You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

dymphna comments on Thwarting a Catholic conversion? - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Jay_Schweikert 18 June 2012 04:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (201)
Tags: atheism morality metaethics

Comments (201)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: dymphna 24 June 2012 06:35:35PM 2 points [-]

I often see this in discussions or debates on religion. The only use for it is to bring disagreements onto a plane of relativism and thereby removing any possibility of conclusion. "I believe this, and you believe that, but aren't we so similar in many ways? Let's be tolerant of each other and allow for whatever beliefs we like."

What's wrong with this scenario? I thought that a big part of living in a liberal democracy involves tolerating those who are different from us. Why is a conclusion needed?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 June 2012 06:58:05PM 1 point [-]

Depends on what we mean by "allow for" conflicting beliefs, and it depends on what's at stake.

If we're trying to have lunch, and I believe hamburger tastes better than sausage, and you believe sausage tastes better than hamburger, there's no difficulty. You can order sausage, and I can order hamburger, and we're good.

If we're both trying to disarm a ticking bomb, and you believe cutting the red wire will disarm it and cutting the blue wire will set it off, and I believe cutting the red wire will set it off and the blue wire will disarm it, a different strategy is called for.

So one question becomes, what is disagreement about religious issues like? What does it mean to allow for different beliefs, and what's at stake?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit