An opinion is a belief or judgment, though firmly held, without actual proof of its truth. Opinions have incremental stages of development from postulate to theory, to logical convincing conclusions. Opinions may or may not have populist consensus, expert testimony, or secular or sectarian documentation. Belief or judgment implies the absence of verification or evidential certainty.
The polarity of debate often ends when proponents “agree to disagree.” This is usually a pact between friends in an effort to get along well with each other. Its only value is a temporary cessation of nonproductive dialogue. Ending debate does not lessen polarity, but enables friendship and civility. It gives respect and forgiveness to the intransigence of stubborn inflexibility and unwillingness to compromise. The civility and compassion is validated by each person retaining some basis of sincerity of moral or logical principle.
The agreement to disagree on judgment does not rise to the level of diametric certainty. Belief is predicated on interpretation from sensory evidence or a body of academic knowledge or popular folklore. To differentiate between belief and certainty, I will identify pitfalls in argumentation. Of the three fields of discussion in much of my writing – politics, religion, and philosophy – only philosophy has as its essence the continuity of Socratic uncertainty. Religion, based on faith, is the greatest source of inflexible affirmation. Both religion and politics have some periodic measurements of merit, based not on apocalyptic ideology, but on cyclical tangible value or result.
When we combine adjective and noun combinations we open discussions of philosophical religion or philosophical politics, or in contrast, we have religious philosophy or political philosophy. In either combination, the noun is modified and possibly diminished by the adjective.
There is a subfield of philosophy devoted to the study of religious phenomena. Although religions are typically complex systems of theory and practice, of myth and ritual, philosophers concentrate on some evaluation of truth claims. The major religions –Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—concern the existence, nature, and activities of God. These claims identify God as something like a person, disembodied, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, the creative and sustaining force of the universe, and the proper object of human obedience and worship (Audi, 696).
Strategically, when we combine theology and philosophy, we remove some of the religion from theology. Theology implies either a study of religion which implies continuing inquiry, or it is a system or religion which implies some codified doctrinal conformity. The result is multiple belief systems based on divergent assumptions of divine intent. Religious diversity runs the spectrum from ecumenical inter-faith interaction for a common good, to genocidal acts of sectarian violence.
The combination of religion and politics is the greater source of diametric certainty. Politics is, or should be, secular. Theocracies tend to be oppressive. Political theory forms the basis of government – monarchy, plutocracy, meritocracy, republic, or democracy. We establish a body of civil law including mandate and prohibition to protect individual rights and restrain harmful acts.
Questions arise. Behavior prescribed in systematic religion may or may not be addressed in secular governance. Behavior permitted or mandated within secular law may be inconsistent with religious interpretation. Herein is the preponderance of issues of diametric certainty. Our Constitution prohibits secular establishment of religion and any interference of free exercise of religion. Secular law does not designate behavior as sinful or moral; it designates behavior as legal or illegal.
Our culture is marked by impatience and intolerance. We refuse, and rightfully so, to abandon our principles, but recognize the diametric certainty of principles in conflict. Some religious people tend to consider religious law to be inerrant, literal, inspired, absolute and universal. Some religious people see a more transcendent deity and sacred documents worthy of instruction and edification, with some acceptance of historical context and human authorship or translation. Some see truth as absolute; some see truth as the compilation of components which create the greatest common good. Many find a way to agree to disagree on beliefs and judgments about which they are certain.
____________________________________________
1. Audi, Robert, Editor, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999, 2nd Ed).
Bill Peach's Random Thoughts 