How about irradicating religion from the human psyche. Any one that provides a cure for the God Delusion deserves a Noble prize.

A good post Ameer.

I hope that you are correct in your asssessment. I also entirely agree that the availability of information via the Internet is going of make any of these totalatarian isms highly vulnerable to never ending questionining and analysis.

Perhaps it might also lead to the followers of Islam being a bit more productive to the betterment of Human kind.

Their current ranking in terms of Nobel Prizes, patents, literature music, arts and sciences is abysmal. Even their hated enemy the Israelis produce more of the above than the whole 1.4bn muslims by a factor of at least times 30. So there is a long way to go.

I would love to believe this article but brutality - beheading of anyone whether moslem or whatever when they are seen as a threat to the psychopaths or hard-liners - even to the forcing or allowing a twelve year old boy to decapitate an adult "enemy?". The koran demands the death of pigs and monkeys who are mainly Christians/Jews but can include any unbeliever.Then there's another core moslem teaching of- 'taqiyya' this allows/commands moslems to lie to unbelievers so as to placate them as to the true aims of islam. Then there is 'hudna' this is a lot like taqiyya it is a just a temporary truce though the other signers of this truce are told that it is a genuine long lasting truce. But in the eyes of moslems it is a truce to allow moslems to gather strength and when strong enough they resume their attack. (arafat and today's palestinians/syrians et al use this)Then of course the mindless animalistic terrorists and these sub-humans are in all nations where moslems are found including Western nations. There are many many more worries but the last is moslems hatred of democracy and their drive to institute brutal savage barbaric sharia law and a rule by imams in the place of democracy. Moslems will have a hard road ahead to show that they are really for change as every day on TV or in the press we see moslem barbarism and savagery in one form or another. Regards, numbat

Over how many dead bodies? I hope yours is one of the first. Religion is man's worst illness, a plague for the weak minded. Who dominate by numbers.

A very enlightening thesis, Ameer, which one hopes makes clear to many of our contributors, the story many so-called fruitcake academics are trying to get across that us Westerners do owe much to what is known as the early Middle East intelligentsia, comprising Mesopotamia, Egypt, and what is most important Persia, now Iran.

It is still not accepted by our majority, even when told it was the invasion of the said Middle East by Alexander the Great, which besides conquest left the wonderful message of not only scientific reasoning to the Middle but also the philosophical reasoning that is so much needed today to tone down the faith not only of Islam, but also much of our Western Christianity.

Proof of the wonderment is the story of the Great Library of Alexander, later built in honour to Alexander who had also been a pupil of Aristotle, and which according to historians, housed more Jewish pupils than of any other religion. Some philosophers even suggest that even the young Jesus may have studied there.

One could go on about the naughty French monk Peter Abelard carrying the message of academic to the West, later picked up by Thomas Aquinas, who as well as accepting the need for reason as a quietener for faith, was also later made a Saint.

Much much more there is, for people who will humble themselves to listen, because such carries the message both sides so much need today.

Incidently, it was the English philosopher John Locke who made clear, that without reason, religous faith will never make sense. Also Locke still stayed a declared Christain.

The question that I wish to address is how to eradicate religion. Let me appeal to the concept of memes. A term introduced by Richard Dawkins. A meme is a cultural entity, a piece of information that passes from one human mind to another and in the process is associated with other memes and may be passed on as a group or a meme family.

A religion, a scientific theory, a song, an opera, a story and so on can all be considered as meme families. There is a clear analogy here with say a virus which is an assembly of genes. Some viruses such as small pox are highly infectious, and are considered to rank as highly dangerous pathogens. Likewise religion can considered as a pathogenic collection of memes.

Smallpox was eliminated by a world wide program of vaccination. By analogy the tools required to vaccinate against religion are satire, humour, ridicule and intense lampooning. Sometimes in biology the immune system when over stimulated reacts, this is called anaphylaxis. Likewise over stimulated religious zealots too may react badly. The equivalents of anaphylaxis are known in the religious sphere as heresy and/or apostasy. The responses of the zealots are many, including censorship, book burning, human barbequing and death by stoning. The day of the “Auto de fe” must surely have provided dramatic public entertainment, except of course for the victim.

Public health officials sometimes may have to persist in sensible and well thought out measures in spite of a local “set back” or occasional adverse reaction. So too we must persist with the program of religious eradication. At the very least we can aim to control and contain the infestation

No doubt if we elimated all religion the athiest would then be free to live a guiltless perverse selfish life. The only problem is that in their selfishness they would self destruct. Thank God for sending Jesus whose life, words and actions have and will never be able to be matched.Thank God He is able to open the eyes of the blind.

How ironic that the turbidity of Islamic thought is only capable of achieving transcendentness if its intellectuals do their free thinking in the West. May we examine one of those ‘intellectuals’ who is now riding the wave of Islamic intellectualism now sweeping the world? Let’s use Tariq Ramadan as the apotheosis of a muslim intellectual. Mr Ramadan is at best a Janus-faced faux-syncretist. He is a promoter of the ‘three great Abrahamic faiths’ yet talks about the future of European Islam. Maybe he has an eye on that day when Islam will control head office. It was Mr Ramadan who succeeded in stopping Voltaire’s Mahomet because the play insulted the prophet. I wonder whether Mr Ramadan was insulted by ‘The Life of Brian’? It is also muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan who has called for a moratorium on the ‘uplifting’ Islamic custom of stoning women who commit adultery. Wouldn’t an Islamic intellectual such as Mr Ramadan insist on a total ban? Mr Ramadan, why not be guided by the beliefs of two of the ‘three great Abrahamic faiths’ and ban the practice? Is lapidation a bedrock of Islamic faith? If it is please hasten that promised Islamic renaissance.

Mr Ramadan is also critical of the West’s rampant consumerism but when it suits he turns a blind eye to that matter. Mr Ramadan was prepared to accept a stint at a USA Catholic university in spite of McDonald’s heiress, Joan Kroc providing a handsome endowment to that same university. Nothing symbolizes rampant consumerism more than those golden arches. Mr Ramadan is uncomfortable with intellectuals from the West who dare to criticize Islam. He says their views are not in keeping with the lofty ideals of liberalism. So much for robust debate and free thought.

Islam is a strange organization. Allegedly it has 1.4 billion adherents who espouse love, fellowship, comity and much more yet it has not produced its own Mother Teresa

Go for it, Runner, as John Locke would say, the compassion of Jesus, the Nazarene, along with the reason, helps show the way for the Divine purpose of humanity.

Very interesting article. I wonder whether there will be parallels between religious developments in Islaam with the history of Christianity. The rivalry between different varieties of Islaam (Shia and Sunni for example) seems analgous to Protestantism and the Roman Catholic warfares that resulted in long bloody wars. The rise of the higher criticism in the 19th century which began to look at the Bible as literature and the controversies about the nature of Jesus sound like the kinds of new thought in Islaam reported by Ameer in this article. Two observations, if analalogies are useful. (1)Christianity is not homogenous and uniformly rational. Apparently there are still many "fundamentalists" who reject the modern interpretations of the scriptural texts, and they seem to be very strong in USA politics. (2) there seems to be ebb and flow of religious fervour, with religious revivals from time to time. So, if the parallels continue we can expect much intra faith conflict, large numbers committed to the old interpretations - maintained by the status quo of power and privilege, and periodic ups and downs of intensity of belief. But, let us do whatever we can to support rationality and moderation.

I would have thought that the expression,"Islamic Rationalism" was a bit of an oxymoron.

For the sake of humanity, when are people going to get over this infantile belief in religion?

I laughed when I saw the phrase "to rekindle the spirit of intellectual rationalism" in connection with Islam which is surely the most retrograde of the monotheistic religions.

Religions in general are not rational, and Islam is probably the most irrational of all.

It is now the 21st century, and we are still having discussions about something which really belongs to a time when people knew very little about the world.

Leave it back in the 7th century, please?

Optimistic and reassuring concept.

One would like to think it is true, but, the saying about flying pigs comes to mind, but could that generate a Fatwa? Have we heard much from S Rushdie lately? I thought he was still keeping under cover for fear of his life.

Maybe the enumerated academics could benefit us all by adding another degree to their quiver, such as Marketing. They would also be prudent to then triple their life assurance coverage.

Great article. Muslim moderates are to be commended for their courage .But for all its positives, I feel such thinking may be but an evolutionary dead-end.

History/evolution has a way of bypassing some of the best laid plans…

While many of the leading technocrats of the day would have been
gathered around blue prints of horse drawn vehicles, tinkering adding bells & whistles.The cutting edge moved elsewhere.
The horse drawn vehicle was bypassed altogether.

With cloning, conscious machines, worldwide internets, virtual worlds etc etc. Either here or just around the corner ,humanity is rapidly moving beyond the imaginations of even the most daring theocrat

The non believers always omit that it is the very same motivator that drives both religion and science. That there is something greater than ourselves always on the horizon. Something other than what we currently know or believe to be true. Man is not infallible nor is science, nor is religion but, religion is hopeful and such hope gives man that necessary push to continue the search for knowledge and understanding.

Brushy, You keep on mentioning this alledged intellectual debt like a broken record :) We KNOW it now... many times over we know it.(I reject it though)

Amir said:

"in the West, an imagined Islam, purposefully structured and popularly propagated, has created a perception that this religion is a threat to Western civilisation."

Islam, cannot be separated from its foundation documents, its prophet or his and his companions understanding and application of those foundation documents. It often IS separated by either bleeding heart Liberals or anti Christian Socialists.

Even Justice Higgins, made that separation by referring to 'Mainstream' Muslims.

But this does not help us in predicting the likely outcome of the rise of any kind of Islam in the Western context.

Suppose the 'brand' of Islam Amir speaks about.. a 'rational' type, emerges in the West. Lets look at what might happen.

PREDICTION.
1/ The 'rational' muslims, lets call them 'Ali-ites' after the article author, will grow.
2/ Because they are now 'rational' and 'western' in thinking, they will adopt consumerism and enjoy the fruits of Western Freedom.
3/ The Mullah's in Saudi Arabia and Osama's crowd, will look at this and begin to stir up radicals. Radicals will emerge anyway, even without them, because Islam is not about 'adjusting to the consumerist west, it is about "The world and all that is in it belongs to Allah AND His messenger"
It is about 'Don't take Jews and Christians as friends' etc..
It is about 'fight against the unbelievers as long as they don't confess that Allah is God alone and I am his messenger'
The radicals are not blind, they can read.

4/ The radicals will increasingly (and more aggressively) polarize the Muslim community, (just as they are doing right now) and the moderates will be described in most unflattering terms as 'bad Muslims'(at best) and 'Apostates' at worst.

The above WILL happen because it already is, further, it will happen because of 2 major reasons.
1/ Islam is 'political' and seeks an Islamic state (always and forever)
2/ The foundation documents support the point 1 above

David is spot on and should be congratulated. His points are fairly obvious and he has explained it well.

One writer drew an analogy with Italian migrants. Unbelievable. It is a sad state of affairs when the naive parroting of slogans learned from leftist lecturers passes for educated opinion. Italians worked to build a better future for their families. In 1990 an Egyptian born teacher aid who worked in the Auburn area told me that a school survey of the 450 Arabic families revealed that 85% of their fathers were unemployed.

As David said it has happened for a long time and it will continue happening. No amount of intellectualising will stop even one suicide attack. Trillions of petro dollars have flowed into the Muslim world and their most noteworthy contribution to the future (medieval)of mankind -- hate, death and destruction all in the name of God. Their biggest contribution to technology -- the IED.

We have more than enough here already.

numbat wrote..."but brutality - beheading of anyone"

From what I know, and could be corrected, Islam the religion and muslims the people that follow it, religion and daily life is a lot more integrated than as compared to say christianity and christians. eg the daily prayers by all together...

The belief behind beheading seems to be an religious act. Sin(as in accumulation of evil acts) resides in the soul of the person whose seat is in the middle of the head(seems around the pituitary), and the rest of the body is seen as 'pure' ie without sin in gods eyes. So by removing the sin/evil(head) the act is to leave what is then pure(the body)...so its an act for god so that the body may go to god...

I know all the issues moral and otherwise this raises...but the origins to this practice started in the original jihads that spread islam throughout middle east to outer west/east...the conquered people were only given one choice, koran(become, and let their children become muslims) or the sword(ie beheading)...

So I dont think muslims necessarily see the act as a 'brutality' like what other religious/people see it as...and of course the fundamental issue is at 'decision to behead' at which the moral dilemma applies to muslims and everyone else whom involved in a situation where the question to takes some ones life on religious grounds or otherwise exists...

Sam

Ameer, although there are emerging schools of thought on how to interpret Islamic texts, there's a major problem that you have not addressed.

The ideological undercurrent which permeates even the mildest, most moderate forms of Islam is one of cultural 'submission'. Even if it is a watered-down, contemporary form of Sharia, there is no true interface between this and democratic Australia.

After spending time with a 'moderate' Imam recently, it became clear that this is not only a fundamental (note: not fanatical) teaching of Islam, but one which is shared by even your average Muslim. The problem is that a denial of this truth is even sanctioned by the Qu'ran.

There is no denying that Islam, as well as all other major cultural groups, has great intellectual merit. However the real issue here is not one of intellect but of ideology.

p.s. Adherents of Dawkins always seem to play nicer in their own little playgrounds of thought. Perhaps they could remain there until the serious discussion is finished. Ta.

Sam said: These same brutal clowns or adherents of the religion of peace will rape a condemned female prisoner so she as a raped woman will not go to their "X" rated paradise. Funny - as is queer - people these inhuman pagan moslems. Regards, numbat

MaNiK_JoSiAh

I would willingly stay in my own “playground” but for one important point. I appreciate that to advance a serious theological argument; you require much learning, much scholarship and much originality of thought. None-the-less theological models no matter how erudite are total lacking in any empirical data.

The theology disciplines do not require careful observation of nature. Contrast with scientific observations and experiments which are made by curios and enquiring minds. The observations are then synthesised by inductive reasoning into a coherent theory. Instead you take authority from ancient texts of dubious authorship. Texts that are claimed, with out evidence, to be the distilled thoughts and inspiration of a mythical being. An entity you call “God.” Clearly the elaborate constructs of theology have about as much structural integrity as a house of cards.

The intellectual activities of theologians are not benign. As soon as the adherents of a theological school gain political power, their enthusiasts set out to impose their way of life on non believers. Thus according to the dominant religious dogma of the day, we are instructed as to the days we can work, what foods we can and can not eat, when we are allowed to eat and when to fast; who and when we can bonk; the books we can read, the plays or films we can see; the list of inhibitions and tabos are endless. Even worse is the necessity to sit, stand or kneel during periods of interminable boredom, while the priest performs his meaningless and tedious ritual. Chants his “mumbo jumbo” words all to appease a non existent God.

Religion is notorious in coercing non believers. The religions are always stepping out of their “playground.” That is why they deserve to be hit with whatever tool is to hand.

Well said anti-Green. MaNiK (aptly named) wants to shut down the debate to those who who don't share his little fantasies.
Typical of the totalitarian mindset engendered by too much kneeling and muttering.
Religion, Nazism, Communism (and dare I mention "climate change" -the new religion for those who have enough intelligence to see through the old fantasies, but not enough scepticism for the new ones) all have a lot in common.
Still, maybe in another couple of centuries, people like MaNiK will have evolved a little more, and become less dogmatic or even become extinct - let's hope!!

anti green, so religion is not science and science is not religion. wow and it took you what 300 words. watch this! driving is not baking cookies but, baking cookies requires fuel so they are basically the same thing. or how about this one! flying and rappelling require a faith in ones equipment therefore flying and rappelling are both religious pursuits.
the God haters have their dogma firmly grasped in a tight fist of hatred denying others their beliefs while demanding more room to exercise their vilification in the name of science and the human intellect.
thankfully the God haters are equal in numbers as are the religious extremist.

Dear Anti Green

you said:

"As soon as the adherents of a theological school gain political power, their enthusiasts set out to impose their way of life on non believers."

Speaking as a fundamentalist, conservative, evangelical Christian, I have to agree totally with your statement.

Your statement is a very accurate commentary on 'human nature'. In reality, it does not matter if the particular philosophical 'thing' is religious or secular, 'people' tend to act as you have described.

So, I wish to raise what I believe to be an important point or 2.

1/ We know from the history of 'Christendom' of the dangers of 'big' organized 'church'. We have the inquisition, the crusades, and the various religious wars of Europe as testimony to this. So, I feel we are fairly safe from repeating such things, I share your concerns, but only on one level. I would recoil in horror from any idea of a 'State' Church seeking to bolster "adherance" by law.
Implementing certain 'values' democratically is a different matter.

2/ Do the negative examples of Christendom history reflect the foundational values of Christ and the Apostles?
In short.. no, they don't. Jesus founded his church on "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another". He also said "My kingdom is NOT 'of this world'" He then connected this to the fact that His disciples should not take up arms to defend "Him". (I view defense of the State differently-Romans 13:1-5)

3/ Does Militant Islam accurately reflect the founding principles of Quran, Hadith, History and Prophet? yes it does.

This is the problem.
Anti-green, I am participating with Atheists, Jews and evangelicals in a movement to oppose any Islamization of Australia.
In separate activities, our atheist co-workers might be handing out 'The God delusion' by Dawkins, and I might be proclaiming Christ and the Gospel to all who will listen.

But on Islam, we are "one"

Most people would be far happier if this 'new found Islamic renaissance' was beginning where it is most important, in the Middle East and other Islamic nations.
In Turkey there appears to be a struggle to keep politics and religion apart which is how it should be.
Any one of any sense, regardless of race, would never want to see fanatics in power.
It is up to people power in their home countries to ensure this. It is not up to Western countries to fight that battle for anyone.

"The theology disciplines do not require careful observation of nature." - anti-green
On the contrary, people with faith can be quite concerned with the same inductive reasoning that you claim all as your own. For instance Newton, one of the 'fathers' of modern science, was a Biblical Christian (and a literalistic one at that). Although it may be a current fad, the dichotomy between science and religion is a false one.

The difference is not in the evidence but in the conclusions we draw from this evidence. Dawkins has the same evidence as does McGrath, and yet their views are polarised.
I find the current schools of thought on evolution to require more faith than a belief in our transcendent God.

I hope your right Ameer,otherwise anti-green and his mates will come up with a nice pill for you to make you 'all better now'.
Literalism is the enemy of thought and of freedom. All the 'one-godders' rely on a literal understanding of their texts for numbers and obedience. Taken at face value many Biblical passages are pretty offensive and many parts of the Quoran are insulting to anyone but the brainwashed. The West has for the most part moved on; and plenty of elements of scietific advancement can be credited to religious adherants and bodies.
Islam needs to be dragged out of its fundamentalist understanding of 7th century writings pronto. A good place to start would be to limit education/brainwashing below the age of puberty;i.e. until a child's analytical abilities have developed.
Personally, I think there is a scarcity of Gods around here- makes people anxious for their own and prone to fight to protect their deity. I'm all for multiple gods;sun,moon, rock'n'roll,the SCG- hell, as many as one wants.
Try it Ameer, you too anti-green, i've fnd it can really brighten the day.

Islam is like every other religion in they breed hatred towards everyone else. The Chinese have the right idea when it comes to religion. Have a no advertising policy much the same as cigarettes because like cigarettes, religion causes a cancer in our society.

Islam promotes public hatred towards anyone who is not a Muslim. Muslim men have to cover there beutiful wives and daughters to stop there own men from raping them. They believe in barbaric punishments of dismembering for stealing, stoning for adultery and many other evil acts are justified. We as a society need guide these poor misguided souls before they convert to Islam or any religion because of a need to fit in, because there family and friends do or because they are evil people looking to hide there own evil tendencies behind religion.

All teachings by every religion were written by men. The Koran was written mainly by the prophet Mohammad who had time to make his prophesies because he was in a relationship with a wealthy lady land owner who looked after him. In every sense a prostitute which in the Koran is punishable by public stoning.

The Bible was written by a number of men over a number of years about the teachings of Jesus and other holy men. It was compiled after the death of Jesus and when converted to English was rewritten twice to suit the monarchies in power to exploit people, control them and more recently to suit the splinter religions to exploit money.

Religion will slowly die as more and more people are disillusioned with the cancer of hatred being bred and the only thing that will keep religion going will be truly evil people intent on not losing the power and money gained from week minded people over the last few millenia.

IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY MY COMMENTS, PLEASE BUILD A BRIDGE

What is the answer then, Boaz, the same as the Nazis had for the Jews, total elimination of a whole people.

It is a fact also that many Germanic Christian bishops also supported the Nazi Party, even the Pope at the time not protesting very much about it at the time.

What I am trying to get across is the true historical story that it was Socratic Reasoning which got Christianity out of the Dark Ages by means of the teachings of liberal Muslims, who when converted had already been influenced by Golden Greek Scientific Reasoning through the influence of Alexander the Great, who had been a student of Aristotle.

Unfortunately, it is our Christian churches who do not like to encourage that the Moslems were generous enough at one time to pass on philosophical reasoning that has been the key to our present democratic and scientific advancement.

Indeed, according to philosophical research which so many of you regard as wasted thought, the key to scientific reasoning which early Islamics passed on to us, has caused the Mullahs to retreat into their own Dark Age, deep misguided faith being their only guide similar to when our early Christians sacked the Great Libary of Alexandria, slaughtering hundreds of liberal Christians, because they believed scientific research was pagan.

This discussion has managed to bring out a new bunch of rabid extremists - the Dawkinite apostles of atheism. Never mind Muslim intolerance, we've got our own homegrown extremists advocating the Stalinesque "eradication" of all religion in favour of atheistic nihilism. Such militant truculence is the antithesis of rationality.

Atheism was brutally imposed on the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but faded fast once the state vehicle of oppression was lifted. Atheist numbers have dropped dramatically throughout former communist nations, and Christian numbers have surged. Just as Eastern Europeans realized, atheism has no more to commend it intellectually than theism.

People like Anti-Green can rant and rave until they start foaming at the mouth, but spewing invective at "believers" does not provide a compelling evidential or philosophical argument for atheism.

I think that the choice of the word 'rationalism' in the context of religion is a bad one. We could even say that 'Islamic rationalism' is an oxymoron.

This is because rationalism is a reality based ideology that is founded on naturalism. It is therefore the polar opposite of supernaturalism.

What the Amir is really talking about is not rationalism but the democratization of knowledge within the Islamic community.

However, this won't strengthen Islam as the Amir supposes. Once Muslims are exposed to real infomation and learn to think critically they will find the idea of angels, jinns, pregnant Virgins, and Koranic infallibility untenable.

'Sin(as in accumulation of evil acts) resides in the soul of the person whose seat is in the middle of the head(seems around the pituitary), and the rest of the body is seen as 'pure' ie without sin in gods eyes. So by removing the sin/evil(head) the act is to leave what is then pure(the body)...so its an act for god so that the body may go to god...'

The soul resides somewhere 'around the pituitary'?

Where did you get that idea from Sam? Or more to the point, do you have proper empirical evidence for that?

But let me guess. You don't have any empirical evidence. All you have is the unfounded opinion of a Sheik who's never stepped inside a laboratory or turned on an MRI machine.

Thanks to the author and contributors for the discussion. Interesting.

Cheers
Kay

Great post, Oligarch, thank you.

Remove God, and everything will be okay? If God exists, this would be at odds with a larger-than-average fact and obviously foolish.

If there is no God, then it still won’t make everything okay, because you are still left with human nature, including the corrupting influence of power. Communism demonstrated par excellence what political human power without God can look like. And even without power, we’ll still fight about workers’ rights and soccer, and any other tribal or intensely personal issue that floats across our mind from moment to moment. People have appetites, attitude and they fight: this is news?

The naiveté of believing that ditching God will result in a world filled with well-informed hippies is just astonishing. (Even hippyism was tried, and was something of an anti-climax.) I'm becoming accustomed to the dogmatism and vitriol of modern atheists, but it's their naiveté that really shocks me. My fault for believing them when they tell me how clever they are.

Ameer, I hope you’re right. You had better be, because I expect that even the relatively liberal secular West will only take so much. I hope there are ways in which non-Muslim Australians can assist – at the very least, by making the communal environment hospitable, so Muslims will not retreat into a siege mentality which will be so easily exploited by radicals. God speed: really, hurry up, it's a crisis.

Pax,

This is very well thought out.
I would just like to add one thing however Mr Ali.
Australia needs just one Islamic council.
Australias Accreditations should only go through that one council.
My concern is the Government have over looked this.
If they dont address it we will have the same inta fighting as you see overseas.
Not to mention to different messages being given out.
Look what happend with the AWB who are still operating in live Exports as usual.
Of course we all require to know who we are funding- ie who is behind the electric application to sell halal products and operate import export licences.
We all need protection from that especially the Australian Muslims.
More needs to be done and AQIS should 'only' be dealing with the chosen Muslim reps of Australia.
Thank you for such a informed post.

"Muslim men have to cover there beutiful wives and daughters to stop there own men from raping them."

Unimportant: I have to differ with you here. There's a completely different reason why the Swedes or Czechs don't cover their women but Muslims do, and I'm grateful to both!

Anyhow, on topic...

I'm in no hurry to apply any magic pill or shock treatment to the religiously inclined, but I'd like to think that we had the good sense (and compassion) to at least include religiosity in DSM-IV. If I honestly claimed to believe in (and perhaps talk to) Zeus, people would think I was off my rocker. What's the difference here?

Personally, I couldn't give a rodent's earlobe about Islam. It's a failed ideology. It either has to go through a Reformation to the point where, much like Christianity, it disappears up its own backside, or it will remain the province of the socially and economically backward (both within nations and as nations). Once the oil runs out, the Islamic world is going to be collectively as important in any sense (politically, economically, culturally, scientifically) as Vanuatu or Surinam, ie. not at all. The coming age may or may not be Western, but it sure as hell won't be Islamic. Hell, for all I care, Islam can have Europe -- it's a dead continent anyway (shame about the monuments and museums, although I guess we could transport some of them) -- but its impact anywhere that counts will be less than 3/5 of 5/8 of bugger all. Anywhere that enjoys the fruits of the 21st century, or aspires to such things, realises organised religion (as anything but as carnival side show entertainment), and especially Islam, is completely incompatible with such a project.

Shorbe

“Once the oil runs out, the Islamic world is going to be collectively as important … as Vanuatu or Surinam, ie. not at all.”

Shorbe there is one angle you’ve missed:
Vanuatu & Surinam do not have populations of 30-60million growing at 3-5% pa --many ME countries do.
Vanuatu & Surinam do not have religious & secular leaders who preach a brand of national socialism which tells their peoples that they are Gods chosen & have a right to inherit the world - many ME countries do.

And most important of all -we in Australia have the Democrats, Refugee lobby Groups & Human Rights Judges & Lawyers who are all too willing to open their hearts & other peoples wallets & our national borders to all & sundry

And what do you think the above mix will produce?
The coming renaissance of Islam - in the west

TR wrote "Where did you get that idea from Sam? Or more to the point, do you have proper empirical evidence for that?"

Hey tr...you are not seeing the full picture here...if a population believes that the seat of the soul is in a persons head region ie it is a current belief that developed over the ages...unless you have 'scientific evidence' to prove otherwise you cant shift that view...further you are trying to flip the onus to other side...ie those who believe this must prove it with science when the belief began when lot of people still thinking the earth was flat and would argue black and blue for it...this road leads to confrontational exchanges like what went to heaven and returned after Jesus died leaving his body on the cross...I hope I got my point across...I take the approach of respect beliefs and watch the acts that result from it to assess and disbelieve/believe...

Science has tried to find proof of soul, like experiments on people dying of tb/or leprosy (i think) placed on a very accurate weighing scale and at exact time of death lost 21grams...do an internet search to read more on this...

So its an area where science has not caught up to all the 'evidence' to prove or disprove...hence the fundamental question 'does god exist' is answered by each of us on pure faith...either way...and one group is very wrong...

Sam
Ps~21grams is a s#*+ load of energy...hiroshima was result of only 600miligrams of fission into energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy ...e=mc2(and c is the speed of light...which the fasted speed known to man and square that gives an ever bigger incomprehensible figure...so the 'm'ie mass to produce enormous energy does not need to be big...

Horus: Like I've said though, their religion is a failed ideology. It simply doesn't work as a tool for human progress. Those over there will have to sort that out. Those over here will have to realise pretty damned quickly that every other migrant group is not only overtaking them, but lapping them, and adjust their game accordingly. I don't believe in exporting our way of life to these clowns (if they're too stupid or lazy to figure it out for themselves, I don't want to hold their hand), nor do I want to enforce it upon those who are here. However, I also don't think we should keep propping this black hole of a world view up with our money, either here or abroad. Let it try to stand on its own two feet without our money for five seconds and watch the whole thing come tumbling down.

Our current obsession with this arse-backwards world view is as much motivated by how dangerous they are as by how dangerous certain people (on both the left and right) are here. Basically, I think we give Islam far too much credit, and that's because there are massive vested interests (both within Islam, but also within elements of both our left, right and media) who need to talk the whole thing up. I think we need to just laugh at these idiots every time they get worked up, and if it goes further, arrest the offenders. The problem lies with our approach to them (since everyone knows they're a joke).

The rational approach would be to ask how much money and effort we waste on worrying about these fools and wonder if we could pour that into more worthwhile projects that would save more lives and/or improve the general quality of life here. Surely the equivalent funding and attention into alternative energy sources or dealing with preventable obesity/lifestyle related diseases would pay greater dividends, to think of but two examples.

Still think a lot of our OLO's need to engage in a thorough knowledge of history as also do most Muslims.

Until it is done one side will forever be about to destroy the other.

Further, for our own people, an important thing to get across is that true science and commonsense are closely related.

Also it is a fact that we can have religion as well as science, but as with politics it must take second place.

Another historical fact, is that it was the English philosopher John Locke, who wrote what is known as the monumental treatise called An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which is simply a recipe proving how faith without reason is all too often misguided.

In Google you will find that Locke's philosophy not only brought on the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, which rendered Royalty in second place to democracy, but also was first used as the principle for the American Constitution.

Finally, a sensible study of Western history, aided also by certain religous compromises right now from both sides, one feels sure could greatly ease the present global tensions.

An interesting series of postings, which I have enjoyed reading.

The most gentle dismissal of religion, that I have come across, is in the
conversation between Pierre-Simon Laplace and Napoleon the first.

“Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Later when told by Napoleon about the incident, Lagrange commented: Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.
Quoted in A De Morgan Budget of Paradoxes.”*

Previous posts on this site have underlined some of the more serious consequences to religion and religious thinking. For example, there is a tendency for religious persons to adopt philosophies of fundamentalism and intolerance. I agree with many of the statements.

I think it also true to state that not all warlike and terrorist conflict between religious groups is due to differences of doctrine. Religion and its symbols provide a rallying point in tribal conflict. For instance in the Northern Ireland troubles, or between Sunni and Shia Islam, the fight is between two tribes over material matters. One tribe is perceived to have power, resources, wealth which is denied to the other. Even in Australia deals and business advantages are granted by one member of a religious or ethnic group to another member of the group, to the detriment of outsiders. Religious identity may serve as a surrogate “battle flag.”

I remain an unreformed and unrepentant Dawkinite.

* http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Quotations/Laplace.html

Strange that 'non religous peace loving people' are happy to endorse the murder of millions of unborn children each year. They then claim they don't need any need moral guidance. Unbelievable!

Dear Anti Green.

You seek to highlight the 'problems' associated with people having strong religious views. Ok..fair enough, but what you appear to neglect, is the other side of the coin. You seem to be of the view, that if man has no religion, he will simply 'get it right' by virtue of reason and common sense. If the evidence was there to support you case it might be worth persuing, but it simply is not. 2 problems.

1/ The philosophical and logical.
2/ The Empirical/practical.

Philosophically, the abandonment of God, means the embracing of an existential self and all it can conjour up. Such truth is in abundance on existential and humanistic web sites so I won't bother sourcing this. To me, the far more important issue is the adherance to the 'correct' version of God. Now..I can see your eyebrows raising there, and you bigotry meter clangon the full scale deflection stopper, but bear with me.

When I say 'correct' I DO mean the Judao Christian Salvation history found in the Bible. But again, the important point is 'what does this mean' for humanity when correctly interpreted.(by 'correctly', I mean by applying the same principles you are doing right now to this post)
Jesus said the Law is summed up in this:
a) Love God with all your heart.
b) Love your neighbour as yourself.

Self evidently, no person will "love from the heart" when forced to do so. So, 'correct' interpretation of this precept is 'it must by by choice'.
We have Christs:
-teaching.
-example.
-The apostles application of these in real life.

None of that is physically threatening.

Then we have "Mohammad,Islam and the Military expansion" ... do I need to qualify that further? Please refer to my Quran quotes above.

To Runner and Boaz.
Thank you for your comments. There is no evidence that religious people have a greater sense of ethics and/or moral behavior then non believers. Pedophile scandals and the poor management of church orphanages for instance, suggest that religion and immorality may go hand in hand. Archbishops have been known to behave badly.

SEVERAL SYSTEMS OF ETHICS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED:

DESCRIPTIVE OR CONSENSUS ETHICS: This requires pollsters and social scientists to determine how the majority behave. The majority view is then the norm.

METAPHYSICAL ETHICS: This is a subject that goes back to the ancients. What is the nature of good and evil?

AUTHORITARIAN ETHICS: Religious ethics for instance. The bible, the Koran, the headmaster dictates we should do this or that. Religious ethics also blends in with metaphysical theory.

NORMATIVE ETHICS: We should be behaving so as to do the great good to the greatest number. We should protect the weak.

EGALITARIAN ETHICS: We should treat all as equal. Egalitarians may speak of a social contract between people. The professions may claim that their special privileges are based on a social contract or promise of good behavior.

BIOLOGICAL ETHICS:
a) Certain patterns of behavior are learnt and assist in the survival of the individual, the group, the tribe, society etc.
b) Another biological principal is pleasure seeking. To behave in an ethical way (as considered by that society) earns praise, respect, honors etc from ones peers.

In brief there is no one system of ethics that fits all sizes. Religion is certainly not a prerequisite for ethical behavior. Religious people are just as prone to “get it wrong” as non believers. By the way I understand that there are many believers too who accept the necessity of therapeutic and/or social abortion.

George Orwell’s remarks on patriotism:

"The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions—racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war—which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action."

John Derbyshire on multiculturalism and secular Muslim leaders:

"It’s hard not to admire these brave people, most of whom are under fatwas of one sort or another, liable to be hacked to death by some frothing Muslim lunatic any time they step outside.

The tragedy—and I am using that word in its full and proper meaning—the tragedy is, that these westernized Muslims are banging their heads against that Orwell quote. They have signed on to the modern world and its multi-culti fantasies. There was plenty of courage and good sense on display at St. Petersburg, but not much of those energizing principles Orwell spoke about: “racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war.” It’s the jihadis who have those."

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=6582&sec_id=6582

Repeat, "IT'S THE JIHADIS WHO HAVE THOSE" - not the intellectuals. The Muslim intellectuals are not going to save us from the radical Muslims who steamroll everything in their path. Only radical measures will stop this rabid culture from spreading in the West.

Dear Anti Green
I appreciate your considerable effort in outlining the various systems of ethics. I'm sure now we are all better informed about this matter... I certainly am.

A couple of points though.

1. You lumped the Bible into 'Authoritarian'_ethics, along with the Quran. The Quran is definitely such, but the Bible no.

Bible/NewTestament has its context in the living Body of believers who themselves may be subject to a code of ethics such as 'do not commit adultery' where, if someone does and is not remorseful, they will be surely disciplined, with a worst case scenario of being socially ostracized. This is not usually neccessay, as (and I'm thinking of a Pastor I know) the level of public humiliation is far worse than any other form of 'punishment'. The pain, sorrow and anguish will never in this life change what has happened and is now known by one and all.

2. The difference between the 'metaphysical' sources of ethics, and the material/purely philosophical is that they are a grab_bag of choices with no utlimate sanction.

They work well while the agreement holds, but it only takes one persuasive dissenter to dismiss them, and it can all fall apart.

When 'Thus_says_the_Lord" is our source, its 'final'. But lets be clear. What God says is just 2 things (when it all boils down)
1/ Love God.
2/ Love your neighbour.

Point 1 can only be by 'choice'.

All this now leads to the issue of "Islam".
I would socially accept a renaissance in Islam which repudiated Surah 23:5-6 and 9:30 as "unfit for mankind" -nothing less. Islam offers a 'State' with the Quran as its lawbook. (see 9:30 please) Christ offers a new birth and a new life and a new community.

Your points about some Bishops/priests abusing children are factual, but they are not 'of Christ'. Each abuser answers to man AND....God.
Such abuse is not a denial of the reality of the Biblical Gospel, merely an account of mans response to it.

A renaissance would be great so long as it is accompanied by a reformation.

anti-green:
“Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

This only proves that neither Napoleon nor Laplace could distinguish between mathematical models of physical reality (that Laplace was in fact writing about), and religious models of transcendental reality, a distinction that, of course, makes sense only to those who believe in the existence of both. You can study not only classical mechanics, but also relativity theory, evolution, quantum mechanics etc. without needing a hypothesis about the existence or non-existence of God.

Ameer Ali,
Thanks for this stimulating article. Let theologians and imams determine what Christianity and Islam have in common, and what not. (On 15/10/2006 thirty eight Muslim scholars wrote an open letter to the pope in response to his Regensburg lecture: do you - or anybody on this thread - know of a link where one could read this letter in English or German?)

However, one thing that Christians and Muslims have in common is quite obvious: they both are on the receiving end of abuse by those who cannot understand the rationale behind the belief in a personal God, are uneasy about it, and feel urged to attack verbally those whom they cannot understand. Islamists also attack those who see things differently, unfortunately their attacks go well beyond verbal and that is a big difference. Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that the abusive atheists are a small minority among secular humanists, the same as aggresive Islamists are a small minority among Muslims.

Theism alone fails to adequately account for the extreme levels of social violence we currently see in some Islamic states. Thus the impact of your dreampt-up army of 'reformed Islamic rationlists', will be negligible at best.

I don't see how anyone can so coolly and surely dismiss the effects of historical and contemporary patterns of invasion, occupation, poverty and economic exploitation (as the author has done) in an analysis of the 'problems afflicting the world of Islam'.

It isn't an 'imagined West' when you have a bunch of US Army militiamen kicking your door in to arrest your son and F-35s rocketing overhead when all you want is a quiet nights sleep.

Sam wrote;

'Hey tr...you are not seeing the full picture here...if a population believes that the seat of the soul is in a persons head region ie it is a current belief that developed over the ages...unless you have 'scientific evidence' to prove otherwise you cant shift that view...'

Sam, for centuries the majority of people thought that epilepsy and schizophrenia was caused by demon possession rather than by neurological pathology. They were wrong. Just because a supernatural explantion SEEMS plausible doesn't make it right. Only by careful assessment of the facts by the scientific method can we obtain something approaching certainty and truth.

The tragedy of the situation is that religious beliefs as determined by the majority opinion sometimes lead to unnecessary persecution and suffering. Epileptics were sometimes ostracised by the religious community and occasionally burnt at the stake.

In your case, you have used the unfounded 'fact' that the soul resides near the pituitary to help justify the decapitation of a fellow human being. Here we have a clear case of religious dogma suppressing reason.

A reasonable person would suggest that we "don't know all the facts about the soul" and therefore defer hacking the head of someone till more data comes to light.

A reasonable person would then apply the time honoured principle of "Thou shall not kill" and not murder the so-called criminal in the name of the state.

A reasonable person would also apply the concept that punishment and reform of the individual should go hand-in-hand. It's a bit hard for a criminal to repent and reform if their head is severed.

A reasonable person would also make the assumption that the process of law is not perfect and that innocent defendants are sometimes found guilty accidently.

To put it simply, to use religious dogma and majority religious opinion to determine Truth and carry out justice is completely irrational.

In fact Sam, I could very well say at this point that your previous post has proven the point that 'Islamic rationalism' is an oxymoron.

Lastly, you wrote;

'further you are trying to flip the onus to other side...ie those who believe this must prove it with science when the belief began when lot of people still thinking the earth was flat and would argue black and blue for it...this road leads to confrontational exchanges'

I would suggest that it is the closed dogma of religions that bring about 'confrontational exchange' because it evokes absolute certainty when none exists in reality. Dogmatic religion also has a tendency to close off debate because it assumes that all its texts have fallen straight from heaven and are therefore not open to discussion. When debate and discussion end conflict begins.

It is the duty of religion to listen to science and reason, not the other way around.

George, here is a link for your open letter to the Pope by the Islamic Imams.

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/issue18/openletter18_lowres.pdf

You will need acrobat reader or some other PDF application.

Cheers

So God is able to open the eyes of the blind?
Of the endless man made Gods what one would that be?
In truth man has outgrown his child the build in genius is to be admired in all the books of all the Gods.
Even the fear that was planted to keep us on our knees.
And the promise of a life forever on those knees worshiping a God who seemingly loves us so much he/she wants us to never be one humanity one world.
The thread is about a chance that exists for a better world.
If only we can tell some no God awaits to reward them for murder with so many wifes or is it slaves?

Well said Anti Green.

The author of this piece of rubbish does know what the term "renaissance" means I assume. It means rebirth. Which indicates that something had died in the first place. A dead religion is what he is telling you, dead. I agree, now it's just a ghost.

Poor Oligarch. I don't see any spewing by Anti Green at all. Challenging your fairy tales is just that, a challenge. Seeing you over react tells us all how shaky your beliefs actually are.

Any facts here at all? Any actual evidence of a God? All I see is quotes from books written by men. Not women, just men.

"Dogmatic religion also has a tendency to close off debate because it assumes that all its texts have fallen straight from heaven and are therefore not open to discussion." - TR

This thread shows that dogmatic atheists are just as difficult to engage meaningfully as they perceive theists to be. Many of their views don't seem to be the result of personal reflection, but are just a re-run of Dawkins et al.

To insist that nothing can exist except for the things which can be observed and understood reeks of humanistic arrogance.

To those who accept this view, I would say that the proof is in the pudding. If the Bible is truly given by the inspiration of God, those who read it with an open heart will be transformed by faith in Jesus the Christ. Although this comment may infuriate staunch atheists, it has certainly been my experience.

MaNik
You say "If the Bible is truly given by the inspiration of God, those who read it with an open heart will be transformed by faith in Jesus the Christ." This "if" indicates to me that there is a slight doubt in your mind that this is the case.

Before even reaching this statement, you have to prove the existence of God, and then that the Bible was inspired by this God.

For this to happen, the person concerned has to suspend their reasoning and just believe, based on no evidence.

A previous poster said something about Atheists "hating" God. How can one hate something that doesn't exist?

Neither do Atheists hate religionists. They just hate their proselytising and attempts to impose their beliefs and mores on the rest of humanity.

Beliefs which just cause division and hatred among people and which lead to the terrible consequences that we have seen throughout the centuries. Of course religion is not the only philosophy that has caused such misery. However the more we can be guided by reason and goodwill, the better.

Reckon us OlO's are getting nowhere right now. In fact, it is getting bloody boring, like when a lecturer keeps pausing and looking at his watch.

Three or four days ago it was an interesting discussion, but now it has drifted into the same old elitist punchng Islam in the gut, with anyone game enough to act a bit protective, called the same old fruitcake, or looney leftie.

All this with a Texan two-gun cowboy type former sports executive, still stuck in the White House with most against him, while he prays for the Second Coming as he breaks Constitutional rules.

Please let us get real for a change, not just about more killing, but simply more wisdom and understanding, which is still so easy to find if we became less and less smart-arse

Thanks froggie,
There is no "if" for me, I was just putting the point across in passive terms.

Your premises are not sound:

* "For this to happen, the person concerned has to suspend their reasoning and just believe, based on no evidence." - This has been belted out by atheists and theists for centuries. I'd encourage you to read C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer for some classic Christian agologetics. It is helpful to examine both sides of a coin in order to better appreciate the issues at hand.

* "Neither do Atheists hate religionists. They just hate their proselytising and attempts to impose their beliefs and mores on the rest of humanity." - Many have found the recent activities of fanatical Dawkinites to be more offensive the most abrasive Evangelists.

* "Beliefs which just cause division and hatred among people and which lead to the terrible consequences that we have seen throughout the centuries." - Atheistic ideologies have had some cataclysmic results as well eg Communism.

* "However the more we can be guided by reason and goodwill, the better." Amen. But you seem to be doing what is constantly leveled at Christianity: Claiming reason and goodwill all to yourself.

MaNik,you are clutching at straws.

>>To insist that nothing can exist except for the things which can be observed and understood reeks of humanistic arrogance<<

Nobody here has made this claim. Each of us has the capacity to absorb and accept things that defy logic or are external to it. That we choose not to believe in God does not diminish or invalidate this capability.

Your accusation is as stupid as claiming that the fact that something cannot be "observed and understood" is de facto evidence of its existence.

Boaz I thank you for your contribution. It is clear to me that many contributors to this thread could have mutual enjoyable conversation and exchange ideas with out acrimony. Differing philosophies and perspectives add to the interest and intellectual stimulation.

In our professional and private lives we meet and come into contact with people of from diverse background and cultures with out problems. [Of course I ignore here matters covered by criminal law, and even so the events are rarely a response to religious or ethnic differences]. I do not quiz the assistant as to religious or political affiliation when entering a supermarket to buy my groceries.

The mixing of cultures has enriched our lives. I mention; restaurants; cinema; the universality of music, the international co-operation of art galleries and museums; international travel to conferences and so on. The instances of interaction between people are endless and always profitable.

Unfortunately, there are subsets within Islam (and other religions) that are determined not to adapt or come to turns with either secular society or other religions. I refer to both “intraIslamic” conflict (Sunni v Shia) and “extra Islamic” international conflict such as Israel v Hezbollah, inner city riots, NATO v Taliban, Al Qaeda v the World and so on.

An article in today’s Australian suggested that fundamental Islam will fail. This may be true in the long run. In the short term bloody conflict is more likely.

In earlier posts I spoke of eradicating religion. Of cause this is not going to be possible at least in my life time. However, in to day’s world the net direction of adaptation is from religious interpretations towards the secular. Prior to the enlightenment truth was considered to be theological and absolute. In the secular world truth is based on empirical observation and experimental verification. Our confidence in scientific theory is not an issue of faith. Our confidence is pragmatic and always tentative upon the next observation.

A very interesting article.

Aqvarivs, thank you for that link. A year ago or so, I read a fascinating discussion between a Catholic scholar and a Muslim scholar. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it again.

I'll declare my beliefs. Catholic background, grew up and lived in developing countries, last 20 years find Buddhist philosophy more comprehensible, which is atheist in make-up. During my young years of search for answers did study Islam and the Koran and actually found it more 'logical' than the Christian bible.

The thing that all philosophies attempt to answer is how to live a good and moral life. Atheist philosophies too. But,it is a simple fact that some of our greatest thinkers have been theologians. So, to discard everything a religious person has to say is not rational.

Having a good debate on moral issues is great. It gives one a chance to reflect on personally held beliefs and find 'the holes' so to speak. But, I find some of the intractable statements re 'the non-existence or existenc of God and therefore whatever you have to say is irrelevant and stupid' very frustrating.

Wish most of you would forget that us Christians are as white as the driven snow while Islamic souls are as black as the mud beneath.

Most academic historians could write more than a full page about Christian atrocities, probably the worst instance being the slaughtering of Christians who attended the Great Library of Alexandria, calling them Pagan lovers, wrecking much of the Great Library as well, and also murdering Coptic Christians because they refused to believe in the Trinity which according to historians, only became truthful because the Emperor Constantine gave legality to it during the First Council of Nicea.

While on the job it might also be reminded how our Trinitarian believers have also failed to offer assistance to the one and a half million Iraqi Christians.

Also it is said that these so-called Christian believers, are really more faithful to the Nazarene Jesus, whom to many philosophers is the only true Loving and Compassionate One, as proven by His Sermon on the Mount.

Anti Green, I did a bit of a google on 'Empiricism' and Wiki is worth reading for a good summary.

The main issue between Empiricists and others seems to be the question of 'innate ideas' verses observable phenomena.

May I suggest that Empiricism is a philosophical force which emerged around the 5th century in the West, though the idea was prevalent in other places also.
Imagine a society where the innate idea of God, is so real and close to daily experience that to question His existence would be unthinkable. This is how it would have been from the time of Christ to the beginning of Emiricism. The Philippines and many Asian countries are like that even today. So, what I'm saying is that an 'empirical' view of life, is not the only valid one, and if we took it in isolation, it could even be a very incorrect one, leading us astray.
The major event which this relates to is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. No amount of empirical study would validate this.

Brushy.. *frown* :) you are making sweeping statements there mate about 'Trinitarian' Christians not helping the Iraqi Christians. You need to google more mate or.. have more to do with interdenominational missions which may be doing quite a bit.

Keith said it all.. "unless there is also a reformation".. I agree with your intended meaning, but disagree with the liteeral one, but only because our Christian reformation brought us back to the fundamentals of "Salvation through faith" and delivered us from the power of 'The Roman Catholic Church'... If Islam goes more fundamental, it will become 'stronger' politically and hasher.
Please see this former muslims testimony in his profile.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nerdzrule

Thanks, aqvarivs.

Yvonne, I want to thank you for the calming effect your post potentially has on the discussion.

As I am a Christian, I know that you and I would shortly disagree once we got a few layers down, but –
1) most of community life is lived on the surface, so deep disagreement is easily enough avoided;
2) disagreement, when it happens, doesn’t have to be rude or hurtful;
3) there are always those “nuggets” of unexpected agreement.

Many of us posting are very clear about being right – whether our faith is in God or in empiricism – but, even if we think the other person is “wrong”, we could consider allowing them to be wrong rather than strongarming them.

Surely, it is behaviour not beliefs we are really concerned about when discussing whether or not some group is a danger or an annoyance. I know the behaviour springs from the belief, but the believer usually has the ability to temper their behaviour for the good of others.

So, while I am a dogmatic Christian, I will live happily with Muslims who don’t kill me and Dawkinsians who don’t insult me at every opportunity. Of course, I also expect Christians not to venture beyond respect when evangelising.

This seems to me to be the value of a secular society: the freedom to differ in our beliefs with impunity. Then, if we’re not busy strongarming or playing defence, we can live positively and make things better for everyone.

Pax,

In the Islamica Magazine, that aquavirvs introduced me to, I found the following statement: "Islam is one of a handful of topics in the English speaking world for which expertise or knowledge is not a prerequisite for voicing one’s opinion." (http://www.islamicamagazine.com/about-islamica.html). Well, judging from some posts here, Christianity - even religion in general - is on a good way to join Islam.

I do suggest that anybody who have an interest in this area of international events read the comments and the factural history of His Majesty SOLTAN QEUMARS SHAH QAJAR, King of Persia at http://www.persiaworldnews.com/ as he is living in exile in Nth Qld north of Cairns and prevented from leaving Australia by the Commonwealth Govt.

Religion provides those people with a sense of direction and purpose in there life whether god, Allah, buddha or the myriad of other gods in our mind exists or not and that is a good thing for the world.

But no one should force, persuade or market there beliefs onto other people with the intent to convert.

We should demand of our peers, family and community, some action to stop religion stealing the choice away from week minded people and more importantly cutting it up along geographical, ethnic, political or racial lines.

The world is a small place now and we all need to move on to the next stage of human existence rather than kill each other over beliefs.

'...but only because our Christian reformation brought us back to the fundamentals of "Salvation...'

No it didn't David. It released us not only from the dominance of the Catholics but also from the dominance of the fundamentalist tales of the Bible. The Reformation coupled with the renaissance allowed us westerners to have a balance. A balance between the extremes of a blind faith and of the dominance of a godless logic. The fundamentalist extreme still exists in the faith of the Hebrews and the Muslims. And it appears some Westerners who would still have us believe the Bible is the only way to interact with and intrepret the will of our God...Gods.

Wooaah there Unimportant... that last sentence, -one word in it that I find mildly unsettling. You included 'persuasion' as one of your NO-NO's regarding people passing on their faith.

I have to disagree.

The ONLY real valid means of passing on ones faith is by persuasion.
We proclaim, with a view to persuading. We present truth, that it might be believed.

I agree with Goodthief that we must also respect.There are socially acceptable means of interacting with a view to persuading. (Like OLO :)

But this topic is about Islam's renaissance.
Amir said:

1/
"voluntary exodus of Muslim intellectuals to the West. From an inhospitable environment of political tyranny and ideological oppression"

2/
As a result, the migrant Muslim intellectuals are now producing a new genre of publications, many of which are questioning centuries-old interpretations of the primary texts in Islam.

COMMENT:
There are only 2 possible approaches to interpreting holy texts.
a) The 'wrong' one.
b) The 'right' one.
I say this on the grounds of normal interpretation of any document, such as this post I'm doing now. In any 'interpretation' one needs to take into account 'Statements/commands/suggestions/concessions/parables/analogies,cultural idiosyncracies' etc

Jesus "if your right hand sins, cut it off" aah.. INTEPRETATION needed here, based on context and 'cultural mode' of speaking. i.e. not 'literal'.
Then "40 days" did not always mean exactly, it meant 'a long time'.

For example, the first commandment.

2 I am the LORD your God, (Statement) ......who brought you out of the land of Egypt(Qualifiying statement), ...
3 you shall have no other gods before me. (Command/prohibition)
4 You shall not make for yourself an image, (Command/prohibition)

Islam has others.

Surah 23:5-6 (paraphrase) a man can have sex with his wife(s) AND his captured slave girls. (Statement/allowance)
Surah 33:50 "Mohammad alone" can have 'any believing woman' as his wife (temporary or permanent) but ordinary believers cannot.

Statement/Allowance. There is no interpretive genius needed.

So, the ultimate problem of a 'wrong' or dodgy/convenient interpretation of Islamic foundation documents is that those with the zeal and power may countermand such dodgy interpetrations to all our detriment.

I should think the Bible and the Qur'an are but start points. It is up to the individual to decide to what degree he or she will observe their religious commandments and how they are interpreted for a 21st century world. Any religious or non religious person can understand the value of the ten commandments for society. Although Judeo-Christian in writing, such words, such laws are not foreign to Islam or Muslim upbringing.
I don't agree that Islams renaissance, if any, will come from the west. I think given time those Islamic countries that are solely dependent on oil/gas revenues for their existence, will soon with the advent and mass production of biofuels loose the religious extremist nature and open up their governing model to include the intellectuals, the creators and invest in developing a middle class for their own national survival. Not even a democratic and open society can survive long with out a middle class. Having near destroyed the middle class over the last 30 years Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States are now realising that a disparate gulf between the rich and poor makes for bad economic realities. So too will those Islamic countries that have imprisoned their intellects and creators in the name of religious fundamentalism or countries like France who crippled their economic structure in the name of socialism. Not that I'm equating the two beyond the observable economic comparisons between France and say Iran.
Those Islamic countries first to expand their economic infrastructure will have the easiest transition and be the impetus for real honest reformation. The world looses a great deal when 1/6 of it's population is not contributing as it could to the creative and intellectual benefit of the world due to the restrictions of religion and closed societies.

The reference to the response to the Popes Regensburg address makes very interesting reading (from George). Difficult to tell were Taqiyya stops and insincerity starts.

I wonder also what the 100 Islamic authors to the above would say about this:

http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

BOAZ, there is a difference between giving someone information so they can make an informed judgment and persuading them to follow.

If it was true that we would sit next to god, have 7 virgin sex slaves or anything we wanted when death comes to us. You would have mass suicide and the world would be clambering for a better life on the other side.

The fact that this is not happening is because most people don't believe the bull@?$#

Boaz, that's ridiculous:

>>There are only 2 possible approaches to interpreting holy texts.
a) The 'wrong' one.
b) The 'right' one.<<

On the contrary, here are absolutely no right or wrong interpretations of holy texts, only interpretations.

Your interpretations of snippets of the Qur'an, for example, are significantly at odds with many other posters on this forum. Many of those who disagree with you have a far deeper and broader understanding of the Muslim faith than you do, and may reasonably be assumed by an observer to have a greater case to be "right" than you.

I have played cricket all my life. First at primary school, then senior school and on to club cricket. I still play today. I know the rules, in fact I umpire occasionally and can keep an impeccable scorebook.

If an American, say, chooses to dispute with me the nature of the LBW law, who - from an outsiders viewpoint - has the greater credibility?

Let us say that he has read the rules very carefully, and actively watched dozens of games. He therefore "understands" the mechanics.

He might point out that it is utterly ridiculous that if a ball that is going to hit middle stump happens to pitch outside leg, the batsman cannot be given out. How can that be? Doesn't the LBW law exist in order to ensure the batsman does not unfairly protect his stumps with his body?

His interpretation of both the intent and the application of the LBW law make sense.

However, if you ask a cricketer, who not only understands the letter of the law, but has over the years assimilated the spirit, essence and ethos of the game as well, he will point out exactly how that law makes sense.

Even that explanation does not make sense to the American, of course, who at the end of it will simply shrug his shoulders and mutter "stupid game."

Is my interpretation more "right" than his? Possibly. Is his interpretation therefore "wrong"? Not really, his argument has some - fairly narrow - merit.

But they are still both interpretations.

Boaz, regarding our ultra modern Christians helping the unfortunate Iraqi Christians, where is the truth, mate? Certainly not from the Murdoch ultra-right wing media, anyhow.

As one who has gained honours overseas in a study of the wrongs of colonialism, and still in contact with the Murdoch School of Humanites, your answers seem very evasionary as you've been schooled to ward off awkward questions regarding Christianity, both historical and of today.

You are among the many of our group who try to ward people off, Boaz, thinking we might have come down in the last shower. Our rule in political philosophy and as liberal Christians is to work like an honest umpire in sport. Not taking sides and sticking to the rules of fair play, which even as children we were taught that it was what the Sermon on the Mount was all about.

Furthermore, philosophers do say that the principles of the Sermon on the Mount could have been expressed by Socrates - who incidently could not write a word, but did very much prove that without reason, faith can become very misguided.

Incidently, Socratic Reasoning was the main topic in the Great Library of Alexandria, which sadly our Christians raped and destroyed to the point it has never been the same again.

Still like to stay friendly, Boaz, because you certainly have likeable qualities.

George C, WA

Who Destroyed Alexandria's Famous Library?

Early in the year A. D. 642, Alexandria surrendered to Amrou, the Islamic general leading the armies of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad. Long one of the most important cities of the ancient world and capital of Byzantine Egypt, Alexandria surrendered only after a long siege and attempts to rescue the city by the Byzantines. On the orders of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad, the entire collection of books (except for the works of Aristotle) stored at the Library of Alexandria were removed and used as fuel to heat water for the city's public baths.

[taken from the University of Minnesota]

http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/indextext/Alexandria.html

Who Destroyed Alexandria's Famous Library?

According to Sprague de Camp "Ancient Engineers" the collection was destroyed by a series of fires over a period of time, due largely to the fact that they didn't have the benefit of fire extinguishers, fire walls, automatic alarm systems, or even a fire brigade.

I don't know the truth but that does sound feasible.

Pericles, I'm in total admiration with your ability in responding to and boundless patience with Boazy.

I almost choked on the Shiraz I was sipping while settling down to read some pithy debate on OLO when I read the INTERPRETATION DEFINITION of Holy texts by our resident bible and Quran interpreter Boazy-David. My word. To be so sure of knowing the RIGHT interpretation.

David, you're not likening yourself to your biblical namesake, that Philistine slaying decendent from faithful Ruth are you? Just wondering why you think you know the right interpretation.

Goodthief, would love to get to some deeper layers of discussion. I've had some of my most profound discussions with an elderly, very knowledgable and very humble Catholic priest.

As to the article. Surely it is inevitable that Islam will have a renaisance. Whether that is from the West or not probably doesn't matter. Aqvarivs had some very interesting and valid points on this.

Boaz and Pericles, At risk of being contrary, I don't agree with either of you. Or, if you prefer, I want to offer a third view about interpretation. At least, I think it's a third view.

I think that interpreting a document means trying to get to the meaning intended by the author. However -
i) the author might have intended more than one meaning;
ii) or intended the material to be adaptive;
iii) or even intended it to be obscure;
iv) there might be more than one author;
v) or it might have been ghost-written;
vi) the document under discussion might not be an original, but itself a copy that is unavoidably interpretive;
vii) (There's probably a vii)

So, there might be a range of reasonable interpretations - rather than one true one. A limited range, though. Pericles’ American was being reasonable, and was in the ball-park (if you will excuse me), so I don't think it's open season on interpreting text.

There’s another important distinction – between knowing there is a true interpretation (or, at least, a finite range) and knowing one has got it! This doubt might spring from humility, not a lack of decisiveness.

So, when a Bible-type like myself is looking at a passage that is of interest, my question is: “What is God saying to me? That is, what is God saying to me here and now?” My answer will be nothing better than my best shot. My best shot will involve serious reading of, under, behind the passage (various contextual dimensions), some hard thinking and some prayer. (I don’t expect the Dawkinsians to read this with composure.)

