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:
“The most important feature of religious convictions is that those who believe them have a high level of commitment to their beliefs. If this exists, it validates the religious views of the believer.” What do you think of these statements?
8 comments:
Erin Hobbie said
The religious views exist whether or not the convictions are strong, correct? In this way, even the rocks cry out if humanity is silent. That being said, a high level of commitment in convictions is important.The popular phrase, "What's true for me is true for me, but what's true for you may be true for you," waters down the meaning of the word 'true.' If I sincerely believe what's true for me is true for me, then the conviction of the truth must be strong enough to say, "What's true for me is truth is beyond me and extends also to you."
Erin, Thanks. The religious views might exist, but the reason that they're believable is thought to be the fervency with which one believes them. Fervent belief is an apologetic for what one believes. If I'm getting your view right, one way of contrasting such an assumption might be to focus on the notion of 'true' and something like the formulation that there is truth and truth for me. Strong convictions are welcome, but not the end of the story.
Frans van Santen said
Greg, do I read it well that your question says: commitment = validation?
Frans, Thanks. A right read. Yes, I think this is often what's put forward today regarding religious commitments. As long as one holds them strongly, this is what is assumed to equate validation and therefore all that counts.
Frans van Santen said Thanks Greg. I strongly sense this in everyday conversations. It undermines the search for truth. When and why did the Western world lose interest in that? What a trade: from truth = validation to commitment = validation.
Yes, Frans, you make an excellent observation. The when and the why probably go back people like Descartes and the flourishing of subjectivity. To trade the quest for truth for the strength of personal convictions can amount to relativism. As long as someone is forcefully committed to a religious position, tends to be all that counts for validation.
Frans van Santen said My observation is that challenging this way of thinking often leads to alienation, instead of common understanding. What is wisdom here, Greg?
Right. This is at least partially due to the assumption that all religious claims, as long as they are strongly held, are unchallengeable. I think it is imperative to strive to re-introduce, what I call, subjective objectivity. If we are reduced to merely the subjective, then alienation will always be the result. Heading towards common understanding will have to bring back a place for the objective dimension of being, knowing, morality, and living in the world.
Post a Comment