I think that faith, in a way, is built into the human psyche.

Man’s constant search for meaning, man’s desire to transcend his mortal existence, Man’s desire for explanations and his inability to answer all of them etc… All of these factors combined together will tend to make people see meaning and answers where they MAY not actually exist.

read the god gene. it’s quite an interesting read

I thought you’d have a couple more paragraphs about this, but here goes: we have to believe in something, even if we don’t really notice it. And that’s why human life is effing complicated.

alex: built in? maybe it’s a survival mechanism from ancient times.

niko: i didn’t add anymore because this is all i wanted to say. but youre right: we all need to believe in something. however i think there must be a measuring stick somewhere that some beliefs are better than others.

Why do we need such a measuring stick if we can all be happy letting one another believe what they want, while we believe what we want too?

if you believe that loving mothers is good, then another person believes that killing YOUR mother is good, would you be happy letting him or her believe what they want? i don’t think so. the problem with relativism is that what is true for you and what is true for me may conflict in such a way that i cannot possibly let you believe what you want.

Ahhh, the debate of personal enrichment versus the common good. A consensus solves that, but one is always bound to be kicked out of the equation. A sacrifice, perhaps? Unsatisfactory answer, especially if that one person thinks his is the best solution for everybody.

Insert the need for world peace, as often pushed in beauty pageants.

my dear Niko, please find the time to read Ayn Rand. then we talk shop about egoism vs altruism.

We allow people to believe as long as that believe does not compromise order.

If a Muslim believes his god exist, fine. But if that Muslim believes killing people makes his god happy, and he translates that belief into action, then that is when we condemn it.

But as long as the belief of the other do not compromise order, let him delude himself

So, I forgot to add, you are right. There must be a measuring stick. But that measuring stick should not be about whose belief is smarter than the other but rather about which belief do not compromise survival of society.

But well, aren’t we enforcing that measuring stick already?

but isn’t a smart or good belief something that keeps society working as well as possible? of course, in the first place, defining “well” is not easy. thus, we need a measuring stick by which to run the world. it might not exist at all in the first place, or it is yet to be discovered. in the meantime (and maybe for all time?) inter-subjectivity will do.

you almost said that relativism is the best stand to take—and yet, ironically, it is not a stand at all.

Might not be a strong stand, but sure is the most convenient one.