I find literalism attractive, when fatigued.

Yvonne, I'm not an “elderly, very knowledgeable and very humble Catholic priest”, but I am a shiraz man.

Pax,

Goodthief, I like the way you read your bible, I like your take on interpretation and you like Shiraz. Sounds like an excellent mix for a great debate.

And if when you say God, I say Good, we might not even have too fierce an argument. That is until we get to the nature of God.

bigmal,
I used to tell my students when discussing their (maths) papers: "I think I know what you wanted to say, but I have to mark you on what you wrote and not on what I think you thought." Perhaps one should also judge the open letter by the Islamic scholars on what they wrote rather than on what we think they might have thought.

aqvarivs,
I would agree with all that you wrote but perhaps there is also the possibility that what D. Treadgold wrote about Far East over thirty years ago could also be applied to present day Middle East: "The central problem is one of thought, and its focus as before lies not in the East but in the West itself; even if the Western mind is suffering from a paralysis ultimately residing in the spirit or the will, the problem remains to be worked out in the intellectual domain. ... countries outside the West have always responded to the doctrinal innovation of the West, and my do so again." (The West i Russia and China, CUP 1973, Vol. 2, p. 178).

goodthief,
Words of appreciation from somebody who feels more at home with mathematics and philosophy of science than with e.g. Gadamer and literary criticism.

Poor old RobbyH. It appears nobody ever warned him that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. He talks about fairy tales, but yet he accepts philosophical naturalism and its "just-so" narratives about the universe and life. Unobservable, untestable, and therefore, unfalsifiable "just-so" stories with no basis in empirical evidence. Sounds like "faith" to me.

As for overreaching, I find it somewhat bemusing that RobbyH can accuse me of going overboard in my previous post, but yet defends anti-green in his demands that atheism be imposed on the entire populace for the alleged benefit of mankind.

George, not to dispute your post but, the difficulty with harking back to a thirty year old theory on the condition of nations and what is at most influence leaves out the following thirty years of change(hopefully progress)and especially the instigation of some change made by the to and from of the migration of peoples. Todays Australia does not mirror 1977. There were Muslims happily residing in Australia and happy to be Australian in 1977. What changed? Science, technology, medicine, etc. as well as the national and cultural make up of Australia, and in broader terms due to all this change, Australian society.
Imagine living in a country where one can observe all this exciting advancement on television but, not allowed to experience it first hand or freely express ones frustration of such backwardness thanks to political and religious restrictions. Some one has to be blamed. If blaming your government can get you dead, you blame the instigators. So today from closed, heavily controlled societies we have hatred for the "west" and "America", and sometimes it is even expressed as hatred for whites.
Observe the social differences between say Dubai and Iran, or Saudi-Arabia.

Here is a little something from my Canadian friend.
http://www.nowpublic.com/a_widow_into_iran

aqvarivs,
Again, I agree with most of what you say. However by my reference to Treadgold I did not mean an application of the geopolitical, demographic etc. situation, but rather of the general idea — where West is understood as a cultural heritage rather than a territory or population. Perhaps the word "countries" appearing in the quote was misleading.

For instance, I would have no with problems signing the St. Petersburg Declaration (http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration posted by bigmal) by "secular Muslims" (never mind that the term looks like a contradictio in se), and I think so would any other "westerner", even though I would tactfully refrain from pointing out that this is a "response to the doctrinal innovation of the West" (the Enlightenment correction to applied Christianity).

The Treadgold thesis obviously holds for science, technology and mathematics: the East did not develop parallel alternatives, like they did with religion and perennial philosophy in general, but they "responded to innovations of the West" by appropriating them, building on them, and keeping on developing them further. I think the same might happen with the western idea of Enlightenment used as a correction to Islam, the same as it had been used as a correction to Christianity. First, of course, at an abstract, intellectual, level. Whether this will happen in the form of Euroislam (Bassam Tibi), as something specifically American (St. Petersburg Declaration) or in traditional Islamic countries, that is a different question.

Goodthief,

Good informative analysis as usual.

Boaz,

At least you can find 20 + verses in the Quran to free slaves. There is not a single one in your scripture. According to the OT its an acceptable practice for a brother to enslave a brother (Ishmael the son of the 'slave' should not inherit).
There is also a minor event in North Africa in the 7th century where Christians went to Muslims leadership to exempt slaves from the taxes since slavery was in the 'heart of christianity (refer to Egyptian Christian historian Dr Milad Hanna's work).

Not to mention that slavery was allowed in the US until 2 centuries ago.
Intellectual dishonesty and double standards are not good qualities 'brother' Boaz. Don't worry, I will be here watching you fall on your sword everytime.

George, good post. I think Treadgold may be understood in broad terms with associations but, if say we choose mathematics, can we suggest parrellel alternatives as we can with the associations of religion or as western institutions do with the geopoliticalisation of philosophies; as in “western/Greek” vs. “Asian”. Or speak in terms of era's as defining experience over time equals enlightenment.
Some would suggest “Asia” and especially “Mid-East” had a medical and scientific enlightenment much sooner than did Europe but, were non starters when it came to economic industrialisation. Again with such conversions and reflections on societies one of the key elements is how accessable is the political and religious market, how open to ideas. Did you read the Iran piece? As a personal and cultural experience one can see the effects as a society begins to close up and isolate itself from the influences of the world around them. The “brain drain” just staggers a country and further reduces it's ability to recover from any form of extremism. Whether that is religious or political in nature or intent. The same thing is happening in Iraq. It isn't the Shia/Sunni battle for dominance in as much as the true intellectuals, the creators, the inventors, the middle class have abandoned their country for survival in a more open environment. These people need the open exchange of ideas to function and to contribute to their societies. This leaves happily for the religious and political extremist a population of the less advantaged and educated hostage to the whims and dictates of the new leadership. Given the opportunity for industrialisation of the Islamic countries, which in the main are single resource, those societies will by themselves demand more open exchange with the rest of the world as is “the sleeping giant”, China today.
Education and money is of no working value to anyone confined by isolationist policies due to religion and politics beyond their control. One needs to be tested and to be confronted by ideas. Multiplicity.

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Or why there is 101 flavours of ice cream. :-)

Philip Tang,

Muslims in the 7th century were the least suspect to burn books.
A Nobel Prize winner in literature and historian, Dr Naguib Mahfouz, have actually documented that during this era of Islamic enlightment, Muslims used to trade the prisoners of the Byzantine empire for books in literature and physics.
(Google Dr Mahfouz historical references on teh Byzantine empire).

If you were talking about today's Taliban Muslims burning books I could have believed it.

Yvonne, Yes, of course we’ll fall out over the nature of God, but we needn’t fall far. Since I believe God is a person, I have to regard your different view (atheist?) as false. And vice versa, of course. But there usually won’t be much point saying so.

By the way, I have a couple of beefs about Buddhism, which you seem to know a lot about. May be just ignorance on my part, of course. I’ll mention them in case you can illuminate me:

i) It seems to discourage strong emotion. This seems unrealistic and unhealthy. I prefer the earthiness of the big religions that strive with human chemistry.

ii) Not sure it does the world any good. It does little or no harm, which is nice, but it doesn’t seem very dynamic. Am I off-track, here?

bigmal: fantastic link to speech by Secular Islam, thank you.

Unimportant: You say to Boaz, “there is a difference between giving someone information so they can make an informed judgment and persuading them to follow”. Different, yes, but perhaps not so different that persuading has to be wrong. Life would be dull if all we ever did was inform each other. I think taking things further, as we do in ordinary conversation – “Come and see this band, they’re incredible, you’d have to be off your rocker to miss them, they’re really going places!” – makes life interesting. We just have to be careful to respect the freedom of the person we’re talking to. I think the problem is that persuasion is risky because it can so easily cross the “consent line”. Speaking of sex, I think flirtation and the use of charm is more interesting than, say, just giving the woman information. This can be done with a strong sense of her personal sovereignty. Hope no-one minds the parallel.

Pax,

pax wrote "i) It(budhhism) seems to discourage strong emotion"

Hope you dont mind if I write a comment. Emotion is actually enhanced...as 'pure' happiness...

Siddhartha, as we know a hindu prince filled with compassion for people suffering from all manner of lifes conditions that triggered the drive of his life(destiny) which to find an end to it(suffering).

His answer...not very well described in translations to english, but meditate into point of becoming one with everything around him...

Little example...go outside into nature(garden) and first stop all your senses ie sight, hearing etc all thats left is a state of feeling...bring to simply 'like' of 'dislike'range of response to what your attention is on...

Then hold a dried dead twig in your hands...and become aware of your 'feeling'(not touch) to it...

Then touch a living leaf of plant(still attached to the plant)...and do same...

then try to describe the difference in the 'feeling'...

lot of people after struggling to describe the difference eventually said same thing...the twigg felt 'nothingness'...leaf felt 'energized' and best described as 'love'...

Buddha's answer here is find peace within yourself...what worked for him is meditation in forrest among that energy of love that plants have he could connect to which made him 'happy'...and otherwise when engaging with life's 'needed' then 'duty'(ie removing desire so doing only what needs be done...eg what what shirt did you wear today...if it was one you 'liked' then desire was main component...if the need was be 'clothed' in public and so any clothing that covered was equally acceptable to you at time of choice then you just removed desire and made it part of 'duty' to what you had to achieve today...

buddha understood that 'desire' causes 'suffering'...remove one cause ceases the other which then leads to a state of 'happiness' despite life's happenings...which many buddhist try to achieve...does it work...sure does but for one problem...does one want to give up his 'identity of self'(ie what makes you you) for happiness in selfless action as a duty to...work, eat, sleep...little thought and it becomes clearer...

Hope I explained this adequately...

Sam

aqvarivs,
Of course, I have to agree with the bulk of your second paragraph. I do not know what was your "personal and cultural experience"; mine was only with a totalitarian (stalinist) system imposed on a traditionally "Western" country in the middle of Europe. Not only the memory of better pre-communist times survived in the older generation, but also the awareness of being heirs of the cultural (and religious) West, as we saw us. Such an awareness of being heirs of a cultural and political system - that is being seen by the majority of the population as "better" (in various meanings of the word) than the one in existence - might exist in China, perhaps also in Islamic countries, but I do not think it exists to such an extent as was the case in Central European countries under communism. This, of course, is an important difference. Nevertheless, what we in the fifties regarded as an evil system that will have to spread all over the world before the powerful West stops being naive about it, collapsed in less than fourty years. Who knows whether, in spite of the difference mentioned above, the totalitarian systems built on Islamic ideology will not collapse, or rather dissolve, sooner than we might expect today; catchword "internet". If only the West did not hamper this process by overreacting, using the method “bull in the china shop”.

As to the first paragraph, I think one should not confuse Enlightenment with enlightenment that you define as "experience over time" which, of course, is not restricted to European history. When you want to speak of parallel alternatives in mathematics, you have to go far back into history: e.g. there is a Chinese version of the Pythagoras theorem, but it is not easy to see the equivalence with "western eyes”. I presume, the same could be said about medicine (perhaps with the exception of acupuncture): today there is only one medicine, like there is only one mathematics.

(ctd) Namely, the one practiced by all doctors and mathematician of the world, taught at all universities, based on what the West has arrived at in the recent centuries, with no better alternatives, whatever was the case in far away history. In the not so remote past we thought that the same was true about our Christianity. And in fact, when teaching mathematics to students of Asian background, I sometimes felt like a missionary of Western thought.

Sorry, I did not express myself clearly enough about the “software” (cultural) - in distinction to the "hardware" (territorial) - version of the East-West complementarity or polarity. One cannot separate East from West (the “software”) using territorial criteria, like one cannot mechanically separate the poles of a piece of magnet. Something like the yin-yang principle where the "hardware" version is the female-male distinction. There is, of course, some relation between the “software” and “hardware”, but I think in both cases a lot of misunderstandings arise from confusing the two. For instance, for us, living under communism, everything to the east of the Iron curtain was West (good and bad, we did not distinguish, we idealised the forbidden world), and even today countries in Central Europe, that used to be communist, are often referred to as Eastern Europe. I can better discern the poles East and West within, say, the Russian or German cultural make-ups, than in the Chinese or Islamic cases. So maybe I am seeing a distorted picture of the Islam-Christianity dilemma through my pinkish coloured East-West glasses. Paul Tillich describes the validity of this kind of “semi-subjective” approach rather succinctly: “The test of a phenomenological description is that the picture given by it is convincing, that it can be seen by anyone who is willing to look in the same direction, that the description illuminates other related ideas, and that it makes the reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect understandable. (Systematic Theology I, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, p. 106).

George, I'm reminded of the story of the two gentlemen waiting in line for a bowl of ice cream. The shop only had a limited supply of ice cream come in once each week and it was always vanilla, and the queue was always very long and many waited in vain. This week the two gentlemen were well ahead in the queue to be assured of receiving their portion and were talking about what flavour they were going to enjoy. One said how he would have chocolate this week and the other said he would enjoy strawberry. Having gotten their bowl of vanilla ice cream each they spied a place in the shade to enjoy it. Approaching they asked a fellow already there if they could join him and struck up a conversation asking the stranger what flavour of ice cream he was enjoying this day. The man said, I had only made the end of the queue these past two weeks and missed my opportunity. This week I got up extra early and was one of the first. So gentlemen to make up for my missed opportunities, today I am having Neapolitan. One fellow turn to the other and says, The capitalist's would never understand such extravagance and probably have the vanilla. :-)

Thanks for your trouble Sam. The "mindset" you describe is so unfamiliar to me that I'll have to ponder and fret for a while. Will get back.

Pax,

This thread is still going?

Don't you people ever get sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

Don't you people ever get sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

Don't you people ever get sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

Don't you people ever get sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

Part One

To Boaz - Your statement that Christian groups have really been concerned about the lack of news regarding the plight of around a million and a half Iraqi Christians. Well, why has it not been mentioned on this OLO programme? Is it because there is concern that the Iraqi Christians are Nestorian, and said to be mostly non-Trinitarian?

With us Ecumenical Christians, Boaz, it is all about being fair to most everybody. As the 17th century English philosopher John Locke points out in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, in which he warns that in using faith, we must still rely on reason to grasp the real truth as regards both spiritual and material welfare.

Just by changing Reason to Reasonable, I guess it gives out the true ecumenical message.

I guess you do know, Boaz, that the Holy Trinity was not made part of Christian Holy Scripture till nearly three years after the Crucifixion, when the Roman Emperor Constantine gave the order to cease persecuting the Christians and later prevailed over the Council of Nicea, in which as Chairman he gave the grant to a group who already believed in the Trinity - so hence began the life of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The problem was, and it still is today, that many of the Nestorian groups refuse to sanction the Trinity, believing also more in a radical young Jewish preacher named Jesus rather than the Christ, which is a Greek word or synonom.

Further, about the Iraqi Christians, there was an article in the Guardian stating how forlorn the Iraqi Christians have become, many having crossed over into Syria and Jordan. The article author also expressed utter disgust towards the Bush regime just pushing the plight of the Nestorians aside, even more so because there is a large group practising in the US itself.

Our so-called church-minded John Howard should suffer over the above also, as well as Tony Blair, both apparently having lined up the Nestorians with the terrorists.

BB Part Two

It has also been surmised by historians, that because the Nazarene Sermon on the Mount contains that wonderful mixture of faith and reason. Such as - blessed are the peacemakers - rather than in commands like - thou Shalt, the Mount Sermon appears more like the sweet reasonabless of Greek philosophy than that of the Bible. Maybe it is true that the young Jesus attended the Great Libary of Alexandria, as has been perceived by scholars.

Unfortunately, it seems according to history, that the Trinitarian Christians, unlike the Nestorians, gradually developed a hatred of the Great Library calling its Greek architects, Pagans, reaching the stage in AD 11, that they sacked and badly damaged the buldings, as well as stoning to death a woman teacher philosopher Hypatia, who is also said to have had Christian connections.

Must also thank our contributors who carried on with the story of Alexander's Great Library, telling how in the AD 600 years the library was burnt and pretty well destroyed by the Caliphates.

Now that is interesting because the Caliphates were mostly Persian and have been commended by historians for helping dig our Western ancestors out of the Dark Ages and onto the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment.

Looks like there appears to have been enmity between the followers of Greek philosophy themselves. Something about Aristotle, who actually taught the young Alexander the Great.

Thanks, mates, would like to hear more about it.

Cheerio - BB - WA.

To get back to the article, if I may, surely the most relevant thing is not what clerics argue is the faith, but what most people make of it. In the religion of my upbringing, Judaism, I have read much about the theory, which is based only partly on the Bible and mostly on interpretation, have been sermonized often about what I should do and believe, but in fact have met very few Jews who actually follow the Rabbis. I have also met a number of Rabbis who bend the rules like crazy.

Religion is what a significant body of followers actually believe and do, and this changes with time. Islam changes just as much as Christianity. Problems occur when religion and politics mix.

And bushbred, I think you will find that Jesus didn't change Judaism nearly as much as you think. The unique Christian content occurred long after his death.

Goodthief, Sam explained a bit. This is about Buddhism, so anybody irritated about this, stop reading now.

Buddhism is not at all about suppressing emotion or being unemotional. On the contrary. Very, very simply, it asks you to think about what makes you feel anger and unhappy or joy and happines. So, it is about becoming more aware, about things like greed, envy and attachment. The goal is to be happy and joyful.

If you ever get to converse with a seriously practicing Buddhist, what is striking is the sense of humour and joy. Not different really to seriously practising Christians. Just the path is somewhat different. You are to discover truths to be true yourself. You are not to take anybody's word without question and personal contemplation. Not even teachings from the Buddha. Therefore, there is absolutely no 'missionary' work to 'convert'. That is not possible.

Incidentally, the Buddha is silent on the existence or not of God or even Gods. This is a truth you have to discover for yourself.

Sam & Yvonne,

I’m suffering from empathy failure, here. Motley points:

i) I don’t think I’d have the patience to make a very good Buddhist: not too flash at meditating, I think.

ii) If I were to meditate (with my regular Christian hat on), I’d be seeking out the scent that I believe God has probably left on his creation. Because I consider God to be love, then the scent might be profoundly lovely in that sense.

iii) How does the Buddhist explain, in the absence of creation and ongoing supervision by a loving God, how love gets into the world?

iv) Sam, Are you talking about removing desire, or governing it? My own attitude is that its removal would actually make me less human. On the other hand, there is a moral obligation that I govern it rather than vice versa.

v) Yvonne, Granted that there is no “converting” agenda. Question: why would a Buddhist be altruistic? So far, your description is of a very private state-of-affairs – private and, potentially, selfish.

(Just curious, and happy to drop it.)

BB, Might logic be right about Jesus not overhauling things? After all, we Christians believe that “the Father” is the same Lord God of Israel we find in the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures.

Pax,

You may have noticed that all the rational people have left this debate, leaving room for the religious to disappear up their own backsides.
Wasn't there something about "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin"? Seems the debate has already reached this level.

pax wrote "Are you talking about removing desire, or governing it?"

...depends on what you want...governing leads to balancing material/spritual in ones life which is what most practicing buddhist achieve...'removing'essentially its asking when I stop all desire then what as there is no drive to act...destiny takes over...which further up on the same scale...Give a example on bible. the 12 disciples of christ...before meeting him were like us, born/lived in this material world of needs, basic to indulgence...after christ were driven men following destiny guided by hand of god...so converting this to buddhist terminology... first part was living with desire, second was other limit of scale...destiny/duty to gods work-important point is the only choice they made was to 'follow''(the voice of destiny)and everything they did was result of this and not of personal choice...question is when were they happier...

To answer that pax old son, you have to find the soft voice of destiny within you(as loud as the sound of wind on a windless day) and make your way to the guided place and circumstances and let go into the unknown abyss to be caught and guided by god in action(as they say...and each of us is given a destiny by god...an act to accomplish...and power to refuse/act against/act blind/accept)...to know...

Every person has a spiritual component and which made more acute when we stop distracting ourselves with desire... awareness and developing this is their choice...its reasonable to say that even the most ardent atheists at moment of certain death would think/hope for god and his grace...so essentially the answer is how strong is the spiritual need in you will determine what you chose to do...

Every religion on earth essentially is different roads that lead to the same place...the same god. A spiritually developed buddhist, jew, christian, hindu, muslim, jain etc ie with a daily meaningful relationship with god should all behave the same among brothers save for cultural tones...

Sam

Yvonne:) debate is like a game of chess. Sometimes we put our pawns out in what appears to be a 'suicidal' move :) but aaaah.. then biff, clobber, bang.. we take the other's bishop with our knight lurking off to the side.

My unequivocal statement about 'correct' interpretation fulfilled its goal, of bringing out some very good discussion. And all I had to do was apparently claim I knew the 'only/correct' interepretation :)

Let me now restate more along Goodthiefs lines.

There is a Correct, and Incorrect and many shades in between.
2+2 can be decribed in many ways. But the most 'correct' meaning of '2+2' is that it equals 4. rather than 5.

"You shall have no other gods before me" is pretty clear.
"You shall not covet your neighbours stuff" is pretty clear.
Ali G is quite wrong when he claims that one should not commit adultery "unless she is fit" (Da gospel according to Ali G)

Topic. Will an Islamic renaissance involve the repudiation of specific verses of the Quran?

9:30 is the most important one, it is the 'Mein Kampf' of Islam.

FH claims the context was a battle. Syed Maududi explains.

"The second event that contributed towards making Islam a formidable power was the Campaign of Tabuk which was necessitated by the provocative activities of the Christians living within or near the boundaries of the Roman Empire to the north of Arabia."

'PROVOCATIVE ACTIVIIES' of Christians ? err.. believing that Jesus is the Christ the SON OF GOD is a 'provocative activity'? requiring that they be 'destroyed'?

Is it sinking in yet? I sure hope so. Are you seeing the 'correct' :) Interpretation of this verse?

If Maududi IS correct, then the Quran would not be speaking about 'beliefs' it would be referring to 'provocotive acts' of a military nature. Right or wrong?

Thus, the deeply dark and pernicious, hateful,aggressive,violent,anti-semitic nature of "Islam" is further confirmed by this discussion, and the possibility of an Islamic Renaissance can only ever occur by Muslims completely repudiating such verses as this one.
Again..'right or wrong'?

Boaz,

Had to copy and paste since you repeat yourself on many threads.

Hitler, 12 April 1922 speech:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
"My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”
Note the “Their sword will become our plow" used in his speech is copied from the Bible (Micah 4:3) and the ‘tears of war’ copied from Joel 3:9-10)

Even though you are marketing your faith as loving, peaceful and tolerant, someone found justification to murder 6 million innocent jews.

A decade ago in Rwanda, 96% population murdered 800,000 non-Christian infidels! How did that happen?

My point is simple: it’s not the scripture, its how you contextualise and teach it. If you followed the same approach with the Bible you might win the world’s shortest book.

How do you explain that Christians and Jews lived amongst Muslims for the last 14 centuries, their faith, places of worship intact while the Muslims and Jews were slaughtered (and burnt alive) under tolerant Christianity? Something is not adding up Boaz.

Back on topic:
Islamic renaissance started as early as last century with scholars like Mohammed Abduh and Gamal Al Afghani. They travelled across the world and returned to innovate and modernise. I am not sure Muslim scholars have to live in the west for the renaissance to happen.

aqvarivs,
I think I understand what you mean, namely that I failed - to use the words from the Tillich quote - to convince you that the East-West polarity "makes the reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect understandable." I apologise.

Nevertheless, may I add, that your ice cream eaters differ only in their sensual perceptions, where the situation is quite easy: if we both looked at a pair of elephants, I claimed one of them was pink the other grey, whereas you saw only grey elephants, it would be easy to decide objectively (comparing the wavelengths of the lights emitted) whether you were colour blind or I had hallucinations.

When the perception goes beyond sensual, when human nature is involved, when it is concerned with explanation and assessment of possible future developments, the situation is much more complicated and harder to convey one's way of seeing things. I used to compare the filter of East-West polarities to the split image focusing system in older SLR cameras: the vertical line in the viewfinder was neither really broken (objective truth), nor was its brokenness just a fiction of the photographer's imagination (subjective fantasy) but it was part of the camera's way of helping the photographer to properly focus in.

Well I am again not sure if this helped, and, anyway, we have drifted too far away from the topic of the article.

Sorry, fixture, not fiction of imagination.

Dear F.H. what you don't realize (it appears) is that 'your' version of Islam is not that of many others. I'm sure there are those who share your moderate and matey approach, but as I've said, they are not my concern.

The vid of Indonesian Christians at the courthouse, with a raging Muslim mob outside yelling GANTUNG "Hang them" is about as real as it gets for me, because I can put names to each of those faces in the Muslim mob, as in, I know people in Malaysia who would be doing exactly the same thing, and to MY FAMILY.

You are welcome to mention Hitler, I take all that on board, and I did read quite a bit of not only that speech, but excepts from many others.
To undersand Hitlers use of religion one needs to consider the social mielliue of that time. In 1956 the largest crowd EVER to goto the MCG attended the Billy Graham crusade in Melbourne, over 150,000.

When his son came out a year or 2 back, there was a nearly full Telstra Dome,but that equates to just 35,000 people or so.
Hitler said what he needed to say, to capture the crowd.

He may have even believed some of it, even most of it, but again, I remind you, comparing his understanding with a 'correct' interpretation of the scriptures shows clearly that he had no scriptural basis for his actions.

THAT my friend, is the problem with Islam, there IS a scriptural?Quranic basis for the attacks on Jews and Christians.

The Tabuk Campaign involved murders, (brother of Prince Ukaydir of Duma) forced conversions, pillaging of property and military threats.

While wholesale slaughter of Christians was not undertaken, this had a reason behind it. They were the BUFFER between the Byzantines and Arabia.

Mohammad, by forcing the Christian Arabs into military treaties, basically signed their death warrants without firing an arrow, because they would be either killed by the Byzantines he forced them to betray, or by HIM if they betrayed him and turned back to them.

Islam is about what Muslims and Islamic countries do in practice, not what their scholars or apologists write. The evidential data is that Islam is not so much a religion but rather a political system.

It is a religion when Muslims are a minority in a country. They have many, many ‘religious’ practices (many of them are irrational e.g. dietry prohibitions, a woman can’t shake the hands of a man, can’t drink beer, etc.) which prevent them from integrating with the rest of the non-Muslim community wherever they are. Then, they think that the law of the land is not good enough for them. They give a 1001 frivolous reasons why they need to have their own laws, i.e. Sharia law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4215182.stm

Should Muslims be in a majority Islam becomes a political system. It is not tolerant of other religions and establishes barbaric laws based on the Koran that is alien to democracies and socialist countries. Without any exception all Muslim-majority countries have laws that forbid Muslims from renouncing Islam.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.408803447&par=0
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_4_18/ai_82651661

Even in so-called moderate Islamic country of Malaysia, there is no freedom of religion.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Totalitarian-Aspects-Moderate-Muslim-Malaysia.htm

The majority of Muslims aren’t interested in Islam. Through a long process of indoctrination, brain-washing and threats of hell, the Islamic cleric and jihadist have a strangle-hold on the minds, and life-style of Muslims. Therefore, the Muslims are to be pitied rather than hated. They can be helped by abandoning their traditional mosques and madrassahs altogether. Progressive Muslims like Mohammed Arkoun, would go even further if he embraces secularism and join the ranks of Ibn Warraq, Ali Sani, etc from International Society for Islamic Secularization, or less well known Indian-Muslim Hamid Dalwai http://www.hvk.org/Publications/wit.html

Really not so long ago, all people practising academia were called philosophers. Yet not many Christian leaders were called philosophers, because philosophy is so very much based on reason or reasoning rather than faith.However, as every Humanities scholar has been taught, it is St Thomas Aquinas who is classed in today's light as one of the greatest philosophers as well as the greatest theologian.

The suggestion earlier about our discussions having been likened to the Enlightenment phrase about philosophers looking for answers on a pinhead, was really about the need to turn to Biblical Faith to stop wasting time.

We need to take note of immensely valuable comments from an Iranian woman lawyer, who said though she believes Iran needs democracy, her experience of America since the end of WW2, means that it is certainly not the Democracy of the American Way.

The way Unipolar Americana has carried on since the Bush regime has been in charge, many of us could well agree with her.

Philip Tang

"Should Muslims be in a majority Islam becomes a political system. It is not tolerant of other religions and establishes barbaric laws based on the Koran that is alien to democracies and socialist countries. Without any exception all Muslim-majority countries have laws that forbid Muslims from renouncing Islam."

Is this true in Indonesia? If so why are their so many Christians there? In fact many of their Muslim leaders have been very liberal.

BOAZ

You keep referring to medieval times, perhaps you should include the Inquisition. If you try to tell me that the Pope and the Holy See at the time were not practicing Christians I will be very confused.

logic,
My perception is that Indonesia was largely secular under the regimes of Sukarno and Suharto. However, with the stepping down of Suharto, the country has become more chaotic, ‘democratic’ and Islamist.

Islamists will make use of democracy to kill democracy. How be it? When an Islamic-based party comes to power they would establish Sharia law. With Sharia law there really is no freedom of religion, because Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam and, it would be near impossible for other faiths to promote their religion. Turkey appears to be in such a situation.

Not too long ago (20 plus years) people of different faiths could mix freely especially in Indonesia but now with the rise of radical Islam and Arab influence all these have changed. An article by Baladas Ghoshal describes the situation in Indonesia quite accurately.

http://www.quantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-774/i.html?PHPSESSID=133099777

Boaz,

"what you don't realize (it appears) is that 'your' version of Islam is not that of many others"

Thats an interesting 'statement' which as usual you will go around, backpedal and bring in a couple of personal Asian experiences in an attempt to back your claims.

PS: I gave up on your intellectual honesty a while back, but at least when you quote extreme interpretations of the Quran like the Mawdudi, at least have the decency to explain to audience that what he wrote 9 centuries ago was under the influences of the Crusdaes attacks, the Monghols wars on Muslims. If you have a shred of fairness, please interpret to us Christianity and its intents for Islam as quoted by your very holy Pope Urban II.

But then again, even the poor pope mis-interpreted Jesus teachings.
Why nobody mis-interpreted Bhudda's teachings?

