Objectivist in Kuwait


haider

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But Muslims are not a collective, to my mind. Maybe our OP sees it differently.

This won't do. You start with Islam and segue to Muslim.

--Brant

I do not start so. I start by Muslims. Baal et al start by Koranic words.

Jesus said, Donate all your money and leave all your stuff and follow me. Some Xtians do it, after 2000 years, even many, but not most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense Haider, but I agree with BaalChatzaf. Islam has shown its colors of nihilism qua theocracy and as men of reason we have a natural suspicion of those who admit to being islamists converted to the other end of the spectrum. Albeit if you are who you say you are and are genuine in your desire to pursue reason and liberty, then welcome.

Hi, Blackhorse. I'm not entirely sure that approaching me with suspicion is a sign of reason or paranoia. :P

But if I am still an Islamist, then I have nothing to gain from claiming that I'm now an Objectivist. I'll be more than happy to share my reasoning for why I left the Islamist worldview in favor of the Objectivist one. And I certainly don't deny that I still appreciate and value many of Islam's teachings. I think that should be clear from some of my earlier posts.

There are some questions I prefer not to answer, given the fact that I'm living in Kuwait and apostasy laws are alive and well in my country. So I hope you appreciate the care I have to exercise to preserve my life. :)

Heidar, If you're not already I would become familiar with Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Also, check out this group; http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/

Welcome to the land of free minds and free men.

I'm familiar with both women, in that I've watched a few interviews with Wafa and read part of Ayaan's biography (which I couldn't continue because I found it too depressing. I might muster the strength to pick it up once again, but I suspect I'll need the aid of some drugs to do that).

I believe I've read the St. Petersburg Declaration before. Very well written, and I agree with it completely. The only problem I find with it is that it preaches to the choir. It won't get an Islamist to change his point of view on reading it, because it condenses some conclusions the signatories have arrived at. To convince an Islamist of the importance of secular society, you'll have to address their present assumptions about theocracies and human nature and present the reasoning that leads to the conclusions of why secularism is important.

Daunce, Islam IS collectivist, its teachings regardless of which "camp" does not espouse or defend individualism or reason, but rather theocratic collectivism. It is stated all over the Koran, etc.

I humbly disagree. Sharia law is full of clauses that protect individual rights and property rights. But Islam, like any other religion, is open to a wide range of interpretations. Different Muslims will take verses out of context to defend and justify different outlooks. Islam is not a single worldview but a cluster of overlapping worldviews. Some of these worldviews advocate reason and individualism. Perhaps not consistently, but there is enough fertile soil to cultivate further dependence on reason.

I suspect many members of this forum would accept that Thomas Aquinas - a Catholic priest - helped usher in the Enlightenment. Not by "bashing" Catholicism or religion, but introducing Aristotelian logic to the religious fold. I believe this is also possible with Islam and amongst Muslims. I support the principle of "reason before revelation." You don't have to reject religion completely to advocate reason. People don't think in a vacuum and they won't readily give up their current worldview, and not a lot of Muslims are willing to think about their beliefs objectively and starting from scratch.

But the principle of "reason before revelation" means that what cannot be proven through reason cannot be relied upon through revelation. Therefore, anything which cannot be understood in revelation or conflicts with reason must either be rejected or suspended, until we can form a better understanding of the issue. Otherwise we remain within the limits of human understanding rather than claim that God knows better when we really mean that we're ignorant and are willing to believe in anything.

According to Ali Sina, ex-Muslims are the worst enemies of Islam.

Here is one of Ali Sina's websites.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Here is a collection of articles by Ali Sina.

http://www.faithfree...Author/Sina.htm

Ali Sina grew up as a Muslim in Iran. Now he devotes his life to bashing Islam.

Jts, I'm not familiar with Ali Sina and ISPs here in Kuwait have blocked access to the site you linked to. I'll have to use a proxy to access them later. Scumbag censorship.

But Muslims are not a collective, to my mind. Maybe our OP sees it differently.

Muslims are a fragmented collective, and many Muslims do believe in altruism and collectivism. Many denounce life on earth and condemn worldly prosperity (if not to feed the poor and shelter the homeless). But, again, this depends on how Muslims interpret Islam and the Prophetic narrations they accept.

