Gregory's Server@nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom The way to challenge a belief that is held on faith isn't to stack up evidence against it. The way to do it is to show that there is at least one alternative to the faith-held belief that isn't a source of despair.
|
27 comments
@nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom For me, an article of political faith is that meaningful reform within a parliamentary democracy is possible, therefore making a revolution unnecessary, at least for the moment. A revolution becoming necessary isn't quite as bad as eternal damnation, but it isn't exactly my idea of a good time. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom For Radical_EgoCom, the belief that solidarity is a powerful enough force as to render coercion unnecessary also appears to be an article of political faith for them. (My own pronouns are he/him, btw, I am unsure of Radical_EgoCom's so I will follow their lead and default to they/them.) That's why we were unable to come to an agreement on the universality of nepotism, and why I deflected the question to subject matter experts. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom If I am correct, both of us are people of political faith. We are also both engaged in proselytizing our particular brands of political faith. I'm slowly writing an entire book with the working title of "In Defense of Robin Hood: An Unapologetic Apology for Social Liberalism." I assure you, this is not the act of a sane man. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom Meanwhile, I swear that I have seen Mormon missionaries put less effort into selling their religion than Radical_EgoCom puts into running their pro-anarcho-communism account. And I seriously doubt they're getting paid to do it. If their motivation isn't religious, then it is a close cousin to it. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom So while me accusing Radical_EgoCom of evangelicalizing was admittedly mostly a bit of trash-talking on my part, I also believe there is an element of truth to it. Do you two disagree? If so, then why? @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom I think that a drive to find an alternative to a set of systemic behaviors that are inherently destructive and quite overtly the cause of an overwhelming amount of human misery can stem from an inherent desire to be kind and extend a grace to our fellow humans that they are otherwise denied. If I could be accused of any kind of faith, it is in our humanity. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Conversely, if I have to take on faith that elected officials are acting in our best interests when overwhelmingly the dominant motivation in our society is infinite wealth accumulation, or if I have to have faith that the pieces of paper I use to buy things will continue to have the value I am to believe they have, then I am participating in a system that is at best co-opted, and at worst explicitly designed to take advantage of the faithful. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom My faith in liberal democracy does not rest on the generosity of politicians. Instead, I think that liberal democracy works to the extent that the representation each faction has in the legislature is roughly proportionate to the military strength each faction would have in the event of a civil war. To the extent that this is true and everybody is rational and well-informed, that should make civil war unnecessary... and impossible. Unfortunately... @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom And, allegedly, Christians are motivated by their desire to save us all from damnation. So, to the extent the self-allegations of Christians are true, your two faiths and your two motivations are similar. @DrDanMarshall @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder My definitions of religion and faith say absolutely nothing about the supernatural. And true faith, unlike rationalization, is not blind. True faith sees the alternatives, recognizes that they are a source of despair, and *chooses* to surrender to the possibility of hope. Rationalization subconsciously blinds us to the truth, even while telling us that we are being perfectly rational. @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder So I am going to ask this question as gently as I can: Under what circumstances, if any, would you accept the use of coercion as an alternative to relying on solidarity? @DrDanMarshall @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder Then, congratulations, your faith in solidarity is not absolute. My faith in liberal democracy isn't absolute either. My greatest fear during the Trump Years is that they would do something so odious but within the letter of the law that we would be forced to break faith with the Constitution first. Jan. 6 was something of a relief, that way. Trump was never that good at following the rules. @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder There were pragmatic considerations in that fear, such as securing the loyalty of the military. But my main motivation was my reluctance to be the first to break faith with an agreement that I do consider sacred. @DrDanMarshall @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder Faith is independent of evidence, I would say. Faith does require that both the hope-possibilty and at least one despair-possibility to be "psychologically live," as William James put it. You can stack up quite a bit of evidence against a despair-possibility and it still survive. And attempting to kill it that way runs the risk of rationalization. You can kill faith with evidence, but that's not the best way. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom I can't speak for anyone else, but none. No coercion. The moment force and threats become a part of the system, the door is then opened to deny people the very grace I think we should be extending to everyone without exception. You can't be your best self if nobody is making room for you to occupy that space. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom I wouldn't say that you are wrong to be a pacifist. One branch of my own family are/were Quakers. I will say that I am not willing to accept the sacrifices an absolute commitment to pacifism would require. I am afraid I am not brave enough to be a complete pacifist. I will settle for the ethics of just warfare and self-defense, should things come to that. @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom With that said, Radical_EgoCom, are you familiar with the Stoic take on how to handle insults? @DrDanMarshall @nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder Roughly, yes, but the version I heard makes more room for emotion. If somebody says something false about you, laugh at their idiocy, and trust that enough people are wise enough to see the truth that this falsehood will not hurt you. (Admittedly, if the idiot has power over you, their idiocy can be a danger to you.) @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder If what the person says is true, then suck it up and focus on fixing the flaw in your own character. An insult only *really* lands if it hits on an *unacknowledged* truth. @Radical_EgoCom @nonehitwonder So if anything I say offends you, then that is at least partly the result of you deciding to be offended rather than recognizing the truth of what I am saying or laughing at my evident idiocy. Unless you are afraid that I do have some power over you, and my idiocy could harm you? @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom I didn't think anyone was offended, but I did want to make a distinction between the reality of our discussion and your phrasing which undermined - whether deliberate or otherwise - the subject at hand. It's a common way to divert attention, and fosters mistrust of your intentions during what I am considering an otherwise good-faith argument. I think you may be aware of this, given your earlier deflection of a potential thoughtful response with your "a magic fairy does it" "joke." |
@nonehitwonder @Radical_EgoCom Politics, like religion, is based on a kind of faith. For example, participating in electoral politics requires having faith that the party in power will relinquish power if they lose the election. This faith is less extreme than religious faith, but it is there.