Fellow_Human, No one "mis-interprets" Buddhism because it is apolitical and has no inherent system of social governance. Buddhism is about individuals traveling to the same destination on their own path. Christianity and Islam is about conversion before the journey can begin and the road is mapped out in advance. Deviation is unacceptable and can get you excommunicated from the Church or your death ordered by fatwa. A Buddhist can not fail in his/her journey to spiritual understanding. At the very worst a Buddhist will be reborn as part of the continual cycle of life and death, and Nirvana, joining the spiritual ultimate Godhead, that personal struggle for enlightenment continues. Had Christianity and Islam been personal guides and not communal authorities the world would have had a much more peaceful history. And we would not presently be embroiled in this "Islamification" of Western secular culture.
People should read the link provided by Philip Tang. It highlights what many of us "religion as personal" types fear. The insidious imposition of Authoritarianism and social exclusionary practices. Principally, why we have developed secular societies.

Thanks aqvarivs (what’s with the “v” instead of “u”, please - some Roman/Latin thing?), I’ve read Philip Tang’s link and am alarmed again. (Philip, thank you for the link)

For myself, I regard my Christian faith as no mere personal thing, but something true that everyone needs. But, I realise this is not a popular notion, and anyhow I know I’m not permitted to force-feed.

Fellow Human, Boaz is right: no matter how pleasant many Muslims are, we still have to guard against the kind of Islamization that is going on in Indonesia. I’d like to think it couldn’t happen in Australia – we’re just too lucky – but you’re not in a position to offer any guarantees, are you?

Boaz, I think the best thing we can do to in defence is to do all we can to encourage the kind of Islam that the author and Fellow Human appear to represent. As a Christian, like you, I am ambivalent about this because, of course, I am then encouraging something that is based on a belief I regard as seriously flawed (in its denial of Jesus’ divinity). However, as we live in a secular society rather than Christendom, I think this is the way to go. I “tolerate” (good of me, isn’t it?) atheists, so I should tolerate Muslims. Politically, I’m interested in peace and harmony, not truth. What do you think?

Pax,

Dear goodthief, I am as to my own thinking and personal philosophy of self "the dawning of the age of Aquarius". Or the human being of the next 2000 years.:-) However much I like to consider myself as thinking beyond the elemental past and wanting to approach life issued with a more inclusive social view, I do not reject the lessons hard learned yesterday. So I stylize Aquarius with the old stonemasons V. Giving us aqvarivs. Past, present and forward to the future. Not forgetting that it is a "handle" that I devised for myself more than 25 years ago when I first started on the internet. Back then it was du jour and everyone had a nom de plume. I'm not sure why but, I think it may have been a holdover from the American CB(citizen band radio)craze of the late '70s.
Anyhow, I still appreciate the concept 25 years on and feel no need to change it.

If you will allow me to surgically isolate the following,"no mere personal thing, but something true that everyone needs." I would just like to say I agree whole heartedly that all people need a personal philosophy to be successful. I did not place the value "mere" on religion but, meant to say that it was a personal path and not a choice best dictated by an assumed authority over all belief. I myself was born and raised Roman Catholic but, long ago strayed into Old Testament, Islam, Zoroastrian and the Book of Arda Viraf, The Bhagavata, and now I am deep into Daoism. I haven't converted to any. It is just part of my appetite to know as best I can variations on the same theme. So I will end with this prayer for you.
"Whatever you seek,
may you find it.
Whatever trail you take,
may it lead you to peace with yourself."

Cheers

The link that Philip Tang gave us is to an official German website (quantara.de), and not everything there offers such a pessimistic picture as this particular story. I never lived in Indonesia or any other islamic country, but as for Europe - in particular Germany where I have been living now for seven years (and I think also for Australia) - the Muslim presence is a fact, that cannot be ignored, but can and must be put to useful purpose.

In Germany Christians are still the larger minority compared to Muslims, the majority being, of course, secular humanists, baptised or not. I think Christians have more in common with Muslims than with secular humanists in what they believe in, whereas they have more in common with the latter than with the former as to how they wear their beliefs. A Christian living his/her faith peacefully in a secular humanist society without losing it could - and perhaps should - serve as an example, hopefully an encouragement, to Muslims how to live their faith in a society with secular humanist majority.

Of course, there are problems with what the Germans call "parallel society", kind of social and cultural ghettos inhabited mostly by poor Muslims, where I would not like to go at night. But there are also much encouraging signs: I am often amazed how proudly, and in, what we westerner would call civilised, way educated young Muslims - mostly Turks, and as a matter of fact, mostly women, with or without the headscarf - defend their faith in TV talks while at the same time being critical about the "medieval" practices of their older and less educated coreligionists.

Once we succeed in showing them how to do it here, comes the harder part of setting things straight globally, where Christians and secular humanists have much less influence. Namely, to export this experience of peaceful cohabitation with other religions (and non-religions) into a society with an islamic, rather than secular humanist, majority. I believe it can be done, but it will take more generations than in Europe or Australia.

Aqvar.. nice post. Thanx for outlining a good response to FH. saves me some effort there.

GoodThief, I know what ur saying. Here in a debate forum it is about exploring "issues" and in a robust manner:) In saying that, I don't wish to alienate souls, and try as much as possible to focus on issues rather than people. Remember Pauls words about 'a different gospel' in Galatians 1? He didn't mince words.

LOGIC I refer mostly to early Islamic times, the time when "Islam" was shaped. Have you heard this phrase "Such and such a surah was 'sent down' during....." In other words, what you are yet to grapple with, is the 'eternal nature' of the Quran in the eyes of Muslims. It was not simply for the first few decades of Islam that Jews and Christians should be destroyed according to Surah 9:30, it is for all time, and based on their 'insulting belief' that Uzair is the son of Allah (a factually wrong understanding of Judaism anyway) and that Christ is the Son of God. These things are not connected with specific history, but with belief.

If you doubt that my understanding of radical/Quranic Islam is 'out of date' then I suggest (seriously) you have a little read of this:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/british_muslim.php
(Have you totally ignored the theology behind the Hamas Charter?)

The major problem for those suggesting an 'Islamic Renaissance' is possible, is that there is one brewing..but its the REAL Islam, and it seeks to overthrow all the governments listed in that link.
If you insulted Mohammed, it will KILL YOU. -a sobering thought I hope.

Medieval times are irrelevant to me in a discussion about Islam.
Medeival Mawdudi was expounding the Quran, Hamas 2007 is based on the Quran, Al Ghurabaa in London 2007 is based on the Quran.

The 11 men in Sydney and 13 in Melbourne on trial ... are based on the Quran.

FH intellectual honesty test time.
Ok.. 9:30 does it, or does it not declare destruction for Christians and Jews based on their beliefs? Yes...or No.

Yes...we all should fear religious zealots of any religion with followers whom want to war against evil...that command no man can give, but by god to each soul...

...and pax (you too boaz and curious others)...and all those whom want to explore their spiritual side...and those whom oppressed by the 'teachers' of their religion, in reality not teaching but whom actually acting as an obstructive wall for their own benefit between souls and god, preventing soul-god relationship, and healthy growth of said...

A good curiosity and contemplation causing book...for anyone with western life background...using buddhism as the background...but could be any religion...and anyone whom wants gods awareness and connection...while struggling with the material reality of day to day lives we find ourselves in....searcher of his own soul...

hermann hesse (1977-1962) siddhartha (not about buddha but a person named same)
http://www.online-literature.com/hesse/siddhartha/
[by the names hermann used it seems he knew mahabharata and bhagvad gita(hindu philosophy) well]

little help though,
-'the third eye'(the spiritual eye-open you eyes and you will see...christ), this is the eye of energies...god is energy(without physical form)...so to explore god you need to open this eye(we all have)...energies have colour(just like our two eyes see colour of objects reflected by light)...then evil souls have a colour that differs from good souls etc...and

-one way to explore your spiritual side is act to remove all desire then the material world effect diminishes...in reality its difficult until you also suppress all your senses as it always distracts...meditation is good for this part...when at point when desire is controlled, then all you should be aware of is your spiritual side...then you should become aware of god-if he exists...I think all open minded athesist should do this first before concluding god does not exist...a logical approach...

Sam
Ps~as long as each soul knows that they are getting closer to the absolute truth, soul keeps growing...

'as long as each soul knows that they are getting closer to the absolute truth, soul keeps growing...'

Sam, this is the scientific creed to a T. That is, science aims to slowly uncover knowledge and therefore increment toward ultimate truths.

Just to back track a bunch of posts...

I'm a bit moved by the amount of muddy (unchristian) history that has been slung in this thread.

Even though Buddhism is romanticized so much by us 'westerners', is it really an 'ideal'? Go to Cambodia today and watch AIDS infected kids being beaten and persecuted by faithful Buddhists. And why? They believe these children were so wicked in a previous life as to deserve such treatment.

I don't think many of the latte-sipping, Aussie 'Buddhists' realize the true implications of its hyper-fatalism.

TR: That sounds a tad UNscientific of you, endorsing Sam’s statement about the soul. You recognise this phenomenon? Have you stumbled across some empirical evidence for its existence and its operation? Or, are you just endorsing the method of gradual edification? As you probably know, many modern Christians operate in exactly the same way with scripture: having accepted that it is from God and contains clues to God’s character and preferences, we are keen to dig, sift, turn over and shake etc.

MaNiK: True, we do romanticise Buddhism in the West. It just seems so innocuous, doesn’t it? As to being an ideal, I suppose it’s as ideal as anything. I don’t actually buy it, of course, because it is premised on the absence of a God who is a person. But, it does well for a system that is without God. I expect it gets nearer to God than atheism does: it's more open to the unseen.

Sam: Thank you again. However, I am not “oppressed by the teachers of Christianity”, if I can paraphrase what you wrote. The problem with Christianity is not what it lacks: I think it lacks nothing, it has all that Buddhism has plus God and all that that entails. The problem is that it also has contaminants. Personally, I think these exist because for a long time Christianity has been riding high in political power. What do you say about MaNik’s post? Are Buddhists flawed humans after all?

Aqvarivs: We are at cross-purposes. I was not saying everyone needs a personal philosophy, but that everyone needs the Christian faith. It MAY be true that human history would have been less bloody without assertive monotheistic faiths – hard to tell, as the idea is untested – but, if God really exists, the absence of monotheism would be silly. We’d be at peace but would fail to recognise what is most important. We’d be blissfully ignorant.

Pax,

By the way Aqvarivs, my question about your handle was simple curiosity. If it came over as something harsher, that was clumsy and I apologise.

Pax,

goodthief, and everyone should drive a blue Ford, and everyone should live in a white bungalow, and everyone should consume the same foods in the same quantities and on the same days and, everyone should only shop at Coles, and kiss diversity of ideas and personal expression goodbye. Why? Because eventually it will be argued by the religious "Christian" powerful that only they know what is best and must dictate to all, or it's subversion, and slaughter of these evil ones must take place. Now to my ears that sounds exactly like what we religious secularist warn about political Islam. Oppression by any other name is still oppression. There is no "good" oppressive environment in the name of God.
I prefer to know and reflect God by my own light as given to me by my own prayer for understanding and guidance. I am too aware of the fallibility of human nature to place the entirety of my existence in some others hand or sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong may be universal but, are not universally interpreted. Spiritually, I want the right to go my own way and if I error grievously, I wish to be judged on the intent of heart. Certainly not for following suit.
The world may demand from me what obligations it sees as necessary or just in my time but, my soul was never on auction and remains mine inviolate from human greed or political manoeuvring.

Aqvarius

You may be going a tad too far. You mentioned the right to slaughter without AQIS supervision I am asuming. Is that correct? All of us must follow the common law. Most people who come here do so for a better way of life, Yes? Why should that not apply to animals also?

Nobody has stopped Halal Slaughter being carried out. Halal Slaughter people read the Koran. I am concerned you may feel the Australian authorities should step aside. There are many reasons to control and control very strickly all slaughtering plants and might I add we will be looking very very closely at domestic Abattoirs which have sort of taken a back stage to overseas.

People of all walks of life have a responsibilty to be as humane as possibly to animals not just Muslims but all of us.

Some of the demands in the past have been outright cruel.

There is another issue as well in regards to Halal slaughter and Halal accreditation that needs close watchful switched on attention too.

That is who we are dealing with.?

It is my belief Australia requires one national Accreditation for Halal Slaugher and one and one only body in charge of it.

Not 13 in Australia and dozens just buzzing in their orders by elctronic control from who knows where supporting God only knows.

Surely we all saw enough by the AWB enquiry last years and AWB by the way are very big live animal exporters which was kept quite by labour and the Government.

We need to know who we are dealing with. We need to keep our Muslim leaders of Australia as the leaders without challange so we do not get the same inta fighting as you see overseas .

I am also quick to add the Muslim Leaders of this Country were the ONLY ones to reply after we sent out thousands of letter to Churches Church leaders after the cormo express and the 60 Minutes reports concered with animal cruelty.

Our Christian Leaders could learn a bit through them and ought to be ashamed.

My Dear goodthief, I found no malice in your curiosity, and hope my answer was itself free of any such tone that would invite question. I consider myself as spirit having a human experience. I'm assuming it is all as new to me as it is to everyone else, who like myself are just passing through.
I'm willing to answer any question provided my answers don't become in part someones use of ridicule.

Cheers

'TR: That sounds a tad UNscientific of you, endorsing Sam’s statement about the soul.'

I think that you have misunderstood me goodthief. I was commenting on the philosophy of science rather than agreeing with Sam about his thoughts on the 'soul'.

For the record I don't believe that the 'soul' is somehow separate from the brain. At present (until more evidence comes to light) I consider the idea of a free-floating soul to be an unfounded and silly idea

Aqvarivs,

Thanks for sharing your view, it makes sense.

Boaz,

Please stop living in the past and lets move to present constructive topics.
The Time magazine chose Amr Khaled, a moderate Muslim preacher for its top 100 most influencial people:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1610319,00.html

The question is: why this guy is in the international news (US and Europe) while Aussie media still insists on Hilaly in the headlines?

goodthief

"like you, I am ambivalent about this because, of course, I am then encouraging something that is based on a belief I regard as seriously flawed (in its denial of Jesus’ divinity)."

That is what worries me. There is a short step between this and religious intolerance. Why should the divinity of Jesus be any more credible than Mahomet's? I would rather an attitude that says this is my belief but I may be wrong, in any case the most important thing is how we treat others. This is a basis of Judaism and I understand of Islam, though no doubt Boaz will come up with a number of quotations to contradict all of this.

This concept was also important, I understand, to Jesus. Oh well I can only hope.

Dear F.H. I can see ur out of steam on that verse :) so I won't push that any further at this time here. But as for 'not living in the past' ? strange comment from one who supposedly believes Allah 'sent down' his actual word for our guidance. hmmm...ok.. I'll pull back now rather than risk upsetting you.

Dear LOGIC. It seems you don't understand either Christianity or Islam, and your "Judaism" is that of a contemporary accumulation of various 'feel good' traditions which enable you to feel a part of global society, without having too many worries ?

Jesus said and did many things, as did Mohammad, and they should be taken as a whole. You cannot adhere only to Isaiah without also listening to Jeremiah or the Pentateuch right? and what about the Minor prophets.. Amos, Daniel etc.. If your brand of Judaism neglects the whole counsel of G-D then its missing something I'd say.

Its clear that you simply wish to find good in all things. If only reality matched your expectations. I honestly think you could do well to 'tune in' to what is happening under the surface in our world, and not just look at the 'spin' which is presented.

Jesus summarized the Law in 2 sentences.
"Love G-D".
"Love your neighbour" (=Do for others as you would have them do 4 u)

But can you love G-D and adultery at the same time? Can you treat neighbour with neutrality if he is intent on burning down your house? nope.. you call the police....'kindly' :)

You cannot simply take the nice flowery bits of religions and assume that is their totality. In some, that totality has some dark elements.

Goodthief and Aqvarivs, I like both of your reasoning.

Manik, Aussie latte sipping Buddhists are not removed from reality anymore than Aussie latte sipping Christians would be, or Muslims for that matter. Some are, some aren't.

At the core of anybody who works on themselves trying to work out 'why we are here' and 'what is the meaning of life', 'what does it mean to live a good life' is to grow spiritually and as a human being.

On this journey, amazement at discovery can lead to overzealousness with wanting to share this discovery with others. Unfortunatly, discovery has to be personal for it to have any lasting meaning.

Islam should be interesting for Christians to study. One of their tenets is that some of the teachings of Jesus Christ has been manipulated by some with a vested interest in the early beginnings of the Christian church. Would it be wrong to look at why Islam thinks this?

Jesus Christ, as I understand Him, never condemned questioning. Indeed, that is what I find most inspiring about Him, his questioning of sacred held beliefs of His time.

Renaissance? Oh yeah!

The following rant by an Arab-American lady named Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeerah TV is just the best!

But wait, there's more. The rebuttals posted by Muslims are also great value. You can see it all right here on....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

And so there we have it - religion as side-show-alley.

aqvarivs,
"I prefer to know and reflect God by my own light as given to me by my own prayer for understanding and guidance. I am too aware of the fallibility of human nature to place the entirety of my existence in some others hand or sense of right and wrong."

This is the personal philosophy of a mature person - Christian but not only Christian - beautifully formulated. I cannot see how any Christian loyal to this or that denomination or Church, could find fault with it. Mature loyalty, (e.g. Catholic), consist in the awareness of a dynamic balance between one's own conscience or "interpretation" as you call it, and that coming from those who are supposed to be more knowledgeable, and have more experience, as much as this is often not the case.

Something like you learn to understand mathematics and "do it properly" by finding a balance between what you can figure out for yourself, and what the teacher tells you. Yes, there are bad teachers, who either themselves do not understand what they are supposed to teach, or simply cannot explain. And there are those among us who could never figure it out for themselves, so they either follow the teacher's instructions mechanically (and demand it from others), or they simply reject the teacher, all maths teachers, as irrelevant. Only very few, if any, of us could get through without any outside guidance.

In other words, I do not eat and exercise exactly the way medical authorities tell me I should, but I know I must not ignore them if I want to keep my physical health. However, when you say that "right and wrong may be universal but, are not universally interpreted," you are absolutely right: there is more or less a universal agreement among doctors on what is good for your body, but there are many religions, even varieties within one religion like Christianity, telling you what is this world about, and what is good for your soul (or psychological well-being).

Aqvarivs and Logic, I really do appreciate your apprehensiveness about oppression and intolerance. On the one hand, I believe Jesus really is the Son of God, regardless of what dissenting views exist, and regardless of how reasonable or virtuous or pleasant the dissenters are. I see it as a fact that I can do nothing about. However, I am not permitted to be intolerant or to force-feed or oppress. On the contrary, I am under instructions (and also pretty inclined) to love every human being without exception, including of course those who hold a dissenting view. They are safe from me.

This is why I agree with the separation of Church and State – so that well-meaning Jesus enthusiasts like me are not tempted to abuse power. I prefer not to have power. I prefer the Christians (and the other religions) to lobby, not to govern.

It is possible to be dogmatic and well-mannered. Relativism is not the only way to be tolerant. I believe non-Christians are seriously mistaken, but I will not be interfering with them.

TR: Thanks for clearing that up. I was surprised by what I thought you were saying. While you regard the soul, absent evidence, as silly, I regard empiricism as small and overly constrained. I’m pretty sure I understand the caution, and even the anger, in the face of religious aggression and strife, but I think it’s sad that so many people have reacted by receding into the empiricist box, as it’s so small. A voluntary limitation on thought seems tragic to me. (I loved Wafa Sultan, thank you!)

Yvonne: Yes, Jesus questioned and challenged power. I think he was at pains to remind his listeners that they had strayed from the heart of their own scriptures – had replaced mercy with ritual, for example.

Pax,

aqvarivs,

We would appreciate an answer to our post. It would appear you have ignored the question. That would not seem a good way to display an example of any faith. None of us walk on a higher moral ground here. Its just a forum wherepeople exchange thoughts and ideas Aqvarivs.
So if you do not mind please answer our question.
Do you beleive Aqvarivs that you have a right to slaughter in Australia using methods that dont comply with Australian vetinary standards. If so could you please understand why so we can understand your reasons a little better please? It was a simply question. To leave this unanwered would not only be rather rude but some readers may a different impreshion than the one you meant.
Whatever that is.

George, thank you for such a compliment. That was the nicest acknowledgment I think I have every received.

goodthief, now if everyone could approach their religious thinking from your stated outlook, life even among Christians, would be more in the vein of Jesus's teachings rather than by those who feel the need to use church dogma to dominate and dictate how to believe.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, who exactly are "we", and where ever in my post did I mention anything about butchering animals for consumption? You are apparently pushing a barrow unrelated to this thread. Are you lost? I did not reply immediately to you for the very simple fact that I had used up my 2 post in 24hrs. I don't know anything about meat processing. I like to fish and eat what I catch and from that I know there is probably umpteen dozen ways to process fish. I choose to skin them and fillet them. Does this make me amoral? Why don't you come back and participate in this thread as yourself instead of as "People against...". I don't normally answer to post directed by those of organizations or people selling cds or books.
It smacks of telemarketing and I feel it takes advantage of this forum to highjack a thread to gain attention for your pet cause.

TR,

My comments on the wafaa Sultan interview on Al Jazeerah:
- She is preaching to the converted on the first part (ie Militant groups, actions etc..)
- Using the actions by the likes of Taliban (ie destruction of temples, Bhudda statues) to blanket all muslim is self-refutable simply look at modern history. If her claim had any truth, there would be no trace of pharaonic, nubian , Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Ptolemaic civilisations or monuments. On the contrary, early M civilisation preserved all other cultures and its statues, temples and monuments.
I am actually surprised you couldn’t see through that. Your earlier comments sounded like those of an analytical mind.

Boaz,

I just ignored the question as I have answered you before. You also never answered any of mine including the one above. Muslims believe in Jesus (pbuh) and his teachings. Its just what you made of him 4 centuries later that makes you unique.
There is little difference between us anyway. Looks like you are still searching,

Aqvaries Said a few posts up>

Why? Because eventually it will be argued by the religious "Christian" powerful that only they know what is best and must dictate to all. Pale requested you please explain what is meant by the above you wrote.
Are you suggesting that Halal Slaughter should be carried out In Australia without Australian guidelines? It was a simply question Aqvaries. There is no need to become angry.
I found the comment of particular interest especially as I thought I recalled you posting some place else you Dad had a farm.

Regarless of if that was yourself or another poster this question has been raised several times and we are interested on your thoughts on the matter.
The question is - Do you beleive Religious requirents of ANY slaughter process involving food should take priority over Australian Law?

goodthief wrote "What do you say about MaNik’s post? Are Buddhists flawed humans after all?"

on the face of it yes...those whom rejected children with aids as sinful souls would be a flaw...but whats not mentioned is what do the majority of buddhists think/do...if its that we all have sin and so all of us are no different to these children and no reason to reject them on sin-with the writer writing whole relevant facts helps to allow us to assess effectively

...and its same in all religions...those who fail/intentionaly to grasp the basic premise and act to use it for self-benefit, to other range of those whom do use the religion to move higher in their chosen path towards spiritual development...

Another problem is when a 'belief' is held as a 'truth'...eg you were told and so believe that the sun was actually reflected light,like the moon, so everything your eyes see of the sun fits with this belief...but the 'truth' is sun has light of its own...

Point is that all 'belief' must be held as support in the search for the truth...for if the belief is taken as the truth then the mind is closed...even when the truth stands there...and one stops spiritually developing...and anyone acting to close a souls mind is doing a terrible thing to that person...

and the above is the basic premise of 'science'...ie to ascertain a 'fact' one first puts a 'hypothesis' and studies with experiments to refute/confirm with an open mind to result, or more usual, that the 'expected' doesnt/does happen in carefully structured experiments in a repeatable way...before its declared not/is a 'fact' or at religion 'truth'...

As to the soul...seek it as its within you...so you can answer if there is a soul...and if its linked to the greatest among us...god...for that is what a reasonable person with an openmind and any beliefs would do...and its ok to feel fear but not let fear stop you doing what you need to, just take more due care(...I walk through the valley of death but I fear no evil...lords prayer)

Sam

F.H. I presume 'this guy is in the news' because Time magazine has a vested political/social interest in promoting 'moderate' Islam mate.

Far more influential than he would be Bin Ladin.

In any case, the bloke might be a bit of a visionary, he might be peddling a brand of Islam that Time magazine approves of....so.. they give him a bit of a lift up.

There..I've answered your question :) Now...come away from those ropes.. I've stopped whacking you now.. the bell has rung *DING*... we are in our corners and able to reflect on the round just gone by.

While reflecting, you might like to consider this:

1/ "Is the Quran the 'sent down' word of Allah" ?
2/ Why the discrepancy between 9:30 (destroy them) and the 'friendly' verses ?

Serious now.. Allah cannot have 2 minds on the one thing can he? I'm sure he does not throw up some coins and say "heads" -'destroy'.."Tails" -'be friends'

Context of 9:30 is quite clear, but by all means elaborate further.

-Tabuk Campaign.
-Christians allied with Byzantines
-Mohammad seeks to change their alliegance to him.

What troubles me about this verse, is that all the translations of the Quran show 'Allah is at war with them' kind of sentiment, but again..its based not on their loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor as you would expect...it is based on their core beliefs about the Son of God.
This being so, it is entirely reasonable to assume that this is 'the mind of Allah' towards Christians and Jews for all time.

Ok.. minute break is over *DING*....next round :)

Yvonne,
My challenge wasn't intended to remove Buddhism further than Christianity from the 'truth'. The intention was to challenge the common (Gen X) perception that Buddhism is nobler than the monotheistic faiths.

You wrote: "Islam should be interesting for Christians to study. One of their tenets is that some of the teachings of Jesus Christ has been manipulated by some with a vested interest in the early beginnings of the Christian church. Would it be wrong to look at why Islam thinks this?"

I have written a paper in the last month which addressed this very issue. After spending time in a Mosque and with Muslim leaders, I found that their beliefs on Jesus are far removed from an orthodox Christian understanding. Much of their views are not based on primary sources, but on the work of scholars.

The biggest discrepancy was found when they conveyed what they thought Christians believed. Some of it would have been laughable in a different context. But being in the volatile environment of the 21st Century, it is hardly so.

On the topic of the Bible's historicity, one will find many a source and evidence of the Gospel's which date back to the generation following Christ's death, not to mention the Canon being accepted as early as the 2nd Century.

[But I digress because this is a topic for another day... perhaps on another thread?]

Jesus Christ disqualified Himself from being just another wise Rabbi or Prophet. His teaching was profound, but His proclamation was even more so, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (Jn 14:6)

Sam said,

Thanks for the response, but you have not addressed the type of atrocities that I mentioned. They are common and do occur in many Buddhist cultures. Start with the Kh'mer and work your way around from culture to culture. Only then will you realise how different their worldview is to our Western one.

I recognise the need to let the rubber of faith meet the road. No amount of spiritualising will substitute for this.

'TR,.....I am actually surprised you couldn’t see through that. Your earlier comments sounded like those of an analytical mind.'

Fellow_Human, I think that you're being overwrought here. The tone of my previous post was obviously not too serious. Also, I don't always have to analytical in my posts. Religion can be a bit of a joke and doesn't always deserve to be over-analysed in a serious way.

But since you would rather me be analytical, he's something to think about. Quite obviously you missed the most salient bit of the whole remonstration. That is;

Ms. Sultan: "I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it."

Angry Sheik person: "Are you a heretic?"

Ms. Sultan: "You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural."

Western society is currently going through a painful period of self-examination whereby we are trying to come to terms with the collapse of Christianity and its revealed book, the Bible. This reassessment of cultural identity is our 21st century Renaissance and is personified by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Kurtz and Onfray.

Ms. Sultan has highlighted this point beautifully and has also pointed out that Islam should also go through the same resassessment. In other words, montheism has run its course and is no longer believable or tenable in a closely knit and globalised planet. Monotheism is just not worth the Trouble with a capital 'T'.

The real Islamic renaissance will occur when it gives up its addiction to the supernatural and embraces the whole of the humanity -not just those societies who adhere to a myopic and irrational set of orthopraxic dogma.

Lastly, I would love to see women like Ms. Sultan being a typical example of a citizen from an Islamic society. Indeed, we should all be encouraging gutsy women like her - now there's another lesson from the Al-Jazeerah interview for you Fellow_Human.

Aqvarivs, thank you.

Sam said, fair enough about everyone being flawed. (I wasn’t suggesting that Buddhists are especially so, I was just saying “Welcome to the human race”.)

I used to say, “You can hear the wind whistling through an open mind”. I’m not opposed to being generally open-minded: I have a few startup ideas, that I am utterly committed to, and I usually qualify other assertions with “as presently advised”. However –

i) my startup commitments are non-negotiable, and not “open”;

ii) my principal source of illumination and guidance is God, especially Jesus;

iii) you, too, have a startup position, namely, “One ought to be open-minded because an open-mind is the best, or the only, means of seeking and approaching the truth, or God”. My words, I realise, but suffice to say you do have a firm startup position – so firm that you are recommending it to other people just as I recommend Jesus. This is not a criticism of you;

iv) science also has a startup position – empiricism. It’s just assumed. From then on, the scientist looks open-minded.

TR: Christians are required to love all humans, without exception. Their reason for doing so is at least comparable (I would say superior) to any other reason I’ve ever heard of. So, you are wrong to suggest that Christianity does not “embrace the whole of the humanity”. Meanwhile, any reference to “the collapse of Christianity” is premature and wishful. Just too soon to say with such confidence. So far, I’m less impressed with Dawkins and Harris than I’m supposed to be. So far, I see an extremely colourful and entertaining satire of monotheism, a lot of pride in their own intellect, certainly no love (esp on the part of Dawkins) and arguments that are, so far, less impressive than I was given to expect. And, in any event, Dawkins et al are speaking to me from inside their little empiricist box. I could hear them better if they opened their box, but they won’t.

Pax,

BOAZ_David,

Now I understand why Rabbi Hillel put the summary of the law the other way round.

He said, anything that is hateful to you, do not do to others, that is the whole law the rest is all commentary.

That takes care of your neighbor trying to burn down your house, you can stop him, if the roles were reversed it would not be hateful to you to be stopped.

By the way, Hillel lived BEFORE Jesus.

Dear Logic, if I may... Rabbi Hillel was a great man it appears. No argument there.

I don't have any issue with his understanding of the law except... I'll bet he also mentioned that the expression he used was in the context of placing God first in one's life. No Rabbi would ever do otherwise because they are the representives of and teachers about G-D and His Law..am I right?

Great as Hillel may have been, I draw your attention to 2 things.
Jesus was once asked by John the Baptist "Are you who is to come or should we look for another" ?

Jesus response was:

Luke 9:22
And he said to them in reply, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.
23 And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

I hardly think Rabbi Hillel did such things ? correct me if I'm wrong.

