Confusing Opinion with Belief does lead to harms.
Beyond Religion...
Many Humanities practitioners confuse Belief with Opinion.
I do not authorize psychological nor psychiatric formulations, interpretations nor diagnosis, etc. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice nor advice of any kind. I do not authorize any Religious use and/or Interpretation.
This is a comment to this Substack Note:
“Ian Jobling”
´“We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”´
“This quote by Mencken gets something deeply right. Religious beliefs make up an important part of people’s self-esteem, and it is rude to attack someone’s self-esteem without good reason. However, it is just as illegitimate for someone to claim that their religion should have power over you as that their relatives should.”
This is a long comment, addressing your Note I think requires a lot of writing, but I got to the bottom, I think, by the end of my Post.
Have you read about Freedom of Belief as a Human Right?, self esteem is not generally recognized, apparently as a Human Right.
Specially considering the right:
“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”
Self esteem is intimate, it is an inward belief (that was the word used in my read source). Self esteem is a private affair.
How do I recognize your specific claims of self esteem if you don´t make them public?.
I can recognize them in the abstract as part of your Human Dignity, but not specifically if you don´t elaborate. And you shouldn´t.
Communicating one´s self esteem seems to me, not a lawyer, not giving legal advice, like giving up that intimacy right.
“Don´t say a word…”
Honor is a public affair, it is connected to what other people esteem/think and express of myself, even if it is connected with what I think of myself.
Such is because Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression are linked, but are not the same thing: I can think of you whatever I want, same as you can think of myself whatever you want.
But I cannot say of you whatever I want, same as you cannot say of myself whatever you want.
Not because it hurts my self esteem, but because it Damages my Honor if done in Public as in shaming, or because it is an aggression, an Act of Violence, harming other Rights than Honor.
A difference is in its exercise: self esteem does not need anyone else, it does not require other´s recognition beyond its recognition as a Human Right, and the protections given by Law.
Honor requires Public recognition.
“Who would have believed such Person is in Fact a Demon?”: Unbelievable.
The agreement of my perception of myself with other People´s expressions of their opinions of myself is a source of confusion in legal settings.
And an endless source of Litigation, unless it is a Correct Truthful Factual Statement about me, or someone else: then it is fair game.
Self esteem does not protect against such Correct Truthful Factual Statements, but Honor can…
In some Jurisdictions public lists of Sexual Offenders or Delinquent Child Supporters are Forbidden, probably because although Correct Truthful Factual Statement they Damage Honor beyond Reparation, and are against Rehabilitation.
So, it is not that simple: esteeming oneself as Religious one way or another is not linked to your self esteem in a protective way, since you made your Religious Belief Public, therefore it no longer is an intimate, private affair.
And the discussions of Freedom of Belief touched on the Right to not make Public one´s Religious or lack thereof Beliefs.
That´s why it had at least two components: Belief and Practice. Thinking and Doing.
So, making one´s Religious Affiliations and Beliefs Public turns it into an Honor thing, not a freedom of thought thing, no longer a private thing, but a Public one.
Specially when there is a Freedom of Expression, to communicate one´s Thoughts.
Specially too to Religious Practice, there is the rigmarole with Freedom of Belief, in the practice, specially the Public ones.
“If my gayness offends God, let him speak for Herself!”
“If it offends you, please elaborate… to someone else… preach to the choir….”
Then peddling Religion on me is not about Honor nor self esteem, it does touch on my Freedom of Belief, even my Freedom of Conscience, but the more important issue is my right to not be bothered, specially in my private intimate space, like my home.
Peddling Religion Publicly can incite Violence against myself, and yes, as in Gayness against my Honor, specially among Religious Believers. I am heterosexual, this is a rhetorical gimmick.
Throwing Fire and Brimstone Rhetoric at me is a form of coercion, using verbal violence to make me change my mind, and in a Deceptive way because at least it claims as a surety if I don´t convert, if I don´t mend my ways, since I am a sinner, a bad dude, hated, despised, repudiated by God, making a moral claim that is not an opinion nor a fact, but a slander, and as such should be Forbidden.
