"Certainly Western cultural intrusion is shown in places like Dubai, where there is certainly an attempt in the glitzy infrastructure to mix East and west together, but certainly not to impress the mullahs, who mostly deal with the lower classes." - bushbed

Some anthropologists maintain that not all aspects of cross-culture transfer are equal. Simply put, there are said to be three tiers; tecchnology {easy to transfer between societies; e.g., war technologies, transport and buliding practices), societal (more resistence, here. However, change can occur slowly, say, over a few decades), and, ideology (very, very entrenched, might no change for centuries.

Regarding, Islam and the West, Huntington sees a "Clash of Civilzations", but, nore specifically, grassroots, it 1,400 year old war between to monotheisms. Characteristics-in-opposition are both tribal and theocratic. As we have non-polythesistic relions, by their very nature, do not meld, and, adherents, of course belive their'sis the the "onl true revelation", we should look not to compositing ideologies; rather, more towards exchange altruism [separate but exchanging benefit] towards improved economic performance via technology and the reduction in poverty. Subsequently, with the stage set, Islam might then undergo its own Renaissance, itself, not in the West.

Malaysia's best known Christian convert, Lina Joy, lost a six-year battle on 30th May 2007 to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card, after the country's highest court rejected the change. The Chief Justice , Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, a Muslim, ruled that the highest court of the land must be subject to the Syariah Court ruling before it proceeds to make the deletion.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/31/nation/17889176&sec=nation&focus=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6150340.stm

All the Muslims are happy about the ruling.
http://realtime.com/realtime_news/rt_world_news/rt_more_world_news/14925603_malaysias_lina_joy_loses_islam_conversion_case.html?pageid=nandu.text-asset&pageregion=A5

If Malaysia, a moderate Muslim country, can come up with such a ruling, it is therefore silly, stupid and blind to think that Muslim is a religion. It is a political system that undermines democracy and the concept of a secular state. The greatest dangers are the Islamic cleric and their system- mosques and madrassahs. It follows that all Muslims, no matter how moderate they may be, are a threat and real danger to countries that practice Western democracy. Collectively, Muslims obey Shariah law, where there is no Shariah law they do not recognize secular laws, i.e. they tend to be lawless.

George, probably because my understanding of the workings of the religious mind is deficient, it sounds to me as though you are arguing both sides against the middle.

>>“ You can't find religion through logic.” ... and, as said before, there are no universally accepted propositions from which you could derive the proposition about the existence or non-existence of God<<

I think that means that you agree with me, but there are too many words for me to be absolutely sure.

>>All educated people, rely on (natural) science, structured through logic and mathematics, to “inform them about the nature and dimensions of the universe”. This has nothing to do with faith<<

I'm completely flummoxed by this one. It seems to be saying that "(natural) science, structured through logic and mathematics" can prove the existence of God - which you previously explicitly denied.

Or are you suggesting that those who believe in God see the universe in the same way as those who don't?

Not sure I can believe that. I know of at least one person on this forum with whom I regularly disagree on the topic.

>>You do not have to have faith before you believe, you only have to accept that there are two alternatives to start with - a self-sustaining and self-explanatory God, or a self-sustaining and self-explanatory material universe<<

If you do accept these as logical alternatives, you are missing the point entirely.

The trick you have played here is to use the words "self-explanatory" in both parts of the equation, therefore giving the impression that they are equally acceptable, and it is simply a matter of choosing one over the other.

Unfortunately for your theory, neither God nor the "material universe" is self-explanatory.

Religionists have been debating the former since time began, and cosmologists have only recently made a start on the second. While the cosmologist is working through science and observation, the religionist requires faith even to get off the starting blocks.

Even if you believe that there is a God, there is still substantial disagreement on its nature. Hence, multiple religions.

Hardly "self-explanatory".

Oliver, from a social scientist point of view, reckon you have hit the problem nail we are on about, fair and square on the head.

Yes, decent trade relations well within the benefitting of lower class Muslims, might do the trick, mate. Keep up those good thoughts.

Cheers, BB.

bushbred, thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. Before I continue, let me wish you a “Happy Birthday” for this Sunday. You must be one of those many Australians that I came to admire from the very first moment I disembarked in Melbourne in 1968. I can fully understand your worries about the religious right. I actually wrote an essay “Evangelical zealots and whingeng secularists: Is the West facing opposite cultural dangers in USA and in Europe?” after the 2004 Americal elections. There are indeed many reasons for humanity to worry about these days. However, as Christians, we have a picture of God as a caring father: He will let his child fall and be hurt, (otherwise the child would never learn to think for himself), but He will never allow that child to inflict a serious injury upon himself.

Pericles, thanks for the stimulating reaction. Probably my “understanding of the workings of the empiricis’s mind is deficient” as well, so I’ll just continue trying to improve our mutual understanding.

Let me repeat: you can’t “find religion” (you probably mean ‘be converted’) through logic like you can’t learn a foreign language, or fall in love, etc. merely through logic. Logic, as the “science of correct reasoning”, can only tell you how to reason, not what conclusion to arrive at. Like your skills as a driver enable you to know HOW to drive in a city, but they will not tell you where to START your journey, nor where you can arrive from there; the “city” of possible world-views has many one-way streets and even more blind allies. I am not sure if this clarifies what I mean by the precise meaning of the word “logic”: you cannot “automatically”, using just logic, arrive from nowhere at believing or not believing in a God. You have to choose your starting point, one way or another, and draw your conclusions. But even then you need more than just the rules of logic: education, culture, life experiences, etc, things that actually influenced also your original choice of the point you started from. (ctd)

(ctd) “It seems to be saying that "(natural) science, structured through logic and mathematics" can prove the existence of God”. No, it means that when a scientist explores the universe, it does not make any difference whether he/she believes in God, or whatever else that stands outside the material universe. The “discoverer” of Big Bang (or at least one of them) was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, and one of the best criticisms of the Intelligent Design folly I read was from the Jesuit-astronomer George Coyne.

“Or are you suggesting that those who believe in God see the universe in the same way as those who don't?” Of course I do. Here “seeing” must imply also knowing enough of mathematics needed to understand contemporary cosmological theories. So mathematics plays a crucial role in understanding what cosmology says, not religious faith. Of course, many people unable to follow contemporary cosmology, philosophy of science etc. need shortcuts: a naïve religious faith might be one of them, a naïve empiricism might be another one.

As concerns the use of the term “self-explanatory”, I agree it was misleading, and I deserve all the misunderstandings it caused. What I meant was what in philosophy they call “contingency”: One side (the theist) claims the (material) world is contingent, hence there most be a higher Something (only Abrahamic religions model it as a “personal God”) that is not contingent, where you cannot ask the question WHY does it exist, who or what created it. The other side (the empiricist) argues it is already the universe “seen” by science, where it does not make sense to ask WHY it exists, or who or what created it.

“Religionists have been debating the former since time began, and cosmologists have only recently made a start on the second.” I do not understand what you mean by “religionists” as opposed to cosmologists. The two astronomer-priests named above, were they religionists or cosmologists? Of course, people have been debating religion, agriculture, warfare, sex etc. well before they had any scientific knowledge about the world they lived in.