Then..the 2nd point is Jesus death and resurrection. Hillel is still in the Tomb I believe. While you may disbelieve in the resurrection of Christ, I can only point to it myself, and leave it to G-d to persuade you of its reality.

blessings.

There always seems to come to a point in every conversation where those of one religion or another, or those with no religion or no faith, blame one religion or another for what man does. Religion does in itself no thing with out the participation of man. Man is the reason for the existence of religion. Man is the reason for religious wars. Buddhist, Muslim, Christians, all the faiths and dare I even include atheist, are part of Gods greater plan. The diversity of nature. We are not all of one colour, or one race, and we are not all of one thought. We should rejoice in our commonality and provide community equally diverse as man with out our disagreements becoming so entrenched that the death of one so that the other may dominate becomes mans historic rule perpetuated by the following generation. I don't think war will ever leave us as human beings. It is one of our extremes but, shouldn't our goal as good men and women be that we have control over the issuance of our extremes. This is not a fault aimed just for Islam today. But all religions and all thesis of human behavior. There is no excuse. We manufacture excuses and then look for justifications after the fact. We are all mankind culpable and must need to come together in this ownership of history and of any progressive future we may have. It is in our hands and always has been. God gave us free will. I'm sure the acceptance of diversity will be our saving grace as human beings and of this singular planet of LIFE. Peace to you all.

instead of looking at differences in religion and its beliefs and how successful its to revealing the truth about god...assisting soulgod relationship...how about looking at what is common...

Your last few heart beats used energy...same energy form I used...and your pet...and bat that just flew...and nearest kangaroo...and shark...and all with beating heart...keeping this thought in all acts in life will definitely act to bond us...

getting more fundamental...all earths living uses same energy...the same energy plant used to grow a new leaf today is used to make your heart beat...agree so far?

...and its interchangeable...eat the plant or by worms that feed on us after our body is no more...so all life seek same energy to live...within reason its seen there is limitation to it...for one to have more of it...another has to loose it...so balance becomes important to keep this self sustaining...

spirituality steps in when those with conscious/questioning/intelligence feel/need to know if same energy has an organized intelligence about it...yep...god...and how it flows creates life and happenings we see/know around us...ie is it haphazard or intended...ie if its fact god created all this-ie...genesis...and could be as no firm evidence to say its absolutely not...so this energy is the fact and truth but build on it...each to his own...follow the path to its end...this is important...

while others just accept what they know/see without asking said question or asked and decided no god exists...thats ok too...as long as its reasoned out to satisfaction...

looking at energy on earth from space be seen as whole...its one form...get into finer details and difference is there...always keeping this in mind helps seeing useless time wasting differentiation to useful...does one look at the tree to see its a tree or get a microscope starting at each vein of the leaf to put it all together to see the tree?...

Sam
Ps~questioning mind also asks if there is a force at work that fights god...ie acts to deceive souls from knowing/seeking truth...if so then how much effect does it have on you in your assessment/relationship with god, from none to healthily growing...

Christianity is one of the world’s great religion because of its founder Jesus Christ. When the woman taken in adultery was about to be stoned to death, Jesus put it across to her accusers “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7)

When Jesus left his eleven motley and lowly educated disciples he gave them an impossible task; to convert the ‘world’ claiming that all power has been given to him (Matt 28:18-20). The absurdity of it all was that they had no resources and, they were to do it by teaching and preaching. Yet within about 300 years, the mighty Roman empire adopted Christianity as its official religion. This event must go on record as one of the most remarkable in the history of humankind.

Unfortunately, this event also spelt the beginning of the end of true Christianity. Christianity had been politicized.

Today, the politicizing of Christianity is very much alive in the beliefs and practices of the Christian Zionists and extremist Christian fundamentalist (especially in the USA) propagating dispensationalism. These zealots are equal to the Islamist on a jihad. They support the more than 800,000 Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) driven from their home by the Zionists in 1948.
http://www.elca.org/jle/article.asp?k=717

Supporting gross injustice to the Palestinians, and unnecessary provocation of the Muslims all in the name of religion by Christian Zionists have contributed to the rise of Islamic extremism seen in recent times.
http://www.christianzionism.org/

Therefore, all religions should address the issues of the soul and should be a private matter, between you and God.

Aqvarivs, Sam and Philip: I largely agree with you. In order to bring about peace, talk of Truth (whatever) might best be put aside. That is, when it comes to the exercise of power.

However, I still think the Truth matters, and not just privately. It's the link to power that is the problem. If people could consider and discuss Truth ("mine is better than yours" etc), so that each freely makes a private decision about it, that need not disturb the peace.

I don't think conversations like the ones we have here will stop. Nor should they, when we address each other with respect.

Pax,

TR,

Your comment makes sense to an extent.
My view is what we should all aim for is a ‘framework of co-existence’ which can only be based on a level acceptance of each other rights. I am neither a supporter of militant monotheism or militant atheism. The secular model seems to be, in some cases, hi-jacked by anti-religion groups.
No one have all the answers. This is where I think the likes of Wafaa Sultan got it wrong: while I respect people freedom to chose their faith, by attacking other people’s faith she is doing the same thing as those she criticises. If we all dig each other scriptures out that’s a definite scenario for wars to come. All we can do is to set a framework of dialogue and actions on how we can all live together and share this exhausted and ailing planet.

Boaz,

Accepting each other does not mean we 'approve' the contents of each other system of belief.

Peace,

'If we all dig each other scriptures out that’s a definite scenario for wars to come.'

No it isn't a scenario for wars to come Fellow_Human. We are engaging in a truth finding exercise. There is no need for any conflict if the dialogue is conducted in a rational way.

Ms Sultan presented her arguments in a clear and consise way that was rational and polite. Yes, she was polite. It was the Sheik who got his knickers in a knot and called her a "heretic" which is a pathetic thing to do.

Time and time again all the violent and bigoted behaviour lies at the feet of monotheists who are brainwashed with their own dogma. Freethinkers, rationalists and scientists are merely presenting a worldview with the facts as they see them. If the monotheists have a problem with the bluntness of the presentation then too bad. They really need to grow up.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the "history" portrayed in the Torah, Bible, and Koran/hadith is not real history. The revealed texts of monotheism are man made fabrications that ooze illogical contradictions, nonsensical myths, violent tribalism, sexism, and homophobia.

God as an intellectual and philosophical pursuit is still open to human investigation. However, the 'Holy' texts of monotheism is an open and shut case. They are not true. Only the brainwashed believe that they are - this is the truth of the matter.

Thanks, aqvarivs, Philip Tang, goodthief, Fellow Human for showing us in your recent postings how to conduct a debate about religions and world views. Thank you TR for showing us in your last posting how not to do it. Writing about what one believes in without belittling other people's beliefs and preferences is not only more polite and "civilised" but also more informative, than simply attacking views and positions that one does not share, or cannot understand.

Hi TR,

"If the monotheists have a problem with the bluntness of the presentation then too bad"
Actually it wasn't a debate: it was a blanket attack without really structuring her argument and an old man who kep repeating the heresy word. I wouldn't call anything more than a funny puppet show.

You are enttitled to your opinions but to discredit the contribution of 3 great religions reflects arrogance and ignorance. In addition to family, social and human values, many of the scientific innovation(s) was initiated and pursued by followers of these religions.

A lot of the richness and diversity that enriched today's freethinking is because of the variety of theologies existing in the world. Are you saying that if the world evolved without monethism (ie beginning with the Byzantine, Mongols and ending with the soviet union) the world would be better today?

I don't believe one need to dismiss or discard human history to prove his/her religious convictions. One of the things I learned is that religion is a very 'personal truth and no-one have monopoly on the absolute truth. I have seen people bounce each direction between religion and non-religion everyday.

These last few posts were wonderful posts.
It is with articulate debate like this I can explore what I belief to be the truth.

As to an 'open mind' that can be overemphasized. Surely if you come to a belief which is true to you it should take a very persuasive argument for you to change that. It's good to bend in the wind, but not like grass surely. Like bamboo is preferable!

FH. I've never suggested I don't accept 'you' have I ?

goodthief makes an outstanding point, (which is relevant to my 'anti islamic tirades') and that is the 'connection to power'.

This is the fundamental problem. Islam represents earthly power, a State, and that is where I have my concerns. It can call me every name under the sun, and I won't worry, like I get from CJ, Bugsy, Alanpoi and many others.. remember the vitriol of 'Alchemist' ?

Its only when that dissapproval is connected to the concept of a 'State' and state power, aaah... now that must be fought tooth and nail, on every hill and valley, whereever it rears it's ugly head.

I will accept a moderate like yourself, and we can agree to disagree.
But a malicious person who is close to the Wahabist view of things, is my absolute enemy and the enemy of the state. In such a case I will use every lawful means of removing such vermin from this country.

peace :)

‘Writing about what one believes in without belittling other people's beliefs and preferences is not only more polite and "civilised" but also more informative, than simply attacking views and positions that one does not share, or cannot understand.’

Hi George, I don’t understand why we must pussy foot around religious beliefs. What is it about religions that we have to treat them with more reverence than any other subject? Who says? This is just an unnecessary lot of nonsense from clerics and sympathisers who can’t conduct a rational argument and therefore have to resort to emotional blackmail and coercion. You may think that Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad are figures of absolute grandeur. I don’t. Indeed, they deserve no more respect than the likes of Aristotle, Darwin or Gandhi.

Incidently, here is one of my favourite quotes from Gore Vidal (1998). Apparently I am not alone in my bellicosity;

‘The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are literally patriarchal - God is the Omnipotent Father - hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly delegates. The sky-god is a jealous God, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who reject him must be converted or killed for their own good.’

(Cited in ‘A Devil’s Chaplain’ by R. Dawkins - incidently the Prof. is on Compass this coming Sunday with his documentary, ‘The Root of all Evil?’)

David Boaz

I think the use of religion as a means to power is a dangerous thing. It has occurred in Christianity and you agree with this. But as the Nazi experience showed it is not necessary to hijack a religion to produce fanatic actions based on a belief structure.

Your argument is that Islam is structured in such a way that it is inevitably a tool for power. Fellow human argues that it is not. It is obvious that there is a movement that is actively trying to hijack Islam. This is equally troubling to Islam and Islamic countries, remember that they suffer much more from the extremists than you or I do but the hijackers have significant traction amongst the poor and illiterate and are good value to a despotic regime. (such regimes are by no means unique to Islamic countries).

But it is important to separate the two. The inquisitors distorted their scriptures to this end and no doubt the Muslim Brotherhood is doing the same.

Personally I do not care what belief structure anyone has as long as they are good people and respect others. If religion is a help to someone along a decent path then all power to that.

TR: I hope the irony of your situation is not lost on you. The only argument of Dawkins that has any emotional appeal is the argument that monotheism – or any theism, I suppose – is a common cause of war and other strife. Lots of evidence to that effect. True. The rest of his stuff is, whether strong or weak, confined to one’s left hemisphere and is dry stuff issuing from the little empiricist box.

I don’t mean the dry stuff has no merit or power, I mean that Dawkins relies on his colourful debunking of the misbehaviour of theists to energise the interest in his dry stuff.

The irony facing you on this site just now is that, while the various monotheists are working out a peace deal, you’re baying for blood. You think we are “bigoted”, yet it is clear that you are. Or at least, that you also are.

You say,

“Freethinkers, rationalists and scientists are merely presenting a worldview with the facts as they see them.”

True – the facts “as they seem them”. Good for them. I think the rest of us are doing the same. We just see more facts than your freethinkers, rationalists and scientists.

You keep claiming a monopoly on rational thought. This is a socially jarring claim to make, so I think you need to establish your monopoly.

By the way, I don’t think any of us is asking for any special respect, just respect. The respect owed to all human beings. Not “reverence”, just civility. This would be asking too much of Richard Dawkins. Is it asking too much of you?

Pax,

TR has assigned himself (or herself) a position of superior self-righteousness that posits man worships man and that anti-religious writings are an equal substitute to religious texts.
An argument that white being valued as white can be replaced by green and no difference will be made.

The love of God equals the love of self equals the love of fellow man, which must never be misconstrued for the love of religion and the love of power. Religious Extremist have always done great harm and fueled the righteousness of the God haters. Religious extremist love religion for it's potential power over man not as an example of the love of God. They, the religious extremist, are as much God haters themselves and for this very reason must be denied the use of religion in the name of God. This is evil constantly trying to assert itself over the good by using the institutions of the good as a weapon turned inward. The destroyers are amongst us with smiling faces, and we will know them tomorrow by their smiling faces because we no longer will be able to smile with them.

TR,
Thank you for your sincere words. Well, I do not think being polite is the same thing as pussy footing about anything, neither is being abusive the same thing as being critical. I also put the word "civilised" in quotation marks, because it is hard to define, since different cultures or civilisations have different values and tastes, but still. You are right, you do not have to treat religion with more reverence than you are capable of, however you should treat with reverence people for whom this or that religion, or ethnicity or political preferences etc. are part of their intellectual and emotional makeup.

How many thinkers, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, have you had a discussion with to be able to claim that you are more rational than them? What urges you to make such sweeping statements? You see, I have never had any formal religious education since I grew up in Stalinist country. So I could quote a lot of (marx-leninist) atheist nonsense that was presented to us (and that actually convinced me that there must be something to That which they were so scared of). However, it would never occur to me to claim that Vidal or Dawkins are equally stupid, unable to think rationally (their problem is of a different kind).

Dear Logic
you said:

"Your argument is that Islam is structured in such a way that it is inevitably a tool for power. Fellow human argues that it is not. It is obvious that there is a movement that is actively trying to hijack Islam"

Not quite. I'm saying 'Islam' is a political animal by nature.
If you look closely at the rise of Islam, Mohammad was establishing 'The Islamic State' from the day he entered Medina.
This is common knowledge and quite accepted, it is even 'claimed' by Muslims. The whole concept of Sharia law presupposes a political 'state'.

Islam is not a 'tool' for power, it 'IS' power. FH is just giving you the 'minority muslim' spin :)

So, I have to politely disagree that there is any movement trying to 'hijack' Islam, I suggest that movement is simply asserting it as it really is. Pity we don't have a few hours over cofee to discuss this in front of a computer and look at many sources.

Here is something which might interest you. (if ur in Melbourne)

http://www.icjs-online.org/cf.php?a=8R0bZrCN552K19YRIbIUlbexYWq67ECm

Screening of the movie "Obsession" at Beth Weizman (Caulfield)

Hear 'it' from the mouths of Muslims....don't worry about me saying it :) They can tell the story far better than I can.
cheers.

TR, you quoted Dawkins: "[Christianity, Judaism and Islam] are literally patriarchal - God is the Omnipotent Father - hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly delegates."

1. To view Allah as "father" is offensive to many Muslims.

2. Jesus was extremely progressive in his treatment of women. In a patriarchal society Jesus showed remarkable love and respect towards the women he encountered (eg a Samaritan woman in John 4 - this was scandalous for the times). Those who follow after Jesus should by definition (ie 'Christian') exhibit the same traits that he did.

It is a shame that very few Dawkinites can debate without abrasive and deliberately offensive jibes (as evident on Dawkins' website). Forget religion being the source of evil, imagine if this intolerent and empirical belief system continues in the same manner. This is not anti-religion but a whole new belief system in itself.

Tell me, sir, what is the difference is between your belief system - which many are trying to impose on the wider community - and the other faiths that you are trying to destroy? It reeks of 'Sharia' to me.

ps I am braced for personal attacks as seems to be par for the course (again, as per Dawkins' site).

MaNiK_JoSiAh,
I try my very best not to be offensive. However, I am prepared to accept that any statement that is critical of belief will inevitably be offensive to some. So I apologise in advance.

My problem is simple. The idea that there is an old man in the sky or some equivalent body directing affairs on earth is laughable in the extreme. It matters little to me if the God figure is male or female; young or old; single or pleural; aided by a committee; has numerous assistances such as angels, archangels, or whatever; the idea is just preposterous. Nor do I care much for the concept of an abstract God who invented the laws of physics before going into permanent retirement.

Put it another way, if I said to you that there were fairies at the bottom of my garden. I am sure you would say that that I was telling fibs.

On the other hand an empirical and pragmatic approach to life works for me. I regard the so called great as questions as being essentially unanswerable. For example: “What is the purpose of life? Where do we come from etc?. In brief the subject of eschatology is to me meaningless and of no great importance.

Thanks anti-green, there is no offense taken. This is a fair defense of your beliefs.

To render the great questions of life unanswerable seems to suggest that what you believe is possibly agnosticism, and not atheism (when we take the pure definitions). That is, you cannot state absolutely that there is no God. However, you do not believe that there is enough evidence to support the existence of God. This is an important distinction, as one is an absolute statement and one is not.

I'm glad you either excused my hyperbole or took it for what it was in my response to TR. There is some substance in it.

It is best to let them go on thinking that the things you value don't exist. They really don't want the truth. They punish people who alarm them. So why have this impulse to force the whole story on them. The only real problem with all this, is that in order to protect them and uphold your values, you can eventually end not believing a word you say; until finally you come to the realization that the truth, and your truth is especially what they find themselves in denial of, for they fear it most next to death, life, and living -fear of God.

Unknown

The images of the unconscious place a great responsibility upon a man. Failure to understand them, or a shirking of ethical responsibility, deprives him of his wholeness and imposes a painful fragmentariness on his life.

Carl Jung

To one & all,
A couple of writers have raised the issue of “respect.”
Does respect encompass censoring novels, cartoons or even scientific theories that some/many believers many find offensive/disrespectful?

TR
Correction: Sorry for the silly sentence (I was not allowed to post a correction until now). Please read “you should respect the fact that this or that religion, or ethnicity or political preferences etc. are part of some people’s intellectual and emotional makeup.”

instead of

”you should treat with reverence people for whom this or that religion, or ethnicity or political preferences etc. are part of their intellectual and emotional makeup.”

anti-green
As MaNiK_JoSiAh says, the last paragraph is a fair statement about your beliefs. However, what you list as your problem is a list of simplifications. It would be fair to admit that for an educated e.g. Chrtistian also the rational reasons behing his/her beliefs are more sophisticated. I can tell you that people who dislike mathematics usually harbour very naive ideas on what mathematics is all about. Something similar with belief in a Reality (called simply God) that can be reached neither directly through observations independent of the observer’s mind, nor indirectly through theories written in the language of mathematics, the reason being precisely this personal involvement of the "observer", his/her mind, (education, cultural background, emotions, etc.).

Tangential to Horus's comment.

There appears to be a core construct for the appeasers; the ones who believe that mass hysteria is in operation and it has been born of low intellect and bigotry which ipso facto greatly exaggerates the threat to pluralism.

The construct being that Aussies are such congenial, highly evolved beings that it is unthinkable that large numbers of down trodden, fanatically religious Luddites with criminal mindsets believe that we are akin to cockroaches and need to be crushed. Not to mention that they are also willing to crush a significant number of their brethren in the process.

It is unlikely that the menace will be adequately addressed if an influential elite continue to assert that there is no 'real' threat.

But consider the downside if the appeasers are wrong -- Socio-economic catastrophe results. In comparison, if the alarmists are wrong what is the downside? Very little, except the creation of a thriving security industry and a religious group with an even bigger chip on their shoulder than they previously had.

There is of course the concerns about civil liberties, but if you believe George Soros and a couple of mates were behind 9/11 then the loss of said liberties logically follows.

2000 years of LOATHING women ? Mr Dawkins.. you truly need therapy.

I think that's called 'transference'... projecting ones own attitudes onto another group in order to bring them down.

I see no loathing of women in Christian circles whatsoever. In fact.. by and large men love women. and vice versa. We love.. to be loved.
Even the Muslims don't 'loathe' women, they just use them as sex toys. Well sorry..lets be fair here, they only use the captive slave girls as sex toys:

[Surah 23:6 Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed.]

'rightfully' theirs ? hardly. Only after the Islamic caliph has 'allocated' them like a herd of sheep to the soldiers who slaughtered their families. So, I very much BLAME them and for serial rape!

But even as horrific and inhuman as this is, it isn't loathing, its enjoying, but in the same moment reducing a human being to the level of a thing, a possession.

Islamic renaissance will come, when high profile Muslims publically reject the above surah and a few others with it. Only then will they be free. The trouble is, they will no longer be 'Muslims' because Islam is about Allah having 'sent down' his express will for all time.
Even though he seems to change his mind in a way which seems to follow Mohammads own personal situation and desires, it matters not because they just say "Hey..I give you a BETTER verse" implying he could not think of the best one in the beginning.

I see a lot of loathing, but its towards those who disagree with them, -for some reason, they interpret disageement as hate. Sad.

Horus, The respect I’m talking about is the respect we owe each other here on this site. My intention was not to open up a fresh critique of all the bad things power structures do, but to start on a solution here and now.

Anti-green, No-one has suggested that they have “fairies at the bottom of their garden”, so why don’t we put the red herrings aside? Nor has anyone tried to describe God’s appearance – another red herring.

Further, while you are busy laughing, you are not saying anything. What is your point?

You betray Richard Dawkins when you say “an empirical and pragmatic approach to life works for me”. I don’t mind you betraying him – I think it’s in your interests to leave him behind – but is this what you intend? Theists everywhere will claim pragmatism on their side, by saying God and believing in God works for them.

As for empiricism, all you are saying is that it works for you. Okay, but how is it a reason to laugh at theists?

Are you recommending empiricism? Are you, like Dawkins, insisting on it? If so, why? I see no reason to be an empiricist rather than a Christian.

Pax,

Just as Moses was writing the Jewish laws in the language of his time, and Jesus expressing his views for his time and Sudharta for his, Mahomet was putting forward views in the currency of his society. All religions are subject to interpretation.

The fact is that in medieval times Islam was way ahead of Christianity. Now things have changed, but so will the interpretations, and much of Islam has moved forward once again. We don't have to like the extremists of any faith and should control them when they become dangerous.A problem occurs when religions are misinterpreted by others who seek out the bad to reinforce their faith, that leads to resentment. I prefer to attempt to understand the good in other faiths, and the bad in certain groups, but not to confuse the two.

It is not necessary to decry Islam in order to put a stop to criminal behaviour by some.

If you actually bothered to read what was written, Boaz, you would have noticed that Dawkins was quoting Gore Vidal.

>>2000 years of LOATHING women ? Mr Dawkins.. you truly need therapy<<

Unless you are aware of the context of the quote - editorially positive, negative, or simply neutral reporting - your jibe at Dawkins was uninformed and gratuitously insulting.

Let me pick one of your quotes from this thread out of context, and show you what I mean. Perhaps one of your famously biased quotes from the Qur'an, or perhaps "if your right hand sins, cut it off"

I could then write:

"Amputation as a punishment for sin? Mr Boaz, you truly need therapy"

On another thread we have been discussing your failures of logic, observation and fact. Well, here's another prime example, if one were needed.

Logic? None. Vidal (not Dawkins) is referring, in a fairly robust manner, to the fact that the church has been excluding women from its hierarchy for 2000 years. He calls it loathing, I would call it fear, but either way he has stated a view.

Observation? None. You didn't even know who was talking.

Fact? None. Pure emotion on both sides.

I know you enjoy insulting people Boaz, but it is important to find the right target.

Because I have been accused of taking cheaps at monotheism I think that I should articulate a coherent and postive argument. Admittedly this is difficult in 350 words but I'll give it a go.

Let it be clear that the claims of the Torah, Bible and Koran are EXTRAORDINARY. They are not mere trifles yet Jews, Christians and Muslims rattle them off without batting an eyelid. Apparently Moses literally parted the Red Sea, the corpse of Jesus literally rose to life on the third day, and a literal angel regularly visited Mohammed.

Therefore, because these events are so EXTRAORDINARY and UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE according to every single concept of science and rationality the evidence needs to be just as EXTRAORDINARY and OUTSTANDING.

Yet, what we have are vague written claims set in a vague historical context. The true origins of the Old Testment are shrouded in mystery, the Gospel authors are unknowns, a fifth of the Koran is completely unintelligible and is founded on Hadith literature that is a historical joke. Even Ibn Ishaq's work is written 120 years after the fact and is second hand because the original has never been found.

Don't take my word for it. Ever since Albert Schweitzer a whole host of scholars have pulled about the New Testament and revealed its inconsistencies. The work of Goldziher and Schacht have demolished the supposed reliabilty of the Hadith and modern scholars like Cook, Crone, Wanborough, and Hawting have hightlighted the inherent and endemic problems of early Islamic histriography. Like the New Testament the true origins of the Koran is all smoke, mirrors and myth.

Put simply, the history foundation of the montheistic texts is grossly inadequate and does not provide a reasonable basis for believing the extraordinary claims of those texts. And making up the deficit with "faith" is a complete intellectual cop-out and completely unnecessary. One does not have to believe in the Bible or the Koran to believe in God, which after all, is a deep philosophical matter - not a matter for dodgy ancient history books with a theological bent

You're right George. It's easy to make typos. There's a couple at least in my last post.

Anyway and finally - I feel that any Islamic Renaissance must inevitably involve the fact that the Koran/hadith should not, and cannot, be taken literally. There is no intellectual excuse for it.

I am quite happy to be labelled an agnostic. I also am aware that philosophers since the days of David Hume in the eighteenth century have never been able to fully satisfy themselves on the subject of inductive reasoning.

So I will settle in saying to the purist, you are correct, I can not disprove the existence of a God or Gods. By the same token you can not prove the existence of God. However, I will assert that the probability in favour of the reality of a God is so low as to be of no practical importance. Or as I have quoted before Laplace’s statement, “God is an unnecessary hypothesis.”

Now why then should I concern myself in debating these matters? Especially as there is little chance that either the God people or the non believers will undergo a mind change. The reason is this, religion impinges on how I want to live my life. I refer to the influence of religious leaders on parliamentarians. Notably in such issues, as euthanasia, gay rights, abortion and the current on-line discussion on prostitution.

I am grateful that West Australia is not an Islamic theocracy and I do not have to battle with the arcane problems thrown up by sharia law.

TR,
You have a point there. As I already wrote elsewhere, I might have some insight into the relation between (natural) science and religion, where the dialogue depends essentially on a mutual interpretation of data. You are probably aware of the unprecedented interest that this topic has suddenly attracted in the last decade. That fact probbaly scared also Richard Dawkins into writing his book about the Delusion.

In my opinion, a parallel, similarly mature, understanding of the relation between history and the evolvment of various (Christian) models of Transcendental Reality - i. a. biblical criticism, exegesis, hermeneutics - is still in the coming. No mature Christian today believes that the world was created in six days, exactly as Genesis claims, and only very stubborn Christians have problems with Darwin’s theory. It is not that clear with the bible and the development of doctrines on one hand, and established facts of history (and anthopology) on the other. There are still too many unanswered questions, only simplifying shortcuts, one way or the other.

I am no expert in this field, and, of course, I am aware that all this does not make much sense to him/her who does not believe in the existence of a Transcendental Reality, which I define as that part of reality that is not accessible through (natural) science, and consequently neither by mathematics.

anti-green,
I do not think anybody sees this forum as a vehicle for converting anybody. The way I see it, it is an opportunity to look into the “inside” of people of other faiths (or “nonfaith”) and to learn how other people see my faith from the “outside”.

Pericles.. if Dawkins used Vidals quote as support for his own position, and concurrs, am I out of order in suggesting he needs help?

Back to you later.

LOGIC Have you forgotten the whole idea of Sharia?

Please absorb a contrast. This is how "Islam" is being interpreted in Palestinian areas. (where it is a) a Majority and b)in conflict with your mob)

1/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeAVBYAbn0

I repeat QURAN 9:30 "May Allah destroy them" (Jews and Christians)
I hope you saw and listened to that video!

2/ Christians tortured and murdered in Turkey.

What we witnessed has FOREVER changed our lives! As the body was carried into the courtyard, high upon the shoulders of our Turkish brothers, spontaneous applause burst forth! I leaned over to my national friend and queried, Is this normal for funerals, in your culture? No, he asserted, it’s because he a martyr! As the casket continued its journey toward the front, ethereally beautiful worship music erupted somewhat reminiscent of a Gregorian chant. Then everyone joined together in the singing of Turkish praise songs. However, what followed nearly took our breath away! Approximately ten Turkish leaders proclaimed openly the GOSPEL in front of television cameras, newspaper reporters, police officials, the Deputy Governor of Izmir and several other important officials. FEARLESSLY, yet with GENTLE STRENGTH each shared his faith in CHRIST, and HIS FORGIVENESS of those who had committed the heinous murders! Additionally, they shared that CHRIST had won the VICTORY, and at this very hour the martyrs were standing before the very throne of GOD! Several mentioned that the lives of these men were perhaps the seeds that must be planted in order for a harvest to come forth. One pastor passionately exclaimed, We will spread this message, Gods Word, because we are children of the Word! You may kill us all, but we will spread this message, because we love you and because Jesus loves you! We forgive the attackers, because we too, have been forgiven. Powerful applause, Amens and Hallelujahs erupted from among the scores of nationalities represented there! It was awesome!

>>Pericles.. if Dawkins used Vidals quote as support for his own position, and concurrs, am I out of order in suggesting he needs help?<<

That's my point. "If..."

You quoted out of context, presuming the "if".

It's the same syndrome as "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'"

>>Back to you later.<<

If this is your defence, don't bother.

TR,

You quoted:
" Therefore, because these events are so EXTRAORDINARY and UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE according to every single concept of science and rationality the evidence needs to be just as EXTRAORDINARY and OUTSTANDING"

Science translate specific events into a logical, mathemical process on why or how things are happening. Lightening had medieval and spiritual interpretations until research came up with explanation and a method to replicate its generation using rules and mathematics.

Science is not generating new rules but merely a way to find answers and explanations on how and why things are happening in what appeared to be an 'extraordinary event'.
As per my earlier post above when I was in the field of pharmaceutical research, animal telepathy was subject to scientific research and until now the facts are pointing to a) a connection to exchange emotions and thoughts remotely and b) a median than connects these creatures regardless of time and distance.

Let park religions for a while, to claim that God does not exist based on science is a flawed argument. We are just beginning to explore the supernatural (like animal telepathy). Maybe science ina d ecade or so will confirm the existence of a single super energy that connects all creature together and to itself.

Food for thoughts,

Its apparent that the ground to communication is an issue to understand differing views...a greek and chinese without a common language are always limited to what they can impart and gain from each other...and their heritage of cultures/beliefs are so vastly different but fundamentally similar...both believe in worldly/godly power...

