Great post. But I don’t understand the notion that we must tiptoe our way around the beliefs of those in a chosen lifestyle. It is something I’ve never really understood. I guess it made sense when they were 90+% of the United States and have a history of getting up to persecution and outright violence/murder when they feel their faith is “under attack” or even if someone else does not sufficiently believe in their interpretation of their holy texts.
But since their numbers have fallen off a cliff it seems to make less and less sense all the time.
I suspect it has a lot to do with knowing how thin-skinned those that have strongly-held beliefs about things with no evidence can really be.
But I’m not sure I’ve ever read or heard a sentence that says similar things about groups that understand evidence-based things: “I don’t wish to offend those that understand germ theory, but…” I guess it’s because evidence-based things, by design, have resilience built-in - they demand that you doubt. Invite you to look into the facts yourself, and so on.
I hear you, but I don’t see these things in terms of philosophy, but of the individuals. To me, beliefs can be mistaken, but individuals themselves need to be addressed with dignity – unless they start shit, in which case it’s fair game.
In this case I was starting the shit, writing what I absolutely knew would be provocative to sincere believers, hence my warning.
To me it is just matter of basic human decency, because in the end we are ALL wrong: the extent to which any of us is actually right is only a matter of experience, subject, and degree. A dose of humility never goes amiss, but of course I personally kind of have to say that.
Great post. But I don’t understand the notion that we must tiptoe our way around the beliefs of those in a chosen lifestyle. It is something I’ve never really understood. I guess it made sense when they were 90+% of the United States and have a history of getting up to persecution and outright violence/murder when they feel their faith is “under attack” or even if someone else does not sufficiently believe in their interpretation of their holy texts.
But since their numbers have fallen off a cliff it seems to make less and less sense all the time.
I suspect it has a lot to do with knowing how thin-skinned those that have strongly-held beliefs about things with no evidence can really be.
But I’m not sure I’ve ever read or heard a sentence that says similar things about groups that understand evidence-based things: “I don’t wish to offend those that understand germ theory, but…” I guess it’s because evidence-based things, by design, have resilience built-in - they demand that you doubt. Invite you to look into the facts yourself, and so on.
I guess I just find that rather interesting.
I hear you, but I don’t see these things in terms of philosophy, but of the individuals. To me, beliefs can be mistaken, but individuals themselves need to be addressed with dignity – unless they start shit, in which case it’s fair game.
In this case I was starting the shit, writing what I absolutely knew would be provocative to sincere believers, hence my warning.
To me it is just matter of basic human decency, because in the end we are ALL wrong: the extent to which any of us is actually right is only a matter of experience, subject, and degree. A dose of humility never goes amiss, but of course I personally kind of have to say that.
Sincerely, an ex-Christian.