“People have the right to believe what they want.”
I’ve heard this before and always accepted it automatically. It sounds so reasonable and I have even heard atheists like Professor Dawkins say it. I only started to question it when a theist on another forum used it as his main argument for believing in God. Since, I have become particularly sensitive to this phrase and hear it coming up all the time. It even appears in my, the South African, constitution:
15. Freedom of religion, belief and opinion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
2. Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that
1. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
2. they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
3. attendance at them is free and voluntary.
For one to claim a right it must be possible to take that right away. Freedom of expression can be taken away, freedom of religious expression can be taken away, but freedom of thought or belief? How can anyone force me to believe something, or to disbelieve it for that matter? Someone might force me to say or do things but no one can control my thoughts. Freedom of thought is intrinsic to human beings whether you believe in God or not. It is not something which can be controlled by anyone, even the person doing the thinking.
Freedom of expression is directly opposed to this freedom of belief idea since false beliefs can generally only be maintained by ignorance. If someone has the “right” to believe something then that necessarily means that I must loose the right to argue with them about it. This limits my free speech and I’m not having that!
So what do you guys think? I don’t really feel comfortable with anyone granting me the “right” to think, or not.
I had not thought about the “right to freedom of belief” in this way.
In the absence of verifiable mind-control, such a right is only meaningful in that it restricts other people’s attempts to change such belief, externally. It can’t simply be about mere belief in the face of contrary evidence, because that is entirely in the control of the individual believer anyway, regardless of what the law may be. It therefore might be about external attempts to change belief to disbelief, or other belief. OR, it might be about the right to be treated as if one’s beliefs are facts, on the same order as 1+1=2, and to be permitted to act on beliefs as if they were facts. If either of these ways is how the law gets interpreted, I would be opposed to it.
However, technology is advancing, and we know that there are devices that can, at an indirect and rudimentary level, read some thoughts. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar level of capability of controlling thoughts and beliefs. A “right to freedom of belief” law would presumably prohibit alteration of perception or belief in a human mind, by such technology. That’s probably a good thing to prohibit. Also, if you could envision an aggressively atheistic society that discovered how to surgically alter brains to reduce belief, I think it would be good to have a law that prohibits that as well.
A “right to freedom of belief” law would presumably prohibit alteration of perception or belief in a human mind, by such technology.
Presumably, but aren’t there better laws which would offer similar protection without the potential for abuse you highlighted? I’m thinking along the lines of bioethics but am not sure of the the terminology.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right
1. not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
2. not to be detained without trial;
3. to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
4. not to be tortured in any way; and
5. not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
2. Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right
1. to make decisions concerning reproduction; 2. to security in and control over their body; and
3. not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.
Freedom of expression is directly opposed to this freedom of belief idea since false beliefs can generally only be maintained by ignorance. If someone has the “right” to believe something then that necessarily means that I must loose the right to argue with them about it. This limits my free speech and I’m not having that!
I don’t follow this step in the argument. To say that someone has the “right to believe” is just (at least as far as I’m concerned) to say that they cannot be punished by the state simply for believing something. That seems to me a good position to hold. In particular, it would bar the punishment of someone for being an atheist.
One’s right to believe doesn’t mean that one has a right to shut other people up, though.
The problem I see with it is that insofar as the state runs schools, or regulates or licenses people for performing certain jobs, there is a place that the state has to insure that people are learning the right things, and that they evince the appropriate knowledge about their subjects. (E.g., a doctor should know basic anatomy).
One could, I suppose, make a semi-legalistic separation between “believing” and “being able to answer correctly on a test”, whereby one was free to believe what one liked, but not to answer incorrectly on the exams, although that is a bit of a stretch.
I think in US legal terms it’s usually put as a “freedom of conscience”, where the word “conscience” has explicitly ethical or religious connotations. That is, you’re free to value whatever you wish, and hold whatever ethical, moral or religious beliefs you like. But this doesn’t really extend to issues of beliefs about fact. (Though for the specifics I think we’ll need a constitutional lawyer).
I think Peter is taking it very literally: that one may thing something but never voice it. If that’s the case how can this be a right that can be taken away? I’m guessing that as soon as one voices his/her disbelief in a god, that’s evidence of one’s thoughts. This seems redundant since the section also includes freedom of opinion.
However, we have seen the effects of brainwashing in many areas: Korean war prisoners, Patty Hearst, Stockholm Syndrome, possibly Guantanamo. These were definitely cases where people had their very personal thinking or ideas taken away from them and replaced with other ideas. So, Peter, this kind of thing may be a case on which that part of the section was based.
Freedom of expression is directly opposed to this freedom of belief idea since false beliefs can generally only be maintained by ignorance. If someone has the “right” to believe something then that necessarily means that I must loose the right to argue with them about it. This limits my free speech and I’m not having that!
I don’t follow this step in the argument.
Blasphemy laws would be a good example, also parents who don’t want their children taught evolution.
dougsmith - 23 December 2009 12:34 PM
To say that someone has the “right to believe” is just (at least as far as I’m concerned) to say that they cannot be punished by the state simply for believing something.
