If you’d like a non-religious example of a divide where each side’s common sense sounds like lunacy to the opposing side, try Scott Alexander’s Survive vs Thrive model of political divides. (In brief: do you think the world is pretty stable, and we’re figuring out how to best share this lasting prosperity, or do you think the world is teetering on the edge of near collapse, and unless we’re very careful, everything will crumble).

Survive vs Thrive has become one of the background assumptions I automatically ask about when I’m in a dispute with someone I already know and respect. It’s turned out to be lurking behind a lot of the disagreements I’d find most repulsive or hard to debate — my interlocutor is usually much farther toward the “Survive” end of the spectrum than I am, and is ready and willing to do last ditch things.  (When I turn out to be the closer-to-Survive one, the Thrive person tends to feel to me like a Jenga player who hasn’t heard of gravity).

Source: Christian Ethics: If you understand, I’m explaining wrong…

For the record, I stand by my contention that the character of Elihu in the book of Job is a proto-Calvinist. His monologue (chapters 34-37) blasts Job for daring to declare himself innocent and righteous, arguing that Job, like everyone, has earned suffering, punishment and the wrath of a holy God. His argument reads like something straight out of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” or John Piper’s Twitter feed. And Job doesn’t offer any rebuttal to that. Instead, the next line of the play comes directly from God: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” OK, then.

Source: 48