Good spot with the article, one of the more sensible I've read about the atrocity and the root cause. We rarely learn from history, we need to start pdq. Whatever I may say about religion, there's strong evidence to suggest colonialism of old is at the core of the problem too. But as the author succinctly points out religious fundamentalism and radical capitalism (for that is the ultimate result of colonialism) are indeed bedfellows because it is about the control of wealth and power of the minority over the majority. The world is in a big mess. God isn't going to save us. Nor are the big businesses. The question looms large: do we have the courage within ourselves to change, to really change, how we live and how society really works? I fear not - especially if the U.S. has another election result like the recent midterms and some right wing Christian Dominionist gets their hands on the nuke buttons.
I've just taken a walk down to the sea and along the front seeing the Isle of Wight bathed in sunshine - the windchill made it necessary to wear very warm clothing but the sunshine on the sea reminds me of the words of Desiderata: "Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy" These events are rare and horrific but the atrocities are committed by a very few delusional people. Anybody who believes violence of any form against another living entity is acceptable is in some way deranged. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, many Governments and the list goes on are all unfortunate to include some psychopaths in their midst. I have no solution and like somebody else who posted earlier am rather glad that I am old rather than young - I am not confident the world will become a better place - I fear for my grandchildren. However the Chinese had a saying that the longest journey starts with a single step and if everybody did just one thing in every day to make somebody else's life better in even the smallest way - pass on a smile perhaps then maybe just maybe we could make that journey. All sounds a bit trite but aside from criticising everyone else for their actions what other suggestions do people have?
I can offer not solutions Leo, but there are positives coming out of this. Never have so many people read the koran as now - never has there been so much multi faith dialogue as now. The fundamentalists do not want people to read and understand this book - this is why they stop girls going to school - this is why there were so afraid of Malala (who, in contrast to them, is a real Moslem). For them all crimes are forgiven if they can recite a few verses from the Sunni or Hadith in a language which they do not understand. Knowledge is the key - the more people learn, the more they can see that eg. the Bible, the Koran and even the Bhagavad Gita are not in contradiction to each other, but actually support each other. If there is a God he does not want my blind obediance (otherwise there would be a contradiction to free will). He will judge me,if at all, based on my actions - not on symbolism such as how I clothe myself, or how I pray and on which day. These people are insulting God if they are comparing him to a supreme dictator - as if he wants my obediance, as eg. Hitler or Stalin would have wanted. Both the Bible and the Koran require a person to work out their own private, personalized way to God, or to Godliness if you prefer. You do not have to accept these books, in their entirety, I don't but I am a believer nonetheless. I don't know if God is male, female or whatever - I can form no conceptualization of him/her whatsoever (interestingly the Koran, in particular, stresses this more strongly than the Bible does - hence the aversion to icons). There can be no real debate between believers and non believers - just acceptance. The debate cannot happen because, in the atheists eyes, I have taken a leap in the dark to believe in what is, objectively, unbelievable - and I understand his scepticism. At the same time the atheists assertion that Man is the supreme intelligence in this universe comes over to me as unbelievably arrogant. For the atheist anything which cannot be touched or seen is a fairytale. Is love a fairytale ? I cannot see it or touch it, it has no real point at all - nature would continue quite well based only on lust. In the words of Bhagwan I cannot prove that love exists, I cannot debate it, and I can only know it by becoming a lover.
What a shame that it takes mindless violence to make people engage in dialogue. Cologne, your interpretation of what god wants is interesting – but too many do not believe in your rational views. It is only your view that you do not have to accept these books in their entirety – I have met and discussed with an awful lot of people who would disagree. A debate between believers and non-believers can and does happen. Each will describe their position and why they hold it and in rare instances their arguments may sway another. I regard the position of an atheist as similar to that of a theist. Both adopt their position on ”faith”. The atheist cannot prove the non-existence of god. They may point out that there is nothing that requires belief in a god but in the ridiculous extreme god may be someone with a quirky sense of humour who has set up the universe in this way so that he can hide behind a cloud and giggle at what we all do. Silly yes but provable – nope. Agnosticism is in fact the logical position to hold “that nothing is known of the existence or non-existence of god” I choose not to believe in god as I do not need to. There is nothing that the existence of god can explain that is not explicable without a god. I do not stand alongside Richard Dawkins though and found his book The God Delusion very disappointing – he set up simple straw men to knock down. You make the mistake of categorizing atheists as if they all held the same view. I certainly do not “assert that Man is the supreme intelligence in this universe” and doubt many others do. With billions of stars and planets out there it is statistically highly unlikely – in fact I think you will find many more believers come closer to your assertion than do atheists. Many of them believe that man stands only behind god as the supreme creation. On things that cannot be touched you have set up your own straw man. You wrongly assert that they believe that anything that cannot be touched or seen is a “fairytale” Where did you ever read or hear that? Do you seriously believe that atheists do not believe in love? The simple position of the atheist is that man created god not that god created man. As you said at the beginning – that is just a matter of faith. If you choose to believe that it needed a god to create the universe in the first place then whatever shape or form your god is then that is fine. However belief in god does not solve any problems of understanding the universe.