For example, there are several accounts that defend the pursuit of wealth and its enjoyment. I'll mention only three:

1) A wealthy man wanted to walk with Imam Ali (the Prophet's cousin and successor) and decided to wear simple clothing, since Imam Ali used to do so. When Imam Ali saw him he said: "God wishes to see his bounties on his creation." The wealthy man said: "But you wear simple clothing." Imam Ali replied: "I am a leader and must empathize with the poorest of my citizens."

2) A man went to [i believe it was] Imam Al-Sadiq to confess his sin: "I enjoy making money and spending it on my family." The Imam replied: "What makes you think that's a sin? It's an act of worship."

3) A saying by Imam Ali: "Asceticism does not mean that you do not have any possessions, but that you do not have anything possessing you."

I hope this post has helped you accept that Islam is not a monolithic entity and that there's a lot of opportunity to advocate reason and liberty within Muslim societies.

Haider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heidar, which muslim worldviews advocate reason and individualism? Where are the muslim societies where these virtues are extolled without fear for ones life? I would like to know where these places may exist. We both know the answer though; they do not exist. A religious collectivist belief is one where the individual must submit his life, liberty, and judgment, to either a diety, a religious body, or both. Islam fits that description perfectly. I hear a lot of talk of tolerant muslims, but other than the org. mentioned above and a handful of outspoken individuals, I have yet to see this large body of reason oriented muslims. I would of course welcome such an influx in the muslim world, but it does not exist presently, nor do I see signs of one coming. In fact, the middle east is becoming more radicalized, as well as the muslim communities in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated above,"But if I am still an Islamist, then I have nothing to gain from claiming that I'm now an Objectivist."--Possibly. At the risk of not sounding too paranoid, there is the muslim practice of taqiyya, so I cannot be certain what you are telling me is even true. That's the problem with islam; too many beliefs that are at varience with a virtuous morality based upon reason and individualism. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you personally, but surely you can understand my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hediar, I do wish you the very best in your pursuit of life, liberty, and reason. The muslim world NEEDS men who think like you. Seek them out, be a voice for change, start renaissance of the mind in the middle east. You can be a hero for countless by your defence of life and civility and thinking minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heidar, which muslim worldviews advocate reason and individualism? Where are the muslim societies where these virtues are extolled without fear for ones life? I would like to know where these places may exist. We both know the answer though; they do not exist. A religious collectivist belief is one where the individual must submit his life, liberty, and judgment, to either a diety, a religious body, or both. Islam fits that description perfectly. I hear a lot of talk of tolerant muslims, but other than the org. mentioned above and a handful of outspoken individuals, I have yet to see this large body of reason oriented muslims. I would of course welcome such an influx in the muslim world, but it does not exist presently, nor do I see signs of one coming. In fact, the middle east is becoming more radicalized, as well as the muslim communities in Europe.

First of all, regardless of how sizable a rational community of Muslims is, I'm talking about a Muslim outlook that values reason and individualism that's rooted in Islamic teachings. This exists and has existed throughout Islamic history, though it has had cultural influence but not a great deal of political influence.

And, unfortunately, you're absolutely right about the radicalization of Muslims in the Middle East and in Europe. The results of the "Arab Spring" are anything but hopeful. It seems that the tyranny of ruling minorities is simply being replaced with the tyranny of religious majorities.

But there are some voices of reason within the Muslims. You have to bear this in mind: Not all of them speak up in English. :P

An example is Dr Adnan Ibrahim. A great scholar currently residing in Vienna. He condemns dogmatism and advocates freethinking. He has a valuable lecture (in Arabic) on apostasy laws in Islam and how they only applied during military conflicts. He is hated by Islamists, but is gaining a large following. He was on a recent interview on Al-Jazeera TV and spoke about the importance of secular society and how theocracies lead to hypocrisy.

I believe some of his lectures are subtitled on YouTube. You may not agree with everything he says, but he's a positive force within the Muslim world that's promoting freedom of speech and religion.

You stated above,"But if I am still an Islamist, then I have nothing to gain from claiming that I'm now an Objectivist."--Possibly. At the risk of not sounding too paranoid, there is the muslim practice of taqiyya, so I cannot be certain what you are telling me is even true. That's the problem with islam; too many beliefs that are at varience with a virtuous morality based upon reason and individualism. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you personally, but surely you can understand my position.

I understand your position, but I don't believe the suspicion is warranted. Taqiyya only applies when there's a risk to one's life and well-being. I face a greater risk saying that I'm an Objectivist than saying that I'm an Islamist. Besides, you can cast doubt on every intention I express, but you can verify the points I make with any independent source. And if what I say makes sense, then it doesn't matter whether my intentions are good or evil. There's an Islamic teaching that states: "Take wisdom, even from the mouth of a hypocrite."

Hediar, I do wish you the very best in your pursuit of life, liberty, and reason. The muslim world NEEDS men who think like you. Seek them out, be a voice for change, start renaissance of the mind in the middle east. You can be a hero for countless by your defence of life and civility and thinking minds.

I'm aiming to be a voice for good in my part of the world. But I need some intellectual ammo from the fine people on this forum. I still have a lot to figure out for myself.

And I wish you the very best. (Though I could be lying :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hediar, I do wish you the very best in your pursuit of life, liberty, and reason. The muslim world NEEDS men who think like you. Seek them out, be a voice for change, start renaissance of the mind in the middle east. You can be a hero for countless by your defence of life and civility and thinking minds.

Hediar, I do wish you the very best in your pursuit of life, liberty, and reason. The muslim world NEEDS men who think like you. Seek them out, be a voice for change, start renaissance of the mind in the middle east. You can be a hero for countless by your defence of life and civility and thinking minds.

Now, that's nicely said b.h.

Individualism in action, so to speak.

A saying I picked up: "Treat people as if they are what they ought to be

and you will help them become what they are capable of becoming." [Rilke?]

(Also Branden: "We help people to grow by holding rational expectations

up to them, not by expecting nothing of them; the latter is a message of

contempt.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haider:

Not much info on him on Wiki...

Dr. Ali Adnan Ibrahim (born in Kotli, Azad Kashmir) is a Kashmiri scholar, lawyer and professional. He was the first Pakistani and Kashmiri lawyer to win the Fulbright Doctoral Scholarship to pursue the most advanced legal studies in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia....i_Adnan_Ibrahim

Or, is this the gentleman?

Biography

Dr. Ali Adnan Ibrahim is a Vice President at the Al Baraka Banking Group, the world’s largest Islamic banking network, in Bahrain where he specializes in Shariah-structuring, social responsibility and Islamic microfinance. Before joining Al Baraka, he was a Counsel at the law firm of Baker & McKenzie. Dr. Ibrahim has extensive experience in Islamic finance and international project development and finance. Dr. Ibrahim also serves as the Immediate Past Co-Chair of Islamic Finance Committee of the American Bar Association.

http://www.law.georg...Faculty&ID=2534

Adam

Post Script: You know us Americans...all Muslims look alike, especially the burqa generation!

170px-Burqa_IMG_1127.jpg

Even Barbie in a burqa!!

It's Barbie in a burkha: World-famous doll gets a makeover to go under the hammer for 50th anniversary

By Daily Mail Reporter

UPDATED: 06:24 EST, 21 November 2009

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby's for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

article-1229760-074B1535000005DC-764_468x286.jpg

The company director of Laird Assessors from The Wirral, Cheshire, said: 'Bring it on Burkha Barbie, I think this is a great idea.

'I think this is really important for girls, wherever they are from they should have the opportunity to play with a Barbie that they feel represents them.

article-1229760-074B37DE000005DC-314_468x619.jpg

Designer: Eliana Lorena is putting Barbie undercover for an auction to celebrate the doll's 50th anniversary

'I know Barbie was something seen as bad before as an image for girls, but in actual fact the message with Barbie for women is you can be whatever you want to be.

'I have a Barbie in a wheelchair that was only out for six weeks.'

The mum-of-two's own Barbie collection is set to be displayed at London's Victoria and Albert Museum in 2012.

Barbie was first launched in March 1959 by American businesswoman Ruth Handler. The doll was joined by her long-term boyfriend Ken in 1961.

Rosie Shannon, from Save the Children, said all the proceeds from the auction will go to the charity.

She said: 'We are delighted Sotheby's and the designer chose to auction the burka Barbie dolls for our charity.'

The money will go towards the Rewrite the Future campaign which helps millions of children around the world effected by conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Haider:

Not much info on him on Wiki...

Hmmm... it seems he really doesn't have a presence in English. It's neither of those gentlemen.

This is a sample video from one of his lectures. Again, you may not agree with everything he says, but his advocacy of reason and freedom are very positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who can write as smoothly and intelligently (intelligible and rational and responsive as well!) should be an OL 'keeper.' I sent welcome to Haider backstage but here note how well a sophisticated mind at work can charm even the wildest beasts (save Ba'al) ... "I hope you appreciate the care I have to exercise to preserve my life."

Said with a smile. How refreshing. in light of a possible festival of invective here. I hope to see our peripatetic LM and our Oish dude in Kuwait get to discussion of some finer points.

What is the punishment prescribed for (an avowal of) atheism, I wonder. I should look that up.

Kuwait's alliance with the West ought not conceal its strange mix of tribal authoritarian autocracy and gold-leaf democracy. If the 'Arab Spring' ever got to Kuwait, the libertarian in me would rejoice.

My favourite part of the Gult is on the outskirts of Doha, where the Armenian and some other stripe of christian worship in new churches. Any so-called Islamic state that not only maintains its synagogues (most do), but has a population in its synagogues is okay by me (speaking as a pinko social-libertarian).

Can we name those states for Ba'al? Could they be among the states deserving nuclear glass?

Sadly, the largest of these Jew diaspora communities is in the Islamic Republic, next to Tunisia's active Jews. Lebanon, most sadly, has lovely synagogues but only three or four Jews. Damascus has grand synagogues but no rabbi and very quiet prayers.

I loathe all religion, but wish them all a level playing field to do their dirty business. This perhaps explains my antipathy to the Ultra side of the Israeli question; a state of and for the Jews.

I tend to keep out of Middle East threads and Islam threads since they became infected by Wiigism and cant and Peikovian bombism, and since my obsession with Syria took over that part of my mind capable of sustained research.

Though I am sure we are utterly distant on governance issues, I sure am glad OL has Haider as well as LM and a few suspicious folks like Ba'al and the black horse. What other Objectivish site can feature this kind of conversation at the moment?

--- On a side stage, discussion between a Kuwaiti Objectivist, who would risk his freedom and his life to speak more freely -- and the usual suspects. On Noodlefood, an exciting new Turnip Stew and Labour Pain Radio Show. On SOLO, screaming nutters and Jesus. Ah, OL the Oasis!

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loathe all religion...

William,

This is where I feel a bit of an outcast in our own little subcommunity.

I do not loathe religion. The prevailing notion in our subcommunity is that if we got rid of all religion, life would be milk and honey and technological life-enhancing manna would fall from the very heavens. Utopia would finally have a chance to exist on earth.

I don't believe that.

I believe the source of human evil comes from power-lust, a hatred mindset and/or envy--and this comes from a mental imbalance. Sometimes it is due to genes, sometimes to conditioning and sometimes to poor-ass choices. Most often a mix. This is an oversimplification, but after studying a lot about the mind and neuroscience, I am certain it gives the essentials.

The most rational atheistic bully in the world will find his own excuses to drop technological hell from the heavens on people he wishes to kill and maim. Religion might serve the bully as a good excuse to bully and, in some cases, as a form of mind control (especially so he can get crowd control up and running), but if he doesn't have religion, he will figure out how to smash and whack qua smash and whack and worry about justifying it later. Who needs religion for propaganda to work? It's nice (so to speak), but not necessary.

All religions make allowance for good character of individuals. In fact, there is stuff in all religions--ALL religions--on how to develop good character. That alone makes me not loathe them as the source of evil.

