In my opinion, religion is a mass motivator. People believe in things without proof by default and history has shown that, en masse, they'll die for those beliefs. Any leader who wants to get something done knows the importance of delegation, and to get your workforce motivated you need to make a few promises (white lies, if you will - a few tens of virgins, perhaps, or a slice of eternal life in a pearly-gated community.. that sort of thing).
It doesn't have to be religion, but religion has definitely been useful to the warmongerers throughout history. Religious conflict is very rarely about actual religious beliefs, but revolves around the cultural differences between religious groups.. a warmongerer can manipulate the people by grouping cultural differences/offensives into religious pigeon-holes. These gross generalisations are popular with the masses because they're easier to see and easier to perceive. A turban here, a crucifix there, an orange robe.. it all helps to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling.
Warmongerers are responsible for wars, because they're responsible for introducing the motivators, but they don't have to be religious leaders. Bush is a good example. His "crusade" against the non-existent organization, named Al Qaeda, is a fraud.. and yet even many anti-war Americans are still convinced by Bush that "them ayrabs is attacking us for our freedoms". We know that's a lie, but the war machine is rolling now, and in just a few years it's going to be a generation old. Once it's that old, it may be impossible to redress. Who, these days, remembers the pre-"Under God" days? A fundamental aspect of the constitution, lost for 3 generations already, so you can consider it lost forever, I suspect.
Sounds just like your typical everyday conspiracy theory. There probably is statement in it saying that "the fact that you don't feel manipulated and don't see it only proves how extremely clever these guys are".
I do not contest the entitlement of Tristan, or anyone else, to hold an opinion, or to express it. But I am not seeking (and I do not imagine that anyone else is seeking) to compile a catalog of what opinion is held, by each person on this planet (or even in this forum community), on each topic that may be considered.
What matters to me (and I would expect, to anyone participating in an objective discussion or debate) is not whether this person has that opinion, but rather, what should be my opinion, as informed by those persons with whom I am having the discussion. That, it seems to me, is the value of a discussion, and of a forum: not, to identify or categorize each person by what his opinion is, on some topic, but to formulate my own understanding (my own opinion, if you like) by examinining the opinions of others, and their reasons for having those opinions, and by evaluating those opinions, and those reasons, in determining whether they are persuasive - in which case, I thus come to share the persuasive opinion, as it has become my now better-informed, and better-reasoned, understanding, on the subject being discussed.
In other words, a discussion (on a topic that is more than trivial; and this one is more than trivial) is a search for truth - which is much more valuable than the rather trivial knowledge of who has what opinion. The search proceeds by a comparison between competing ideas, including my own, which I present with the expectation that they will be evaluated, and perhaps criticized and contested, by others who are similarly seeking to acquire their better understanding of what is objectively true about the subject.
This, of course, is facilitated by "opinions" that are stated in an understandable way, and well-founded in reasoning and factual information - in other words, a well formulated argument. This is how I attempt to write my contributions to discussions. And it is what I am likely to find useful and valuable in the stated opinons of others.
Sometimes, an opinion may be useful as having been a not-previously-considered idea. Sometimes, it may simply be welcome and gratifying (although not greatly useful) as being a notification that another person shares one's own opinion. But if it is not one's own opinion, then it is most likely to be useful only if it is persuasive.
Anyway, that is what, to me, is "discussion." My "search for truth, and a better-informed understanding," does not, btw, mean that I expect to have my mind changed; I don't; I wouldn't have presented my contributing argument if I did not think that it was a good one; it only means that I am willing to have my mind changed, if I am presented with a good reason for that. I expect the same of others; I expect that they will seek to have an understanding of the truth of the matter, and to communicate that understanding in a way that recognizes truth as valuable and worthy of being shared.
This particular discussion is not a question of: do you prefer chocolate or vanilla (or even, gripping or drifting)? It is a question of: what is the value or threat of religion? If Tristan regards religions as a threat to the safety of his fellow humans, since being the cause of most wars, then the least that he can do is try to convince us that this is true, by making a persuasive argument. And if he's wrong in his belief, then the least that we can do is persude him that THAT is true. Alternatively, we humans could confine our "discussions" to simply asserted "opinions," and then simply fight in order to compel compliance with them, without examining them for accuracy, or disregard the issue altogether. Tristan has not chosen the latter, since he did assert an opinion. Perhaps he does not want to examine it for accuracy; he simply wants it to be held in mind. What he wants to be the effect of holding it in mind, he has not stated explicitly, but I can imagine some likely effects, if it is generally regarded as being true.
