"Begging the question" is not only another way to express "prompting the question". In a more formal and idiomatic context, it also can mean the fallacy of arguing from a premise to a conclusion when the premise is a consequence of (or identical to) the conclusion. If someone is trying to prove that Agnes is older than 40, he or she can't start the proof by assuming that Agnes is 50. Such a proof wouldn't convince anyone, because if "Agnes is older than 40" is in doubt, "Agnes is 50" is in doubt too. An argument begging the question has merely stated that the conclusion being true implies the conclusion is true!
I have noticed that some oversimplified moral reasoning appears to exhibit a fallacy similar to begging the question. If any specific moral decision has two or more alternatives, the "argument" is which alternative is superior to the other(s) (according to some standard of morality). If there are only two alternatives, the "conclusion" is either "alternative X better meets a moral standard" or "alternative Y better meets a moral standard". So begging the question morally consists of arguing for a particular moral choice merely based on the fact that it's "more moral".
A contrived example might make this clearer. If someone is contemplating a relatively trivial act of stealing, the possibilities are steal or not-steal. The conclusion to be argued for is either "this act of stealing better meets a moral standard" or "not carrying out this act of stealing better meets a moral standard". There are many premises or evidence one could use to try to reach one of those two conclusions. But premises like "this act of stealing is bad" won't work as real arguments, because those premises beg the question; the premise is the conclusion.
What makes this act of stealing bad? What parties are involved, and how do those parties relate to each other in a genuine moral standard? If a law enforcement officer of some stripe commandeers something, is that stealing? If a debt collector seizes an item from a debtor, is that stealing?
My reason for bringing this up is not to argue that people who "beg the question morally" are immoral or amoral, but to encourage them to go deeper in their moral considerations. We must demand that our moral standards define what true "Goodness" is, what real "Compassion" looks like, etc. In any given moral argument between people who aren't compulsively wicked or nihilistic, the point of contention is not that one side is in favor of the "good stuff" and therefore the other side is in favor of the "bad stuff". The point is disagreement about the content of the "good stuff". Someone for whom the "good stuff" is either undefined, or defined based on how much it turns or settles one's stomach ("gut"), isn't in a position to argue from, because all he or she can do is beg the question morally. "According to my moral standard, wrongness is defined as any action that upsets me. Action _____ upsets me, so it is self-evidently wrong. In another context, it might not upset me, so in that context it would be self-evidently right or neutral".
Now, I have glossed over an important fact. In any concrete moral decision, more is at work than the processing of a syllogism. Emotions/empathy, creativity, conscience, experience, advice play their parts. For the Christian, the Spirit of God plays its part, too. These non-intellectual parts should not be ignored. Ultimately, after deliberations of any sort, one must choose. The non-intellectual pieces may weigh in on that choice just as the intellectual piece does. All the same, the intellectual piece should at least exist and have something to say beyond begging the question morally.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Too Many Religions
Everybody can admit that the world has many differing belief systems, not to mention the divisions within belief systems (those divisions can be greater in ferocity than divisions between separate belief systems, in fact!). Confronted with all this diversity, how can one conclude that any one belief system is true? If one belief system was really (objectively) true, wouldn't everyone just claim that one instead of disagreeing all the time? Mathematically speaking, if there's an equal chance of any one member of the mass being correct, the probability is quite low that someone happens to bet on the right one! Since the "God exists" camp can't get their act together, doesn't it make more sense to forget 'em and join the "God, who's that?" camp?
Or so the "Too Many Religions" argument goes. Fortunately, the argument is riddled with holes, in the form of flawed assumptions:
Or so the "Too Many Religions" argument goes. Fortunately, the argument is riddled with holes, in the form of flawed assumptions:
- Flaw 1: disagreement means that none of the disagreeing parties can be right. Clearly, this flawed assumption isn't true in the general case, because someone can certainly be both wrong and in disagreement with someone else (who is right). I think the intent of this flaw is to assert that disagreement about an issue means it is subjective, and a subjective issue is a matter of taste or preference, not truth. Since people can disagree about objective issues as well as subjective issues (most of the time perception is a mix of objective and subjective), disagreement is not sufficient evidence of subjectivity.
