From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 17:57:37 MDT
Ok, Greg, I'll wade into these waters (though I realize it is
probably foolish to do so). [Someday, the Extropian List Principles
should include a list of people that one should never never
argue with.]
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Greg Burch wrote:
> [big snip] Islam -- at least the Islam practiced in important parts
> of the world -- has never put down the sword. Much more violent clashes
> between Islam and the Enlightened world are yet to come.
*But* *why* does one not see the violence associated with Islam with
say Hinduism or Buddhism or even Catholicism? (Mind you I did see
a news program the other night where it appeared that two Buddhist
sects or perhaps some individuals v. a sect were fighting against
one another in Japan.) Probably not too different from the differences
between the Sunni and the Shiites in Iraq.
IMO, the problem does not go back to "religions" but genetic "tribalism".
So it would require a very well referenced paper distributed worldwide
to even begin to resolve some of these problems. Really -- can you
even imagine Buddhist individuals/sects actually *fighting* against
one another? They just don't *do* that kind of thing.
And how can you even take the position that there is a real "debate"
going on? I can see the "Islamic" world -- though I do not know why
it may be more violent than the "Hindu" world. But I consider probably
most of what you consider to be an "Enlightened" world, i.e. a world
where there are "laws" and "justice" to be extremely under the influence
of ca-ca written in the Bible (therefore null and void). In all of
the cases they have *NOT* thought things through.
I have realized that there are close personal friends whom I cherish who
may pick up the Bible and become "believers" as well as intellectuals such
as C. S. Lewis who may go through the same transformation. In the back of
my mind the only explanation I can find is that they desire "hope" over
rational thought processes.
I must admit, "hope" tends to be more satisfying. And because of that
possible fact we may be doomed to deal with individuals who will
sacrifice themselves for what they view as a "better" world.
And the "rational" among us may suffer as a result.
As I pointed out -- most of us are not trained to engage in "rational"
debate.
R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 18:10:34 MDT