I agree Leo that most Churches, Mosques etc. require that I accept their scriptures in their entirety - which is why I am not a member of any of them. Interestingly enough acceptance of the Bible, and all preceding scriptures is intrinsic within the Koran and the book cannot be understood without those works preceding it - though very few Mullahs etc. would emphasize this (nor do they mention that Mohammed married in a church !). It is not hard to believe that these books appealed to different cultures at different times, and can be seen as a form of progression (none of them complete in themselves). Most Moslems of today would not realize that the posibility of further prophets (after Mohammed) is not ruled out in the Koran. The problem between atheists and believers tends to be that atheists look for proof whereas if God exists then he/she belongs to the infinite and is,therefore,unprovable/unknowable using finite logic. True belief is not for scholars or for Mullahs studying crusty old books - because their ego stands in the way. You cannot study your way to God in the way they do. Of course some atheists believe in love. My point here was that the process is the same - you cannot study love from outside - you can only know it from within ie. when you take a blind leap in the dark to do something which is, objectively speaking, irrational. I have problems with the monotheistic religions if only because they all emphasize that God created man in his own image - which sounds like a justification for our dominance over nature. If God is actually a chicken or a cow then we have a lot of things to answer for in the next World ! So I have thrown a little bit of Buddhism and Shamanism into the mix as well - see, my own personalized God !
When I considered myself religious I too did not join a church as I could not find one that did not contradict itself. I too believed in a mixture of Christianity, Buddhism, Taosim etc all thrown together. I am surprised so many people are able to participate in the traditional church way of life. I would generally expect faiths to build on predecessors rather than start from scratch - in the way Mormonism accepts the bible and then adds its own book on top. I am not sure that atheists necessarily demand proof. They just start from the opposite end of the faith spectrum. They do not start with a god and see no reason to believe in one. Religious people start from a faith in god and see no reason not to. Two sides of the same coin. Where proof comes in is when religious people make certain claims that can be shown to be wrong - e.g. the age of the Earth etc in many faiths. Creationism versus Evolution. The Earth simply was not created in about 6000 bce as some would have us believe. Belief in god does not explain anything nor does it solve any fundamental issues such as where did we come from. For the atheist too it is somewhat ironic that people make claims about what their god does /does not demand of them -some quite detailed - without having anything other than the pages of a book to back it up. Also it is for atheists quite perplexing how religious people lay all the blessings around us at the feet of their god yet the same god is not responsible for the bad things that happen. There is absolutely no correlation between how a person lives their life and the good and bad things that happen to them - for many that makes the existence of god somewhat irrelevant as if he / she is there they are not paying much attention to their creation. If god does not affect life, is invisible and unknowable then why choose to believe he /she is there at all. Answer pure faith. Good on anyone who chooses that path. All I do ask is for those who think they are better than their fellow man to actually day by day act out their faith - not to be lovely on a Sunday but *** the rest of the week
I tend to think that there is an arrogance in humans in believing anything is the truth. Religion is nonsensical to me. Total affirmation of nothing is too. Are earthworms aware of microchip technology? Do they not believe in it? Do they believe there is no evidence of it? No, it is entirely beyond them. As is the concept of a god/whatever. I don't maintain there is or isn't, or that nothing can be known of any greater power. I'm not theist or atheist, nor agnostic. This is a rip-off of a very old Punch cartoon: please log in to view this image
Leo - Agree entirely with that last paragraph and, as a Christian, would say that any Christian who thinks they are better than others because of their faith cannot actually claim to be one!
For me it's not a case of Creationism vs Evolution because I actually feel good about being descended from an ape. The question of who is responsible for the bad things which happen is why the monotheistic religions have found it necessary to invent the Devil - which is also good for business because, having created him, they can then convince people that only they, the elect, can protect you against him. The Hindu's don't have this problem of separating the World into 'good' and 'evil' because all things are connected. As for the question of God's intervention here on earth to either prevent evil or reward the good - I would say leave the old man/woman in peace, he/she (having problems with PC here !) has done enough for us already. All the ingredients for heaven on Earth are here - but it is us who need to make it happen. If I have given a present to someone and they promptly destroy it do I give them another one without question ?
I think many if not most Christians accept evolution - if god did exist it is perfectly possible for him to devise a plan which involves evolution- it tends to be fundamentalist Christians - many in the USA who have a problem. My point was that for those like the Jehovah's Witnesses to maintain a faith based on beliefs that can be shown to be incorrect then logic and proof do enter the equation. I do not wish to disrespect you in the least Cologne but as your search for god does not seem to be a million miles from the path I once took I am minded of what someone said to me. He counselled me that perhaps instead of believing in a god, supreme being or whatever I was actually creating a god of my own. By taking a pinch of Christianity, a peck of Islam, a Touch of Judaism and marinading it in a Buddhist sauce I could create whatever I liked but would it be god or just some crazy concoction of my own. There is nothing wrong with having your own personal religion but it may not be recognised as such by anyone else. I am not sure I need to have a belief in a god "who has done enough for us already"- really? Like what?. and who wants to sit in an armchair in peace and ignore his creation. To me that is no god at all - which is why I have ceased to believe and find myself quite at home with the concept that the universe somehow came into being and simply operates by various "scientific" laws some of which we think we understand but most of which we probably don't.
Leo, I would agree that choosing a bit from each religion and concocting something of my own from it does not sound very sincere. However if I believe in God then I do not believe in one who revealed himself only to one people,in one language and at one historical period. To call myself a Christian or a Moslem or a Hindu would be to close myself off from all the others - Gandhi once said that he was a Christian and a Hindu and a Buddhist and a Moslem all in one. He believed that God revealed himself to different people at different periods in a way which had relevance for that particular culture. A truly spiritual person looks at every text he can and then looks for the similarities - looking for fingers which point in the same direction. A very well know Rabbhi said, not so long ago, that when a Christian can recognize the word of God through the mouth of a Moslem - only then has he become a Christian. True spirituality knows no such thing as sectarianism.
Evening all, it has been an emotional day here. Several times I found myself almost in tears as I listened to Muslims, Jews and people of little faith all severely shocked by the events of the past few days. What came over to me is that religion is not at the centre of these problems, as everyone who I heard spoke of love for our neighbour. To see Muslims handing over roses to Jews as a sign of peace has to be a powerful symbol, and a sign that people who believe in different concepts can live in peace together. There was a program on French TV this morning with a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian and a Buddhist. They agreed that although they differed in what they believed, there was no reason to allow this to develop into hate. The problem in this country is a social one, where if you are a Muslim you will find it more difficult to get employment, a decent education and you will have a degree of poverty. So many of these terrorists from France come from the ghettos, where there is little hope of a new car, a better house or even enough money to feed your family properly. To change the direction of this thread a bit I would be interested to know what others feel about the state spying on e-mails, texts and other electronic communications. There has always been this feeling of 'Big Brother' snooping around our communications was something that should be resisted. Yet it seems that France has not gone down this road as far as other countries and just might have picked something up if they had. I doubt that the state would be interested in the slightest at the companies trying to sell me things, but then I would be surprised if they checked my communications. Just how far should we accept that for our security we must allow the state to keep an eye on us?
Happy to change the direction Frenchie. Germany also has a traditional dislike of state surveillance - probably due to its history. I think that this is a dangerous road - but maybe a necessary one. Not because of terrorism, after all terrorism or religious fanaticism accounts for only about 1% of all crimes committed, but because the World of criminality seems to have adapted itself very quickly to the digital age - leaving the state at a temporary disadvantage. Cookies are watching us the whole time and have probably established a customer profile of me - my e-mail address has probably been traded several times, so why should I worry if the state pries into my life as well. If they can bust one *****phile ring or prevent one violent crime in the process then it would be worth it. However, very strict controls must be in place as to why, when and how surveillance is carried out.
Clearly the greater the level of surveillance potential, the safer we are. But it is a trade-off with civil freedom. As a friend of a someone who lost a leg in 7/7, I know what my position is on this.
I heard some comment today suggesting that those with evil intent are ahead of the security forces when it comes to technology. I am reasonably able to carry out certain functions on a computer, but really find it difficult to keep up with androids and jelly beans. Maybe I could get a job with MI6. I believe that despite my reservations, it has become necessary to allow the state more freedom. It is estimated that in each of France, Germany and the UK there are probably 1,000 people who have been radicalized, and could be a threat to some of the minorities in each country.
