I've grown to respect fundamentalist religious people far more than their moderate counterparts. Moderates, to me, are merely religious people who lack conviction in their own beliefs or those who refuse to dive too deep into those beliefs for fear of knowing too much, or even worse, actually having an opinion. Moderates serve only to dilute any and all attempts at a real fact finding conversation by making the religion forever liquid. They dissuade you from applying critical thinking to find truth on the topic. They discourage real attempts to find out if the religion is true, and what is even worse, they don't care if it is true or false. I give fundamentalists at least the nod of respect for taking what is written in their holy text and applying it rather than ignoring it. They don't attempt to reinterpret it for their own reasons. If their holy text outright states something, then they admit that it is part of their belief. Even though I think they may hold insane beliefs, I respect their honesty and their desire to declare what they actually believe instead of being in a constant state of moving the goal posts so they don't sound crazy to either side of the argument.
Moderates, in their attempts to quell the argument entirely, seem to have no qualms with destroying logical discussion just so long as people don't clash on their ideas. This is the realm of discussion where you get people stating absurdities like all religions are the same at their core, and science makes the same claims as religion, or that atheism is also a religion. These completely illogical claims and ideas which fall apart at the slightest breath of critical thinking are not meant to find truth, but instead they are tools to disarm any rational discourse between the two camps engaging each other. These ideas need to be hashed out. They need to be discussed over and over until the points are tested, tried and true. Fundamentalists hold true to their values and assert their beliefs outright without fear of ridicule. If this is coupled with a desire to change one's mind in the presence of new and convincing evidence, then this is the way we should progress. Moderates do not share this methodology. They seek only to disarm any discourse where ideas may be forced to change based on this new and convincing evidence. It stifles the very essence of debate and it cripples the progression of society.
In the end, I just don't agree with anyone who says things simply to smooth the edges of a discussion. Those who choose the path of least resistance rather than the path of truth. Those who are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own integrity in order to prevent tension. Ideas are discussed like a game of tug-of-war, with one side's arguments winning out. The tension is necessary in order to drag the idea into the light, discuss it, contemplate it, criticize it, and learn from it. You make no progress when every time two ideas begin to pull on the rope, someone comes along and cuts the rope, sending both parties tumbling back onto the ground. Such is the way I view religious moderates.
Moderates, in their attempts to quell the argument entirely, seem to have no qualms with destroying logical discussion just so long as people don't clash on their ideas. This is the realm of discussion where you get people stating absurdities like all religions are the same at their core, and science makes the same claims as religion, or that atheism is also a religion. These completely illogical claims and ideas which fall apart at the slightest breath of critical thinking are not meant to find truth, but instead they are tools to disarm any rational discourse between the two camps engaging each other. These ideas need to be hashed out. They need to be discussed over and over until the points are tested, tried and true. Fundamentalists hold true to their values and assert their beliefs outright without fear of ridicule. If this is coupled with a desire to change one's mind in the presence of new and convincing evidence, then this is the way we should progress. Moderates do not share this methodology. They seek only to disarm any discourse where ideas may be forced to change based on this new and convincing evidence. It stifles the very essence of debate and it cripples the progression of society.
In the end, I just don't agree with anyone who says things simply to smooth the edges of a discussion. Those who choose the path of least resistance rather than the path of truth. Those who are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own integrity in order to prevent tension. Ideas are discussed like a game of tug-of-war, with one side's arguments winning out. The tension is necessary in order to drag the idea into the light, discuss it, contemplate it, criticize it, and learn from it. You make no progress when every time two ideas begin to pull on the rope, someone comes along and cuts the rope, sending both parties tumbling back onto the ground. Such is the way I view religious moderates.
Comments
Post a Comment