Obviously if someone is living in a jungle and has never seen the outside world, their world view would be very narrowly focused. To someone who lives in the modern world, the world view of these primitive’s would certainly be seen to be invalid.
But if these primitive’s were to remain in the jungle, why would we care? Obviously, if these primitive’s needed to integrate with the modern world some education would be required. But that would be more about adding to their life experience - thus allowing their view of the world to evolve. Its really not about categorically declaring their world view to be invalid.
No, I think that’s the point I was trying to make with the sentences you quoted.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean we can’t challenge hateful and false world views. Similar to the idea that everything a liberal or a conservative believes isn’t false, believing that everyone of a certain race is inherently good or evil is not valid. I don’t see any reason why we can’t challenge those assumptions.
True, but the issue at hand is whether or not one should try to convince others to change their world view. Since god isn’t provable or disprovable, lobbying for one or the other doesn’t make sense.
And no reasonable person thinks all of their opinions are absolutely correct. I look forward to being wrong about things because that allows me to change my position and be more right overall.
But that is a slippery slope I see in abundance in this forum. You are correct that overt bigotry is behavior that should be challenged. But notice the distinction between behavior and a person’s individual world view.
And we must be careful not to make the leap to assume anyone who would support Trump must be a bigot.
For instance, let’s take abortion. There is strong emotion on both sides of this issue. Neither side is right or wrong. They simply have very different opinions formed by their life experiences and unique view of the world.
