shafique wrote:RobbyG wrote:
From what I read from above, it is clear you question whether or not God exists. Following your further reply I can clearly derive an Agnostic belief. Refute me if I'm wrong.
Note quite - I just have a personal view that any belief should be logical, and that in the absence of positive proof either way, I would indeed be an agnostic. However, I'm not and do believe in a Creator - an intelligent being that is outside of the realms of our Physical Universe. (In short, I'm a Muslim who believes - that for me - that all beliefs should be questioned and accepted only if they meet the test of logic)
A critical believer,...the world could definitely use a few more like you mate.
RobbyG wrote:I disagree with Hitchens that religions had the monopoly on evil until relatively recently. I disagree that people's left to their own will self-regulate - there are too many examples of what happens when law and order breaks down and people turn into monsters - Rwanda, for example.
I can't follow your line of thinking in the above. In the case of Rwanda, religion did had a major influence (or historic monopoly). Let me elaborate shortly:
Ok - I have to admit I have not read that the massacres were down to religious differences - my understanding was that it was a tribal and not religious issue between the Hutu and Tutsis.
The Christian missionaries have much to answer for!
However, I still think that religion is one of a number of natural rallying calls that have been used to justify violence against an 'other'. This has been nationality, language etc (all factors within 'nationalism'). Romans wanted to destroy Carthage - Persians fought Byzantines.
I could not agree more with you about religion as a means to justify a cause. Thats one of the reasons I so dearly appreciate e.g. my parents decision for not committing me to their (weakened) religious doctrine, but to let me decide for myself when I grew older. I was born without water on my head
(christianity) and without my genitals cut (islam), and due to my quest for education and general knowledge, I'm happy to consider myself an clearcut atheist believer with nationalistic tendencies.
If due to science there would be a proven God, I would study it and consider accepting that logic and at the same time thank God for letting me keep my genitals intact...besides, we all know now how to clean "ones little puppet" nowadays don't we? Retract the skin and take a shower
Its not like islamic believers are still living in the 7th Century nomad-style desert surroundings, moving from one oasis to another without a daily clean up
Some say that non-religous believers are non-believers, which is obviously not true. I have my own set of moral and ethic values that are part of my core being. Those values are my character. They are me, pur sang! (ps: I'm not pefect either, perfection doesn't exist)
Not one religion or person can take that away from me, or make me do things I could never endorse in my honesty, gathered logic and scientific knowledge.
So far, would you agree with my stance on the absence of 'self regulation' in Rwanda?
I'll have to admit that I thought Rwanda was a pretty clear-cut example of what humans are capable of doing to others without religion egging them on, but to find that Christianity has had a part to play in this latest massacre is a surprise.
I'm still not convinced that left to themselves humans won't regress to a 'Lord of the Flies' scenario before laws are agreed to enforce social good.
I agree, a group of people cannot be roaming around without two basic requirements for a sustainable society. History got all the answers for a prosperous society. It can even be concluded from past experiences like the Roman Empire, what went wrong!
The main problem is, people have to sacrifice their (often wrong) beliefs to do so, and when you lived your life according to such beliefs...would or could you drop it just like that? Of course not, let alone whether your Ego would allow you to do so.
Allow me to give you an insight about the pillars of a prosperous society. The Romans.
For a society to perform its basic function of law and order, you need to have a political structure and a law structure with enforcement (military or police for defense and order).
Please focus on the DEFENSE part, as it is crucial to distinguish a military from offensive acts since offense is closely related to greed (wealth, resources confiscation) and empire/colonisation/nation building. (please feel free to see the historic relation with; Spanish/Dutch/English colonisation (16-18th Century), English hegemony and fall (19th Century), American hegemony and fall (20th Century) and China in the 21st Century, emerging as we speak
So you are right in saying that a 'Lord of flies' doesn't provide a controllable societal structure. You need law and order. The Romans knew this very well in their rise. The Romans knew that cities are to bond people together and create cohesion. Also a city with rights based on law and order will attract people from its rural areas that want to educate or learn a profession and earn a decent living in society. Here you have a gathering of intellect that seek solutions to problems in society as the knowledge grows. This is going on for centuries.
Unfortunately, their greedy status-like ego's were the problem in its decline and fall. You can't force people to do things in the outer regions of an empire. The larger your empire or society, the less influence and responsiveness your military apparatus (or police apparatus) will have.
The problem of political leaderships is the same as we have today. Politics is about elections and constituents aswell as about power. Power and greed are connected.
Nations that know when to stop expanding and focus on societal sustainability, will have a much larger chance for survival instead of the war mongering empires in our world. Its better to keep your defense, instead of roaming around in territories you cannot control in the long run since this requires huge amounts of MONEY.
Besides, its nearly impossible to convince every rural community about your way of living like in Rome (city). Not everybody wants that and a clash of beliefs and traditions are more often the cause of its problems from integration into the empire.
In my view on history and of today, we humans haven't really learned much from history. Today the Americans try to pursuit the same 'utopian empire' as other tried. It will never work. Today we don't have barberians anymore who strike a club in your neck or slice a sword through your spine...but we have modern day terrorists with advanced explosives and public means of transportation to hit society in the core of its existence and prosperity.
To summarize my long (but very shallow explanation) of the basic pillars for a basic society to develop into the a more advanced society, you need: a) Political structure (government) and b) Social Order (law and rights)
Thanks for making me think and re-examine what I believed about Rwanda - I'll have to do a bit more research into the issue of the 'natural state of societies' without religion/social laws. I'm hesitant to point to the various regions of the world which are termed 'lawless' - such as NW Pakistan, Somalia etc and historically places such as Haiti - for I suspect that 'religion' is a feature in those places as well!
Food for thought indeed.
History does have alot of food for thought. There are alot of answers we haven't bundled into a giant comprehensible information package. But with modern day Information Technology, we could be passing this giant knowledge gap as we document it all nowadays. The question then remains...will we actually do something for the better with ancient knowledge of religion and greed?
...I highly doubt the intellectual capacity of our current leadership around the world. Most voting systems are based on money (again power) and emotional low-educated voters that easily appeal to populism etc.
But who knows. Anything can happen. I do believe that humans can do the right thing, if they are allowed to be non-biased towards its choices. Sometimes it takes alot of suffering to finally do the right thing in life. Others never learn and will be erased by Darwinism. The evolution of life.
I've also argued in the past that non-religious wars (fought for territory, nationalism, tribalism) etc have caused more harm than religous wars - but it's one I haven't quantified. The death tolls in the 20th century world wars are what is behind this unsubstantiated theory of mine - and I guess what is behind my objection to the characterisation that religion's bad effects outweigh the good it does.
But, at least we agree on the main point that God is not +needed+ to establish what is right or wrong - men can (and do) set their own laws.
Cheers,
Shafique
I also have difficulties to quantify the amount of deathtoll that wars and/or religion have produced in history. Perhaps that IT (Information Technology) could help us gather the lessons from the past in digital format.
As you know, history had a lot of books and knowledge disappear in the fire of disagreement.
I hope we don't kill eachother because of the lack of education some people in some areas encounter nowadays. The global imbalances (between rich and poor) are one of the reasons people tend to resort to barbarian means of disagreement like war and terrorism. Religion is not always key to that, but history sure has alot of evidence that it does play a significant role, just as the humans in power have a need for greed and more wealth. (see WallStreet)
Equality and Secularity could pose the solution perhaps?
If we get rid of the strong hierarchy in society and develop matrix societies?
Competition at its best right? Just imagine the opportunities we could have.
Perhaps, that is a step too deep and too far ahead in time for this particular topic.