I don’t think that state can punish you just for believing something, you would have to say or do something first and then they might punish you for that.
dougsmith - 23 December 2009 12:34 PM
That seems to me a good position to hold. In particular, it would bar the punishment of someone for being an atheist.
Freedom of expression covers it since the only way they could possibly find out is if you told them.
dougsmith - 23 December 2009 12:34 PM
One’s right to believe doesn’t mean that one has a right to shut other people up, though.
The ability to believe should not grant one any special rights, no.
dougsmith - 23 December 2009 12:34 PM
The problem I see with it is that insofar as the state runs schools, or regulates or licenses people for performing certain jobs, there is a place that the state has to insure that people are learning the right things, and that they evince the appropriate knowledge about their subjects. (E.g., a doctor should know basic anatomy).
These limitations of free speech seem perfectly reasonable.
dougsmith - 23 December 2009 12:34 PM
One could, I suppose, make a semi-legalistic separation between “believing” and “being able to answer correctly on a test”, whereby one was free to believe what one liked, but not to answer incorrectly on the exams, although that is a bit of a stretch.
Why not just leave things like belief out of legalism altogether?
dougsmith - 23 December 2009 12:34 PM
I think in US legal terms it’s usually put as a “freedom of conscience”, where the word “conscience” has explicitly ethical or religious connotations. That is, you’re free to value whatever you wish, and hold whatever ethical, moral or religious beliefs you like. But this doesn’t really extend to issues of beliefs about fact. (Though for the specifics I think we’ll need a constitutional lawyer).
Sorry, but “freedom of conscience” seems even more ridiculous to me. Regardless of the law we are all free to value whatever we wish, and hold whatever ethical, moral or religious beliefs we like. How we act based on those beliefs can be limited by the law though, and should be.
[ Edited: 23 December 2009 01:29 PM by Peter Grant ]
I think Peter is taking it very literally: that one may thing something but never voice it.
Well, I think it might be dangerous to take law too metaphorically. Believers do tend to be rather literal minded at times.
Occam - 23 December 2009 01:03 PM
If that’s the case how can this be a right that can be taken away? I’m guessing that as soon as one voices his/her disbelief in a god, that’s evidence of one’s thoughts. This seems redundant since the section also includes freedom of opinion.
If opinion is taken as a form of expression only, to which there can be limitations.
Occam - 23 December 2009 01:03 PM
However, we have seen the effects of brainwashing in many areas: Korean war prisoners, Patty Hearst, Stockholm Syndrome, possibly Guantanamo. These were definitely cases where people had their very personal thinking or ideas taken away from them and replaced with other ideas. So, Peter, this kind of thing may be a case on which that part of the section was based.
Occam
Just about every other human right was violated in those cases.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
At the risk of coming across as a spoil sport .. can I suggest that the use of the word ‘belief’ in this document was not intended in the way you have take it to mean.
I would suggest that this word was intended to be a collective noun, and not a verb. In other words people have a right to their particular belief’s such as whatever religion they chose, whatever football club they want to support, whatever political positions people want to hold, whatever global eco views they chose to hold etc etc etc.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
At the risk of coming across as a spoil sport .. can I suggest that the use of the word ‘belief’ in this document was not intended in the way you have take it to mean.
I would suggest that this word was intended to be a collective noun, and not a verb.
You mean like a swarm or a herd? That sounds like freedom of association to me. I’m not reading it as a verb but as an abstract noun like love or hate.
scepticeye - 23 December 2009 04:55 PM
In other words people have a right to their particular belief’s such as whatever religion they chose, whatever football club they want to support, whatever political positions people want to hold, whatever global eco views they chose to hold etc etc etc.
These beliefs, positions and views will be held regardless of a right to do so. What could be defended is the right to act on them.
No, you don’t have a right to any and all beliefs. You do not have the right to believe it is okay to murder your children (even if voices told you to do so), you do not have the right to exercise the belief that red lights do not mean ‘stop’ for you. Society doesn’t give you the right to do or believe a great many things.
No, you don’t have a right to any and all beliefs. You do not have the right to believe it is okay to murder your children (even if voices told you to do so), you do not have the right to exercise the belief that red lights do not mean ‘stop’ for you. Society doesn’t give you the right to do or believe a great many things.
On the contrary you are entitled to believe whatever you like, at least in modern western democracies you do. If you chose to believe you have the right to commit murder then no one can or will stop you believing such a thing. If you believe you have the right to ten wives or husbands then no one can or will stop you believing such a thing. It is the exercise of those beliefs that are legislated against.
I guess the question is whether the belief is the father/mother of the deed. In addition, we can’t be simplistic. One may believe in killing children, but also believe that there would be a high probabliity of him being caught, and believe that existence is a penitentary would be severely damaging to him/her. If one believes only the first without any contravening thoughts, it’s quite likely that s/he will carry out his/her thinking when s/he has the opportunity.
So it’s probably for the benefit of society to either excise those thoughts whenever possible or introduce those balancing ideas to inhibit action.