It is atrocious, it is not an opinion since it is based on Belief alone, it is a Slander based on Religious Belief than can never be based on Fact. Can never be a factual statement, therefore it can be Slanderous even as a claimed Opinion, which is not since it has no Factual Basis, not even a tenuous one and controversial…
Unfortunately Freedom of Expression as a Human Right cannot be curtailed a priori, even if as I narrated it is clear to me such expressions should be Forbidden, since they attack directly not only Honor and Reputation, but use Verbal Violence, and undeniably so.
Doubly unfortunate in a lot of Jurisdictions it is not a Penal offense, but a Civil one requiring personal instance giving Freedom to use such Verbal Violence, such coercion, such persecution, in an indiscriminate manner, so no one can successfully claim they felt personally targeted. At least.
And it does attack by default minorities in Jurisdictions not sharing such belief. Therefore requiring a stronger protection than Civil Law affords and allowing for a priori restriction when it is obvious such Rhetoric does not belong in the Modern World, secular or not: it can only Harm, it has no benefit.
So, not that simple, right? :)
That´s why rabid religious rhetoric of eternal punishments should be Forbidden in Public: because they are not based on fact, are slanderous, and are coercive through the use of Fear. Specially when minors are present…
It is not a simple self esteem or Honor thing, but a Violence Thing not based on Fact, nor Opinion, but on Belief alone.
And it is a form of Coercion into Believing things.
And it can be a form of Terrorism not currently recognized by Law nor Jurisprudence alone.
Opinion:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: synonym: view. [This is totally wrong, a belief and a conclusion are not valid alternatives, a conclusion is the product of an argument sustained on positive knowledge, Real Knowledge, Knowledge about Reality, a belief is not, vide infra.]
As such it is also inconsistent with the other Definitions:
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert. "a medical opinion." [This is the one we all should strive for based on Knowledge about Reality…]
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing. "has a low opinion of braggarts." [This is the most common in correct use: a judgement]
Judgement:
The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation. [A belief requires no such thing, see below]
An opinion or estimate formed after consideration or deliberation, especially a formal or authoritative decision.
Other than Quantitation, Estimation is synonymous with Judgement and/or Opinion.
Now, for Opinions to have different uses than Beliefs, given Beliefs are not deliberations, are no Judgements, or else Opinions can´t be expressed as Expert Opinions when Facts are the issue, as in Legal Contexts, then by necessity Opinions must have Factual Basis, specially based on two words in their definition: positive knowledge, Real Knowledge, Knowledge about Reality, even if in the negative and in an erroneous definition.
But as a dictionary definition does define things according to common current use, not necessarily correct nor consistent with other words´ current use as in the first definition of Opinion, clearly reflected in “expert opinion” and “judgement” specially “formal” or “authoritative”, see below.
Belief:
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Notice it does not say how acceptance nor conviction is accomplished.
It does not mention conclusion, argument nor expertise: therefore they are not required to Believe.
But it does mention “group of persons”, implying it is not generally accepted: only a group of People believe and accept as true some idea.
As such, Beliefs are sectarian, and cannot be General Truths used in Logical Arguments, nor Scientific Ones, and therefore cannot be Expert Opinions, nor part of them…
Placing implies establishing, making a connection with the Believed Idea and the value of Trust, Confidence or Truth, and without the requirement of conclusion, argument nor expertise it is an arbitrary, capricious, irrational, authoritarian not authoritative, etc., way of placing, of establishing Value, therefore outside of Legal Reasoning if not for Freedom of Belief.
If not as part of the Right to Believe in Irrational even Crazy things, but not to exercise, not to act based on such Irrational Beliefs. Granting an unrestricted Right to Act on Irrational Ideas can only lead to Harm. And in an Irresponsible way.
If that sounds extreme as a proposition, I consider Harmful and Dangerous Cults are not protected by Freedom of Belief. And Harmful acts in presumed exercise of such Freedom of Belief should not be protected either. Specially a priori, and specially when targeting minorities and/or minors.
