That seems to be the one point where the two of us diverge in philosophical matters.

I don't see how anyone can say that it is a "belief" to acknowledge that Earth exists or that human beings have no choice but to effect choices. A person can assert beliefs to deny this or that aspect of material reality, such as denying that Earth is billions of years old based on theological beliefs or that human beings are changing the climate of the planet based on ideological beliefs, but that does not make observations of material existence into beliefs.

The inexplicability of the process of adopting this or that belief makes beliefs clearly extra-rational as a form of knowledge--which they most certainly are: sufficiently validated information. Beliefs get their validity as knowledge from being accepted; rationalistic knowledge gets its validity from consistency with observations within material existence.

Any approach that could could convince people to accept mutual respect as the ethic of justice is fine by me. At some point, to stop the madness that is overtaking society all people who know that to be the ethic of justice--however they know it--have to stop analyzing and start advocating for that advance in the understanding of justice.