 35870 |
 29819 |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | GFWiki | Members List | Donate | Arcade | ChocoJournal | Mark Forums Read |
| Welcome to the Gamingforce Interactive Forums. |
|
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
 Member 2657 Level 14.90 Mar 2006 |
The end of faith.
So, I recently got done reading a book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris. In it, he goes to show that faith is the prime factor in irrational decisions and injustices throughout history.
First, he calls for an end to all established religions: especially Islam, due to the number of verses the Muslim community in the Middle east uses to support it's suicide bombings and violence. Because there is little to no moderate Islam in the middle east, and little tolerance for liberal positions on Scripture, the area has become religiously stagnant and their religious texts and faith is what drives them to violence and rationalizes their violence. If they were a faithless society, it would remove the justification for their actions. We can also go into how Christianity has used it texts and faiths to savagely murder millions, but since a majority of it's followers are now moderate, our largest concern is the end of Islam, or at least fundamental Islam. Secondly, he makes the case that we can establish moral truths without the need for religion. He basically founds this on the principle that almost all of us want happiness and happiness for others. This is a general concept, so don't bother getting picky about it. If we establish that it is in our nature to find happiness and to provide happiness, we can then extend this into what brings happiness and what doesn't in a rational way. BUT - we can only approach rational morality this way if we first throw away faith-based rationality. An example would be: God doesn't like homosexuality, therefore it makes me unhappy to see gay people, therefore gay people should be outlawed. This is an irrational claim based on the beliefs of an unresponsive invisible being. Imagine the case where anti-gay advocates had to base their arguments on rationality: "We want to end homosexuality because they don't produce babies, and that means it wastes energy, which makes society more tired and less happy!" A bit harder to argue then the typical "GOD WILL BURN YOU" argument, eh? As our society becomes more secularized and less religionized, we will see more rational morality, such as gay unions/marriage, female/male equality, drug laws that actually make sense, etc. As we can see from the past, Religion is always playing catch-up adaptation with modern day secular morality and science. Thirdly, he claims we can have spiritual experiences without Religion, mainly concentrating on our levels of consciousness. We still don't know why we are self-aware and other creatures are not. There's yet to be a biological marker found that says "these creatures will be self-aware and these creatures will not." The spirituality Harris puts forth is based mainly around our interaction with our self-awareness and how we can manipulate or experience reality differently. This is most commonly accomplished through meditation, drug use, and other ways yet to be discovered. ---------------------------------- That's a basic summary of the book. I think I agree with most of what he has to say. It's difficult to present the book since it covers an insane number of topics on culture and society and government and of course, religion, but I tried. There are pluses to Religion, such as establishing a community, goodwill services, etc, but these can all be accomplished just as easily through secular mechanisms instead of religious ones. Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world. If we look at the different Religions, the ones we consider most moral are the ones most closely tied to secular rationality, not faith based rationality.
Last edited by FallDragon : Jan 13, 2007 at 09:23 PM.
|
Member 62 Level 32.79 Mar 2006 |
Someone in my English class is reading that book, and they really like it.
I agree with those points aswell, and the world would be a much better place if that idea was to become a reality. However, you can pretty much count on it never happening. Telling a religioius person to give up everything they beleive in is impossible. Faith is just that; faith. Mario Kart DS: 498293-921939____ Star Fox Command: 155-576-696-451____ Metroid Prime Hunters: 4854-1233-4943____ Final Fantasy III: 506891214495____ Xfire: freuser____ Steam: Free.User____ |
Member 18158 Level 7.77 Jan 2007 |
I'm probably wrong, but that's how I interpreted it... I agree, though. As fascinating and appealing as the idea is, it's all theoretical. Plus of course there's the point that it's not religion that starts wars so much as overzealous fanatics who do; and I'm sure you'll get those whether there's structured religion or not. Can't get rid of crazy people! |
Member 18159 Level 8.46 Jan 2007 |
Like that'll ever happen -sighs-
Last edited by deadsky : Jan 13, 2007 at 10:25 PM.
|
Member 2657 Level 14.90 Mar 2006 |
Last edited by FallDragon : Jan 13, 2007 at 10:38 PM.
|
Member 18158 Level 7.77 Jan 2007 |
|
Member 1222 Level 34.72 Mar 2006 |
I'm not saying that Christianity or any of the other major religions are equivalent to other UFO cults. I'm just saying that some people have the gift of being able to win others over to their cause, no matter what that cause is. You've got to be quite the talker to win someone over to the ideo of suicide bombing, don't ya think? I don't think the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife would convince me. A bird in the hand s worth two in the.... *achem* bush, and my life is one hell of a bird in the hand. As long as those kind of slick-talking people exist, the worst kind of religious extremism will persist.
