I wanted to explain a line from an earlier note where I remarked about the simplicity of traditional faith versus nuanced faith. I forwarded my article to my pastor, and the line jumped at him. Furthermore, I must explain this thought briefly because the wording condescends traditional believers.
A true believer exists in a simpler moral paradigm because they value the tribal identity and comfort that comes with that identity.
For context, this piece is about embracing the paradox between the two major human tendencies to regress into the safety of the cave and emerge from the cave as Platonic mythical philosopher-kings towards a Utopian future free of all corruption, and finding a balance between these two endemic tendencies.
Someone more traditional in their model of faith doesn't care what the nuance is- they are happy to accept "on faith" that their beliefs are correct and true. It's simpler on that basis for the true believer.
When asked if a truth claim is true, meaning factually correct or at least symbolically correct, there isn't a moment's hesitation to examine the facts. Rationality is of no consequence, only the symbolic meaning granted by tribal identity.
Someone like myself cares a lot about the veracity of truth claims and cognitive dissonance. A more conservative believer doesn't care. It's just "true" to them.
I've done a lot of thinking and listening to nuanced Brighamite Latter Day Saints (or as they are known to most people, "the Mormons"), and I see the necessity of both profiles.
You kinda need both tendencies in a large body and that's okay that the tension exists because the tension is at the heart of violent untamed forces that hold galaxies, stars, and all matter together.
True believers root the group's identity deep into the soil, but tolerance for nuance allows the faith to sway with the wind to avoid shattering like a Prince Rupert drop from its rigidity.