- Flaw 2: atheism & agnosticism are in a different class from other belief systems. If an atheist believes there is no such thing as the supernatural, that is a definite belief based on supposed (anti-supernatural) evidence. If an agnostic believes that no evidence applies to the existence of the supernatural, that is a definite belief based on a supposed lack of ANY evidence for either side. The meta-belief of "no belief without positive evidence conforming to standards XYZ is truly true" is itself a belief! Compare the agnostic and the pro-supernatural believer to two people in a pitch-black room. The agnostic corresponds to the person who only trusts visual evidence, and the supernatural-supporter corresponds to the person who trusts both visual and tactile evidence. The sight-only person, like the agnostic, experiences no evidence acceptable to him, and uses that lack to believe that he can know nothing about the room's contents. The visual-tactile person, like the supernatural-supporter, also experiences no visual evidence but does experience tactile evidence acceptable to him, and uses that evidence to form beliefs about the room's contents. Each person in the pitch-black room has belief systems about the room's contents. There is nothing special about the belief system of one person compared to the belief system of the other. To put it bluntly, people who seek atheism or agnosticism to "escape" the "messiness" of supernatural belief systems are merely switching to another belief system!
- Flaw 3: all of the belief systems that have supernatural elements have an equal chance of being correct. This flaw is only convincing to people who have already decided that all belief systems with supernatural elements are false or without evidence. Those who have actually studied any of the supernatural belief systems know that some are more plausible than others. Not to be disrespectful, but in some sense belief systems can be evaluated like competing scientific theories. Which belief system has the least internal contradictions? Which belief system explains the most? Which belief system best matches someone's experience? Which belief system is the most fitting answer to the "human condition"? Which belief system has less "excess baggage" tenets, which seem to serve no purpose besides making the big picture more complicated?
- Flaw 4: one true belief system would result in everyone following it. This flaw is self-defeating, strictly speaking. Each person who believes that his own beliefs are true, and not elaborate fantasies, can't help acknowledging that others disagree with him or her, which means the statement "everyone would follow the true belief system" has to be false. The very diversity of belief systems leads to either flaw 4 being true or the statement "my belief system is true" being true. I think the intent of this flaw is to argue by contrapositive: if "God exists" implies "everyone believes the same thing about God", then the reality of everyone not believing the same thing about God implies that God must not exist. This is actually laughable, the idea that God's existence would somehow trump the ability of people to choose their beliefs. Have you met someone stubborn, someone who will not "see reason" or not "see what's right in front of his face"? I have too. Christianity not only has the doctrine that God exists (a central piece, indeed!), but the doctrine that Fallen Man tends to disregard God's existence. Rebellion is not only possible, but expected.
- Flaw 5: people follow particular belief systems (just) because of upbringing. The simple retort is that converts happen. On an emotional level, mature believers who were taught their belief system as children would rightly find it insulting to be accused of being mindless automatons or pawns. "You don't share my belief system, therefore you're a mere product of your upbringing" is presumptuous. It's also not factual, considering that some people freely leave their childhood belief systems after reaching an independent age. Some of them take it a step further by veering off to the opposite extreme, in the attempt to prove their freedom through rebellion. Yes, in any specific example there are probably identifiable factors at work that "conspire" to convert someone to a new belief system or confirm him or her in the current one, but the decision still lies with the individual, not with the individual's circumstances.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Fashion and Popularity
Like anything in society, beliefs are colored by fashion and popularity. As fashions come and go, Christianity's popularity rises and falls. In one time and place, Christianity was a major pillar of society. In another, Christianity was a fringe element, maybe persecuted. In a third, Christianity was merely one of the belief systems in the group. In the time and place where I am, and on the web sites I frequent, I personally have noticed an increasing level of anti-Christian sentiment (according to the blog charter that is the reason this blog exists).
In my opinion, one of the factors in anti-Christian sentiment is the penalty of (past, if not present) success: whenever anything becomes well-known, it becomes a prominent target. And the perceived strength of a target makes it all the more fashionable to denigrate, because beating up on the "little guy" is universally regarded as cowardly and sadistic. Longevity is also a potential black mark, because more time in existence implies a greater chance of some scandal appearing at some time (US presidential candidates have potentially more to fear from their past than someone running for junior-high class president). In other words, the surprising thing would be if people never attacked Christianity in the same way they attack Wal-Mart, Microsoft, PayPal, eBay, etc. My point is not whether the attacks are justified, but that the attacks are expected. If you want to mock a god or religion in the US, the simple fact is that the most fashionable mark is Christianity.
