attitudes like yours -- a refusal to respect my beliefs, treating me as inferior -- and some had attitudes like the one that I am championing here -- treating me as an equal, demonstrating respect for my beliefs, even while making it clear that they disagreed with me.

I'll leave it up to you to guess which of those two approaches bore greater fruit.

We do not respect people's beliefs. In any other walk of life, you do not respect views you find downright ridiculous or untrue. You respect the person, certainly. They can be a good person, a moral person, a brilliant artist. These traits you respect them for.
You have conflated respect of a person with respect for untrue views. The latter is never put into practice, whilst the former (I should hope so) is.

To use Harris' example, you would never respect the belief of an individual who finds comfort in believing there is a diamond the size of a fridge buried in your back garden. These are views you do not respect.

Do you respect Osama Bin Laden's belief in God? If someone in Parliament votes against gay marriage because they have a strong inner conviction that homosexuality is the worst thing any human can do, are you willing to say "I deeply respect your beliefs"?

[Southwind17]

We do not respect people's beliefs. In any other walk of life, you do not respect views you find downright ridiculous or untrue. You respect the person, certainly. They can be a good person, a moral person, a brilliant artist. These traits you respect them for.
You have conflated respect of a person with respect for untrue views. The latter is never put into practice, whilst the former (I should hope so) is.

To use Harris' example, you would never respect the belief of an individual who finds comfort in believing there is a diamond the size of a fridge buried in your back garden. These are views you do not respect.

Do you respect Osama Bin Laden's belief in God? If someone in Parliament votes against gay marriage because they have a strong inner conviction that homosexuality is the worst thing any human can do, are you willing to say "I deeply respect your beliefs"?

Nice! ;)

[DeusPhasmatis]

I stand corrected :). You're quite right, if we're going to analyse what Gordon Brown meant, we need the whole statement.

And a thorough psychological evaluation of him. And we'd still be better served by invasive telepathy.

[Mashuna]

I'm just glad he's supporting the embryo research bill. I think the statement of respect is a political sop to the opponents of the bill.

[Soapy Sam]

He's a son of the Manse.
In that situation, you either conclude your father spent his whole life talking nonsense, or you acquire some internal mental dividers.

Consider Rolfe- similar family background and a serious Christian- but by nobody's definition either dumb or morally hypocritical. Intelligence, intellectual honesty and religious belief are not necessarily separable characteristics.
They should be.
But they're not.

Against my better nature, I feel a sneaking sympathy for Gordon. Maybe because I loathed the Blairs so absolutely from day one. We all have our irrational side.

[ceo_esq]

I did notice that, but in what other situation do you declare you have deep respect for those who oppose a major vote by basing their decision on non-evidence?

What about people who oppose a piece of legislation based on secular moral objections, or due to a political philosophy? How are those different, from an evidentiary perspective?