I can only hope that you will read my post again, more carefully, and recognize that I did NOT "attack [Tristan] for holding opinions at all." I attacked HIS ASSERTION as being unsupported with fact and reason (which is not equivalent to "forbidden"), and as having been expressed in a confusing way (re: "feeling"). And I furthermore DID proceed to "challenge his opinions with contrary information," by listing a considerable number of wars without an apparently religious cause, to compare to the few examples that he provided (and I, too, can think of only a few), of religion-caused wars. This seems to me to be a perfectly fair and reasonable way of contesting his assertion that most wars are caused by religion. In no way, and at no time, did I even suggest that he should not be permitted to state an opinion; I simply criticized the opinion that he stated, in accordance with the way that he stated it and that I understood it.
I am sorry that you don't like my vocabulary; if you would like to teach me how to communicate more effectively, then you are welcome to try to do that; I am aware that this is a place with varied experiences and cultures. As it is, I try to write carefully, and precisely, for the purpose of being clearly understood (and for the record, "what is the truth," rather than "what do you feel," may provoke some thought, but it is a straightforward question, with no "multi-syllabic" words).
Since I'm American, I had to look up "tosser." I found, among many definitions of "toss": "to agitate, disturb or disquiet" - which may apply. It seems to me that, wrt a complex and contentious topic such as this, a little disquiet in one's thinking may not be all bad, as long as one is basically courteous, which I try to be, by confining my criticisms - however intellectually disturbing or "passionate" they may seem to be - to others' arguments, rather than being personally insulting.
I also found for "tosser": "masturbator," which is pretty weird for this context, but also seems, indeed, to be intended as quite rude and insulting. I don't know if that is somehow what you meant, or not.
Wouldn't it have been easier to get to the Wikipedia, take the list of the wars with the highest death toll and carefully review which ones have been dubbed as having a religious origin and not, instead of, well, instead of this? I'm not going to read it wholly, sorry.
Interesting stance, you hate it when people can't use their native language properly (don't we all), yet complain when someone who can make good use of it, does so. It's refreshing, not something to complain about.
To the sub topic, I found Zeitgeist an interesting film, although as mentioned most of the information is too in depth to look up yourself. That's why we have experts on topics, and hopefully our trust in their judgement is well placed.
To the main topic, I'm not keen on religion, I don't see why it still needs to have a place in modern society. I would say I reckon that Christianity is the worst of them all, but in fairness it's the only one I really know about. There's probably more bull in the bible than there is in Zeitgeist though.
I think the probably is really with humanity though, we're too easily persuaded into doing things, and panicking when all others arounds us are. If whenever a country asked it's people to fight, everybody refused, then there'd never be any wars. Rather idealistic but also true (assuming the people don't want to fight without their country asking them too). We let terror control us. If a man in the street with a gun were to threaten to kill somebody, if everybody in the vicinity just ran at the man, with the intent of beating him to death at any cost; sure a few people would die, but so would the aggressor. Most importantly, if this happened instantly, every time, without fail, pretty soon people would stop doing these things. The whole mentality towards those actions would shift.
Using language 'properly' means making it understandable. Grammar, punctuation and what have go towards that. Making a post unreadable by using long complicated (and often slightly ambiguous) words in difficult sentences is not proper use of language.
His last post I tried to read - I really really did. But I gave up, as it's just too difficult to work out what he's saying. But I think the jist of it is he doesn't agree with me, but can't say why he doesn't either.
I think you'll find that the Persian empire was one heavily influenced on religious beliefs. The Romans certainly were (wrt their invasion of England).
As you stated, there have been many that haven't been started by religion or influenced by religious beliefs. Likewise there are many that are. As you are so committed to finding the truth (yet whilst blinding following 'rules' in a random book of nice stories) perhaps you would do me the honour of compiling a list of, let's say, ten-thousand wars, researching each in detail, and finding out whether religion was behind it or not.
Of course, you can't (and won't, but primarily can't) do that, because some of the motives are either not known or clouded.
Hence, based on the fact "The Truth" can never be proven, I am sticking with my opinion based on reading, knowing religious people (of various faiths), my own belief about religion (it being a bit load of tosh designed solely to control the masses), and probably a lot of hearsay too (but a lot of that is probably close to the truth anyway).