Those are vulnerable and/or persecuted groups of People, and not prohibiting a priori such harmful, injurious acts gives them validation as doubtful in their perniciousness, making redress difficult, even impossible.
Nowadays are recognized as Generally Safe Statements…
And such is the case, such is the Historical Evolution of such harmful acts in the exercise of Freedom of Belief: now, they can´t be easily stopped.
Placing as putting in place Trust, Confidence or Truth, again, it does not say how, it makes no claim as to any requirement to put in place the Value of Trust, Confidence or Truth.
And the same applies outside Legal Contexts, Beliefs are still arbitrary, capricious, irrational, authoritarian not authoritative, etc.,therefore they can´t be Opinions, nor have a Basis on Facts.
Otherwise the use of Belief and Opinion will lead to contradictions by their mere definitions if not used as I elaborated.
Slander:
Communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
If a statement uses Deception Deliberately I guess it is malicious, and based on Belief it cannot be true in Reality, it can´t be a claim, an opinion based on Facts, therefore it must be False. So, it fulfills both parts of Slander: False and Malicious when one accepts Beliefs are not Opinions, and Damage the Reputation or Injure someone.
And if such Slandering is done Publicly injuring or damaging the reputation of a lot of People it is a Public Affair, not a private one, and not an among Individual Citizens one. Therefore Authorities should prosecute such acts, and citizens should not litigate them. In that there can be a way to keep a ban on a priori restriction of Expressing Religious thoughts: Public Officials should prosecute such cases.
That is another incentive, a motivation to equivocate Belief and Opinion: to allow harmful Religious rhetoric and practice. To make it acceptable to the Populace so its acceptance, as corresponds to a Belief, became normal, and therefore cannot be questioned by legal means, specially based on Social Norms and Tradition.
But Philosophers, Psychologists, Psychiatrists and other thinkers in the Humanities do the same: equivocate Belief and Opinion, adding, not subtracting to the harms by such equivocation.
And here we are…
But, maybe self esteem might not be an apt word: moral injury seems more appropriate, but not in the English language sense but as a “a non economic harm to a right or an interest constituting a right belonging to an individual”. [translated from a ruling from the Mexican Supreme Court from 11yrs ago]
Such as causing anguish, sorrow, hardship, pain, harming or causing detriment to Honor, Feelings, Affections, Beliefs, Reputation, Private Life, decorum, dignity and Physical Aspects.
But it requires detriment, harm to a Freedom or to the integrity of a Person of a non economic kind and in an illegal way. Probably Public.
But I guess such point of view is not generally accepted in Common Law Countries.
And now I think I can address directly your Note:
If Beliefs are not based on Facts nor Opinions clearly they cannot be changed with Facts and/or Opinions, therefore they can be changed only with other Beliefs since there is no other option. Assuming a non Violent way.
And since a Belief is held without any reason, it is held irrationally, changing a Belief with another Belief is changing something Irrational with another Irrationality.
Claiming a Harm was caused that way can´t be judged Rationally: It is a Travesty to do so…
Therefore Beliefs are immune absolutely from Opinion and Fact, and such immunity means Rationally they can only be changed with another Belief. Rationally as in this, my Post, not that using Belief to change another Belief is a Rational thing.
But it is the Rational thing to do! :)
And I find problematic someone claiming even a Belief expressed in a non violent way can change their Beliefs since there does not seem to exist a non violent rational way to do so: how did you changed your Belief when no one forced you to?.
Self-esteem is a Belief, Opinion, Feeling, Pride and/or Respect about one self…
To address your Note specifically other than Belief it requires, I think more specifics.
But in places having Legal Thinking as I narrated for a specific formulation of moral injury Feelings, Pride and Respect are considered. For Opinion, if it is based in Facts I see problems when Self-esteem is harmed with another Opinion.
Self-esteem based on Religious Belief seems to me way too problematic unless attacked violently since Self-esteem based on Religious Belief is already Irrational, and it was acquired if non violently Irrationally and it can be held Irrationally.
Thanks.
Federico Soto del Alba.