Here those who rely mainly on their eyes speak of science; those whom rely mainly on spiritual eye speak of beliefs; and those whom use both speak with a balance of both...

what would help is if people first practice seeing with their spiritual eye(eye of energies)...twig/living plant difference in feeling in above post...try it as its not difficult...and build on it till you also see the world around us for the energies in it and how it flows between each and other......and its little different to say learning a new language and all can do this...

then when ones sees with both, worldly and spiritual eyes at the same thing...I think the debate on god will take us to the next level where we should/need to go...

Sam
Ps~imagine for a moment that you get to a stage of advancement when you can 'see' an evil soul and good soul with certainty...imagine the benefit of this sight...you can then develop way of interacting with both more effectively...and until you try it you cannot know if its possible...unless you dont want people to do this in which case one would try to...hmmm

Boaz,

Whats happening in Palestine today totally deconstructs your theory.
They just turned guns on each other killing 19 people in one day. Its tribalism my friend, there is no place for religion or faith in politics.

PS: I never asked you to accept me 'king' Boaz!
All I asked you to do is to practice what you preach, don't incite fear and hate towards people who follow and practice my faith. It creates division and disharmony.

People have choices of being part of the solution or part of the problem.

Peace,

TR, Thank you for expanding on your views. You say –

“because these events are so EXTRAORDINARY and UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE according to every single concept of science and rationality the evidence needs to be just as EXTRAORDINARY and OUTSTANDING”.

I have two comments:

1) Scripture. Like George, I don’t approach the scriptures as a literalist. This is because I believe God is not a literalist and that the way in which he “inspired” scripture requires me to work with it, not swallow it whole.

I’ve noticed that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (the only new atheists I’m at all familiar with) seem to speak only to Christian/theistic literalists. In fact they rebuke people like George and me with “Why would I stoop to talk to you: you don’t even accept your own scriptures!” This is very convenient, of course, because the literalists are such a delightful target for Dawkinsian derision.

An example of the positive point of non-literal reading: “an eye for an eye”. This is typically critiqued as very harsh. Today, it certainly seems so. In OT times, it involved a softening of current thinking: people would kill at the drop of a hat, and the message was “ONLY any eye for an eye”.

We know this now because we know more than we used to. The era we speak of is obscure but not invisible, and modern biblical scholarship is probably way ahead of the anti-biblical scholarship. The difference is that we Christians do it with an entirely different agenda. The bible is open and still producing. God, I believe, is still speaking.

(I am less clear on whether or not this reasoning applies to the Qur’an. The revelation claimed there is far more direct (God-Gabriel-Mohammed), occurring over a far shorter period (1 or 2 decades) than the Old or New Testaments and addressed entirely to one man. This makes it a lot “tighter” and possibly more resistant to exploratory interpretation.)

(Second comment in next post.)

Pax,

TR et al, the second thing I wanted to say:

2) The connection between evidence and rationality. You say that faith is “an intellectual cop-out”. Naturally enough, I say it isn’t. In fact, I would say that empiricism is.

You seem to be assuming that reliance on empirical evidence is the only means of being rational. You have not established this, or tried to. You just assume it. I assume some things too: God and the bible. My assumption is explained as “faith”. Your assumption is not yet explained.

I would say we have each taken a leap of faith – I to God, and you to empiricism. Once the leap is taken, each of us seems to proceed fairly rationally, wouldn’t you say?

How to compare these different leaps of faith? Well, for a start, I remain consistent with mine. I’ve taken a leap of faith to God, and I’m prepared to recognise it and even to recommend it. The empiricist takes a leap of faith to empiricism and spends the rest of his life saying that leaps of faith are irrational.

By the way, I do rely on my senses. I know that "seeing is believing". But, I think "there's more to this than meets the eye". I see empiricism as an unwarranted voluntary limitation on one's ability to know.

Anti-green, I’m early days pondering the probability point (and I may not get far), so I can’t respond to it now except by saying that probability strikes me as somewhat artificial, mysterious, unprovable and not very interesting. Improbability is no barrier to existence. Wouldn’t a scientist typically say that, for example, life is improbable. Yet, once we know (or confidently believe we know) how it came about, its improbability is no longer of interest. Yet, it really “was” improbable: it just happens that it also exists. Same with human beings, till evolution explained it all to us.

Pax,

The background to the Old Testament may be better researched than you think. A significant flood did exist, Jericho suffered an earthquake. It had are several writers, and a lot of the stories such as the flood appear in earlier mythologies.

These stories are presented in such a way as to illustrate a moral development. Thus the flood becomes an example of the importance of living a good life. With Judaism the important thing is not the Bible but the Rabbinical interpretations that followed (the Talmud) using the Bible as an inspiration. Orthodox Jews (I am not one) never refer directly to the Bible when considering a moral position they always refer to the Talmud and other later commentaries, which continuously evolve.

You will find that Islam does the same thing. Whether or not Mohamed was actually spoken to by Gabriel is less important to me than the morals developed by the Islamic legal schools. And I am sure that they are subject to change with time, like everything else.

Boaz is the expert on Christianity, he can expound on their interpretations. However Catholics seem to be at variance with his views, I sometimes wonder what Christianity actually is.

A problem with all faiths is that power politics often intervenes and abuses the faith for its own ends. But Hitler and Stalin did not need an established religion for their own brand of hate, they invented their own.

As an agnostic I cannot dismiss any long standing faith out of hand.

Dear_Logic, thats toooo juicy_to_resist :) "I sometimes wonder what Christianity is"

and

"He (Boaz)seems at variance to the Roman Catholic Position.

and one more.

"I'm more interested in the evolution of the moral position" (for both Judaism and Islam)

B4 I say another word.. Me the expert on Chrisianity? :) hardly,... I'd tip the hat to goodthief I think. I'm "knowledgeable" but I limit my 'expertise' the crucial and most important. There are many things about which (re the Bible) I am a total dwarf. I only know a smattering of Koine Greek, and about 2 words of Hebrew "Boker tov" :)
and when you pick on me I sometimes 'Ani margish ra' (thank google for that:)

To your points. Catholicism perfectly illustrates the danger of 'evolving human traditions' and interpretations. From that we were blessed with 'forgiveness for sale' i.e. "Indulgences" which Martin Luther railed against. Totally unBiblical but very lucrative for a powerful church treasury. P.S. they are STILL part of Catholic doctrine today. They even call it a 'sacrement' and RC's have argued its merit to me on line.

As goodthief points out. There is no room for this 'evolving' in true Islam. "Sent down" is.. sent down!

Now.. my favorite part.. what IS...Christianity?

So simple... so free, yet so costly.

Paul argues "All have sinned" Jew first then also the Gentile. (Romans chapters1-6)
Christ paid the price.

Isaiah 53:6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

-for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 3:23

G-d invites us to embrace the Lord Jesus as our Savior and Lord.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me" Rev 3:20

Christianity is 2 things.
1/ Repent from sin
2/ Faith in Christ.

Boaz

Thank you for your reply, I enjoy debating with you.

But how do I know what is sinful?

I think the devil is in the detail.

'I would say we have each taken a leap of faith – I to God, and you to empiricism.'

What a load of hogwash goodthief! The WHOLEPOINT of empiricism is that a leap of faith is NOT required.

That is, empiricism is a REALITY based excerise only. And one doesn't need faith to come to terms with physical and tangible evidence that is there right in front of you.

What's more, if an empiricist has to make comments on experimental data when the answers are not clear then the empiricist is honest enought to admit obvious deficiencies. Hence, many scientific papers contain 'error bars' and possible areas for improvement.

The other fallacy that monotheists propagate is that empiricists and rationalists do not want to believe Biblical and Koranic claims and are generally incapable of doing so.

This is nonsense. I would dearly love to believe in the bodily resurrection of a crucified Jesus, or the angelic origins of Mohammad's Koranic visions! However, I can't because the evidence is not compelling. And as I said before, in order to believe in the miraculous/impossible I require good and reliable evidence. The monotheistic texts in no way provide this evidence satisfactorily and therefore I cannot delude myself into dishonesty. I have to be honest with myself.

Empircism is about stark honesty - monotheism is about suspended honesty which is then called faith.

At this point I'd like to point out the inherent dishonesty of monotheism by looking at Islam's most fundamental tenet - the Shahada, or profession of faith;

"La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah."

"There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God."

This is enough to make a rational empiricist cringe.

Here we have an unqualified and absolute statement of fact. Yet, the accompanying evidence found in Islamic literature does not meet the standard set by this statement. Islamic literature is deficient when backing up absolutist claims.

Therefore, there is inherent dishonesty in the Shahada. An honest version of the Shahada would go something like this ;

"There is perhaps God, and it is possible that Muhammad could be a Prophet of God should he exist."

A rationalist would find this revised Shahada more appropriate and keeping in line with the historical evidence.

And dare I say it; the revised Shahada is superior to the actual Shahada because its honesty makes it less dogmatic and therefore less horribly devisive.

TR,
"There is perhaps God, and it is possible that Muhammad could be a Prophet of God should he exist."

If a student wrote in his exam paper “there exists perhaps a solution to this equation, and it is possible that it could be a real number should it exist”, I would conclude that he treats the exam as a joke. I would mark it worse than if he tried hard and made a genuine mistake. Well, in mathematics it is principally easy to establish whether a solution exists or not, whereas in philosophy questions of existence can never be answered so straightforwardly. However, in both cases this is at best a joke, and at worst a disrespect for the intended recipient of the information, irrespective of his/her understanding of the concepts involved and agreement or disagreement with the statement this sentence is a “castrated” version of.

Boaz,
Martin Luther rallied against the sale of indulgences in 16th century Germany. In 21st century Germany, where I live now, psychological “indulgences” or assurances, a guilt-free conscience or “salvation” (of course, not in the after-world) are being offered by an army of counsellors (psychotherapists), and their counsel is certainly not for free. The fees are mostly covered by the Krankenkasse (Medicare) which is probably the reason nobody has thought of nailing 95 theses to a door in Wittenberg or elsewhere. (:-)

The point is, if you wish to criticise Catholicism, and there are many reasons to do so - legitimate or false - you should keep to 21st century. For instance, Crusades and the Inquisition are things the Catholic Church cannot be proud of. However, in the 21st century it was not the pope who launched an invasion, and called it “crusade”; neither had he anything to do with Abu Grail and Guantanamo.

TR, you say –

“The WHOLE POINT of empiricism is that a leap of faith is NOT required.”

Yes, it is. It’s required before you become an empiricist. I realise that, once you adopt empiricism, you proceed "rationally" (on evidence) – and perhaps also honestly and humbly as you suggest – from that point on. I’m talking about a step earlier. Perhaps an unconscious step.

This is my definition of empiricism:

“A thing exists or a phenomenon occurs, or a statement is true, IF AND ONLY IF the existence of the thing, or the occurrence of the phenomenon or the truth of the statement is proved empirically. And they might exist or occur or be true if they are provable empirically.”

Please feel free to provide your own definition, or a better one, whatever.

The empiricist believes that the above statement is true. However, the above statement has not been proved, and is not by its nature provable, empirically. Look at it.

Put another way: You cannot observe that only observed things exist. You can only observe the observed things themselves. You can believe that unobserved things do not exist, but this is a belief not an observation. You don’t observe the principle.

This is why I say you simply assume empiricism. The fact that I call it a leap of faith is not important. This is not a trick, it doesn’t come with steak knives.

i) You believe the above statement (or your rendering of it) to be true.
ii) That statement has not been, and cannot be, proved empirically. So, empirically speaking, it cannot be true.

Logic, I can’t improve on Boaz’s core definition of Christianity (including Catholicism), so I won’t try. I would only add that it’s also a way of living. We are saved for all eternity – and we are relieved and grateful – but we are also shown by Jesus what a saved person looks like and how to live here on earth in the meantime, most important by caring for the weak and oppressed.

Pax,

Dear Logic
I also enjoy our debates.
Let me to what Jesus did, (and many Jews) answer a question with a question:)

"What is sinful"? did you not already provide this answer? (Hillel)

The main difference between on the one hand "Judaism/Islam/Roman Catholicism" and.. "Protestant Christianity" (on the most biblical sense, not the observable abherations we see on TV sometimes) is this.

Judaism emphasises 'The Law' (and the Traditions as you pointed out)
Islam emphasises 'obedience/submission' to Sharia law.
Catholicism emphasises "Obedience to the Church"

PROTESTANTISM lives on the basis of Romans 3:23

1/ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
2/ and are justified freely by his grace
3/ through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

When Jesus said to Nicodemus a teacher of the Law "Unless a man is born again, he will not see the kingdom of heaven." the above is what he was getting at.

REDEMPTION that came by CHRIST ?

It is the transaction of the exchanged life.

Galatians 2: 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Please note carefully the last sentence. "If".... then....

We believe that G-D is holy, that sin cannot exist in his presence, and that no matter how hard we try, we cannot eradicate sin from our hearts. But as the concluding phrase of Galatians suggests "Christ.... is the way"

To be Christian is a relationship, based on one who
-loved us.
-gave himself
-for us.
-all by Grace.

"Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling" goes the hymn.

Islam is based on law, Sharia. I cannot see how in an Islamic context their can ever by a 'rennaissance'.

My Dear BOAZ_David, Catholics do not place an emphasis on the Church greater than their underlying faith. The "Church" is represented in whole by the Pope and his statements to the faithful represent his mission and personal interpretation. The Churches obligation is to set a standard and to be a living example of Jesus's word in practice. Disagreeing with the Churches stance on any issue does not place one in a lesser moral position or increase the individuals measure of sinfulness. Those of us with a inclusive understanding and exercise of faith know the Pope and all Priest are human beings first and equally susceptible to sin. The Pope is not revered as an individual but, for Roman Catholics, as Gods representative on earth. Exceptional Pope's are revered as men and for their examples and work with in the Church. Some, the great, become nominated for Sainthood.
I found your pidgin holing of the various Christian sects disingenuous and I wonder if you aren't attempting to place your 'Christianity' above that of others. Each Protestant Church has a leader of their Church. They could have a Pope also if they were to return to the fold. It's a simple matter of being estranged by politics not by belief.
Christianity has it's Commandments and Judaism has it's Laws and Rabbinical Courts and Islam has Sharia Laws and Courts. Islam is not any more constrained or thwarted by Sharia in regards to a renaissance or reformation of Islam than would any other faith be considering their specific law. Islam is open to interpretation. God willing Muslims will come to demand a plurality of religious thought with in the community and reject the radical hateful voice some Clerics and Imams bring to their societies. Of course it is in the same breath incumbent upon the other faiths to encourage such plurality, not hinder it through dogmatic intransigents.

An interesting play on words, goodthief, but it doesn't wash, I'm afraid.

You describe empiricism as:

>>A thing exists or a phenomenon occurs, or a statement is true, IF AND ONLY IF the existence of the thing, or the occurrence of the phenomenon or the truth of the statement is proved empirically. And they might exist or occur or be true if they are provable empirically.<<

Of course, you are fully aware that this definition breaks down under examination, by deliberately building it in a circular fashion.

The OED definition is far more concise and apposite.

"the doctrine that regards experience as the only source of knowledge"

This is satisfyingly non-circular. Before knowledge can occur, there has to be experience.

The key to this is that we continue to gain experience through life. We don't simply stand still at a given point in time and say "right, that's it, that's the answer".

In fact the empiricist is far more likely to admit to a lack of knowledge or understanding, being aware that experience (that word again) tells us that there are always far more answers than there are questions. Particularly, that today's truth (the sun revolves around the earth) will soon give way to another (the earth is simply a planet, and the sun just one of billions of stars in billions of galaxies).

The egocentric attitude of the Christian is, in the broader sphere, quite anomalous. It demands a belief that we are somehow made in God's image, when all the evidence (experience) leads inexorably to the conclusion that it has always been the other way around.

The key difference between empiricism and religion, which takes it fully outside your circular argument, is that empiricism can encompass religion, but religion cannot encompass empiricism.

An empiricist can examine and comprehend all the variables that can lead to someone taking up a religion. Historically, he can examine all the religions, and place them in context as to their utility within society.

Religion, on the other hand, both fears and forbids intellectual scrutiny.

Pericles, you have it ass backwords :-) (play on words).Your, "... that empiricism can encompass religion, but religion cannot encompass empiricism." Is all wrong. A individual bound by empiricism can not discuss anything outside of the personal experience or observation. Unless an empiricists has a religious experience he/she can not honestly discuss the issue. Doing so with out the experience is a lie, a fabrication that in itself disavows the empirical. Since those individuals on OLO who decry religion and base their thesis on adhering to empiricism, and say that religion is superstition and egotism and other negatives, they then can not say that they understand nor can honestly debate any other thesis beyond their personal experience. Observation is not enough to form a hypothesis. One needs knowledge and experience material to the subject matter for their observations to be interpreted accurately.
I posit that it is more likely that these said empiricist are not free of an experience with religion and that they're defining their arguments as being empirical thesis is a bald lie to exonerate themselves and to separate them from their past personal experience rooted in anger and or hatred.
I have arrived at this thesis from experience, observation and education in human psychiatry and discussions with stated non-believers. Myself being a spiritual person using empirical thinking in my everyday life.
Empiricism fails miserably when any discussion turns to the unseen otherness of being. The not being. Empiricist can no longer contribute, and therefore they attempt to dominate an area of thought that their limited philosophy prohibits any reasonable engagement. Ridicule and staunch denial is all they have, a la Dawkins. Which is also why Dawkins is so defiantly defended as the last bastion of right thinking by the God haters.
The unbelievers have elected their Priest. Their pope. And Dawkins The God Delusion has become their ipso facto bible. Scientology may face it's first real competition. The God Delusion vs. Dianetics.

Pericles, Okay, we'll use the OED: "the doctrine that regards experience as the only source of knowledge”. Or your own rendering.

You believe the following statement is true:

“Before knowledge can occur, there has to be experience.”

However, the truth of this statement cannot be experienced. You simply believe it.

Believing it, you are then stuck in the way Aqvarivs describes (in a way I cannot improve on).

In fact, your looser definition presents you with a further difficulty. There is now room for people of my persuasion to say they have "experienced" God. And, when they say that, you are no longer permitted to deride them as irrational.

As for views encompassing each other, I begin by saying that for practical purposes I am an empiricist. That is, I rely on my senses to get me by. However, I am not a mere empiricist. I know that “seeing is believing”, and I also say “there is more to this than meets the eye”. I am free and open to other things, because I have not decided to limit my thinking by subscribing to empiricism.

While evolution theory might be able to explain how belief in God develops, this doesn’t mean there’s no God. And theists are perfectly capable of studying science and delighting in its revelations.

There’s nothing “egocentric” about the view that humans are made in God’s image - because the belief is that all humans are so made, not just believers. If fact, (if true) it’s a far better basis for humanism that the belief that we are just the latest chimp-upgrade.

If you really think religion “forbids intellectual scrutiny”, then your experience of religion has been narrow. In many quarters of Christianity, intellectual inquiry and critical thinking are not just encouraged but insisted on.

Boaz, I have straddled the RC and Protestant worlds most of my life. I have seen wonderful and ordinary things in each, but I have never seen anything that would make me think either group is not devoted to Our Lord. And no hat-tipping please.

Pax,

Dear Aqvar
I didn't mean to sound disparaging of Roman Catholicism. I thank you for that refreshing perspective, it sounds more like I would 'want' Catholicism to be :)

There is no 'my' Christianity, I reflect 'reformed, conservative, fundamental, evangelical thinking, and that encompasses many current traditions.

I still have to differ though about the possibility of Islam having a renaissance. It already did that, and it's called 'Wahabism'.

Islam by nature does not allow much by way of theological 'innovation'. Theres more scope for such inventiveness in the West, but it would not last long in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I think most (even Pericles) would agree there.

It might be possible to speak of a 'Western Islamic Renaissance' where it re-invents itself to bit better into our cultural/political clothes, but thats as far as I'd go. The greatest challenge for Muslims is recognizing that 're-interpretation' of certain Quranic texts is tantamount to blasphemy and apostasy in strongly Muslim countries.

Goodthief...thanx for temporarily being a more juicy morsel for Pericles than me :) the rest is enjoyed. We can 'tag' team on him.

I've scheduled a 3 session/week therapy session and increased the medication for Pericles, who, based on his responses to my 'you're paranoid' thread, he clearly needs :) No offense Pericles.

'Empiricism fails miserably when any discussion turns to the unseen otherness of being. The not being.'

The unseen what aqvarivs? Oh I get the it. The not seen thingamy bob that is not anywhere but way over there called gobbledegook next to the being that goes "bing". Honestly. I don't think an empiricist could be bothered with such purile stupidity.

But even worse than this type of nonsensical theology is the tone of absolute certainty that theologians consistantly use. And indeed monotheists are the arch offenders when it comes to turning mere philosophical speculation into supposed absolute certainty.

Which brings me back to the Muslim Shahada. Somebody should sue for false advertising.

But to keep George happy I have reworded my first draft of the Shahada to be less agnostic. In fact I have taken a more theistic stance but added some much needed qualification. Here it is;

"We believe that there is no god but God and that Mohammad could be the Prophet of God."

Objectively speaking I think that either of my versions of the Shahada is far more truthful than the original. At least they accounts for the fact that Mohammad's prophethood is founded on subjective history and therefore mere speculation.

Scientists and empiricists don't make outlandish claims, I don't see why monotheists should.

So, in conclusion - I have no problem with Muslims and other religious people making theological pronouncments but PLEASE qualify them accordingly. It is dishonest and misleading not to do so.

'By any reasonable measure of achievement, the faith of the Enlightenment thinkers in science was justified. Today, the greatest divide within humanity is not between races, or religions, or even, as widely believed, between the literate and illiterate. It is the chasm that separates scientific from prescientific cultures. Without the instruments and accumilated knowledge of the natural sciences - physics chemistry, and biology - humans are trapped in a cognitive prison. They are like intelligent fish born in a deep, shadowed pool. Wondering and restless, longing to reach out, they think about the world outside. They invent ingenious speculations and myths about the origin of the confining waters, of the sun and the sky and the stars above, and the meaning of their existence. But they are wrong, always wrong, because the world is too remote from ordinary experience to be merely imagined.

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived.'

E.O. Wilson, 'Consilience' p48

To me it seems obvious, if Islam wishes to undergo a renaissance then it will have to place the 'accumilated knowledge of the natural sciences' on a par with the Koran. If this does not happen then Islamic societies will be held back and never reach their full potential. Some of them may even remain violent back-waters.

TR,
If I understand you properly, you want the Muslim “creed in a nutshell” to state "We believe that there is no god but God, and that Mohammad is or is not the Prophet of God.” Firstly, if I say Melbourne is the capital of Victoria I do not have to qualify it with an “I believe”, whereas if I say that there is only one God, or that Kevin Rudd would be the best PM for Australia, it is understood, without having to be said explicitly, that these are statements I believe to be true, while others might not. Secondly, a sentence “we believe A is or is not true” is a tautology. Why should Muslims want it to be part of their creed?

You are entitled to disagree with, or find meaningless, this or that Muslim (or Christian) tenet without requiring them to water it down or make it meaningless to a Muslim (or Christian). The same as others might disagree with the empiricist creed that states - if I understand it properly - that there is nobody/nothing that sustains this Universe (accessible through natural science) we live in; it is self-sustaining and self-explanatory.

By quoting E.O. Wilson you showed us a very thorough and beautiful description of a scenery by a colour blind person. The scenery here is the material world and the colour is that something that turns a person’s system of beliefs and opinions into faith.

goodthief, if you keep playing with words like that, you will go blind.

>>“Before knowledge can occur, there has to be experience.”
However, the truth of this statement cannot be experienced. You simply believe it<<

If you continue to deconstruct in this manner, you will end up arguing on the same side as those arch-enemies of truth, Derrida, Foucault et al.

The reductio ad absurdum that drives your argument does not hold water here.

If there is no experience, there is no knowledge. What would there be to know? I fail to see how you can possibly refute this.

>>There is now room for people of my persuasion to say they have "experienced" God. And, when they say that, you are no longer permitted to deride them as irrational<<

But goodthief, that is the whole point. If you have "experienced" God, then it is perfectly correct for you to say so, and completely incorrect for anyone to tell you that you haven't.

However, it is also axiomatic that if you had not "experienced" God, then you would have no knowledge of him, therefore could not, rationally, believe in his existence.

Does that make empiricism clearer for you?

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Every man that has ever battled to lift his thoughts off the ground has had to face the Dawkins of the world who don't want man to consider himself any different than the chimpanzees or amoeba. This is because they want the excuse that man is incapable of spiritual knowledge, and question that the Creator would choose to acknowledge the thoughts of man with out directly influencing mankind, and not create a heaven on earth were man would survive with out responsibility for his actions. This is what they fear more than life. Actually being held culpable for the direction of human kind. “We empiricist, like scientist, are superior in thought than those who believe in God”. Some empiricist here on OLO don't want to add anything to the discussion. It is a matter of destruction that brings them to their words. They want a fatalist's world, need a fatalist's world, so that they don't have to put anything more forward than their selfish position. If they can kill the idea of spiritualism and the belief of God, they then can kill morality and ethical behaviour, and are then free to tear down any other social and legal restrictions that currently inhibit their destructive nature. They want the power of the anarchist, they're nihilist. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be.

Pericles, every person of faith has experienced God. That is the point, and why some empiricist can not contribute other than by false acclaim, or as TR, with anything but derision.

I say to every person of faith, reach out to your neighbour be he Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, etc., and work together to ensure the plurality of faith that exist and to protect secular law and society. Let any Islamic reformation or renaissance come by example. Be thoughtful and be nurturing. Be inclusive. Sow the seeds, enrich the soil, and reap the rewards of diligent social husbandry.

Phew...another 'Pericles free post' :) Life is certainly looking up.

Aqvar.. am I detecting some newfound or revived spirituality in your posts? We seem to have left the age of Aquarius behind there.. and a good thing too.

EMPIRICISTS WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE GOD.. unless by divine example such as Paul did.... so, in fact they might.
Point being, true faith in Christ is not of the 'Lord, show me ur real and then I'll believe" kind.

ISLAMIC RENAISSANCE.. This document might be of interest to some.

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Terrorism/EuropeCharter.pdf

Many if not most Muslims will find this an agreeable document, until of course they come to Article 1, i.e. the very first point. Youll have to read it to see why!

Does it not strike others as a bit odd, that an Islamic 'renaissance' can really only happen where there is sufficient freedom for it to be verbalized without death threats?

OOps... now even that does not apply, but at lest Western Authorities would try to protect adventurous muslim scholars who dare defy the 5 major schools of jurisprudence.

Boaz,

You can keep quoting the www.yet-another-islam-bashing-site.com.

For the rest of us,

The Australian muslim community have launched the Affinity Organisation, an inter-cultural foundation that promotes dialogue and harmony:
www.affinity.org.au
If you appreciate the efforts, simply forward the site link to friends and family.

Peace,

BOAZ_David, I'm disappointed if your just now able to recognize my specific sense of spirituality. Please don't confuse it with religiosity. As a Roman Catholic in education and observance I don't believe it is incumbent upon myself to evangelize and bring Christianity to the world through word. I should much prefer to go about as a living example of my own interpretation and remain true to my own belief. I like to consider myself living art in transition, errors pending, not living dogma.

We haven't left the age of Aquarius behind. It will rule the cosmos for the next 2160 odd years. It roughly corresponds to the time taken for the vernal equinox to move through one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. The Ages in astrology, however, do not correspond to the actual constellation boundaries where the vernal equinox may be occurring in a given time. Astrological ages occur because of a phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. One complete period of this precession is called a Great Sidereal Year of about 25,800 to 25,920 years and it is divided in twelve astrological ages of 30 degrees each (ca. 2150 to 2160 years).

I read your Charter for Muslims and can not see why any faithful Muslim would have any difficulty with article one. For the most part Muslim scholars have already stated that violent interpretation of jihad and unscrupulous clerics issuing fatwas calling for violence and or death are beyond the legal and spiritual understanding of mainstream Islam. I do think however, that Muslims might be more induced to participate in such a charter if it hadn't been instituted by a person who converted from Islam to Christianity and now spend his professional speaking career attacking Islam. No Christian should take it upon themselves to interfere in the process of another faith. Especially Christians who's history is heavily weighted with violent reactionism. Christians should be the first to hold out a hand and understand the current struggle with in Islam. What better place than western secular society to fulminate violent Islamism. Encourage, don't hinder.

aqvarivs, I'd love to know what you are on. Whatever it is, it certainly spaces you out.

>>For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Every man that has ever battled to lift his thoughts off the ground...<<

Purple stuff.

But to more serious matters.

>>This is what they [the Dawkins of the world] fear more than life. Actually being held culpable for the direction of human kind<<

Culpable. An interesting word.

Why not "responsible"? It has the same effect, but is not freighted with the idea that somehow, someone needs to feel guilty about what we have done.

But whichever word you want to use, I have not yet met an empiricist who fears being held responsible (or culpable) for anything.

On the other hand, I have met many, many religious people who firmly believe that we are all headed for hell in a handbasket, and blame everyone except their own specific religion for the problems of the world. In addition, they evince a genuine fear of being found guilty (culpable) of a myriad of sins, and being therefore prevented from "going to heaven".

All in all, your argument smacks of transference.

>>every person of faith has experienced God<<

I would certainly hope they have. Putting your faith in something just because someone tells you that you must, has to be the worst of all possible worlds.

>>That is the point, and why some empiricist can not contribute other than by false acclaim<<

But are you saying that an empiricist has nothing to offer the discussion? That smells of fear to me.

Fear that you might just hear something that dents your faith a little bit, creating a seed of doubt that slowly festers inside your head. One of those fears must be that your "experience" of God (or G-d, as Boaz has taken to calling him - what's that about?) was somehow, shall we say, less than convincing?

I suppose in these circumstances, talking to yourself is definitely the safest option.

Pericles,

It’s only presumptuous knowledge that I’m deconstructing – knowledge that isn’t accounted for, that pretends to be self-sustaining. I’m not tearing empirical knowledge down, I’m just identifying its starting position and pointing it out. I’m not criticising you guys for getting your thinking started by means of an assumption, but just pointing out that that’s what you’re doing. I do the same: “Fear of God is the beginning of knowledge” is a biblical thingo you might have heard before.

I have experienced God, but it might not be the kind of experience I can exhibit to your satisfaction. The scientist might not consider it “experience” at all.

We might be at cross purposes. I’m talking about things and facts more than knowledge. Things can exist without anyone knowing them, and even without being the kinds of thing we’re capable of apprehending via the rigours and strictures of science. I believe God exists whether experienced or not. If you look back at my post you’ll see that my reliance on experience is secondary. I am not an empiricist and it would require more than a few clever posts from you to turn me into one.

