(July 6, 2015 at 11:30 am)Napoléon Wrote:(July 6, 2015 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see how it does. If a person came to or reinforced their belief/disbelief through taking the time to carefully inform themselves, I will admire them for it. :-)
But why would you admire them?
My point is: if you are to admire someone for taking the time to assess their beliefs, then surely that is because they have some semblance of control over them. Why would you respect or admire someone otherwise? If their beliefs were not open to change, if the person did not have some effect or control over how informed they are (which would consequently affect belief), then surely them spending the time to assess their beliefs in the first place would be a futile exercise, not worthy of respect.
If you are to admire someone for scrutinising their own beliefs then it is surely because they are open to having their mind changed, at least to some degree. Surely the act of informing oneself, is the controlling factor you imply doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, but I guess I just don't understand the conflict.
A person coming to their belief, or reinforcing their belief, through thoroughly informing themselves, is someone I admire.
^This is not mutually exclusive to not being able to have control over what you genuinely believe, regardless of how you came to that belief.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
