In his book, A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, the ardent evolutionary atheist, Richard Dawkins, writes:
Why has our society so meekly acquiesced in the convenient fiction that religious views have some sort of right to be respected automatically and without question? If I want you to respect my views on politics, science, or art, I have to earn that respect by argument, reason, eloquence or relevant knowledge. I have to withstand counter-arguments. But if I have a view that is part of my religion, critics must respectively tiptoe away or brave the indignation of society at large. Why are religious opinions off limits in this way? Why do we have to respect them simply because they are religious?
While he wrongly concludes that there is no evidence for religion and, therefore, it should not be respected, he has a good point nonetheless. In the pluralistic age in which we live everybody believes we ought to respect what other people believe, even if we think their views are mistaken. While we should tolerate the individual who holds to flawed religious beliefs, why should we have to respect their views if they do not reflect reality? Why shouldn’t we press people to justify their beliefs with sound reason and good evidence; and if they can’t, tell them their views are mistaken, if not ridiculous? Would we do any less to the person who believes he is a bird who can fly, or who claims water freezes in the oven? Then why won’t we expose errors and absurdities when it comes to religion? Have we bought into the idea that it is wrong to tell someone they are mistaken? Have we bought into the idea that religious claims are beyond testing? Or could it be that we don’t have the goods to defend our own faith, and fear that the tables might be turned on us if we pressed others to the task? As Yoda would say, “Faith with no evidence you have, hmm?”
Thinking to Believe 