We agree that no one has the Truth and people are free to believe what they want.
This seems like a bad idea at multiple levels. If Jack Chick or some other extremist is correct, he better spend the time convincing us, and it would be irresponsible not to. Moreover, if some moderate religion is correct, then I’d still like them to try and convince me because I’d rather have correct knowledge. Believing in something and deliberately not discussing or debating it might be a useful taboo for civil societies to function, but it may not be so great for people actually trying to understand.
I modified my comment slightly to not refer to Truth. But I do think it is unreasonable to expect that people will agree on many values, e.g. whether art, psychotherapy, the worship of some particular concept of God, maximizing lifespan, hedonism, making money etc. are how best to live one’s life. Discussion and debate are fine (but not required). But if an opponent doesn’t convince me that premarital sex is wrong (for instance), he or she may not harass or coerce me.
When deciding how to allocate your time in life, one choice to make is what arguments to listen to and what not. You have to make a judgment on very little information. The older you get, the more you are likely to judge that a new argument isn’t of a kind to convince you (though it’s still a probabilistic judgment). Fortunately, others whose opinions you respect may listen, and if it’s really good they’ll alert you.
expect that people will agree on many values, e.g. whether art, psychotherapy, the worship of some particular concept of God, maximizing lifespan, hedonism, making money etc. are how best to live one’s life.
But one of these isn’t just a value question but a factual question about the real world. For example even if one is a utilitarian, if there’s a classical vengeful deity, then knowing so is important. It isn’t a good idea to confuse questions of values with questions about the nature of the universe.
This seems like a bad idea at multiple levels. If Jack Chick or some other extremist is correct, he better spend the time convincing us, and it would be irresponsible not to. Moreover, if some moderate religion is correct, then I’d still like them to try and convince me because I’d rather have correct knowledge. Believing in something and deliberately not discussing or debating it might be a useful taboo for civil societies to function, but it may not be so great for people actually trying to understand.
I modified my comment slightly to not refer to Truth. But I do think it is unreasonable to expect that people will agree on many values, e.g. whether art, psychotherapy, the worship of some particular concept of God, maximizing lifespan, hedonism, making money etc. are how best to live one’s life. Discussion and debate are fine (but not required). But if an opponent doesn’t convince me that premarital sex is wrong (for instance), he or she may not harass or coerce me.
When deciding how to allocate your time in life, one choice to make is what arguments to listen to and what not. You have to make a judgment on very little information. The older you get, the more you are likely to judge that a new argument isn’t of a kind to convince you (though it’s still a probabilistic judgment). Fortunately, others whose opinions you respect may listen, and if it’s really good they’ll alert you.
But one of these isn’t just a value question but a factual question about the real world. For example even if one is a utilitarian, if there’s a classical vengeful deity, then knowing so is important. It isn’t a good idea to confuse questions of values with questions about the nature of the universe.