I'm an atheist myself. It shows, right? I don't treat it like a religion though. I treat it like the absense of religion. Science isn't sacred. It's a good tool, one of the best, but it's far from perfect and it's not something I put 'faith' in. For one thing, it doesn't require belief. The parts of science that work may be proved empirically. It disturbs me a little that you can say this, but I'm sure it does no actual harm... 
Last edited by Soluzar : Jan 13, 2007 at 10:51 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
Member 2657 Level 14.90 Mar 2006 |
And as for WW2, you should probably buy The True Believer by Eric Hoffer as well. He goes to show how Christianity and Nazism were connected to each other through their use of similar systems to produce mass movements. Basically, faith is always going to be the antithesis of rationality, and thus able to produce any and all kind of atrocities without need for justification. |
Member 18158 Level 7.77 Jan 2007 |
 |
Member 2657 Level 14.90 Mar 2006 |
Don't be mistaken, there are also verses that say violence is wrong, but they are much fewer in number. Just like the Christian Bible, there are many contradictions in messages. The difference is that Islam is VERY fundamental in the middle east, so the interpretations are always going to be pro-violence and pro-fighting infidels. Any other interpretation is considered unfaithful to Allah. Here's a survey Harris inserts into his book. Suicide Bombing In Defense of Islam: Is it ever Justifiable? ________________Yes___No_____DK/Refused Lebanon_________82____12_________6 Ivory Coast______73____27_________0 Nigeria__________66____26_________8 Jordan__________65____26_________8 Bangladesh______58____23_________19 Mali____________54____35_________11 Senegal_________47____50_________3 Ghana__________44____43_________12 Indonesia_______43____54__________3 Uganda_________40____52__________8 Pakistan________38____38_________23 Turkey_________20____64_________14 So are we at war with Iraq? Or at war with Islam? Should people have freedom to choose a religion in which the majority of it's constituents are OK with suicide bombing non-believers?
Last edited by FallDragon : Jan 13, 2007 at 11:14 PM.
|
Member 1222 Level 34.72 Mar 2006 |
Then there's the 'creative' tactics that involve various parts of a pig being interred along with the bodies of terrorists. That's whole extra bunch of uncertainty that can add to the problem. Isn't it only natural to have some doubts? I mean, no matter how devout you are, there might just be nothing. No afterlife. Just worm food. That's a big risk for these sucide bombers.
That survey you posted is interesting, but is the data verifiable? If so, why is the question so broad? Is suicide bombing ever justfied? Well that 'ever' is a really nice touch, isn't it? It adds too many variables into the mix. Of course I'd rather say that it's not ever justified, but I didn't grow up in an that environment. Ask muslim people who grew up in my environment, and you'd get a completely different set of results. The answer then is to fix the enviroment in which they live. Yeah, that's easier said than done.
|
Member 17642 Level 5.59 Dec 2006 |
It seems kind of pessimistic cause it is said that people will try to find meaning in this world but will fail in the process. |
Member 2657 Level 14.90 Mar 2006 |
From the book: "Over 38,000 people recently participated in a global survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The results constitute the first publication of its Global Attitudes Project entitled "What the World Thinks in 2002." The survey included the following question, posed only to Muslims: Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justifiable in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified." ----------------- Sam Harris showed the original results, and then lumped the "often/sometimes/rarely" into the "ever" category to show how many find it acceptable to any degree, period. Also, we have to keep in mind, this is suicide bombing specifically against civilian targets, non-combatants. Also keep in mind Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Iraq and Palestinian territories weren't included in the survey.
*edit* Now, I know I may be coming off VERY anti-Muslim, but it's not out of racism. I could care less what race you are. If you're OK with killing civilians by blowing yourself up, regardless if it's a religious concept or not, it's completely unacceptable. Yes, verses can be interpreted differently by scholars, but mainstream mid-east Islam doesn't care - and most importantly, they are the one who represent Islam. You will get Muslim professors in the US claiming their religion is being "misrepresented" - but who are they to "correctly" interpret the religion? What matters is how the masses are interpreting it, and I don't think the idea of a jihad is any new concept to them. If anything, modern non-violent interpretations of the Koran are the dishonest interpretations, simply hoping to salvage the religion so it can survive in a growingly secular, rational world. For the majority of Muslims in the mid east, the jihad against America is real, not imaginary. Our evil is real, not imaginary. And them going to heaven for killing us is real, not imaginary. But we can't criticize it since, you know, it's religion.
Last edited by FallDragon : Jan 14, 2007 at 02:20 AM.
|
 Member 20 Level 49.83 Feb 2006 |
Moving this thread to PP since this discussion is getting political and stuff
 Shushkevich sued the Belarusian Ministry of Labor and Social Security: due to inflation, his retirement pension as a former head of state was the equivalent of one dollar and 80 cents monthly. |
Member 18 Level 46.74 Feb 2006 |
|