Still, so long as we theists can claim experience on our side, can I take it that you will no longer call us deluded?

TR,

Regarding Aqvariv’s "puerility", I've noticed that he doesn’t always write prosaically, as you and I always do. Perhaps you think all poetry is puerile. A tragedy of being an empiricist is that you live entirely via your left hemisphere. That just isn’t living.

This might be why Dawkinsian atheists have trouble with Scripture: it too is largely poetic, and not intended for literal consumption.

(Did you catch Dawkins on Compass on the ABC last night – here in Melbourne, anyway? For all his big brain, his emotional intelligence and ability to engage with people need a little work, I think. I mentioned this to an atheist friend today, and he became quite heated, as if I’d uttered a blasphemy: how would you account for this?)

Pax,

I would like to ask aqvarivs and goodthief the following :
If God created us (assuming God exists of course) then he/she/it must be aware of our physical limitations. If that is so, then why does God make "him/her/itself" so difficult (in fact impossible) to communicate with? Why does one have to "just have faith" and believe?
What is wrong with just coming out and actually talking to us in the way that we hear things? What is wrong with just giving us some real evidence of his/her/its existence? After all, if God designed us, he must be aware of the way our bodies work.
Does he need intermediaries like your good-selves to communicate with us?
If so, why?
The only evidence you have is books written by men who may or may not have been under the influence of this "God". They may have been under the influence of some drug or other.This is not evidence at all in my view.
Maybe the writers were under the influence of the Devil, if he/she/it exists. Considering a lot of the sheer nastiness that religion causes, that seems to be, for me, a much more convincing hypothesis.

It is obvious from this lengthy thread that religious people wrongly assume that their worldview is far more expansive and invigorating than the worldview of the ‘poor old’ empiricist. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is religious people who have impoverished themselves.

Indeed, the stories and ‘myths’ revealed by the natural sciences are far more elegant and grand than any comparable story or myth found in the Bible or the Koran. Personally, I find the creation accounts found in Christian and Islamic literature tedious and boring. On the other hand, the cosmic history of our Universe as told by astrophysicists, and the gripping story of human evolution as told by anthropologists, makes my mind spin. Their expert accounts are just beautiful, as in poetically beautiful.

I groan at aqvarivs comments about astrology not just because they are untruthful but because real astronomy is just so much more inspiring and exciting. After all, comparing astrology to astronomy is like comparing a child’s finger painting with Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’.

TR,
“Personally, I find the creation accounts found in Christian and Islamic literature tedious and boring. On the other hand, the cosmic history of our Universe as told by astrophysicists, and the gripping story of human evolution as told by anthropologists, makes my mind spin. Their expert accounts are just beautiful, as in poetically beautiful.”

I completely agree with you as far as cosmology is concerned. I find the story told by astrophysicists not only more acceptable to a grown-up 21st century mind but also poetically more beautiful than both the “cosmology” of Genesis and the stories about people, animals, stars etc told primary school children. Nevertheless I understand that not only we as individuals but also humanity as such had to pass through its childhood with all its innocence and naiveness.

Froggie,
“What is wrong with just coming out and actually talking to us in the way that we hear things?”

I am sure aqvarivs and goodthief can answer that question for themselves, but let me try my own go at it. First of all, if God came and talked to you, how would you convince others that it was Him who talked to you? According to the Bible, when Jesus was born the angels announced the news directly to the simple shepherds, whereas the three wise men had to find it out for themselves by following a sign in the sky. As a Christian I think the same can be said about God’s self-revelation to us: He speaks directly to children and those who have an innocent mind of a child (or a shepherd), whereas the rest of us have to follow signs of him “in the sky” that is becoming more and more complicated, but also revealing, as our scientific and philosophical knowledge of the world progresses.

(ctd) Perhaps one of my earlier postings might illuminate this:
Those who use words like quest discovery etc. when looking for God are moving strictly within the realm of science, using scientific methods. However, you cannot find God - whatever understanding you have of Him - this way, otherwise all atheists would have to be seen as ignorant (like those who deny the existence of electrons, bacteria or Alpha Centauri). They are not, they just look - if they look at all - in the wrong places. “Do not go afar: seek within thyself. Truth resides inside of man.” (St. Augustine) or more explicitly “Truth (about God) descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself, preformed, a mental space where the truth my eventually lodge” (Ortega y Gasset). As concerns such basic beliefs as are part of religious faith, a science can only illuminate what you have found, be it a belief in (the Christian model of) God or a belief in something else or a belief in nothing untouchable. Science (or history, or philosophy, etc.) can give your faith a new quality, a new dimension but it can neither prove nor disprove something as basic as that, the ground of all existence. Like you cannot prove or disprove axioms: you accept them (within a given system) or reject them.

Now don't be silly George- I wasn't asking to be converted. My question was rhetorical.

If God is as all powerful as you claim, creator of the Universe and all that, then God could quite easily communicate directly with all of us at the same time.

The fact that this imaginary being doesn't do this, leads me to think that it doesn't exist.

God needn't be shy, need he/she/it?

It is up to religionists to prove the existence of God, not us to prove the non-existence of same. I think that religionists have been doing a really bad job of that; maybe it is because there is nothing there?

What is the difference in believing in God and believing in the spaghetti monster? What about the people who believe they have been abducted by aliens from Space? Scientology, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc etc etc...One sure sign that there is something wrong with religion, is that there are so many different religions, all claiming to be the only right one.

Just too ridiculous for words. I'm wasting my time, because religious people don't need verifiable, repeatable facts in order to convince themselves.

Richard Dawkins is right.

goodthief, you are still simply playing with words here. It is really very, very simple.

>>I’m not criticising you guys for getting your thinking started by means of an assumption, but just pointing out that that’s what you’re doing<<

The whole point about empiricism is that no assumptions are required. It is simply axiomatic that experience, or awareness, precedes knowledge. You don't have to assume anything. There is, in fact, nothing to assume. It simply states that unless you are aware of something, you cannot know it.

Surely it doesn't get any easier than that?

It poses absolutely no threat. It encompasses the idea and experience of religion and spirituality.

You and your fellow religionists try to paint it into the corner of being "just another belief".

It does not require any leap of faith, simply an understanding that as sentient beings, before knowledge can exist, there has to be experience.

Let's take your illustration.

>>“Fear of God is the beginning of knowledge”<<

If you knew nothing about fear, and nothing of God, it is impossible to begin the process you describe here as "knowledge". Something - and that something we empiricists call "experience" - has to precede knowledge.

You refute this by saying

>>Things can exist without anyone knowing them... I believe God exists whether experienced or not<<

That, frankly, makes no sense. Build me a scenario in which such statements can be true. Can you do that?

I suggest you will find it difficult to achieve. You may make some good progress along the path, but there are some difficulties. I'm particularly interested in how you cope with the idea that God made man in his own image.

froggie wrote "must be aware of our physical limitations. If that is so, then why does God make "him/her/itself" so difficult (in fact impossible) to communicate with?"

If I may...you asked the question froggie...now get out there and start searching for the answer...you would eventually find the path that leads you to the fact or here the truth...

eg...using science...everybody knew that when an apple dropped from a tree it fell straight down but never 'clicked' to ask why...it took isacc newton(1697) to click and work out and along the way of applying a scientific mind found the path that led to the 'laws of motion'...it didnt just come to him...

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/newton.html
and look at the third law...every action has an equivalent and opposite reaction...budhist jump up saying that is karma...christians as in sin...athesist as badluck...so a reasonable person would inquire if such a principle exists in the spiritual realm too...and approach it in the same spirit as a scientist...ie with an open mind to the answer...(even a 'bamboo' flexibility of the mind will be a limitation to finding the truth...but a firm mind on the 'observed' ie empirist is good(careful that the 'assessment' on the observed is exactly what it should be...ie nothing added to it or removed(bias per statistics)... but keep moving on the path of discovery...)

so hopefully you will set out to search and find the answer and then tell us...I expect that god might say 'its always been in front of you but you refused to see or hear'...

Sam

Pericles, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. “ Not something with in the conceptual understanding of the empiricist I guess. What we are on the inside, what we continually think about, eventually shows in our words, actions, and even our countenance. In time we become the embodiment of our thoughts and actions. They define the heart of each self.

It isn't about “feeling” guilty. Though that is an interesting look at your emotional self. It's about being guilty. Mankind is not innocent. We are guilty of our collective history, our treatment of one another. One can not transfer their participation and thus proclaim themselves free of “being guilty” of mans collective transgressions. Unless your stating that your empiricism exonerates you and you are therefore free from error.

One doesn't put faith in God. One has faith or one doesn't. One may put faith in his equipment based on a percent of reliability. For example, seat belts save lives 50% of the time when they are used properly. Ones faith in the use of seat belts is dependant. One does not get to know God by playing the percentages.

And Pericles, if you could just say something and I would loose my faith. Then I would never have had faith to begin with. There is nothing anyone can do or say that could loose someone their faith. People have to do that kind of damage to themselves. It's like suicide. You can not suicide someone. The COPs'll do ya for murder.

Froggie, step outside and look into the night sky. Don't blame God for not speaking to you if your too clever not to listen. You have chosen not to.

TR, you need to come into the conversation from the beginning. Twisting my post to BOAZ out of context just to appear smug does you no favour. No one is comparing astrology to astronomy. BOAZ was slagging my definition of my self-styled internet handle aqvarivs. Your too late to the game to poach one of my post to BOAZ. It's a carry on from other conversations

I believe that the original statement for discussion was;

'Islam's coming renaissance will rise in the West : Comments'

I would agree with that statement except to say that the Islamic religion would have to rebuilt from the ground up. There would be no tinkering around the edges. The foundations laid down by Imams Shafi, Bukhari and Ghazzali HAVE to be ruptured.

Obviously then, any Islamic renaissance is going to be a tortuous process but it must begin by embracing the natural sciences; not just practically but philosophically. The same principle would apply for the 'religious-right' in the United States.

The end.

Keep it up, TR, only wish there was many more like you.

Cheers, BB

Froggie, Your rhetorical question about why God does not make his existence obvious is one the hardest. God’s elusiveness bemuses and irritates people like you and occasionally depresses people like me. My only explanation is that such a revelation would deprive us of the ability to choose to believe – a choice which is as much an act of love as a cerebral exercise. The revelation would be overwhelming, and I believe God does not impose.

Pericles,

You say, “unless you are aware of something, you cannot know it. Surely it doesn't get any easier than that?” Granted, tautologies are easy :)

You use the word “axiomatic” about the necessary link between experience and knowledge. This is my point:- this axiom is where your thinking begins. You believe the axiom to be true, but the truth of the axiom is not experienced:- it’s simply apprehended. It seems that it needn’t be experienced, because “it is axiomatic”. It seems so obvious that you don’t even like having to say it.

Because it’s “obvious”, it seems a good place to start. This is all I’m saying: you have a starting point. You didn’t have to, you just did. You might have started with God. Or, as that is not appealing (or seems prohibited by the approach you’ve actually taken), you might have started with yourself, as the relativist does:- “I’ll believe what I want and no-one can contradict me, neither the God people nor the evidence people”.

“Man in God’s image”, another tough one. The core beliefs about God are that God is a person and that “God is love”. I believe these are our core characteristics. They enable us to relate to God, which is impressive, and to relate just as impressively with each other. “Image of God” is an excellent pedigree – we are extremely “high born”, so to speak – and so it becomes a good basis for insisting that people be treated with respect. It gets equality and justice underway. As for “coping”, I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but I’m sure you’ll tell me.

Pax,

Now don't be silly Froggie - I wasn't trying to convert you. The “you” in my posting was rhetorical. Should you ask for instance what do Germans mean by a particular sentence I would try to translate/explain it to you without expecting you to learn German or even to become a German.

Questions raised on this OLO, as I understand them, rhetorical or not, are dealt with (you seldom get a clear-cut answer) in order to exchange opinion (sometimes even facts), which in case of topics dealing with religion most often involve personal experiences with a particular religion or world view, by an “insider” or an “outsider”. Your rhetorical questions do not surprise me: as a mathematician I have been used to similarly motivated questions, rhetorical or not, on what mathematics is all about, and what it is good for in everyday life, by “outsiders”, people who for this or that reason have problems with maths. And it is equally impossible to satisfy them with a simple answer they could accept.

Nevertheless let me try again for those who might still be interested. If I write a programme properly, it CANNOT not do what I wanted it to do; if I teach a student how “to do maths” he/she CAN misunderstand me, and not do what I want him/her to do. In this sense I prefer a God who created us not as automata running a single programme, but as human beings free not to see and not to do what He wanted us to see and to do. This freedom, we now understand, is built into the creation by making it a self-evolving, not pre-programmed, Universe, life and man. Scientists, reading the “Book of nature” can, but do not have to, “see Him”. On the other hand those who read the sacred books of various religions without thinking can get a distorted image of Him. I think this is more or less what also goodthief is saying.

TR,
I agree 100% with what you say, and would only add that this “rebuilding from the ground up” has to come from the INSIDE, from Muslims themselves. We, the outsiders, cannot “rupture” anything, we should only encourage those among them who have their try on this rebuilding. And not make it harder for them by condemning or ridiculing also what is sacred to all Muslims, the fundamentalists as well as those working on a renaissance of their faith.

I should think it's safe to say every thing is created by God in his image. Including man. Which is not to say man was created in the image of God. There is a very distinct difference intended by the structure of both these sentences. Every living creature on earth is distinct from the other. Every planet in our solar system is distinct from the other. All of the stars and extra solar system planets studied to date have proven to be distinct from one another. The constellations of the stars are distinct from one another. Far away galaxies are distinct from one another. Which mathematical or scientific principle allows for this existent diversity from no thing. And no thing first existed what led to the accumulation of dust particles that created the mass that initiated the big bang of scientific beginnings. Why is all this things held in a vacuum megaverse of no thing. Science has no answer and has gone on to discuss strings and slices of bread to opine dimensional physics in explaining the universe unanswerable through scientific methodology. Which has only proven to confound their science more thoroughly. Man in his glory is not the equal of God, except for in one regard. Destroying what God has given us in a vain attempt to be God like. And then have the audacity to question what it is we are guilty of. Are Muslims and non-Muslims going to destroy any renaissance of Islam because the opportunity for such a renaissance exist simply to prove once again how superior we can be?

George and TR

interesting points, but..... if you take away Bukhari and the other transmitters of oral tradition, what about the Quran ? Its as damning as the others which simply fill in the blanks.

You are really saying that Muslims need to turn their religion into something that is not 'Islam'.. which would be a good thing.

Not much chance of that. After all.. it was 'sent down' by Allah..

"And for the prophet.. if a believing woman offers herself to you, you may marry- you are without blame, this only for you, not the ordinary believers" partial quote of 33:50

Mohammad practiced 'temporary' marriage and allowed it... people can draw their own conclusions about where this kind of 'revelation' was 'sent' from.
Like financial crime.. 'follow the money'... with cults .. often it is 'follow the sex' to find the who and why of it all.

I honestly doubt if any Muslim would ever have the testicles to go against the 5 major schools of Islamic law which allowed the Ottoman sultan to have 300 concubines. "Islamic law allows a man 4 wives and as many concubines as he can support" is what I found in a bio sketch of Sulayman...Ottoman Sultan.

BATTLE OF LEPANTO.. what lesson should we learn from this ?

Note the words of the Ottomans and think about it.

Spoken to the Christian alliance after the Battle of Lepanto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)

"In wresting Cyprus from you we deprived you of an arm; in defeating our fleet you have only shaved our beard. An arm when cut off cannot grow again; but a shorn beard will grow all the better for the razor."

That 'regrown beard' was felt a few decades later..at the gates of Vienna.......were it not for the magnificent courage and skill of one Jan III Sobiesky.. we would be speaking Arabic today.

Tours 732
Vienna 1683
Nahr el-Bared camp..Lebanon, 2007

goodthief, if wordplay is your substitute for argument, so be it.

But you aren't fooling anybody except yourself.

Let's start with the word "axiom".

It comes directly from the Greek axioma, meaning "that which commends itself as self-evident". It has been used in English in this sense since Caxton in 1485.

If we now look again at what you say with this explanation in mind.

>>This is my point:- this axiom is where your thinking begins. You believe the axiom to be true, but the truth of the axiom is not experienced:- it’s simply apprehended<<

The entire point of having an axiom in the first place is to have somewhere to start from that is free and independent, in order to avoid the necessity of having to believe in it. Something that is axiomatic is, by definition, self-evident. The axiom is the starting point simply because it is not necessary to go behind it or beyond it in order to understand it.

That is why it is not necessary to "believe an axiom to be true". It simply "is" an axiom.

It would be perfectly acceptable for you to set out to refute my statement that "it is simply axiomatic that experience, or awareness, precedes knowledge". That would be fair enough, and is the direction that logic should take you.

But it is a perversion of the English language to try to argue that an axiom is not axiomatic on the basis that it requires belief.

The direction your argument takes you, unfortunately, is towards a view that words have no meaning in and of themselves.

That leads to "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

That way also lies Derrida, Foucault and co. and the deconstruction gang, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there.

The existence of God, on the other hand, cannot be axiomatic. You can still believe in him, of course, there is no logical prohibition against belief. We are after all human beings.

George, it was Socrates who said - out with the Gods and in with the Good.

Philosophers do say that what Socrates meant was that the Good we find within ourselves through meditation and commonsense, can be the true God. Proven by the fact that we will be filled with humility rather than pride.

Pericles,

I know that an axiom is a self-evident proposition. I’m not challenging the dictionary, I’m challenging you.

You have said that the proposition “experience precedes knowledge” is an axiom. But, it is not an axiom just because you say it is.

We both accept that an axiom is a self-evident proposition.

We don’t both accept that your proposition about knowledge and experience is self-evident. You are recommending it as an axiom. I’m not buying. The dictionary will not assist you.

You believe that it’s an axiom. Believing that, you wonder why everyone doesn’t agree, and you accuse them of insincerity or irrationality – “wordplay is your substitute for argument”, you say to me – just because they don’t agree.

You end up saying: “It just is, goodthief, it just is”.

I say: “God just is, pericles, God just is”.

We have each made a leap of faith towards a proposition or a phenomenon, which “just is”. The difference is, I admit it, while you’re ducking and weaving for all you’re worth. I’m astonished at the energy with which you avoid admitting that you have chosen to believe that your experience/knowledge proposition is an axiom.

I assume it's because you don't have any awareness of having chosen it, would that be right? It seems so compelling that you have no say in it. That's how many of us speak of our faith in God - like something we didn't really choose at all, a fact that impressed itself on us compellingly.

BTW, you asked about how I "cope" with the image of God thing:- what's that about?

Pax,

bushbred,
I agree with Socrates, if for no other reasons then because the gods he was referring to were very different from the concept of God that evolved in the 2400 years since his death.

And I almost agree with you, because Christianity too, has an understanding of God dwelling both within and without ourselves. See for instance my previous quote from St. Augustine, where you could replace Truth by Goodness (or Beauty). Christians see the God dwelling in ourselves, or rather His projection, as Grace. Some schools of Hinduism seem to have a clearer separation between Atman (insider) and Brahman (outsider) but here my understanding might be too naive.

Nowadays you do not have to become a mystic or esoteric to see the strict boundaries between a God existing independently of ourselves and a God dwelling within ourselves blurred: 20th century made the strict separation between subject and object questionable even in physics (c. f. the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics phenomena). So it is a question of emphasis, preference or tradition, rather than mutually exclusive alternatives, which manifestation of the one God you see as the “true God”, as long as you do not see Him reduced to your personal experience of His projection, Truth reduced to hallucinations, and Goodness to just a meaningless byproduct of man’s biological evolution.

Boaz,
You certainly know the Koran better than I, but what do you suggest as the alternative to what TR and I were saying? You cannot kill the billion of Muslims, neither can you convert them all to Christianity (nowadays only very naive Christians want that) or to atheism (as some naive secularists, at least here in Germany, seem to want it).

During WWII many bad things were done in the name of Germans (and more than often by them). And look were they are now: the 80 millions were not eradicated in 1945, neither were they turned into Anglo-Saxons or what. Whatever was the help from the outside - and it was something that today they acknowledge and are grateful for - they remained German, drawing on the positive side of their national heritage. I know, with religious identity it is more complicated than with ethnic or national identity, but still, I repeat my question: What would you suggest we do with the billion Muslims (not just with the criminals among them), as an alternative to what the majority of contributors here suggest?

goodthief, let's try to bring light into this discussion as well as heat

A really good challenge to an axiom would be to describe a situation where it cannot hold true.

Let your imagination soar, and see whether you can do this, why not?

You will inevitably conclude that the statement "experience is the only source of knowledge" is axiomatic. There can be no circumstance in which it does not hold true. You cannot know something, unless it has been experienced. Or put the other way around if something has not been experienced, nobody knows about it.

Imagine, for example, our ancestors living in caves (unless of course you are a creationist, in which case no argument will have any impact) and picture what they know - their knowledge. Then give some thought to what part of their knowledge could not be derived from their experience of the world they live in.

Draw any picture you like, with or without God in it, and explain what part of that is not derived from experience.

As I said before, empiricism can contain Christianity, but the reverse is not true - which is presumably why you spend so much time attacking it.

>>We have each made a leap of faith towards a proposition or a phenomenon, which “just is”. The difference is, I admit it, while you’re ducking and weaving for all you’re worth<<

There's no ducking and weaving, I'm simply trying to hold you accountable for your views.

If you examine your argument carefully, you would not able ascribe any particular meaning to any word at all, unless you first believe that it has a meaning. As I said before, this puts you firmly in the company of Derrida and co.

But more obviously, by your definition there cannot actually be a thing called an axiom, because you demand that belief precede it. Test that one while you are about it - try to imagine an axiom that actually meets the dictionary definition, and yours.

So, whom to believe, you or the dictionary?

Delhi 1857: Extracts from William Dalrymple

From a Sepoy rebel leader; The English want to overthrow all religions - thus Hindus and Muslims should unite in their slaughter…...

According to Dalrymple, there is much about imperial adventures in India at the time, and the massive insurgency it provoked, which is uneasily familiar with us today. The end of the 18th century revealed a new group of London conservatives out to make Britain the sole global power.

The British policy soon developed an evangelical flavor. The new right, wished to impose not only British laws but also Western values on India. The country would be not only ruled but redeemed.
The British then progressed to removing not only threatening Indian rulers, to annexing even the most pliant provinces.

Thus the rebellion began, and although the great majority of the Sepoys were Hindus, there are a great many echoes of the Islamic insurgencies the US fights today in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Delhi a flag of the Jihad was raised in the principal mosque, and many of the resistance fighters described themselves as Mujihadeen or Jihadees. There was even a regiment of suicide Ghazis who vowed to fight until death.

Events reached a climax on September 14, 1857, when British forces attacked the besieged Delhi. They massacred not only all the Sepoys and Jihadis, but also the ordinary citizens of the Mughal metropolis. Delhi, a sophisticated city of half a million souls, was left an empty ruin.

What the British proved was simply how to multiply the hatreds already built against them, similar to what the US and Israel are learning today. In older terms, meaning you cannot make peace at the point of a bayonet: that nothing so radicalizes a people against you, or as today, nothing has undermined the moderate aspects of Islam, as British and American intrusion into todays' Middle East.

Sadly, Israel is so very much caught up in this also, the fanatical obsession of the US religious right purporting of a spiritual sign that now forever on America is Israel’s Guarantor of the Jewish
Promised Land.

This has, for me, been a most interesting thread. I have followed it from the first post to the last comment by bushbred, and have found much to think about.

I'm sure many of these arguments are also available elsewhere in the vastnesses of the Web, but I still found it worthwhile to see it all here.

Thank you all for a most stimulating discussion (even if I have only been a spectator in this one).

Cheers!

BRUSHY.. ur a scallywag :) in between 2 of your paragraphs, and from the same article, you neglected to include THIS

[The sepoys entered Delhi, massacred every Christian man, woman and child they could find and declared the 82-year-old emperor to be their leader.]

That was BEFORE the British came and 'did their thing' in Delhi... hmmmm maybe, just mabye, they were a bit annoyed by the massacre of men women and children by the Hindu's and Muslims? And.. it was done on the basis of their FAITH.. 'because they were Christians'

Next time.. please give a 'balanced' account.

GEORGE.. thanx for the obviously well intended question about what to 'do' about the Muslims in Australia.

No..we cannot expect all of them to be converted.
No..we cannot do a 'Brits at Delhi' on them either.

What we can do is as follows:

1/ Re-committ ourselves to our own traditions, rediscovering the lost pearls of cultural identity that have been mercilessly eroded over decades by people with philosophical, immoral and financial interests in doing so.

2/ My preference is for us to re-discover our 'first love' (if we ever had one) for Christ.

3/ Politically, we can close the door to Muslim Immigration.
4/ Spiritually and socially we can EXPOSE the ugly truth of this abhorrent faith and strip it naked for all to see. The main reason people convert to Islam is limited information. I don't know how many who
a) Know of MOhammads true life Quran 33:50
b) Know of the WE WILL KILL YOU exit policy. Quran 4:89
c) Authorization for domestic violence (beating wives) 4:34
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-toothbrush.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY
d) Authorization for capturing and keeping sex slaves. 23:5-6
e) Murder of political opponents is quite ok if they are perceived to be acting against the interests of the Islamic state.(Ka'b bin Al Ashraf)

5/ Show love to Muslims and caringly lead them from darkness to light in Christ. "Speak the truth ...in love" Eph 4:15

"I came..that they might have life" Jesus

To Rhys Probert, thanks for your reference to my last Post. Reckon the whole bunch of Posts must have just about broken a record.

However, as a student of political philosophy, do feel disappointed that no one has stooped to offer an apology to Islam for what Mubarek of Egypt once asked for concerning the major problem of the Middle East.

Simply Western intrusion and injustice.

In all truth it has not changed much from the colonial days really, except that British gunboat diplomacy has turned into US missile diplomacy

BOAZ,
You again prove that you are more at home with the Koran than I. Your suggestions:
1/ and 2/ are no alternatives, they are compatible with what I (and others here) have suggested.
3/ is not practicable in Europe, and I doubt it very much it is practicable in Australia. And even if, it probably would not contribute to the solution of the global problem.
4/ “to expose the ugly truth” of your neighbour’s sincerely held faith, and call it “abhorrent”, is not what I would call spiritual, certainly not in the Christian meaning of the word. Abhorrent are the deeds of some Muslims, not their faith. We all know that also Christians were capable of very bad deeds (some are still), which we could call abhorrent, not the Christian faith. We should be grateful to God (of Christians as well as of Muslims) that we have our Middle Ages behind us, whereas they still have a painful road ahead of them.
5/ is also no alternative but compatible with what I suggested though I would use less patronising words.

David
You never got back to us about the Salvation Army? You said you would be happy to assist in overveiwing our letter to them. We were all very excited to have you help.

There is only one God. That Gods loves all people regardless.

Sure their are some nut cases in this world but they are not all Muslims .

They are a mixture. Yes they are some extemists groups in Muslim Faith but then again most Muslims will tell you thats not the 'real' Islam.
The fact after sending out THOUSANDS of letters to the Church Leaders of this country we received ONE reply regarding the cruel trade of live animal exports and unexceptable transport treatment.

That was From Muslim Leaders of Australia.

Please think about it.

You can tell a nation by the way it treats its animals.

Muslim Australians have spoken out about cruelty to Animals.
I dont hear our Christain Church Leaders?
Do you?

Pericles, I started attacking empiricism in response to be called “deluded”, “superstitious” and “irrational”, and worse, (arrogant, bigoted, and so on) by Richard Dawkins and his disciples. They say I’m deluded and superstitious because God “almost certainly” (Dawkins’ words) isn’t there, and irrational because I cannot point to empirical evidence to support my belief in the existence of God.

So, it is their movement (not to mention their almost mind-bending rudeness) I am speaking against. I say that the empiricist creed that I outlined earlier, that prompted our discussion, can be true only on non-empiricist grounds. I don’t consider that statement I offered as circular, as you described it. It’s a lot tighter than yours (the OED’s), but no tighter than the language of Dawkins and posters like TR. (I don’t know where you stand, but perhaps you will say?)

Meanwhile, you and I have not defined what we mean by “experience”. I see two alternatives (happy to see a third and fourth):

i) “Experience” means experience for which there is reliable empirical evidence – in which case my original definition is correct.

ii) “Experience” means an actual event, but not one which necessarily leaves a supporting record – in which case the empiricists cannot accuses theists of delusion.

When a person claims an experience of the second type, it will be difficult, case by case, to determine whether the claimed experience was actual or imagined. After all, the theist’s experience of God typically leads to this difficulty. After many years of acquaintance (or presumed acquaintance, you might prefer) with Jesus, I still don’t have a photo or an autograph.

So, my answer to your questions depends on whether or not my experience of Jesus is “experience” for the purposes of your axiom.

If the image of God issue was just a red herring, just say so and I’ll drop it. Otherwise, please tell me what’s on your mind.

Pax,

Boaz, left that out because thought there was no need. Reckon you need to study true Christianity, mate. Such things as revenge is sweet, was never mentioned by the Nazarene Jesus. Please re-read the Sermon on the Mount.

You should get among a few more philosophers, Boaz, then you will find much talk of the above forgiveness, even as Mandela, a non-Christian gave proof of by not calling for the slaughter of all the Arparthaidists.

Forgiveness by the West is so much needed in today's Middle East, Boaz, because we are the real culprits, just carrying on with the same imperialistic colonisation.

Scallawag, the term you gave, can also be a term for a very active journalist, who sometimes gets into trouble for trying to bring a bit of truth and decency into the matter.

Would say even, that if something is not done about offering a few apologies to Islam for Western imperialist penetration into the Middle East since the end of WW2 a time when our troops talked much about ending colonialism.

PAL.. sorry. I'm not aware of what I need to do regarding your letter to the Sallys.. I'm a bit loathe to give out email addy's here as it can turn into death threats from 'youknowwho'.....

If you post it to a new discussion in the general area I can have a peek.

I have had similar experiences re Churches responding to important issues. You are not alone.

George... your counsel is wise and helpful. I am indeed guilty of some of the things you suggest.. "patronizing"..yep..I'm working on it :)

A point though for you and PAL... I use the Biblical idea for 'other gospels as used by Paul in Galatians 1 "If anyone preach to you a differnent gospel, let him be eternally condemned" He actually says this twice for extra impact. Paul took the truth of the Gospel seriously, and spoke accordingly.

The reason I am adamant that it is the 'religion' of Islam rather than 'all Muslims' that is the problem, is that (please note this) it is faith which cannot exist apart from either a State or.. the aspiration to become a State.(within other states if need be).

