A popular sticker spells out the word "coexist" in symbols for major religions and worldviews, including secularism. Do you think peaceful coexistence between all worldviews is a goal worth striving for?
No. Its never going to happen. Religious based conflict has existed forever, and theres nothing that is going to stop it.
You can kill a person. You can kill a whole group of people. But you can't kill an ideology
The only way to peacefully coexist, in my opinion, is through separation. These world-views cannot coexist within the same society unless the minority groups are very small.
Worth striving for, sure. But to express it the way that bumper sticker does is to imply that all religions are equally true and valid, and that serving any of their "gods" is equivalent to serving God. That premise is one I wholeheartedly reject. I can endorse the goal, but wish the artist would have conveyed the message using different symbolism.
No. You can sing John Lennon’s “Imagine“ until you’re blue in the face, but if you unite all the world‘s religions and philosophies, you will dilute them all beyond recognition and effectiveness. Diversity can be a good thing, because at least it respects the freedom of each religion to be wholly, uniquely itself. One of the worst things to happen to the Protestant church in the last half-century was COCU, the Consultation On Church Union. It produced such abominations as the “inclusive language“ movement, which altered hymns and Scriptures to meet PC requirements. Sometimes the best-laid plans...
I don’t think you know what the word “coexist” means. Coexist means there can be this diversity you’re worried about leaving, they just don’t kill each other over the differences.
I did, Praet; I’m just looking to its logical conclusion. “Tolerance” is now a code word for endorsement. And Christianity and secularism can NEVER coëxist.
Someone once told me it’s just a function of economics, scarcity in particular. But I don’t even think that’s true. I think you could magically (and it’d have to be magic) make everyone wealthy and want for nothing, and there would still be wars
Absolutely. I hear this argument (and this is its most simplistic form) when making children equal by giving them uniforms but the caste system still evolves. People find a way to subculture the shut out of themselves.
This is probably controversial, but I think the idea of peace in terms of world view infers that all world views are equal in merit and morality, which I believe is false.
I also think peace in terms of acceptance of all worldview will destroy intellectual diversity and freedom of speech in the way it challenges others.
You really can’t expect to be left to enjoy your own beliefs and worldview (despite them being clearly superior to anyone else's) if you don’t leave them to enjoy their beliefs and worldview (which are clearly superior to anyone else's, including yours). Peaceful coexistence is optimal and easy, until someone decides just believing what they do isn’t enough, and demands someone (anyone) else believe it too, or act as if they do. At which point the peace and incentive to preserve it have ended.
I was thinking about starkly different worldviews.
Damn straight you don't have to tolerate politically or religiously motivated terrorism but why not a view you strongly disagree with?
Let's say you are a decent chess player. Ideally, you want to be world champion but know this goes way past your skills.
So do you give up chess or try to win a regional tournament?
Is my goal only to be a world champ and not to have fun, be a regional champ, etc?
If so, then yes, I should prioritize my time towards things I can achieve.
If not, meaning I also enjoy the game, then I should keep playing but obviously then my goal has changed.
Definitely worth striving for but I have no illusions about its attainability.
Fanaticism, not even tolerating other views (you don't have to embrace them) is imo one of the biggest human faults.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment