Everything, without exception, is relative - one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. Our descriptions of all things must be tempered with the knowledge that they would change depending on the perceptions of different observers. Wrong Speak Publishing is a reader-supported publication.
False premise: everything is NOT relative. Perception may not always be an entirely accurate measure of reality, but objective reality nonetheless exists regardless of the accuracy of our perception of it.
Likewise, "History is so replete with confrontation over religious beliefs because they leave no room for nuance" is an absurdly reductionist and historically illiterate claim. Look at the past century: the World Wars and the greatest genocides in living memory were largely perpetrated by decidedly secular regimes. The removal of ancient religions from society tends to result in the same passions being directed into less suitable vessels, such as politics, almost invariably with disastrous results. Moreover, the confrontation between religions generally has little to do with lacking nuance and everything to do with making mutually exclusive claims. They ARE logically incompatible.
The post then finishes by endorsing a fallacy. The fallacy of the Golden Mean (or fallacy of compromise, or fallacy of moderation) takes the form of assuming that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two competing positions.
Marc Stiegler illustrated the flaw of this view wonderfully in David's Sling:
The Sophisticate: “The world isn’t black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It’s all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else.”
The Zetet: “Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view . . .”
Of course objective reality exists; I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. But it's also true that we all have differing perceptions of that reality, and of how it affects the world around us. A general failure to recognize those different perceptions is a strong catalyst driving much of our social dissent.
The questions about religion can be a tightrope to walk, and defense of religious belief is the most prevalent of any type of reader pushback I receive. My views on faith are well documented - while I don't personally believe in a higher power, I also strongly support those who do. I can't change how I feel, but I can open my mind when dealing with others who feel differently. Not sure I'd call that a "shade of gray", but is there a preferable way to behave? So
I disagree with your view about the quote you call "historically illiterate", as it seems an attempt (all too common today) at turning a statement into an ideology, often to pigeonhole the speaker into a label we can then feel free to disparage or ignore. Your examples of secular conflicts are all true - yet they do not make millennia of religious wars just disappear. I made no claim that all confrontation is based on religion, I simply pointed out an example that religious belief's "mutually exclusive claims" (which is, in fact, a lack of nuance) has often been the driving force behind human conflict.
Maybe I'm an outlier as an agnostic who borders on atheism, but I agree that religious belief is often a societal glue which provides support for countless people. I'm not trying to tear anything down, but I also can't ignore how often humans have created conflict through bastardizing the "will of their God". It happens to this day. And it's not their logical incompatibility (the objective reality) which causes conflict, it's the inability of many adherents to see the perspectives of their incompatible "enemies" (the perceptive reality).
I also don't think compromise is always the answer. Fence-sitting usually gets us nowhere. But I do think that extreme demands leave no room for compromise at all, and eventually damage their own causes as a result. If you feel strongly about something, by all means fight for it. But understand that your opposition has reasons for feeling the way they do, too.
"History is so replete with confrontation over religious beliefs because they leave no room for nuance. “If I thought for myself, this would seem stupid, but who are we to judge what (insert God) wants?” I would add to that with in our current era, we are replete with agnostics and atheists who disparage those who follow a religion. The shutdown of all sorts of places of worship during covid is an example of this arrogance.
I am not a believer, but I strongly support those who are. I am certain that faith is a grounding influence that helps keep our world in check, and I can see that we are losing it as a society. I might be in the minority amongst non-believers, but I don't think that's a good thing. I also understand that I have no more proof that there isn't a higher power than those who believe do that there is. I don't feel it and never have, but frankly I hope I'm wrong.
The problems my example was referencing stem not from personal faith, but from the strict guidelines of organized religions which leave no room for flexibility or the consideration of opposing beliefs. That has, in fact, been a major contributor toward countless conflicts and untold ruined lives. We have to do better.
False premise: everything is NOT relative. Perception may not always be an entirely accurate measure of reality, but objective reality nonetheless exists regardless of the accuracy of our perception of it.
Likewise, "History is so replete with confrontation over religious beliefs because they leave no room for nuance" is an absurdly reductionist and historically illiterate claim. Look at the past century: the World Wars and the greatest genocides in living memory were largely perpetrated by decidedly secular regimes. The removal of ancient religions from society tends to result in the same passions being directed into less suitable vessels, such as politics, almost invariably with disastrous results. Moreover, the confrontation between religions generally has little to do with lacking nuance and everything to do with making mutually exclusive claims. They ARE logically incompatible.
The post then finishes by endorsing a fallacy. The fallacy of the Golden Mean (or fallacy of compromise, or fallacy of moderation) takes the form of assuming that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two competing positions.
Marc Stiegler illustrated the flaw of this view wonderfully in David's Sling:
The Sophisticate: “The world isn’t black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It’s all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else.”
The Zetet: “Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view . . .”
What an awesome response! Let's discuss..
Of course objective reality exists; I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. But it's also true that we all have differing perceptions of that reality, and of how it affects the world around us. A general failure to recognize those different perceptions is a strong catalyst driving much of our social dissent.
The questions about religion can be a tightrope to walk, and defense of religious belief is the most prevalent of any type of reader pushback I receive. My views on faith are well documented - while I don't personally believe in a higher power, I also strongly support those who do. I can't change how I feel, but I can open my mind when dealing with others who feel differently. Not sure I'd call that a "shade of gray", but is there a preferable way to behave? So
I disagree with your view about the quote you call "historically illiterate", as it seems an attempt (all too common today) at turning a statement into an ideology, often to pigeonhole the speaker into a label we can then feel free to disparage or ignore. Your examples of secular conflicts are all true - yet they do not make millennia of religious wars just disappear. I made no claim that all confrontation is based on religion, I simply pointed out an example that religious belief's "mutually exclusive claims" (which is, in fact, a lack of nuance) has often been the driving force behind human conflict.
Maybe I'm an outlier as an agnostic who borders on atheism, but I agree that religious belief is often a societal glue which provides support for countless people. I'm not trying to tear anything down, but I also can't ignore how often humans have created conflict through bastardizing the "will of their God". It happens to this day. And it's not their logical incompatibility (the objective reality) which causes conflict, it's the inability of many adherents to see the perspectives of their incompatible "enemies" (the perceptive reality).
I also don't think compromise is always the answer. Fence-sitting usually gets us nowhere. But I do think that extreme demands leave no room for compromise at all, and eventually damage their own causes as a result. If you feel strongly about something, by all means fight for it. But understand that your opposition has reasons for feeling the way they do, too.
Thanks for the response, Steven. ZL
"History is so replete with confrontation over religious beliefs because they leave no room for nuance. “If I thought for myself, this would seem stupid, but who are we to judge what (insert God) wants?” I would add to that with in our current era, we are replete with agnostics and atheists who disparage those who follow a religion. The shutdown of all sorts of places of worship during covid is an example of this arrogance.
That is true (though I am not one of them).
I am not a believer, but I strongly support those who are. I am certain that faith is a grounding influence that helps keep our world in check, and I can see that we are losing it as a society. I might be in the minority amongst non-believers, but I don't think that's a good thing. I also understand that I have no more proof that there isn't a higher power than those who believe do that there is. I don't feel it and never have, but frankly I hope I'm wrong.
The problems my example was referencing stem not from personal faith, but from the strict guidelines of organized religions which leave no room for flexibility or the consideration of opposing beliefs. That has, in fact, been a major contributor toward countless conflicts and untold ruined lives. We have to do better.
Thanks for responding, BB. ZL