There is actually a term for the kind of argument one makes that something is better to believe. It is a "moral argument". It is a guide to judgement. The precept about proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is based on a moral argument, that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to convict the innocent, within an unavoidable residuum of error. A corollary, when the moral argument is not articulated formally, is to refer to belief as "satisfying one's sense of the fitness of things". That is a fairly neutral formulation, and will suffice as an example.
I'm sorry, I can't relate this paragraph to the post upon which you were commenting. Is this about neediness? A bit too subtle, perhaps.
some people are superstitious, and that might elide into religious belief. If that is all you are saying
Er, I think so.
Thou shalt avoid gratuitous slams, and take some care to treat with respect, or at least some forbearance, what is sacred to others.
Yech! Ain't nothing sacred. I reserve the right to discuss things other people perceive as sacred. I'm prepared to do so in a constructive way, without 'tude, but I recognize nothing as sacred. In return, I expect the religious to recognize that what they consider sacred is their POV only and to lose the sacred chips on their shoulders.
Karen |