Still haven't answered my question. Are you trying to say I'm wrong because it conflicts with your beliefs, or because you don't believe in God(s) either but like finding "The Truth"?
The words that I use, are normal for me. They are chosen carefully, to convey the precise meaning that I intend for the situation. Writing styles differ. Sorry if it's difficult to understand; I will explain, if you have a specific question.
I have not alleged that you made it up; I have stated that you have not given me a reason to believe it. If your belief is based upon information that you have read, then describe (at least some of) that information, so that the rest of us will know the basis for your opinion, and will have some basis of our own, to decide - like you - whether the opinion is accurate. Many persons believe many things. You have gone to the trouble of telling us what you believe. Shall I accept, on pure faith, that religion is the cause of most wars, since you believe that? Or will you have enough respect for me, to recognize that I shall make up my own mind, and you will attempt to inform it with some facts other than the mere fact that you have such a belief, yourself?
Fair enough. But it is a basis for making the evaluation. "Most wars are caused by religion" means, at least, that many more wars were caused by religion, than were not caused by religion. If this is true, then it is either true by immediate observation (not), or by logical necessity/deductive reasoning (not), or by inductive reasoning - that is to say, by counting them, to the extent that we know them, and comparing the numbers, with our confidence in this evaluation, being dependent upon the quantity of evidence (the number of wars counted and categorized) and the magnitude of the difference between the two numbers (of those wars apparently caused by religion, and of those wars not apparently caused by religion).
Anything else, it seems to me, would be just a wild guess, with no better than a random probability of being true (in this case, 50%, since it's a yes/no question, whether or not religion is the cause of most wars: as truly yes, as no, in the absence of evidence for making a reliable decision). And it would be a wild guess, having random accuracy, regardless of how happy one may personally feel about having decided one way or the other.
It is now a long-standing western cultural tradition, that we may reliably know the truth from rationally evaluating the evidence, and not from religious, or other, "authorities" or our own seemingly divine revelation or intuition. You can believe whatever you want, from whatever cause for belief, pleases you. But you have presented an assertion to others. You did that either because (1)you want them to believe that what you have said, is true and useful information, or (2)you did it, because it pleases you to make some "noise" (words appearing on a computer monitor), or (3)you did it simply because you want them to categorize you, personally, as someone with a specified belief, regardless of whether the belief is accurate or of any value as being accurate.
I'm guessing that your reason was (1), since (2) and (3) are of little significance (with regard to (3), you could as well tell us your favorite color, and then we'd all know that you were a person whose favorite color is that; and what would we do with such information - give you a gift of that color, or eradicate religions for the sake of providing you with personal pleasure?).
So, my question is not: hey, what does Tristan believe? My question is: what is true? IS religion the cause of most wars, or not? That Tristan believes the former, does nothing to answer that question. To answer it, you must explain to me: HOW shall I know whether or not religion is the cause of most wars? WHY should I believe the former? Why does Tristan believe the former? Instead you tell me only that it feels right to believe that, or something; that you have your reasons, but you're not telling. So, whatever.
Presumably you are referring to "argumentum ad hominem," which is the official name of a "classical logical fallacy," with which you may be familiar, since the phrase is widely used, especially in political debates.
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, a way of thinking that is unreliable, logically. A Classical Logical Fallacy is one that is so common and has been known for so long and so widely, that it has been given its own name, often in latin, for easy reference.
"Argumentum ad hominem" translates as "argument to the man," significantly distingished from an argument to the (man's) argument, which is properly useful for debating. This is because the purpose of a debate is to achieve a shared understanding of some objective truth (the topic of the debate), by means of opposing sides presenting reasoned arguments (logically related statements, having an asserted conclusion that is intended to be persuasive). By considering each side's arguments, including arguments about why the other side's arguments are wrong, eventually the truth becomes recognized.
Argumentum ad hominem, or "ad hominem argumentation," or sometimes just "ad hominem," is an argument or remark that is critical of one's opponent, personally - often, but not necessarily, simply a personal insult - rather than being a criticism of one's opponent's argument. This is a logical fallacy, because the personal characteristics of one's opponent, are not relevant to the consideration, which is instead about some objective matter, while the debaters are merely vehicles through which the relevant ideas/arguments are presented.