Another clear factor in the modern use of fashions and popularity is impressive communication and information capabilities. Communication and information are electrified, communicated to masses all at once, and through the network neutrality of the Internet, even the most insignificant of individuals can be heard. This is a marvelous time. However, the sheer quantity of the information, as well as its audio-visual nature, results in an environment both with an astoundingly short attention span and impatience with any information's actual context. In short, it's easier than ever to be a muckraker for any entity. It's easier to find the incriminating sound bite or factoid, easier to show it to large numbers of people, and easier to present it out of context for maximum effect. And, once it's out in the information echo chamber, it can take on a life of its own.
As others have observed, the modern wealth of communication and information choices means not only that one group can more easily demonize another group, but that one group can completely ignore what other groups are saying. So the "Us and Them" mentality of idealogical isolation is always reinforced, never challenged. Aggressive atheists can continue indefinitely to tell each other that Christians are superstitious morons with anachronistic moral ideals, while aggressive Christians can continue indefinitely to tell each other that atheists are amoral infidels who think unstoppable science has anointed men as gods. Blech, the thought of that unending divide makes me sick.
No wonder that people can be so jaded, no wonder that they find it naive to hope for the best about anything. In fact, some web sites I've seen appear to treat jadedness as a lifestyle. "Someone yell out a subject, any subject, and I'll make a sardonic joke about it". Comic strips, TV shows, movies, politics (naturally), no matter the content, it will be cut down to size. In some sense, this flippant attitude isn't anything new; acting as if you see through everything and everyone is perpetually fashionable because no one wants to take the chance of being thought a fool. It may be fashionable, but it's an awful, nihilistic lifestyle. If all one does is destroy, through sick humor, any ideal he or she sees, then that person has every right to be depressed. Or, perhaps, one could respond to the emptiness of his/her crusade against everything by giving up all soulful pursuits and seeking cheap, selfish pleasure like an ignoble animal.
I like to think most people are not that far gone, however. My impression of the emergent attitude of my society, its zeitgeist, is something different. I feel that it has morality and conscience, some of it inherited from past times. The prevailing morality consists of a few simplistic, unreflective sentiments. Love without personal sacrifice or commitment. Individual freedom that only excludes actions which might lower someone's comfort level - such as having the gall to say someone is wrong. Contempt for the snobby intellectual elite, but a contradictory trust in (applied, not pure) scientific pursuits. Enjoyment of technology and progress, but also a fascination with exotic solutions of the past. Snide rejection of organized religious doctrine but also a fascination with nonreligious supernatural elements like ghosts and monsters.
Christianity's completeness means that some parts of it are fashionable, and some can't be. I suspect some "Christians" just believe the fashionable parts, and ignore the unfashionable. Fashionable "Christianity" therefore has forgiveness without sin, heaven without hell, self-centered church attendance without strings attached, implicit disdain for tradition in the name of progress, theological knowledge overlooked in favor of "applicable" truths. At one time some church officials sold "indulgences" to motivate people to give - the indulgences meant that givers couldn't complain about not receiving their money's worth. I wonder if that practice is so different from each time in the modern day that Christianity is watered-down to be more popular. It must remain relevant, but not at the cost of becoming what it isn't. Like any major religion, Christianity isn't homogeneous now or ever - it has had its own internal fashions, and those fashions may originate from the pressure of fashions in society at large. Each encounter between Christianity and society is a potential forking point between the Christians who are compromisers and the Christians who are devotees.
To the devotee, even more to the martyr, popularity hardly matters, because it is fleeting. Someone whose beliefs are tied up in popularity is someone whose beliefs shift when the wind changes. Surely, beliefs should change over time, but as more learning and experience inform the believer, not as fashions sweep away whatever bits are unpopular. Critical thinking is for examining new ideas, throwing out the bad, and keeping the good. Critical thinkers don't accept an idea out of repetition or novelty, but they also don't reflexively reject new ideas. Someone's beliefs should be a continually-polished anchor to him or her in a tumultuous, fallen world.
In my opinion, one of the factors in anti-Christian sentiment is the penalty of (past, if not present) success: whenever anything becomes well-known, it becomes a prominent target. And the perceived strength of a target makes it all the more fashionable to denigrate, because beating up on the "little guy" is universally regarded as cowardly and sadistic. Longevity is also a potential black mark, because more time in existence implies a greater chance of some scandal appearing at some time (US presidential candidates have potentially more to fear from their past than someone running for junior-high class president). In other words, the surprising thing would be if people never attacked Christianity in the same way they attack Wal-Mart, Microsoft, PayPal, eBay, etc. My point is not whether the attacks are justified, but that the attacks are expected. If you want to mock a god or religion in the US, the simple fact is that the most fashionable mark is Christianity.
Another clear factor in the modern use of fashions and popularity is impressive communication and information capabilities. Communication and information are electrified, communicated to masses all at once, and through the network neutrality of the Internet, even the most insignificant of individuals can be heard. This is a marvelous time. However, the sheer quantity of the information, as well as its audio-visual nature, results in an environment both with an astoundingly short attention span and impatience with any information's actual context. In short, it's easier than ever to be a muckraker for any entity. It's easier to find the incriminating sound bite or factoid, easier to show it to large numbers of people, and easier to present it out of context for maximum effect. And, once it's out in the information echo chamber, it can take on a life of its own.
As others have observed, the modern wealth of communication and information choices means not only that one group can more easily demonize another group, but that one group can completely ignore what other groups are saying. So the "Us and Them" mentality of idealogical isolation is always reinforced, never challenged. Aggressive atheists can continue indefinitely to tell each other that Christians are superstitious morons with anachronistic moral ideals, while aggressive Christians can continue indefinitely to tell each other that atheists are amoral infidels who think unstoppable science has anointed men as gods. Blech, the thought of that unending divide makes me sick.
No wonder that people can be so jaded, no wonder that they find it naive to hope for the best about anything. In fact, some web sites I've seen appear to treat jadedness as a lifestyle. "Someone yell out a subject, any subject, and I'll make a sardonic joke about it". Comic strips, TV shows, movies, politics (naturally), no matter the content, it will be cut down to size. In some sense, this flippant attitude isn't anything new; acting as if you see through everything and everyone is perpetually fashionable because no one wants to take the chance of being thought a fool. It may be fashionable, but it's an awful, nihilistic lifestyle. If all one does is destroy, through sick humor, any ideal he or she sees, then that person has every right to be depressed. Or, perhaps, one could respond to the emptiness of his/her crusade against everything by giving up all soulful pursuits and seeking cheap, selfish pleasure like an ignoble animal.
I like to think most people are not that far gone, however. My impression of the emergent attitude of my society, its zeitgeist, is something different. I feel that it has morality and conscience, some of it inherited from past times. The prevailing morality consists of a few simplistic, unreflective sentiments. Love without personal sacrifice or commitment. Individual freedom that only excludes actions which might lower someone's comfort level - such as having the gall to say someone is wrong. Contempt for the snobby intellectual elite, but a contradictory trust in (applied, not pure) scientific pursuits. Enjoyment of technology and progress, but also a fascination with exotic solutions of the past. Snide rejection of organized religious doctrine but also a fascination with nonreligious supernatural elements like ghosts and monsters.
Christianity's completeness means that some parts of it are fashionable, and some can't be. I suspect some "Christians" just believe the fashionable parts, and ignore the unfashionable. Fashionable "Christianity" therefore has forgiveness without sin, heaven without hell, self-centered church attendance without strings attached, implicit disdain for tradition in the name of progress, theological knowledge overlooked in favor of "applicable" truths. At one time some church officials sold "indulgences" to motivate people to give - the indulgences meant that givers couldn't complain about not receiving their money's worth. I wonder if that practice is so different from each time in the modern day that Christianity is watered-down to be more popular. It must remain relevant, but not at the cost of becoming what it isn't. Like any major religion, Christianity isn't homogeneous now or ever - it has had its own internal fashions, and those fashions may originate from the pressure of fashions in society at large. Each encounter between Christianity and society is a potential forking point between the Christians who are compromisers and the Christians who are devotees.
To the devotee, even more to the martyr, popularity hardly matters, because it is fleeting. Someone whose beliefs are tied up in popularity is someone whose beliefs shift when the wind changes. Surely, beliefs should change over time, but as more learning and experience inform the believer, not as fashions sweep away whatever bits are unpopular. Critical thinking is for examining new ideas, throwing out the bad, and keeping the good. Critical thinkers don't accept an idea out of repetition or novelty, but they also don't reflexively reject new ideas. Someone's beliefs should be a continually-polished anchor to him or her in a tumultuous, fallen world.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Tolerance
Tolerance is essential for human society to work. Tolerance is the difference between a free, peaceful, functional civilization and a perpetual tribal war. I cannot in good conscience advocate anyone who doesn't believe in tolerance.
