@Earth Sheep, etc. re the "Good Samaritan" parable. IMHO, the parable is about who should be considered a "good neighbor". Do you judge people by who or what they are, or by what they do? What really matters? The comparison isn't between the Samaritan and who that person helped. It was between the Samaritan and the others who didn't help. You must love those who are generous to you, no matter who they are.
"...You can't just say, "You're a moron for believing this, so you're not a logical human being just like me."
This is the position of values pluralism
- where we tolerate, live and work with anyone who practices tolerance toward others, irregardless of their stated belief system.
@Fighteer: "...The only things, to me, that distinguish the validity of one belief over another, are (a) their applicability to real life; (b) their ability to be falsified."
Actually, I have trouble accepting that at face value. Do you "believe in" Justice, Beauty, Free Will, or Time? None of those things can even be coherently defined
, let alone tested.
"If someone believes (meta-belief) that the Bible is an adequate source for validating a belief, and another person believes that all beliefs must be falsifiable against real world evidence, then they differ in a way that renders real communication extremely difficult."
There are other options besides just those two.
@USAF: "I'm simply saying that "respect" in this context doesn't necessarily clearly convey whatever you mean by it."
That's why I used the term "tolerate" instead.
"Morality isn't the same as validity, however, and an idea can be equally moral (that is to say, theoretically lacking in objective moral value, as we don't have an objective standard of morality) without being equally valid to another."
you're saying the same thing as Earth Sheep, the position I called "values pluralism".
edited 11th Dec '11 1:40:01 PM by DeMarquis
I do not compromise—I synthesize.