Thoughts re: "Battle for God"

[anotheranon]

I've been reading this book for a few days. Very thought provoking, to say the least.

• 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

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

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, 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).

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:

The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled, and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law, and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government and civil authority rests upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion. (...)Islamic law is known as Shari'ah Law, and Shari'ah means the path to follow God's Law... Shari'ah Law can also be used in larger situations than guiding an individual's behavior. It can be used as guide for how an individual acts in society and how one group interacts with another. The Shari'ah Law can be used to settle border disputes between nations or within nations. It can also be used to settle international disputes, conflicts, and wars. This Law does not exclude any knowledge from other sources and is viewed by the Muslim world as a vehicle to solve all problems civil, criminal, and international.

or this quote:

Muslims believe that Islam is a total and a complete way of life. It encompasses all aspect of life. As such, the teachings of Islam do not separate religion from politics. As a matter of fact, state and religion are under the obedience of Allah through the teachings of Islam. Hence, economic and social transactions, as we educational and political systems are also of the teachings of Islam.

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.