There are exceptions, particularly including a case where the opponent's argument consists of an assertion that he claims simply to be authoritative about (he says that such-and-such is true, and you should believe that it's true, since he's an expert in such matters; in such a case, it is reasonable to consider, and argue, whether he really is such an expert, especially about that particular matter). But generally, the personal characteristics of the debaters, are not relevant, so that considering their personal characteristics, as if these are a basis for logically determining whether a debater's argument - or side of the debate, generally - is accurate, would be flawed reasoning.
Even so, ad hominem remarks are VERY common in debates - often, because they tend to be actually effective in persuading an audience to favor one side or the other, by inspiring personal prejudices, like or dislike for one debater, and therefore a tendency perhaps to disregard a disliked debater's arguments. This is problematic, since it may very likely result in a faulty understanding, rather than an understanding of truth, such as was intended to be the purpose of the debate.
If you're interested, you can check out this webpage, which lists and describes many of the most common logical fallacies. You may be surprised at how often they can be observed in actual debates, or even in one's own reasoning processes, and in all sorts of discussions with others:
So you felt the need to explain the basic latin to me, even though I said it was basic (and therefore implied I understood it)?
I'm not asking you to take on my opinion. I'm not asking anyone to change. I have stated it is my opinion, drawn up in my own little carefree way, and it ain't changing because of a weirdo on a forum.
You still haven't answered my question that you so kindly quoted for me just up there. If you're going to take offence at the word weirdo in a question then the internet probably is a bit scary for you. You can always reply with "Not a weirdo, no, Tristan, but I do have extremely strong beliefs about my beloved God, and I resolutely stick 100% to each word in the bible", or "[the same beginning]..., but I change the bits I don't really like to suit modern living, because after all it's only advice isn't it..." (which surely misses the point of a religion or a religious text?).
Because you insist on writing long winded posts that don't need them, I'm not even going to read any more long ones. I'm not changing, you're not changing. Your opinions are based on no more fact than mine. We're both probably wrong (the universe is run by mice). Have a nice day.
Crafty a species as humans are, we're still posessive, territorial apes easily driven & controlled by fear. While a lot of things can make us afraid or angry enough to trigger violence (competition over territory, mates, resources; threat of invasion or attack - real or not), religion has the ability to raise the level of fear to extremes. Raise a child to believe it'll burn in hell for doing the wrong thing and, understandably, anything the resulting adult has to do to avoid such torment is justifiable. Certainly, bribing the same person with promises of eternal life, heavenly reward and sitting at a god's table is also a potent motivator, but the fear of just missing out on such rewards is arguably as potent as a fear of eternal punishment.
Not all wars or genocides or atrocities have been religiously motivated and I'm unsure what the proportions are when it comes to comparing religious conflicts with those of a more secular nature. However, those wars with religious motivations, hidden or blatant, often display the most depraved forms of violence and torture. We're probably all familiar with the Crusades, launched by European kings to wrest control of the holy land of Palestine from the infidel Muslims, resulting in hideous brutalities and massacres. So too with the conflict in Ireland which felt like it would last forever and claimed the lives of many innocent people (Omagh will stick in my mind forever) - a crystal-clear demonstration that even people of the same religion can hate one another with a burning passion that eclipses all reasonable thought. Hitler's invasion of Poland may not have had religious roots, but his loathing of Jews definitely did. Though a Catholic by birth (a faith he never renounced; he was also never excommunicated by the Vatican) he drew venomous inspiration from Protestant Martin Luther's vicious rants against Jews. Though it could be argued he wasn't even a faithful man (despite his pseudo-Norse god worship strengthened by old myths and the Wagnerian operas based on them, mashed up with Neitchze's ubermensch concept), he at the very least knew how to use it to motivate and mobilise his supporters and followers. The SS, after all, had "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) on their belt-buckles.
Add to this the examples of Israel/Palestine (ruthless territorial expansion based on belief of cultural superiority, combatted with suicidal martyr attacks); the Inquisition, which featured tortures and privations that would make the Abu Ghraib torture squads look positively tame (though the Abu Ghraib criminals use many of the same tactics); the 9/11 attacks, seemingly carried out by Islamic martyrs; Bush's response to 9/11, alleged to be at least partially divinely motivated - though I suspect his own decision-making capabilities had very little to do with actually kicking it off, considering his considerable difficulty even in deciding which word to say next.