I hold that religion (and philosophy) is a tool, not a causal agent for good and evil. You can use a tool to build or destroy. You can use it for self-development or for bullying others. You can use it to censor or promote independent thinking. The choice comes from what the individual wants to do with it.

In other words, you don't need a philosophy or a religion to choose to become a good person--or a bad one for that matter. You do that because you choose it. And in the case of people with bad genes or bad upbringing, ultimately even they can choose to be good albeit it they have a harder time of it.

Of course we have to debunk bad ideas, but let's not attribute to bad ideas things they do not and cannot do. In other words, don't hate a bad idea. Hate the bad man--the bully--and debunk the bad idea. Makind keeps getting this wrong and inverting it.

But I'm an optimist. I believe change for the better is slow, but it is happening. Thus, we will continue improving, evolving and flourishing--amidst a lot of bad stuff--as one of the most successful species on the planet.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, I believe it is fanaticism WSS detests. I am sure our friend is sneakily sentimentally fond of certain forms of irrational belief, like Canadian C of Eism, or Canucks fandom, even as Reason scoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree MSK, I do not loathe all religion, what I do loathe is a religion that is anti-reason anti-man and anti-liberty. Man can be spiritual without being religionistic. The problem lies in the certain anti-values an individual may embrace in his religious belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackhorse,

Ironically, you can easily find people who practice anti-reason, anti-man and anti-liberty ideas--who actually hurt people--who identify themselves as Objectivists and claim on a stack of Atlas Shrugged copies that such ideas come from Ayn Rand.

Look at ARI's general support of "pre-emptive" neocon wars for one good example, when even a two-year-old knows it's about oil at root with all the rest as window-dressing.

Just because you organize crony-capitalistic killing with a military from the freeest country on earth, that doesn't make it reason-based, pro-man and pro-liberty.

Should one hate Objectivism as an anti-reason, anti-man and anti-liberty set of ideas because of ARI's support of such violent big government interference abroad?

Of course not. You should hate the people who do bad things. But I don't even hate ARI, in fact. They do a lot of good and there is much they do that I like. I hate their boneheaded support of neocon war policies when they go there. And I intensely dislike the bad part from religion that they have adopted and practice (us-against them, excommunications, etc.).

As regards your monolithic view of Islam, I suggest some travel. Go and see for yourself--not to the dangerous places, though. It's an eye-opener.

There is nothing like first-hand observation and drawing your own conclusions from what you see and experience.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(with special link to a personal answer to Brant ...)

[media=]

I loathe all religion...

William,

This is where I feel a bit of an outcast in our own little subcommunity.

I do not loathe religion.

Quality response, thanks. I append the rest of the phrase following the comma: I loathe all religion, but ... wish them all a level playing field to do their dirty business.

-- I meant to stress the all in the first phrase, which is lost when the all / level playing field is lost.

_________________________

After having charted and depicted the diaspora in the accompanying video, I want my observation and opinion to be clear: the dirty business of religion is as MSK avers, when religion enemy-izes the Others or chattelizes or otherwise dehumanizes its followers and the world outside, to the point of criminal evil. It was religion that scattered the Jews and religion that held them together, religion that ties them, and religion that excludes them from bigoted minds and edicts.

At its most extreme, and in most religions grown to stature (save the tame Western reformed churches of Canada and Netherlands, etc) the history of each sect shows its own time of bloodletting or population transfer or conquest or worse. At its worst a powerful religion devolves to punish heresy or patrol thought and behaviour to the extreme, with resultant horror -- if unchecked and uncritiqued, be it by slavering anti-religious nutjob atheists like me or not.

I who loathe ALL religion loathe EQUALLY for Dirty Business religion does when given a Driver Seat. I am ecumenical in this loathing, and delimited. I could cherish the good parts of your project, I could and do want your beauty and your songs and your rituals and culture preserved for the ages, and I want your observances to be freely undertaken today in whatever observant community you devise, short of genital mutilation, harem, assault, kidnapping or torture ... but.

