Thoughts re: "Battle for God"
Jan. 10th, 2003 07:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonI've been reading this book for a few days. Very thought provoking, to say the least.
In other words, I'm enjoying the read :)
I really should keep a list of things that I mean to read but don't have on hand - thus far I've had recommended to me Madeline L'Engle's sequels to "A Wrinkle in Time" and the sequels to "Outlander" (assuming I can ever finish it). I'd also like to read some more on critical thinking sometime this year.
I've promised myself I WILL NOT buy more books (even art books) until I clear off at least 4 of my current stack.
So I'll just have to hit the library :P
- According to the author, the seemingly medieval fundamentalist belief in the "truth"/desire to "prove" the historical veracity of one religion or another using scientific principles (such as biblical archaeology and creation science) is actually very modern - the Enlightenment discounted all spiritual feeling as irrelevant in comparison to reason and facts, and thus compelled the faithful to apply scientific reasoning to religion in a futile attempt to prove themselves right.
IMHO it's a sad thing that some religious people started to require proof of Biblical literal truth as "evidence" for their belief. I've always seen faith as something that someone has or has not, regardless of the historical/empirical facts presented - there are scientists, doctors, and other stoically rational folk who still believe in God, after all. It seems to me that the only real motivation the faithful would have to pursue such futility is in an attempt to convert others. - I consider the urge to present the Bible (or any other mythology) as literal fact as creating a dangerous precedent. Taking mythology seriously opens whole new cans of worms in terms of what can be given as a reason to make a law, or restrict a right. Horrible as it may sound, I'm thinking of Jewish people's "historical right" to the land of Israel - that is an example of law based on what is ultimately a myth, is it not? (Yes, I know the issue of Israel vs. Palestine is a lot more complicated than that because of modern political concerns that have nothing to do with religion. I'm just citing an example).
- I'm also realizing that I'm rather hard on the religious sometimes (though I am still tempted to say that fundamentalists - of any faith - probably deserve most of the hostility thrown at them by myself and others). Though I cannot empathise with the belief in a Deity, I should be more tolerant of the fact that such belief coupled with ritual and/or meditation genuinely fills a space for many people that science and logic simply cannot touch. Even I am subject to the yearning for the pureness of feeling as opposed to logic, I just happen to find it in music and art rather than in worship.
- I am more convinced than ever that religion has no place in law or politics. To impose a subjective set of values and beliefs on even one other person really is an incredible tyranny - faith is and should be an intensely personal experience. If an individual happens to find that a particular organized faith mirrors their personally held beliefs, then, yes, they should join that group and enjoy the community of like-minded people, but they should never impose it on others - politics and law are by necessity rational concerns.
- On a possibly tangential note (as science is not addressed in "Battle for God", or at least, not in the first 4 chapters), it does seem to me that some scientists approach the scientific method almost as a point of faith, instead of a method for trying to discover the facts. I read a lot of weird stuff (UFOs, ghosts, and yes, the ready-for-the-tabloids-named "Bigfoot", etc.) and it seems that most "skeptics" that present their views are really just "debunkers" - they have no interest in the evidence, just in proving that they are right. To be fair, such subjects are looked upon with so much derision by the public at large that the scientifically minded are almost obliged to poo-poo Weird Things, their professional credibilty depends on it. Carl Sagan is the last scientist I can think of who looked at such things objectively; pity there weren't more like him.
In other words, I'm enjoying the read :)
I really should keep a list of things that I mean to read but don't have on hand - thus far I've had recommended to me Madeline L'Engle's sequels to "A Wrinkle in Time" and the sequels to "Outlander" (assuming I can ever finish it). I'd also like to read some more on critical thinking sometime this year.
I've promised myself I WILL NOT buy more books (even art books) until I clear off at least 4 of my current stack.
So I'll just have to hit the library :P
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-10 08:04 pm (UTC)So are you thinking that Jews never did have dominion over any part of the Holy Land? I'm pretty sure that can be definitively proven one way or another, through historical records and archaeological research. Josephus seems pretty definite on the matter, for instance, although I'd be very hesitant to rely on him as a source for anything other than general information.
I am more convinced than ever that religion has no place in law or politics. To impose a subjective set of values and beliefs on even one other person really is an incredible tyranny - faith is and should be an intensely personal experience.
But what if God comes to you and tells you how things ought to be? Telling others that it doesn't matter what God told them, that there are still some things that are just not allowed... well, that's a pretty strong statement there. One might think that some cultures weren't as valid in their beliefs as others, and then where would that lead?
no subject
Date: 2003-01-11 04:21 am (UTC)First, a disclaimer: I am not an expert on middle eastern history or policy. Nor am I anything resembling a Biblical scholar or archaeologist. My observations are those of an interested observer.
Having said this - I think Jewish people do have a history on that parcel of land, but that rights to it cannot be based on a thousands year old myth (or indeed, on thousands year old fact - times change over such a long period). But there ARE people there now who have never known another home - I am not suggesting for a moment that anybody should be kicked out. Personally, I can't see why Israelis and Palestinians couldn't just have just shared the land and resources right off the bat. However, 50+ years of violence and tension is not easily ignored or overcome - I'm not that naive.
But what if God comes to you and tells you how things ought to be? Telling others that it doesn't matter what God told them, that there are still some things that are just not allowed... well, that's a pretty strong statement there. One might think that some cultures weren't as valid in their beliefs as others, and then where would that lead?