There are more examples of religiously motivated conflict of course, and many examples of purely secular human conflict. Even if all religions were declared officially false and bogus and outlawed tomorrow, people would always desire to kill each other. There would still be conflicts over ideas as well as physical things like territory. There would be still dogmatic beliefs, immune to reason or logic, which elevate a single idea or goal above all else in a very fundamentalist way and there would still be ruthless dogmatists ready to pursue those ideas without regard to humanity or reality.
Stalin, Pol Pot and others are often used by the faithful as bats to beat atheists with, as if to say "religion kills millions but so does a lack of it!" This is a classic strawman attack though - it wasn't their professed lack of belief in gods that drove them to put millions to death and decimate their countries, it was their dogmatic, unfounded belief (their "faith") in their narrow ideals and singular vision (and unquenchable thirst for sheer power) that drove them beyond reason and into fundamentalist dogma which eclipsed all else. Even if you remove god-belief from an equation, any unfounded belief, any faith, held strongly enough and made immune to reasonable, logical challenge can lead to unspeakable horrors - and quite often, in an Orwellian reversal, under the flag of utopianism.
So, while it's true that religion has been the root cause of many unthinkable injustices, murders and genocides, what really needs to be addressed are the issues of faith: the belief in something with no foundation or reason to do so; and dogma: the solid, blinkered adherence to that belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Whether you believe the creator of the universe wants you to destroy infidels to hasten a new age or Armageddon, or you believe you yourself (or your leader) to be the ultimate power on earth, your blind, unquestioning faith in either of those things is the most dangerous weapon in your arsenal.
Religion IS NOT the problem, never has been really. Out of the two ' major ' religions, Christianity and Islam, provided you ignore a bit of the old testiment, there is nothing to say that you should go round killing people or taking their land etc.
Rather the message is actually to treat people with respect and love.
The problem that I see is really people and the way that the original message gets twisted and perverted to people's own desires.
Bit like shooting the messenger to blame religion for the worlds ill's.
Don's flameproof suit to await responces !:tempted:
Racer X, the problem is exactly how you describe: people use religion to justify their hideous actions. There probably isn't a passage in the Torah or old testament that specifically says "expel the Palestinians and treat them like prisoners in their own land", but the entire reason Israel exists as a country in the first place is because of the desire for a Jewish homeland, the location of which is given right there in, or at least was gleaned from, those old books. However, while people will always treat each other like shit and kill each other for whatever reason, it takes religion - or a similarly faith-based, dogmatic belief - to get people to do the most unspeakable things to each other. Blaming religion for everything is unfair, but blaming religion for those things religion is responsible for is merely stating the facts. Belief - solid, unwavering and unfounded belief - that you are in posession of absolute truth is a powerful weapon. Marinate a child in that environment from an early age and you can influence them to do anything in support of that belief. The various theistic religions are the most pervasive and common faith-based belief systems on this planet. They must take responsibility for actions done in their name and, where appropriate, must categorically denounce them!
Aside: as for "ignoring bits of the old testament", that's quite eye-opening considering it's the foundation document of the Abrahamic religions. In Numbers 31 for example, Moses is commanded - by god - to not only kill all the Midianites, but to destroy all their towns & settlements, take all their livestock & wealth and kill everyone including the women & children: "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." So, go ahead & destroy & rob these people, but you can rape their daughters. My point in bringing this up is that when religious people choose to "ignore" bits of the old testament (or even the new testament, with its talk of hell and eternal damnation, which was too sick even by old testament standards ), it's because their own morality is superior to that expressed in parts of the bible, indeed superior to the god depicted in it in many, many cases - or at least no worse than that god. If that book is god's word and is true (as the book itself maintains it is, in logic so circular it rivals an actual circle) by what right does any self-described faithful person have any right to ignore any of it? In order to get to any bits about love and charity in the old testament you have to wade through oceans of dead Midianites, Jerichoans, Egyptians etc. You don't have to just ignore bits of it, you have to ignore so much that it quickly becomes redundant.
What then, is science? And why do you imagine that Scavier would expect that they can make for us an accurate (=true, to the extent that is known and can be practicably modeled using available electronic devices) simulation of automobiles?