I am a pinko-libertarian up here in my socialist hellhole. Feel free to enslave your own mind at will and at home and in temple. Keep your crushing hands off your women and do not apply handcuffs to anyone without justice. Then we will all be fine neighbours, as in the hellhole.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You loath all religion for you, sure, but for others, you know not what you entirely speak. Nor for the grand evolution from superstition to modernity and the way stations in between. Your life--my life--is too short and humanity quite a bit longer. I am a more modern man than you. You seem stuck in the present ignoring and not seeing the continuing and overall dynamics not visible one day at a time.

--Brant

things are getting big-picture better; they have for centuries upon centuries--for you and me?--we gotta do for ourselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE Doha and its Armenian and other churches,

On Monday, 21 February 2011, Catholicos Aram I of the See of Cilicia arrived Doha for a three-day visit during which he met Armenian, Lebanese and Qatari officials. He was accompanied by Lebanese MP Hagop Pakradounian, Dean of Seminary Bishop Shahe Panossian (recently appointed as Catholicosal Vicar of Kuwait and Arabian Gulf Countries) and Father Mesrob Sarkissian, his secretary.

Immediately after his arrival, Catholicos Aram was the guest of honor at a dinner reception held by Arsen Halajian, chairman of the Executive Council of the Armenian Community of Qatar.

On Wednesday, 23 February 2011, Catholicos Aram met with the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. He described Qatar as a country of modernization and dialogue, referring to the Doha Agreement singed in 2008 between different Lebanese factions after lengthy negotiations in Qatar. The Emir highly valued the role of the Armenian community in Qatar and as a token of appreciation and commitment he donated a piece of land to built an Armenian church and center there.

Catholicos Aram lectured at the Georgetown University campus in Doha on the topic "The Response of Religions to Current Issues and Challenges." According to His Holiness, interreligious dialogue should lead to cooperation among people. Globalization, which has brought people closer to one another, may teach peaceful coexistence. "After all, peace is at the heart of all religious life," he concluded.

Posted Image


And earlier, in 2008, Qatar opens first church, quietly

Here is that church via Google maps:


View Larger Map Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, can't savvy the animosity shown for theists on O forums.

It is not like any of us have ever been repressed by a genuine theocracy, or are likely

to be anytime soon. Irrational beliefs? Sure, like many others.

Live, and let live: so long as religions never aspire to getting their hands on force -

government, or bombs.

There are as many self-responsible, thoughtful and good characters among the religious

as anywhere else - and as with any of us, each personally answers to the justice due

of reality, for his/her errors and evasions - or rational values and virtues.

(And both, often.)

Or should, if allowed.

Religion out of government, and more pressingly, Statists out of State, and we'll

all get along fine.

("Statists out of State"?! Well, I know what I mean, kinda...)

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I append the rest of the phrase following the comma: I loathe all religion, but ... wish them all a level playing field to do their dirty business.

-- I meant to stress the all in the first phrase, which is lost when the all / level playing field is lost.

William,

I don't understand.

How is equality of playing field a virtue--or even remotely important--when everything that is to have such equality is loathsome?

Isn't an oppressed loathsome thing just as loathsome as an oppressor loathsome thing?

Or will you be hypocritical and not be an equal opportunity hater when you say all, i.e., hate the oppressor more than the oppressed?

(Just throwing in a little class warfare language to mess with ya' :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my main point.

Has anyone noticed that there never is an atrocity carried out in the name of a religion (or ideology or nation, for that matter) unless some leader-bully at the top is demanding it?

Not some leader from the past, that's just for show--it's ALWAYS a leader-bully who is alive at the time the follower committed the atrocity.

Rather than say, "My leader-bully is better than your leader-bully, so that's not the problem. After all, we need leader-bullies. The real problem is religion." Isn't it better to take the "bully" out of the phrase, leader-bully? (That really isn't a phrase in common use, but the concept sure as hell is.) From everything I have seen so far, leader-bully is the ONLY common denominator in organized atrocities. Unless you want to count the followers who do the dirty work.

I say clip the wings of power, preach that bullying is bad and teach people about manipulation techniques--all while focusing on good and productive ideas. Then see how many organized atrocities you get irrespective of religion or philosophy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot has been said since my last post. I'd like to offer my own take on religion.

