> Your point only makes sense if there is a divine set of rules that makes some things right and others wrong. There's a difference between absolutism (which I

> Your point only makes sense if there is a divine set of rules that makes some things right and others wrong. There's a difference between absolutism (which I am arguing against, btw, and my argument against conviction is consistent with my position against absolutism) and abject relativism, where the value of a thing is equivalent to its acceptance. How about the empirical demonstration of the goodness/badness of a thing? (amount of overall harm caused, assuming harm is considered bad, etc). > A cause is as strong as people who understand it This is essentially my objection. This is relativism. If you were right here, then all the religious zealots in the world believing in creationism would render that position valid, and the strength of their conviction would be in some sense an asset to that position. My point is that all of that is nonsense. A thing is wrong/false/stupid independently of its believers' numbers, or their zeal or conviction. You don't need to appeal to some divinity to make that point, you can appeal to common empirical demonstrability (aka science). It is more complicated when dealing with "purely" ethical matters, but only more complicated - it is our choice whether we reduce issues to "pure" ethics or not, and I suggest that we should not. > I don't believe there is such a thing. Neither do I. I just reject the "feel-good" position that peoples' convictions are all meaningful and valid, and that we have to respect things that people believe strongly in. To me that is nonsense. Plenty of things are simply wrong, stupid and contemptible. You can be kind to people holding those positions without forcing yourself to believe that there is some worth in their ideas simply because they feel strongly about them.