In looking to form a “coalition of the reasonable” of atheists and religious believers, it is to virtues like these that we should look, not more substantive beliefs about how the world is. One of the most important things I have learned over this series is that attempting to forge an alliance between people of “liberal” faith and atheists based on shared beliefs results in a very small club indeed: worth joining, but unlikely to make much impact.
Although it’s probably true that almost everyone claims the virtues of sincerity, charity and modesty for themselves, in practice many fall short. We should ask of those who claim to be part of the coalition of the reasonable: do they take any individuals or texts to be infallible sources of knowledge? If the answer is yes, they fail the test of sincerity. Do we see the principle of charity at work in how they actually criticise and discuss people of other faiths or none? And do they show any sign of genuinely being open to being wrong?
One reason why this coalition matters is for the political goal of co-existence. I don’t think anyone who genuinely embraced sincerity, charity and modesty could be intolerant or divisive. On the other hand, those who do not display these virtues are just the kind of people who would advocate separate schools for people of different faiths, demonise those with different views and see compromise as an inexcusable sell-out of principle.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member