However, tolerance may not be a word that people have been using correctly. The informal, practical definition of tolerance is: allowing someone else to be in error, in all cases in which that error does not adversely affect anyone beyond himself/herself. Tolerance is granting other people the freedom to make mistakes by making their own decisions...as long as those decisions aren't wreaking havoc. To state the obvious counterpoint, a good society should be intolerant of certain actions (murder, robbery, for starters).
Tolerance is not believing that conflicting viewpoints are simultaneously true. That doesn't make sense, at least not on a fundamental level. (In a more complex example, two people could conceivably find two different "sub-truths" that seem to form a paradox but are actually "two sides of the whole truth coin" when each of the two is reduced and clarified.) If truth corresponds to reality, which is known in philosophy as the correspondence theory of truth, then truth cannot contradict itself because reality cannot contradict itself. If a temperature measurement is 76, then the temperature measurement cannot also be 66. Going further, the measurement that corresponds to reality is not only the true one but also the one of greater value. A false temperature measurement doesn't aid someone in selecting what clothes to wear to be comfortable.
Therefore, tolerance is not believing that all viewpoints are of equal value, unless someone doesn't value truth above falsehood. Alternatively, someone could get around this consequence by simply pronouncing there to be no truth in whatever the specific domain is - because if there is no truth, no viewpoint can be more true than any other. Unfortunately, that person must then explain why there is no such thing as truth in that domain, as well as how he/she can be so sure there isn't. So there are three self-consistent paths to take when considering conflicting viewpoints/statements in some domain: 1) truth exists in this domain so one viewpoint is, if not true, more true and valuable than the rest; 2) truth may or may not exist in this domain but truth has no value, so all viewpoints are equally valuable (that is, equally worthless or inconsequential); 3) truth does not exist in this domain, so the truthfulness of a viewpoint is an invalid question. Path 1 would result in a statement like "I believe in Hell, you don't, but only one of us can be right because Hell either exists or it doesn't". Path 2 would result in a statement like "We have conflicting beliefs about Hell, but it doesn't matter which of us is right, so our beliefs are of equal value". Path 3 would result in a statement like "Hell's existence is a meaningless question, so any beliefs about it cannot even be evaluated and thereby compared". Path 2 doesn't make much sense. The truth of one's viewpoint does matter, or else one wouldn't hold to that viewpoint at all. Path 3 doesn't make much sense. Real is real, and truth is truth - what's mysterious about that? Path 1, in which not all viewpoints have the same value, does make sense.
Here is where actual tolerance comes in. Just because someone's viewpoint is not as good as yours, that doesn't mean that he/she is not as good as you. The value of viewpoints is unequal. The value of people is equal, no matter what their viewpoints are. In other words, someone else can (and will, and does) unleash fury against my viewpoint, but not against me.
One way of accomplishing tolerance would be for everyone to never broach any subject that people disagree about, right? A while back, I was part of a conversation in which a stridently-opinionated person was trying to make it abundantly clear that my stance on a (actually, quite trivial) topic was ridiculous/laughable/unsophisticated. However, this same person had on more than one occasion insisted that "nobody should ever judge". Do you see the disconnect? "Nobody should ever judge" really meant "nobody should ever judge, except me, when I feel like it, when discussing things I choose to talk about". I tell this story to illustrate the fact that refusing to say anything divisive is an impossible mission, so we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Moreover, I think it's self-evident that there are things that should be peacefully discussed regardless of who becomes uncomfortable. Tolerance is not a code of silence to pretend that we don't differ, or that the differences make no difference.
For anyone, and for Christians in particular, respectful communication must go beyond whatever is compulsory. There's too much at stake, and people care too much about others and about the truth to clam up about things that have definite consequences. To take a well-known example, there are a variety of sexual mores believed by a variety of groups. Most are not absolutely destructive, so people tolerate others with differing mores. Yet sexual promiscuity undoubtedly has and can possibly have undesirable consequences - even those who include this in their mores must admit that it cheapens sex, affects the stability of relationships, and runs the risks (though greatly reduced through shrewd prudence) of unwanted pregnancies & diseases. From the Christian's point of view, the irresponsible and unloving choice would be to not try to convince people against this practice. Or, turn it around, if you like, the logic is the same. From the point of view of a (in his/her words) sexually-liberated person, the irresponsible and unloving choice would be to not try to convince Christians that they are missing out on and causing unneeded stress about the wonderful experience of sex. Tolerance is not me telling you that everything you do is all right; tolerance is me letting you make your own choices, but nevertheless telling you the truth as I understand it.
