Gregory's Server@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.
|
15 comments
@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." |
@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?