The growth of Islam, from the Hijrah (migration) of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina was the beginning of the Islamic Caliphate and State.
All decisions by Mohammad from that time, were based on the idea of an Islamic state. (including his genocide of the Jews of Banu Qurayza and his invasions of the Khayber Jews and the exile of others)

I use the word 'abhorrent' because it is a fact. (Ask the Almighty next time :) Hinduism and Buddhism.. are also 'abhorrent' in Gods eyes, but given that there is no New Testament concept of 'earthly Christian STATE... the practioners of such faiths are safe from earthly punishment or vengeful Christians. "Love your enemies" but don't hide the truth about their faiths.

I don't worry about any non Christian faith EXCEPT those which aspire to 'Statehood' (i.e. Islam)

David
Ok You must have forgot I guess. Not a good sign Davo me mate buddy etc.
I will post another thread.
I am calling it Open letter to the Salvos-
We have been waiting on you. Taryn and Antje and myself we quite excited and very grateful to you.
Anyway to refresh your memory -I wrote to you about the Salvation Army`s Armys Drought appeal.

As we have a lot of contact with farmers we understand what they want.
Not through a crystal ball either just simply by listening and talking with them.

They need hay and water for stock. If they get that they can pay their own phone bills and grocery bills and also keep their pride.


I guess people just naturally assume that a drought appeal- or farm hand appeal is going to help farmers get feed and water to stock.

We have had contact with the Salvos and at first they said nobody had ever requested feed for stock.

When we proved to them that was not correct by producing a letter THEY had written in reply to just such a farmer they then said Peter Costello wont let them.

Now their adds on TV say. ' Anybody Can Feed Sheep"??
Yeh thats right . Anybody can feed animals 'IF' they have hay and grain water.

Their head person told me she had never even THOUGHT about it Before?
I ask you David what type of person could visit farms and watch Gods Creatures dying SLOWLY of starvation and thirst on not think about it?
All this while they say the are counciling people not to kill them selves
Anyway we want to write an open letter on OLO asking

Even The Muslims in Australia David have plenty to say about God including the most innconent in the farm appeal.

We need to give farmers a choice of what they want and they need to listen because its the publics money!

'So, it is their movement (not to mention their almost mind-bending rudeness) I am speaking against. I say that the empiricist creed that I outlined earlier, that prompted our discussion, can be true only on non-empiricist grounds. I don’t consider that statement I offered as circular, as you described it. It’s a lot tighter than yours (the OED’s), but no tighter than the language of Dawkins and posters like TR. (I don’t know where you stand, but perhaps you will say?)'

The whole issue is a lot more simple than you think. For reasons best known to themselves Muslims and other religious people have belief as there default position. However, there is no practical reason for this to be the case.

Indeed, disbelief should be the default position on everything! In other words, belief in something should only occur when there is sufficient reason to do so.

Which brings me full circle. The dodgy history of the Bible or the Koran/Hadith is NOT sufficient reason to believe in pregnant virgins, angels, or resurrected corpses.

“I use the word 'abhorrent' because it is a fact.”
No, David, it is not a fact, it is an adjective which does not even describe a fact but an opinion. “What happened on 9/11 is abhorrent” and “The Muslim faith is abhorrent” are two opinions, although many more people will share the first one with you than the second one. As I said before, if somebody stabs you, you should condemn that deed not the knife and religion that he used as his physical and mental tools respectively. I can agree with you in condemning the way SOME contemporary Muslims put their faith into practice, but we must not forget that Christians have also misread their sacred books, and some still do. And if you believe (as I do) that the New Testament gives a better account of God “the Merciful, the Compassionate" than the Koran, then you must also find Christian distortions of His will more regretful than the Muslim ones, irrespective of their different manifestations, frequencies and gravity.

goodthief,
People who get excited about what we DO, might be right or wrong, and that is a problem we have to decide about; people who get excited about our FAITH as such have a problem of their own, and we could only try to understand them. If I may enter your dispute with Pericles et al., axioms as they are understood today (e.g. in mathematics) are not something “self-evident” only something you assume at the beginning of a discourse, theory etc. Euclid had his five axioms of geometry and he saw them as self-evident that did not need verification. Later people thought his fifth axiom was not at all an axiom, and tried to derive it from the other four, until Lobachevsky (and others) came with the construction of a geometry where the fifth axiom did not hold. This gave rise to non-euclidean geometry that Einstein found so useful, and the five axioms of Euclid became the five axioms of EUCLIDEAN geometry only. So calling something held as self-evident an axiom could be misleading. (ctd)

(ctd)The English language has a very useful term “common sense” absent in some other languages, and people often call something logical or self-evident that should have been called common sense. However, the term "common sense" is also misleading: e.g. common sense would have said that something cannot be a particle and a wave at the same time, but quantum physics defies this; much about time and space in relativity theory seems to defy common sense, etc. People in the Middle Ages not only thought that the existence of God was common sense you did not have to verify, but also that the Earth could not be round, because people would fall off it, etc.

So today we must be careful with the term “common sense” as well: neither belief in a God who created (actually still creates through evolution), sustains and explains the material world (the monotheist’s creed in a nutshell) nor belief in a self-explanatory and self-sustaining material world that did not have to be created (the empiricist’s creed as I understand it) can claim to be self-evident, not even common sense. They are two belief systems that are, in my opinion, on equal footings.

Where an e.g Christian is different from an atheist (or a sitting-on-the-fence agnostic) is his/her FAITH, which is the CREED described above, that you can try to explain to an outsider, plus SOMETHING ELSE that turns a belief system into a faith, and that is very, very hard to explain to an outsider.

By the way, continental languages that I know cannot distinguish between “faith” and “belief”` which causes all sorts of problem when translating religious material between these languages and English. On the other hand, the English word “experience” can mean two different things (e.g. in German “Erfahrung” and “Erlebnis”). This I could explain only in 24 hours.

TR, you would have to be fundamentally ignorant of the progenitors of human conceptualization to even remotely suggest that people believe in God because of mans written word. Then again listening to your arguments against belief one can not help think that if you believe in the forces of gravity it is only because you read of them in a book and that is the extent of your ability to conceptualize. "If I haven't read it in a book, it does not exist unless I want to believe it, and if I don't want to believe it, it must be proven in spite of my adamant denial."
Here's a little something for thought. As best science can discover. A belief in God predates even effective tool making in the annals of human history on conceptual thought.
Any fool can use the Bible to attack just like any fool can use science to destroy. It's not the book. It's the interpretation sought by specific readership.

I have warned you, goodthief, that if you take the "so, what do you mean by..." route, you will end up with big handfuls of nothing, just like Derrida and co.

Meaning has to start somewhere.

This is where "experience" becomes important. If you can hear, see, touch, taste or smell something, it is an experience. If you can't hear, see, touch, taste or smell something, it still can exist, but it only in your mind, right?

Your mind collects, marshals and files away ideas, but these do not arrive out of nothing - you must have experienced something in order to create knowledge from them. Without experience, nothing can exist.

As I mentioned before, the best way to test the "axiom" position is to try to imagine a situation, an item of awareness, anything, in fact, that can be described as "knowledge" without there having been some prior experience. If you cannot do this, then it would be fair to say that experience axiomatically precedes knowledge.

I am puzzled why you should feel threatened by this concept.

You keep reminding me that you have been unable to address my musing "I'm particularly interested in how you cope with the idea that God made man in his own image"

Man is a highly transient concept. We didn't exist a short (cosmologically speaking) time ago, and we will cease to exist a short time hence. In between, we have taken a number of physical shapes, but also grown through a vast number of mental/developmental stages.

My concern for people who think in terms of "God making man in his own image" is which version of "Man" do they pick, and why?

Pericles, "My concern for people who think in terms of "God making man in his own image" is which version of "Man" do they pick, and why?"

I think your fundamental issue here stems from your interpretation of "man vis a vis Gods image". It isn't that we resemble God in appearance. It is that we are Gods creation or made in his image of what man is to be.

Evolution is a very slow process. Is there any evidence that man has stopped evolving? Who knows what Gods final image of man will be except God.

Mans advancement is an equally slow process with many a backward step. however, I would suggest that that is little reason to move even slower in order to maintain the status quo. Confident Muslim integration is equally relevant as is confident Thai or Vietnamese or Ukrainian integration.

I don't know just what Muslims think in this regard but my personal take is that these next 20 years will be a great turning point for Muslims and by definition Islam and .... considering that we have progressed in our general thinking (fingers crossed) that we should all help make that transitional experience for Muslims as painless as possible. Not for reasons of religion but, rather for reasons of humankind and universal brotherhood.

I'm not advocating appeasement. I don't like concessions to established law nor social norms. Societies are different and should be respected for that and understood as part of the integration process. Moving to Australia should mean just that (in the totality of that society) as should moving to the United States or Russia or Argentina. Each of those countries named bring forth their own image just by saying the name. "Argentina" BAM an image pops into your head. "Russia" BAM a different image. "Australia" BAM, different again. Vive la Difference.
So far I think Muslims who have emigrated to Australia enjoy that difference. Lets not have the few ruin it for everyone else.

I had trouble with the terms resurgence and renaissance used in the article. It seemed to me the renaissance was already here as the terms were synonymous. Macquarie Dictionary confirmed my thought.

I have already posted info in an attempt to debunk the 'small minority' myth.

Just this week a poll in the USA discovered that 24% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified. This is on the back of the UK survey finding that 40% of UK Muslims believe an Islamic state is preferable to democracy. In addition, we have seen the attempts to install Sharia Law in Pakistan.

So when will we experience a renaissance? Apparently, when 80% of Muslims believe what the very large minority (throughout the world)now believe.

Renaissance or resurgence is playing semantics -- the rebirth, rise, revival, resurgence or renaissance is already here. Debating whether or not humans were created in God's image or likeness does nothing to address the core problems.

Others seem to be able to identify more cogent concepts, hence the new business of informing corporations on how to establish Muslim friendly workplaces. Some on OLO may benefit by hopping on the bandwagon -- by marketing courses on establishing Christian friendly workplaces. No lying, cheating and adultery -- wouldn't that be an interesting business environment.

PALE.. if you emailed me b4 about this, please do it again, but I'll keep an eye out for the other thread you make on that. Can you explain exactly what you are hoping for from me? I'm certainly against cruelty to animals.
Sorry if I seem to have faded, I have a lot on my brain at present :)
Patience..

George...
Yes.. I do see where ur coming from. But you seem to have missed a differentiation I make between 'Muslims' (who I generally refrain from condemning directly) and 'Islam' which I condemn outright and describe as 'abhorrent'... yes, it is an adjective and an opinion.
To me, its more of a fact though, in the sense that Pablo Escobar's wild parties with underage girls and his murder of all rivals and law enforement officials who opposed him in Columbia is also 'abhorrent'.

I fail to see how this is simply 'an opinion'. We speak based on our moral sense... and unless we want to 'invert' our morality, it is quite accurate to describe Escobar as 'abhorrent, evil, scum' though, I hasten to add, until his dying breath expires, he is als a sinner for whom Christ died. Perhaps I should simply call his 'code of life' abhorrent. Few would disagree with me on that..would you?

To me, we have an inalienable right to describe moral/spiritual codes as we see them. This is a right conferred by the Almighty (read Galatians 1 for info about 'a different gospel').
It could also be described as a prophetic responsiblity. (Prophetic in the sense of 'forthtelling' the Word rather than 'foretelling' the future)

To not only deny Christ's Sonship, but to claim that to assert it is blasphemy.... is abhorrent. To then call for the destruction of those who assert Christ as 'Son of God' is beyond abhorrent.

Ooook.. the axe is pretty sharp now :) I'll stop grinding it.

TO ALL ... the standard of debate/ discussion here is heartwarming.
All we need now to put the icing on the cake is for Pericles and TR to see the light :)

'All we need now to put the icing on the cake is for Pericles and TR to see the light :)'

Boaz, I take it that when you refer to 'light' you are not referring to electromagnetic radiation.

Rather, you are using a well worn religious metaphor used to describe a phenonomen whereby nonsensical propositions are believed without proper supporting evidence.

The general process is;

1) Switch of mental faculties
2) Replace reason with faith
3) Embrace unsubstantiated dogma
4) Reinforce delusion by parrot like repetition of dogma. Preferably at a temple, church, or mosque with people of the same mindset.
5) Inoculate the mindset from free-thought by branding non-believers as gentiles, pagans, kafirs or dhimmis. That is, dehumanise the perceived threat.

George, your diversion into the various meanings of “axiom” is a wookie, along with aqvarivs contention that one cannot discuss stuff one hasn't personally experienced.

Let's get back to the main course, there's plenty of meat left.

The OED definition of empiricism is "the doctrine that regards experience as the only source of knowledge". To understand this, it is only necessary to take on board that experience precedes knowledge.

Fire burns, but to file this away as knowledge you will have to a) know what fire is, and b) what burning is like.

You don't have to "believe" in fire before you experience it. All you need to do is to be able to recognize it, which you will do pretty quickly after you get burnt. Fire, after all, just "is".

And while it is certain that fire burns regardless of whether anybody knows about it - i.e. fire existed before man - it didn't become knowledge until man experienced it.

You are quite at liberty to point out that the same could apply to God, i.e. that his existence pre-dates man. However, bear in mind that the existence of fire, and the knowledge of fire's existence, are quite distinctly separate concepts.

One thing is for certain, man experienced fire before he had knowledge of it. Not every man individually, of course, because once experienced, the knowledge was passed around.

In essence, the empiricist's approach to religion is that because it cannot be experienced, or reproduced in a consistent manner, it cannot fall into the category of knowledge.

This does not of course prevent the religious from protesting "but I have experienced God, therefore he must be real", and using this as the foundation for their belief. That is perfectly acceptable, so long as the individual isn't kidding themself.

As Christopher Hitchens points out, "we (atheists) do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason."

I'm with Chris.

Your experience is your experience. But it ain't science, and it ain't reason.

Dear TR :) not a bad comeback..

Mate.. please have a read of this, as it relates directly to the topic.

Traditionalism vs Modern interpretations of Islam.

http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html

Look real close at his conclusions, and observations, and see how he 'realizes' what traditional (Quranic) Islam is all about.

More importantly maybe, is to see exactly what this teacher/shaik in America in 2007 is saying to young Muslims.

I am simply not able to process the idea that there can be a renaissance of Islam as there was a 'Reformation' of Christianity.

The Christian Reformation actually took the Church BACK to the true teaching of Christ (in many areas)and away from the 'authority and power of the organized church' whereas the renaissance called for by the author is to take Muslims AWAY from their foundations and fundamental roots and away from the power/Authority of Sharia law.

Can you see this happening ?

No.. I didn't think so.. well.. at least on that I think we are on the same page.. meet you at 55 king street Melbourne next friday around 10.00am we can champion the cause of free speech about important social issues. *Shoulder to Shoulder*... Jews, Christians.. Atheists and TR :)

David
Hi From Taryn. A while ago you said you would be happy to help oversea a letter to the Salvation Army. We also thought others might assist with ideas towards it and you could pick out which you thought might be most suitable and add to it.
All we are asking really is why they wont allow the farmers to have say what type of help is given to them with public donations.
Pluss why they do not consider starving animals worth a mention.
The new ADD on TV says_ Anybody knows how to feed sheep.
That comment in itself is interesting.
When you thnk about how expensive advertsing is David thats about ten seconds waisted.
Thats public moneny being waisted.
At prime time its a huge amount of funds down the drain especially given a national fund raising movement.
Personally I dont think they should take one cent of that money to pay wages.
Why not just pass the funds raised direct to farmers .
The other thread is now open.
Thanks David

This interesting thread has been too much spoilt by us sniping at each other. What the original thesis appears to ask for, or hopes for, is a way out of this terrible religious deadlock between Islam and Christianity.

Surely from an earnest group like ours, something can turn up, besides harping on the same old proclaims of righteousness which do come too much from even our more liberal Christians.

There is an old bush saying to shutup about saying how good we bloody are.

Like Socrates says about searching for Goodness, but in modern terms not to blow our bags when we find it - be humble about it, and feel how fortunate we've found it. Christians used to call it Grace, breaking into tears with their hands clasped together. But when over the gladdening heart, remember to say thank you to that wonderful power within you, and stay humble, and not get that look in your eyes like a Nazi stormtrooper.

Maybe this is the way we should approach our problem in the Middle East, like trying to find what has caused it?

Well, the CIA is pretty honest about it - calling it blowback, which we call payback.

Most of us tend to forget that things we are now ashamed of were done even over here in WA. Old Midgericoo was shot at twenty paces with a big crowd of natives watching. Guess it did help a bit at the time, all about chasing God’s gifts of the colonial Promised Lands. Surely the people we did over, as we are still doing, surely their offspring have a justified excuse to hate us.
Surely if the CIA is honest enough to admit it, why can’t we, just even a little bit try to start a an honest to goodness confab in the Middle East ready to offer apologies, like Mr Howard has refused to do with not just our Aborigines, but The Aboriginal Original Owners.
Come on, it has been courage-full honest apologies that has brought Enlightenment to Northern Ireland

Come on, just give it a go.

David, I think we just have to agree to disagree on what we find “abhorrent”. I don't know what was your personal experience with Islam, but I think we Christians should be able to rise above that. Not for the sake of Muslims - they do not care if we do - but for the sake of ourselves. For instance, I myself had some psychologically unpleasant experiences with (stalinist) atheists, but today I think trying to understand the atheists’, (naturalists’, empiricists’ or what they call themselves), world view - what I can share with them and what not - is better for me (not for them) than to condemn outright their world-view.

Pericles, thank you for responding to my post addressed to goodthief. I commented on the meaning of the term axiom, because you both were using it, and I found goodthief’s understanding of it closer to what is understood by it in mathematics. Anyhow, I heard mathematics called many names (usually by those who could not follow an argument somehow related to math), never “a wookie”, that is a new experience for me. (:-)

This brings me to the crucial term in your “definition of empiricism” as the "doctrine" (dogma?) that regards “experience as the only source of knowledge” or alternatively that “experience precedes knowledge”. You concede later that one can have a personal “experience of God” - say, an old old lady who experienced the presence of Virgin Mary - so it would follow from your doctrine that this experience also precedes knowledge. Indeed, in the old lady’s mind this would reinforce her knowledge of God, and had some electrodes been attached to her brain, they would have measured some activities during her vision. So it would be an experience leading to a knowledge, though one she could not share with you. Neither could you be aware of her vision without those electrodes, unlike in the case of an experience of fire that you mention. Please do not misunderstand me, I do not disagree with what you call your doctrine, I just do not understand it. (ctd)

(ctd) I fully agree with Christopher Hitchens since also we (21st century educated Christians) “do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason." One thing that outrages reason are the non-sequiturs, be it “God exists therefore Darwin was wrong” (the Catholic Church 100 years ago) or “Darwin was right therefore God does not exist”, which in a nutshell is the Richard Dawkins message as I understand it. What is reason, rationality, anyhow? Is it logic, experience or common sense? I can establish many mathematical truths rationally in the sense that I use solely logic with my common sense suspended. But outside mathematics things are not as simple, as I tried to show with my treatise on common sense. Especially, where religion is concerned, because here you cannot separate the observer from the observed — something tacitly assumed in natural science, at least until quantum mechanics, and I presume also by you — and this influences your “doctrine” (if you do not like the word axiom used in math) as well as your “deductions”.

Another thing I did not understand was “the empiricist's approach to religion is that because it cannot be experienced, or reproduced in a consistent manner, it cannot fall into the category of knowledge.” You yourself admitted it could be experienced; the fact that it cannot be reproduced (whatever “consistent manner” here means) applies to many things that science deals with. The pope in a recently published discussion (in German) made an unfortunate statement that evolution could not be scientifically verified because it could not be reproduced in a laboratory, to which the obvious reply was that neither could be thus reproduced facts about dinosaurs, or any historical facts. I think the problem with the pope was that he relied two much on advisers whose thinking about matters pertaining to philosophy of science was stuck in the newtonian, pre 20th century, mindset. And, with all due respect, I think so is yours (and TR’s).

George, mate, as a liberal Christian as well as a political philosopher, do feel your actual desire to search shows that you actually do sense that a balance between faith and reason is justified.

Historical proof is shown by the way St Thomas Aquinas accepted Socratic Reasoning as the means to lift Christianity out of the Dark Ages.

Thus began the Rennaissance, the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment, onto our Democratic Age, and as democracy is a Greek term, meaning public leadership or representation.

More historical proof is found when the English philosopher John Locke was prominent in organising the 1688 Glorious Revolution which abolished Christian autocracy by placing Royalty under God, more lowly than the voice of the people.

John Locke's doctrine was also used to justify the American War of Independence.

However, to satisfy followers of Regality, as when William and Mary were brought over from Holland, the Royal family line was still allowed to exist to satisfy sections of the public.

To give further satisfaction, there arose a kind of pseudo prerogative copying the old right of the ruler, about having the right to declare war, etc.

The democratic code was first broken by George the Third of Britain which brought on the US War of Independence, and lately been broken by President Bush, who has well broken an original law that being only a prerogative, means a democratic public has the right to rise up to prevent it.

George, we have no quibble on the sense of "axiom" in mathematical usage.

>>Anyhow, I heard mathematics called many names (usually by those who could not follow an argument somehow related to math), never “a wookie”, that is a new experience for me<<

The reference here was of course to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense , simply to illustrate that squeezing the essence out of the word "axiom" was entirely tangential to the argument.

>>...“experience precedes knowledge”. You concede later that one can have a personal “experience of God”... so it would follow from your doctrine that this experience also precedes knowledge."

Absolutely. The knowledge involved in this sense is perfectly valid, although more precise that is necessary for the axiom. For your little old lady to "experience God", she would have to have already been aware of the concept. From school, from books, from parents, whatever. This also falls under the heading of experience; it may not be directly yours, but has been noted, codified and converted into words.

As aqvarivs pointed out earlier:

>>As best science can discover. A belief in God predates even effective tool making in the annals of human history on conceptual thought<<

Assuming this is accurate, the "experience" was codified relatively early in man's development. Perhaps as a result of wrestling with the concepts of weather, stars, childbirth or any other of life's miracles, the concept of a God was discussed, formulated and ultimately formalized. This experience created the knowledge that we have today.

You might have missed my point on "the empiricist's approach to religion is that because it cannot be experienced, or reproduced in a consistent manner it cannot fall into the category of knowledge."

It is "or", not "and".

There is no doubt that God is not experienced in a consistent manner, witness the number of variations across different religions. So it will always remain the property of religionists, and evade the understanding of empiricists.

Hitchens also points out that religion will not go away.

"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable."

On July the 14th the 'moderate'...'mainstream'.... 'friendly'... 'level headed'.... 'articulate' ISLAMIC COUNCIL OF VICTORIA is holding a seminar called 'FAMZY'at Melbourne Uni.

One of the guest speakers is this man "Omar Mahdi Bray".

What kind if things has mr Bray been up to ?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005/05/006028print.html

On December 22, 2000, MPAC's Mahdi Bray organized a rally in Lafayette Park outside the White House to celebrate a "Worldwide Day for Jerusalem."
In Arabic, the crowd responsively chanted with the emcee, "Khaybar, Khaybar oh Jews, the Army of Muhammad is coming for you!" Posters calling for "Death to Israel" and equating the Star of David with the Nazi swastika were openly displayed and anti-Semitic literature calling for the destruction of the Jews and Israel was distributed. Members of the crowd burned the Israeli flag while marching from the White House to the State Department.

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Terrorist Recruitment and Infiltration in the United States: Prisons and Military as an Operational Base.

Statement of J. Michael Waller
Annenberg Professor of International Communication
Institute of World Politics

Before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

14 October 2003

Appendix 2: Key Organizations Involved in Muslim Prison Recruitment

National Islamic Prison Foundation (NIPF) – Contact: Mahdi Bray; 1212 New York Ave. NW, Suite 525, Washington, DC 20005. This is the same address as the American Muslim Council (AMC).

• “Specifically organized to convert American inmates to Wahhabism.

Yep.. the ICV is truly interested in a 'renaissance' of Islam......WAHABIST STYLE.

It seems to us Bushbred said it all.
Dr Ali started a wonderful sensible post.
Lets all stick to his leadership and wisdom

please!

David
Yes You have raised attention to the fact Australia doesnt need thirteen or or thirty three Islamic Councils.
Actually I think its thirty Two. Correct me if I am wrong. Its all gets a bit confusing for us Aussies and where there is ignorance we breed fear.
Its a receipe for conflict between themselves such as we see overseas. I guess they are not so unlike as us ah.
Compertion is good but clear leadership is a must.
Why the Australian Government allowed this to happen is just shear ignorance and neglect.
The AFIC Federation have been chosen by our Government to lead.
What they require is support from the Government in return.
I dont think they get that David.
I cant see that is reflected in dealings.
The fact is these people do have a different set of values to us in many areas.
Now I am not knocking that because from some of what I have seen they respect family far greater than us and thats a good thing.
I am just wondering David why The Government allow AQIS to issue these electronic accreditation certificates world wide instead of putting it through an Australia national accreditation system.
I mean didnt we see how it can back fire through the AWN enquiry.
Take away the fearce competion for Halal accreditations between all these Muslim leaders and you may just start to get someplace.

"Now I am not knocking that because from some of what I have seen they respect family far greater than us and that's a good thing."

I would like this comment to be elaborated on but it is highly tangential to the topic. How was the demonstrated respect measured and observed? Just what has this person seen? Incredibly juvenile concept!

Just one thing I have seen.

A twelve year old boy with bruises the size of dinner plates all over his body as a result of being punished by his Muslim father or the dozens of Muslim boys I have seen with shaved heads because they have been publicly outed as being disobedient. I think the writer has seen very little in their inner city life and listens to even less.

I know this is on line opinion, but when opinions are so completely vacuous, superficial, and bigoted they become, by default, non-opinions. Hopefully, the poster can take their repugnant self loathing elsewhere, like a PETA forum.

I really must object to the moderator. Why are we being subjected to this irrational racial slur and utter claptrap?

Pericles, I can no longer tell if you’re saying that theism is irrational.

When you say –

“This does not of course prevent the religious from protesting 'but I have experienced God, therefore he must be real', and using this as the foundation for their belief. That is perfectly acceptable, so long as the individual isn't kidding themself.” -

– you seem to me to "allow" theism as rational.

However, when you say –

“Your experience is your experience. But it ain't science, and it ain't reason.” –

it sounds like theism is, after a brief respite, back in the bad books on rationality.

Anyhow, Dawkinsian atheists certainly presume a monopoly on rationality, which I see as simply a conceit. “More Rational than Thou” is their boast. We probably all agree about the rules of logic, but we don’t agree about the premises on which those rules operate. For people like me, “God exists” is a premise, and I can follow the rules of logic from then on. For the empiricist, “Nothing exists without empirical evidence (or similar)” is a premise. Once we leave our starting-blocks, we may be equally rigorous in our adherence to the laws of logic, and therefore equally “rational”. Our conclusions are different because one of our critical premises is different.

But, it doesn’t mean we’re entirely on an equal footing (it is only here that I differ from George). We all start with a leap to our premise: neither of us can establish it, but simply recommend it. However, theists recognise this and live consistently with faith and reason, while atheists don’t admit it and spend their life deriding faith even though they took a leap themselves. In this sense, theists live more consistently, while atheists live with a dread secret.

Fine, then I hit bushbred’s powerful point about oneupmanship – “sniping” and “righteousness”. I never call atheists “damned atheists”. However, I am called a “deluded, superstitious, bigoted Christian”. I’m prepared for a truce with no more name calling. And we might even find we agree about some things – wouldn’t that be amusing?

Pax,

Pericles, Sorry, I did not understand your reference to “wookie”. The link you provided explains what you meant: “The Chewbacca defense is a fictional legal strategy ... meaning a defense consisting solely of nonsensical arguments meant to confuse a jury.”. Well, I do not know whether all of the jury - readers of this OLO - were confused, and if you think what I wrote about euclidean geometry as nonsensical, you will have ask some philosopher you can trust.

As said before, I tried to explain the meaning of the term axiom - how “self-evidence” depends on context - because you and goodthief put different meanings to it. However, I agree that “quibbles” about whether faith can be rational or not are just tangential (nevertheless relevant) to the topic of Ameer Ali’s article.

Besides, according to my Merriam-Webster, axiom is “a proposition, principle, rule, or maxim that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy thereof whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit *the axioms of wisdom* or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence *the axioms of euclidean geometry*. Firstly, you see here that euclidean geometry is a prominent example elucidating the meaning of the term in general (not just what you call “mathematical usage”), and secondly that the “a priori” of an axiom depends on those who hold it as self-evident.

I must agree with the rest of your post. The question of how various religious models of Transcendental Reality relate to each other and to “Truth” is much more complicated than the question of how various mathematical/physical models of physical reality relate to each other and to the “truth” about material reality. And the latter is not simple either (see e.g. controversies around “science wars” or “cultural studies”). This would not be the place to tackle such questions, even if I knew how to. (ctd)

(ctd) All I wanted to defend in my post was the rational equivalence of such fundamental belief systems (axioms, if you like) as the existence or non-existence of Transcendental Reality or God, where the personal choice of one or the other is based also on other than rational grounds: you choose (and/or are educated into) your belief (or unbelief), you do not derive it logically from something more basic accepted by “religious” as well as “nonreligious” people, because no such “super-axiom” exists.

If you abolish all political parties except the only one you think is democratic, you would not have a democracy by the very definition of it. If you call arguments supporting a belief system (system of axioms if you like) different from your own, irrational (I know, you did not use that word explicitly, but others do), then you would not have any rational argument by the very definition of it. Nevertheless, you made me think about these matters, and for that I am grateful to you.

goodthief, Of course, I agree with you, and I do not think we differ that much about “equal footing”: We both believe that our faith gives us some extra dimension to our understanding of the world around us, but in certain contexts (e.g. when talking about what is rational, logical, etc, or when tackling scientific problems) we are on equal footing with the unbeliever. Like when you look at a B&W picture you are on “equal footing” with a colour-blind person.

Dear George
I thank you for your intelligent defence of your faith, which is certainly thought provoking.
However, faith necessarily involves believing in things without any real evidence to support them.
The problem with this is that malevolent people (and I am not putting you or other contributors to OLO in this category) can use, and have used, this propensity to “just believe” for their own immoral purposes.
From this, all sorts of evil can flourish.
A basic one is the indoctrination of children into a “faith” before they have developed any knowledge or critical thinking, this seems to me to be self evidently wrong.
I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go, with no change on either side of the debate. It has at least been an interesting one.