(Untitled)

[w1ldc47]

I've been reading Christian Conservative lately.  Amp of Alas, A Blog was interviewed on there recently, and, reading the interview, I was impressed by how reasonable CC's blogger, Michael Gallaugher seemed to be.  So I read through a bunch of the archives and started following the blog.  For the most part I'm still impressed. I guess it just

Comments

[q_pheevr]

I understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much difference there is, in purely practical terms, between absolute certainty and very strong belief (even though there's a huge difference in principle). I don't think anyone would be willing to die for "a 50% belie[f]," but I think I have a few 94% beliefs I'd be willing to lay down my life for. (Of course, it's a lot easier to die for your beliefs if one of your beliefs is that believers go to heaven when they die, which is one of the things that make Gallaugher's "what are you willing to die for" challenge a red herring.) And it's pretty obvious that I'm willing to condone the curtailment of others' rights on the strength of my less-than-certain beliefs; for example, I'm confident enough of the value of government services to condone the collection of taxes, and I think that the reasonable doubt standard is an appropriate one for determining guilt in criminal trials. So I think the response to unwelcome laws or policies is the same regardless of whether their

[w1ldc47]

I dunno. I think there's a huge difference, because my (and your) beliefs are up for discussion. I agree with you that public services are important enough to be worth taxing people for, but if someone were to provide sufficiently convincing arguments to the contrary both you and I would be willing to change our minds and fight for the abolition of taxes. When it comes to fundamentalism, there is no such thing as a "sufficiently convincing argument to the contrary". Ya know?

At the risk of me-too-ism ...

[platypus_herder]

I do appreciate the more-than-usually lucid post on a difficult issue. And I think it's a grand excuse to quote my favourite-so-far (non-fiction, regrettably) book on the subject:

"And Montaigne concludes with one of those golden sentences which deserve to be inscribed over the altar of every church, above the bench of every magistrate, on the walls of every lecture hall, every senate and parliament, every government office and council chamber. 'After all' (write the words in neon, write in letters as tall as a man!) 'after all, it is rating one's conjectures at a very high price to roast a man alive on the strength of them.'"
-- Aldous Huxley, The Devils of Loudun, p133 in the Penguin edition

'Nuff out of me

Re: At the risk of me-too-ism ...

[platypus_herder]

I'm clicking on anonymous because I' don't think I am a Live Journal user, this is Mike from CC. I do appreciate your honesty. So the "uber-arrogant, dangerous horseshit" that I believe isn't any different than "the knowledge that allows someone to strap dynamite to their chest and walk into a school full of kids"? I’m not sure how I got from “love your enemies” to Islamic Totalitarianism, but say those things to a terrorist and they might blow up the closest American, say that to a Christian and they might try to do something really really dangerous: try to have a conversation.

You have nothing to be afraid of. I think you’re a nice girl who is woefully detached from the Christian culture. Please fix the comment problem and chime in to my blog. Christians talk and listen too. We don’t blow children up. As I’ve said before email me the comment and I will paste it in myself.

Re: At the risk of me-too-ism ...

[w1ldc47]

You've misunderstood. I don't think that there's no difference between how your beliefs manifest, and how those of a suicide bomber manifest, and I do feel much safer in a disagreement with you than I would in a disagreement with someone who demonstrated a willingness to kill those who disagree (although I think the motivations behind suicide bombings are considerably more complex than that). What I was saying was that I reject your claim that your certainty in your beliefs is evidence of their rightness, but the same certainty a Muslim might feel (and I'm not comfortable with the conflation of Muslims and suicide bombers, but there you have it) is not evidence of the rightness of *their* beliefs.

Oh, and I resent the social implications of being called a "nice girl". I am not, in fact, a nice girl. I'm an assertive, confident, independent woman. I have been known to be nice, on occasion, but it's not one of my more salient traits. And I'm fine with that.