However, tolerance may not be a word that people have been using correctly. The informal, practical definition of tolerance is: allowing someone else to be in error, in all cases in which that error does not adversely affect anyone beyond himself/herself. Tolerance is granting other people the freedom to make mistakes by making their own decisions...as long as those decisions aren't wreaking havoc. To state the obvious counterpoint, a good society should be intolerant of certain actions (murder, robbery, for starters).
Tolerance is not believing that conflicting viewpoints are simultaneously true. That doesn't make sense, at least not on a fundamental level. (In a more complex example, two people could conceivably find two different "sub-truths" that seem to form a paradox but are actually "two sides of the whole truth coin" when each of the two is reduced and clarified.) If truth corresponds to reality, which is known in philosophy as the correspondence theory of truth, then truth cannot contradict itself because reality cannot contradict itself. If a temperature measurement is 76, then the temperature measurement cannot also be 66. Going further, the measurement that corresponds to reality is not only the true one but also the one of greater value. A false temperature measurement doesn't aid someone in selecting what clothes to wear to be comfortable.
Therefore, tolerance is not believing that all viewpoints are of equal value, unless someone doesn't value truth above falsehood. Alternatively, someone could get around this consequence by simply pronouncing there to be no truth in whatever the specific domain is - because if there is no truth, no viewpoint can be more true than any other. Unfortunately, that person must then explain why there is no such thing as truth in that domain, as well as how he/she can be so sure there isn't. So there are three self-consistent paths to take when considering conflicting viewpoints/statements in some domain: 1) truth exists in this domain so one viewpoint is, if not true, more true and valuable than the rest; 2) truth may or may not exist in this domain but truth has no value, so all viewpoints are equally valuable (that is, equally worthless or inconsequential); 3) truth does not exist in this domain, so the truthfulness of a viewpoint is an invalid question. Path 1 would result in a statement like "I believe in Hell, you don't, but only one of us can be right because Hell either exists or it doesn't". Path 2 would result in a statement like "We have conflicting beliefs about Hell, but it doesn't matter which of us is right, so our beliefs are of equal value". Path 3 would result in a statement like "Hell's existence is a meaningless question, so any beliefs about it cannot even be evaluated and thereby compared". Path 2 doesn't make much sense. The truth of one's viewpoint does matter, or else one wouldn't hold to that viewpoint at all. Path 3 doesn't make much sense. Real is real, and truth is truth - what's mysterious about that? Path 1, in which not all viewpoints have the same value, does make sense.
Here is where actual tolerance comes in. Just because someone's viewpoint is not as good as yours, that doesn't mean that he/she is not as good as you. The value of viewpoints is unequal. The value of people is equal, no matter what their viewpoints are. In other words, someone else can (and will, and does) unleash fury against my viewpoint, but not against me.
One way of accomplishing tolerance would be for everyone to never broach any subject that people disagree about, right? A while back, I was part of a conversation in which a stridently-opinionated person was trying to make it abundantly clear that my stance on a (actually, quite trivial) topic was ridiculous/laughable/unsophisticated. However, this same person had on more than one occasion insisted that "nobody should ever judge". Do you see the disconnect? "Nobody should ever judge" really meant "nobody should ever judge, except me, when I feel like it, when discussing things I choose to talk about". I tell this story to illustrate the fact that refusing to say anything divisive is an impossible mission, so we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Moreover, I think it's self-evident that there are things that should be peacefully discussed regardless of who becomes uncomfortable. Tolerance is not a code of silence to pretend that we don't differ, or that the differences make no difference.
For anyone, and for Christians in particular, respectful communication must go beyond whatever is compulsory. There's too much at stake, and people care too much about others and about the truth to clam up about things that have definite consequences. To take a well-known example, there are a variety of sexual mores believed by a variety of groups. Most are not absolutely destructive, so people tolerate others with differing mores. Yet sexual promiscuity undoubtedly has and can possibly have undesirable consequences - even those who include this in their mores must admit that it cheapens sex, affects the stability of relationships, and runs the risks (though greatly reduced through shrewd prudence) of unwanted pregnancies & diseases. From the Christian's point of view, the irresponsible and unloving choice would be to not try to convince people against this practice. Or, turn it around, if you like, the logic is the same. From the point of view of a (in his/her words) sexually-liberated person, the irresponsible and unloving choice would be to not try to convince Christians that they are missing out on and causing unneeded stress about the wonderful experience of sex. Tolerance is not me telling you that everything you do is all right; tolerance is me letting you make your own choices, but nevertheless telling you the truth as I understand it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)