Certainly, objective truth may sometimes be difficult to know; but that is far different from supposing that it does not exist, and that there is only each person's own truth in his own mind. Descartes decided that all that he REALLY knew was that "I think, therefore I am," but I imagine that, nevertheless, you are very confident that you know many truths, and that others know the same truths, and in some cases, you and they will together stake your lives upon the common understanding (example: you are proceeding through a traffic intersection; is that [hypothetically] true in your mind, AND in the mind of other drivers at that intersection?). Other examples: the true meaning of common words; the truth about how many dots are here (..), and how many total there would be if I made another, similar set; the truth about some commonly experienced behaviors of natural phenomena - snow is truly cold; gravity truly does what it does; how big a hole would be made in what material by what quantity of what type of explosive substance - about which, there may be many expressed opinions, but a single, objective truth that it is likely to be desirable to know, with reliable ways to know it, if one is proposing to do that.
There are all kinds of commonly known truths, and some things that are not yet known, but would be true for everybody, if they WERE known. I expect that you behave as if that were true, even if you are as carefully doubtful as Descartes.
And there are always more questions, and expectations that there can be objectively false answers to them, and then when those are recognized as being false, yet will remain the true one.
In short, truths are unknowable. They can be assumable, but they are not knowable. In the 14th century, science knew that the world was flat, and this truth was totally evidential. It was also once a fact that the sun and moon BOTH orbited the earth. Evidenced and irrefutible. These things were universally known to be true. In order to recognise that the truths we know, today, are not necessarily true requires an excercise in objectivism, thus rendering truths as subjective experiences.
Objectivism & existentialism are all well & good as mental exercises (and I indulge in them regularly), but as it stands, much of verifiable reality or truth is the same for everyone. The fact that the earth is round, for example. That the sky appears blue (for reasons of refraction and because we've decided to name things commonly in order to facilitate the communication of various concepts to each other, but still, it's blue). That we can't talk to giant squid (yet). We hold all these simple things to be absolute truths as much as any other thing that's verifiable to our five senses. We could be wrong about everything, this could all be a simulation and there might not be a sky at all and we may even be giant squid participating in our own squiddy experiment in objectivism, but to our limited awareness, as it stands, what we have & what we can see is what there is. We must do our best to learn what we can about what we can see (and what our little three-dimensional ape brains can comprehend) and that is precisely what science is for. Objective, verifiable & falsifiable testing of what we refer to as "reality", "truth" and "fact".
While it's always interesting to indulge in conjecture about whether all we perceive as true is actually "true" (or even "there" at all!), in the end it doesn't actually accomplish a great deal, save for giving us pause to reflect on the nature of existence. Which is fine by me as existentialism is no more a pointless pursuit than any other of my hobbies - why shouldn't I, an apparently grown man, collect LPs and play video games and play in a freakin band and generally act like I'm back in 1995 if all this is some bollocks simulation and we're mere figments of some squiddy imagination? You never know what those mega-cephalopods are getting up to in their deep-ocean lairs, y'know...
But back on the subject... To me, it was always about extremism. Religion is just very good at "producing" extremist people. No, wait, not religion itself, but those who spread it (don't know the name in english). You have to consider that (and now I speak of my local experience) people are mostly kind of desperate, in need of something to hold their lives to, to help them find "a better way". Religions provide that, they're like a path (not only "religions", but they seem to be a lot easier to get into). Mix all that with the right extreme attitude and you'll have an army of people willing to do extreme things in order to be a better person/soul/spirit/whatever and even make the world a better place!
I wanted to say something else but I just can't remember now.
I'd like to retract my earlier statement, where I said I was with Hankstar...
I don't know if I've mentioned it on this forum or elsewhere, but after living in the US for a few years some of my memories of life back in the UK became "altered". Particularly notable was the side of the road that I remembered being on, in car journeys. After a few years, my memory converted my mind's recollection of them to LHD, right-side driving, slip-roads and everything. I could remember, with absolute clarity, driving in a way that I knew, for absolute fact, could not have been (without a major accident) and since then, I've been much more open to the idea that what I *know* to be the case can be challenged. In some ways it's undermined my confidence in my own awareness, but at the same time it's also made it a lot easier for me to question what I'm told, and be open to being challenged about what I believe. There are advantages to questioning what is truth and what is reality for the sake of it, I reckon.
Humans will never be free of blind faith. There is too much to know. We can't handle the enormity of everything, and to a greater or lesser extent, we as individuals need things simplified and condensed into things that fit or make sense to us. All it takes is a bit of rhetorical speech-writing and we'll do allsorts because we're told, and we'll believe in it too.
