We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
I take that it that we should have confidence and humility concerning belief in God, and other matters. They are, in my assessment, crucial dialogue partners. Confidence without humility is absolutism, but humility without confidence is relativism. Neither are plausible options. What do you think?
3 comments:
Not sure why you're connecting relativism/absolutism to confidence and humility. That probably has something to do with not knowing how either. Are you saying that if one doubts that means they're relativistic? Or that if they're arrogant they're going to force an absolutist framework?
Joshua,
Thanks. "Are you saying that if one doubts that means they're relativistic?" No. Humility does not equate doubt, but it may pertain to features of unresolved questions - doubt is not necessarily unbelief. Humility might say, 'I don't know' but it doesn't translate into, 'I don't know anything and all is the same.'
"Or that if they're arrogant they're going to force an absolutist framework?" Yes. Arrogance goes beyond confidence. Confidence might say, 'I know this is true, but it doesn't translate into, 'I know all there is to know.'
I was more suggesting doubt tended towards the less confident spectrum.
Post a Comment