What Conviction?
It is often said that we cannot impose our convictions on other people. In respect for human dignity, we must permit each human person to make for himself the choices he desires for his life. How true.
But the problem does not just end here. The very notion of “conviction” itself poses a yet deeper problem, for each individual defines “conviction” differently.
For some, conviction is a rational acceptance of what makes sense, of what is right or wrong, of what is desirable. For others, conviction is about how certain decisions make them feel about themselves, their lives and about the world.
So yes, one’s convictions should not be imposed on others. But what is a "conviction"? And what's in it?
Comments (2)
i think the church generally understands convictions to be some kind of "personal certainty" (another word for faith?) in God, and so on.
maybe this pushes the question to: on what basis do we 'ground' the certainty? e.g.
a) there's certainty based on 'logic' (1+1 MUST be 2, right? right?!)
b) there's certainty based on feeling or an 'impact' on feeling (as per yr post)
c) there's certainty based on relationship or 'psychological certainty' (e.g. how do I know my wife loves me? etc.)
Posted by Alwyn | October 2, 2007 10:15 PM
in my decidedly simplistic understanding of the word, a conviction is a non-negotiable. there are beliefs and then there are beliefs that are convictions... beliefs so strong that they cannot be shaken or changed.
Posted by dean | October 6, 2007 4:23 AM