Assuming that there was a god or gods, and that he/she/it/they chose to grace me with their wisdom, I might follow it if I found merit in their arguments. I might even become one of those tedious people who constantly try to convert others to my way of thinking (trust me on this - if I think there's something someone should know about I will tell you about it - whether you want me to or not. For the record, I consider this a personal fault). I still do not think I would suggest basing a law or government on such a revelation - the revelation was for ME, not the world and it would be a violation of the personal rights of others to force my highly personal value system on them, either by law or violence.
I'm not saying that the spiritual revelations of others are irrelevant - far from it; if I'm learning anything from Armstrong it is that the spiritual aspect of ourselves has been long ignored and marginalized - just that it has no place as a basis for making decisions in the rational world.
I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this debate!
no subject
Date: 2003-01-11 09:01 pm (UTC)About the whole Israeli/Palestinian issue -- I'd recommend some further reading to give you a sense of the history behind the situation. I personally can recommend by Anton La Guardia as an introductory text. He was the Middle East correspondant for The Telegraph for many years, and has a good perspective on the Middle East.
I personally believe that the people on both sides aren't ready to accept a two-state solution yet, and we're going to have to see a lot more bleeding and dying before they are. I think the Israelis are much closer to ready to accept a Palestinian state than the other way around, and that we're going to have to see a Palestinian civil war before they can come to anything approaching consensus on the subject of learning to live with Israel. That's just my opinion, though.
I still do not think I would suggest basing a law or government on such a revelation - the revelation was for ME, not the world and it would be a violation of the personal rights of others to force my highly personal value system on them, either by law or violence.
I happen to agree with you, but I think it's important for both of us to realize that this is a very Western perspective. In many schools of Islamic thought, for instance, there is no difference between matters of state and matters of religion -- Allah gives instruction on how these matters are to be conducted, and it is a matter of obeying the Will of Allah in all things. This is where you get the concept of "sharia", for instance.
If you tell a Wahhabi Muslim that he isn't allowed to impose sharia on everything he can get away with, he'll call you an Western infidel and ignore you. It's one of the central tenets of his religion, and he's going to do it, precisely because he believes that Allah told him to. It's a grievous sin for him to do otherwise, and that's all there is to it.
I don't like to portray this as a "clash of civilizations", but there are some fundamentally incompatible differences between a Western-style democracy and many flavors of Islam. Many of the differences between, say, the US and Yemen are cultural... but some of them aren't.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-12 06:37 pm (UTC)I also agree that neither Israel or Palestine is ready for one nation either, but I just wish I could find more information re: what the "people in the street" think about all this. I know that there are some Israelis who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12527), but I can't find similar "front line" information from the Palestinian side (and I imagine none of this would be covered in the mainstream press anyway).
If you tell a Wahhabi Muslim that he isn't allowed to impose sharia on everything he can get away with, he'll call you an Western infidel and ignore you. It's one of the central tenets of his religion, and he's going to do it, precisely because he believes that Allah told him to. It's a grievous sin for him to do otherwise, and that's all there is to it.
I'm not sure that that IS all there is to it - Islam offers the people of many middle eastern countries a real opportunity to differentiate themselves from the "infidel west" - I think fundamentalist Islam may come more from a need to "rebel" against western values than any fear of committing a sin against Islam. The way I understand it, mainstream Islam recognizes the value of separating religion and politics, but rather like mainstream Christians, they don't get a lot of press.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-12 09:30 pm (UTC)They're called "collaborators" if they disagree with the guys with guns, and they often wind up getting shot for it. Look around for demographic analyses of Palestinian casualties like this story, which lists 56 Palestinians shot by firing squads or killed by mobs. There are also stories from time to time about parents preventing their children from taking part in suicide bombings. Polls show a significant portion of the Palestinian people opposed to suicide bombings, although nowhere near a majority -- I've seen numbers ranging from 15-35%.
I'm not sure that that IS all there is to it - Islam offers the people of many middle eastern countries a real opportunity to differentiate themselves from the "infidel west" - I think fundamentalist Islam may come more from a need to "rebel" against western values than any fear of committing a sin against Islam. The way I understand it, mainstream Islam recognizes the value of separating religion and politics, but rather like mainstream Christians, they don't get a lot of press.
There was at one time an accommodation between the secular needs of the state and the society, but that doesn't reflect the situation at the time of the Prophet, or what many today view as the ideal society. See, for example this review of L. Carl Brown's "Religion and State: The Muslim Approach to Politics", or these passages from this site discussing politics in Islam: or this quote:
We could come to some sort of workable arrangement if all Muslim states were like Indonesia or Turkey -- states which have Western ideas about separation of the state from religious life. Unfortunately, geographic and economic factors have made Arabs the principal representatives of Islam in dealing with the West in the last several years, and states like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have exerted undue influence over the state of Islam.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-14 11:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-14 05:51 pm (UTC)You do have a point that the modern Islamic practice (at least the fundamentalist version) does not allow for an easy separation of religion and state - and that this kind of thinking is alien to Western thought, at best. I probably should read up on this kind of thing more before I shoot my mouth off, but I am a creature of my place/time and it is VERY difficult for me to see much merit in religion being so closely allied with government. This is perhaps making a value judgement of one culture over another but.. like I said. I should read more.
Re:
Date: 2003-01-14 06:23 pm (UTC)Take your time, and answer when you can -- I'm enjoying the discussion, too!