I see religion as the gamification of philosophy. It not only presents a view of what the world is like, but a storyline that gives meaning to our lives.

The essential elements of religion as a "game":

1- A simple, comprehensive worldview (Game Environment): There's just too much detail in the real world for the human mind to grasp, and for millennia the human race didn't know a whole lot about it. This often leads to anxiety and feelings of insecurity. That's why old maps used to have "Here Be Dragons" in uncharted areas: it gives us comfort making sense of things we don't yet understand. Religion offers a simplification of the world that makes it much easier to navigate.

This is valuable, even within a rational framework: we need to lump observations together and focus on essentials to avoid dealing with too much information.

2- An instruction manual: Most (if not all) religions come with a set of instructions or commandments, either from scripture or the teachings of a religious figure. They help individuals (players) make sense of the world and what they need to do with their time on earth. It offers guidance and can help cultivate a sense of purpose and build confidence.

3- Clear goals (Game Objectives): This is essential for productivity and general human well-being. You need to know what you want to do and when you've done it. Without either of these you won't feel satisfied.

4- A sense of progress (Game Levels): Human happiness is strongly tied to progress. We get bored by routines and always aspire for greater things. Religion helps feed this need with rituals to perform, as well as lots of scriptural knowledge to acquire.

5- Challenges: Although many religious folk complain about temptation, life would be extremely dull if the good was easy to acquire. Temptation is a challenge. It makes life harder and, therefore, more exciting.

6- Good guys and bad guys: Saints and sinners. Believers and heathens. Red Team and Blue Team. These labels help develop one's identity, give expression to values, develop role models and guide one's actions. Morality isn't about abstract principles, but the application of these principles in human form by human agents. Religion offers an easy way of classifying people, whether by their beliefs or their actions. It makes it easier to know what to do and what to avoid, who to associate with and who to distance ourselves from.

7- Rewards and punishments: The path taken within a game is largely defined by the rewards offered and punishments meted. These help guide decision-making and are essential for life: we pursue what's good for us and avoid what is harmful.

You can probably tell that all these elements are valuable for life on earth, whether you choose to experience them through religion or a secular philosophy (that will heavily rely on art and storytelling to compensate for the myths and rituals found in religion). As such, we cannot say that these things are good or bad, only that they are human and satisfy human needs.

So what's wrong with religion?

While religions have a great deal in common in terms of structure, there's a lot of difference in substance. Religions offer a worldview, but having a worldview isn't a problem. What the worldview is matters. Having values isn't a problem. What your values are could be problematic.

The reliance on faith as a cognitive tool is destructive for human life and cripples scientific and technological progress. It can also lead to a number of psychological problems, since you are essentially saying that reason is impotent at making sense of your problems, when it is essential to overcoming them.

Reliance on dogma is intellectual suicide.

The definition of people as being good or bad based on their religious identity is wrong and will lead to unnecessary conflicts and unjustified fears and apprehensions.

Valuing an after-life and condemning this life is problematic, since it strips life on earth of its value and can justify anything by dropping the context of the real world.

This is only a sampling of the problems that can fester within religion. But this doesn't mean that religion is essentially evil or that it will necessarily condemn reason and life on earth.

It's critical to accept that religious people will define and re-define their religion by the needs of the time. This means that they can embrace science and reason, while maintain a religious identity to give meaning and structure to their lives.

A blanket criticism of religion is bad. Not because it's politically incorrect, but because it masks too many important facts about religion and how people relate to it. It makes the person speaking seem like he lives in a bubble (because he does). It's like saying: atheists have no morals because they don't believe in anything.

Does that make any sense? Only in a religious bubble.

Here's my main point.

Has anyone noticed that there never is an atrocity carried out in the name of a religion (or ideology or nation, for that matter) unless some leader-bully at the top is demanding it?

Any social movement will have a leader at its helm. This doesn't mean that the leader is to blame for the atrocities. The leader offers the drive and the religion defines his direction.

Religious people will turn to their religion to better understand the world, what to value and what actions to take. Therefore, clashes between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland aren't solely the result of power-hungry leaders, but religious ideas that fuel the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now