As predicted, my last post was read and received in a plethora of ways. This is the reason why I write, the comments and discussion caused. So without further ado, let me finally write a proper reply rather than leaving a dangling conversation hanging in the form of a shoddy comments thread from my side.
It seems that my maxim of "live and let live" left a lot to be desired as it was taken to mean something a little different to what it was supposed to mean but, as the quoted subtitle and URL of this blog point out, everything is subject to interpretation. Allow me to attempt to clarify my position further.
I was accused of being too relativistic, meaning basically everyone has their opinions so you can't judge them and let everyone have them, etc. This isn't exactly what I meant. After a few days of deliberation and a further conversation I had with another friend of mine, I can now finally gather my thoughts.
I dislike the idea of relativism greatly. Especially the kind of relativism rampant within the current "liberal" wave of thinking. I refuse the notion of relativism because it basically leaves no room for actual opinionated discussion, instead it just lends itself to instant and constant disagreement which can never actually be disputed or argued which will, in turn, lead to no reasoned conclusion ever being reached.
I like to think that my position on religion is actually a cynical one rather than a relativistic one. Yes, I am all for everyone having their own beliefs and opinions as long as they don't offend anyone else. However, I am cynical about most opinions. That means that whatever you believe in, I will accept and respect while bearing in mind that it might just be based heavily on bullshit.
On the other hand, rather than claiming that my own views and opinions are the right ones, I know that since I came up with them myself and I am human, most of my own opinions might and probably are heavily based on bullshit too. I am cynical to the point of doubting my own ideas, basically.
My ideas are prone to change, as everyone who knows me well enough can tell you with great confidence. I am uncertain about everything and I am prone to changing the very way I think if an argument to the contrary is good enough. Yes, I'm stubborn, but still, if my arguments are completely destroyed, then I can never say, "Fuck it, I'm right anyway." I will also never, ever, for the love of all that you believe in, resort to "It's just my opinion" because that's when you know that the only thing between you and defeat is stubborn disinclination to accept it.
Hopefully this will clear the relativism argument, which leaves me one more thing to address. In my last post I said that I noticed I wasn't really committed to my belief when I was 15. This does not mean that I took a moral stance at 15 and stuck to it. Far from it! I am still trying to figure out the meaning of life and I am still trying to figure out what is morally right and wrong to this day. What happened when I was 15 was mere realisation that I was full of shit when I said I believed in the Catholic faith because, in reality, I didn't.
If somewhere along the lines I find myself leaning towards a particular faith, I would be inclined to take back my stance against organised religion and become devout to it, it just so happens that, so far, I have never been convinced that religion is not human and flawed. The conclusion being, I'd rather rely on my own human flaws than be expected to believe in things which I think are based on other human flaws.
Feel free to comment and discuss things as per usual, I do genuinely enjoy your reactions.
Good afternoon, the interwebz
reasoning behind most of your argument, is after all, admirable since you clearly state the undeniable quest for 'the better argument' which will, if ever, appear to be appropriate enough to serve as an adequate psychological predilection towards a more reasonable perspective - which may also oscillate to yet another reasonable argument...
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comment about belief systems as a result of human fabrication. I do agree to a certain extent. I do believe certain belief systems are in fact a 'human' product, however I also believe that other superior belief systems, of which no human could ever bring him/herself to even try and contemplate let alone fabricate, do exist. The fact that humans, as humans, are as you clearly point out, subject to their interpretations, most of which are based on 'a posteriori' perspectives, you have to keep in mind the human element of 'appropriation', 'greed', 'corruption', 'cultural hegemony' and several other decadent elements, which create another dimension where 'Divine knowledge' is either genuinely or strategically misconstrued and worse of all, applied ideologically. I adopt the use of the term 'ideologically' strictly under the coercive sense it connotes with regards to impositional behavioural influence.
I am as skeptical as they come, however, similar to your reasoning, I too 'give in' to the 'better argument', the problem is that even the 'better argument' undergoes subjective interpretation...
p.s. good luck with exams and assignments .
Whether or not every single religion is a case of fabrication I have never professed to know. What I have pointed out is that if there was no God, and I have yet to truly believe that there is, the vast majority of humankind would still need some form of belief system in order to give them hope or some sort of purpose. So I agree with you there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, obviously, the better argument must always be under scrutiny. After all, it may turn out that there will forever be a better argument to the last one as, in fact, there tends to be.