Well, it seems to me that you have argued (convincingly) against the likelihood of perfect knowledge of what is true, and perhaps even against the proposition that there exists an adequate, true definition for the word "knowledge." However, that is not a refutation of the existence of objective truth, nor a cause even for doubting that there is such a thing as objective truth - and certainly, your argument represents no cause for abandoning a search for truth. It does represent a cause for remaining cautious in supposing, at any moment, that one has perfect knowledge of what the truth is. Still, it is practical and useful to seek to know what is true, and to suppose that one can achieve at least a sufficient approximation for one's purposes - which is somewhat to say that "truth" at any moment, is what it best seems to be, having made one's best effort, and used one's most reliable methodology, to achieve one's best version of "knowledge" about what is true.
SamH, I'm with you there (despite your squid-based rejection of me - just remember all who deny the squid overlords shall be ensared in the tentacles of truth and cleft in twain by the beaks of ultimate knowing).
Memory's a tenuous, subjective and unpredictable thing and I long ago gave up relying on mine. Hence, my wife.
de Souza, I'm with you there too. Extremism of any form is one of our worst enemies. Extreme religious beliefs give you Crusades, Inquisitions, fundamentalist Christian doctor-killers in the US, suicide bombers in the Middle East, and fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam such as employed by the Taliban and Saudi Arabi; extreme nationalism gives you Bush & Cheney; extreme socialism gives you Stalin & Mao. Any dogmatic belief system or narrow ideal strengthened by the simple and unshakeable faith that it's the one true path will invariably lead to injustice & oppression. And, while it may be very true to say the extremists of any position, religious or otherwise, are the ones to watch out for, you must recognise that they wouldn't exist at all but for the system they subscribe to in the first place. Without the core beliefs that had my dear departed grandma going to church every Sunday without fail, you wouldn't have fundy Evangelists pipe-bombing abortion clinics. Without the beliefs of the gentle & kind immigrant muslim ladies that work in my office, there wouldn't be repressive Islamic theocracies for them and people like them to escape from in the first place. While it's the fringe fundamentalist groups that give the moderates a bad name, it's their shared beliefs that allow the fundamentalists to exist in the first place.
I sure don't mean to just target religion though, clearly a charge of extremism applies to any narrow & unquestioning adherence to a particular worldview, ideology, philosophy etc. Compare the tactics of Sea Shepherd & Greenpeace regarding Japanese whaling vessels! Same ideals, very different ways of expressing them. Some people consider Greenpeace to be extreme environmentalists, but compared to Sea Shepherd they're as moderate as they come. So no, it's not just religion, but narrow-minded belief that you not only possess absolute truth but also the knowledge that anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy that is the danger. Although, regarding religion: someone who maintains they're absolutely certain about something which cannot be proven should be regarded with suspicion.
edit:
Believe what you like in the privacy of your own mind, it's none of my business or anyone else's - except when you storm in make it our business with your off-topic flaming. The truth of religious belief isn't the subject of the discussion and you've just made a giant tool of yourself. Well done!
Basically true, as stated. The Crusades were initiated by the Pope, in response to Muslim conquests. When these conquests reached Christian holy lands of Palestine, the Pope sent letters to all the kings of Europe, asking them to raise armies and go defend Palestine - for reasons including, that there were Christians living there. (BTW, Europe had been notably "Christian" - and the Pope was politically very powerful, although not formally - since the time that it was part of the Roman empire under the emperor Constantine.) Anyway, despite several Crusades over the course of a few centuries, the Muslims retained possession of Palestine, and continued their conquests - which included virtually the whole Middle East and parts of Asia, north Africa and from there, Spain and then parts of France, where they were eventually defeated by Charles Martel. Also from the Middle East, the Muslims conquered Turkey and from there, parts of eastern Europe, and they eventually were decisively defeated at Vienna in the 17th Century, ~1000 years after Mohammed had, himself, begun the conquests. Crusaders did, indeed, themselves commit atrocities, including a notable massacre of a Jewish population, on the way to Palestine.
True, the Pope was basically an emperor in all but title, such was his influence (which rested on a healthy fear of damnation and promises of the eternal jackpot) among the powerful of the day. I'm sure Popenfuhrer Ratzinger would like to be able to wield that kind of power these days, but unfortunately all he can do is issue half-truths, admonishments and vague sentiments about getting along while dooming millions of illiterate poor people to slow AIDS-related deaths with the official Vatican anti-condom mythology (as well as his refusal to condemn those of his command structure in stricken African nations who propagate lies about the HIV virus being able to pass through condoms). But that's slighty OT.
