Demystifying "The Qu'ran"

[Stu Monty]

Beind democratically elected means fuck all. It doesn't alter the morality of your individual actions.

 

I haven't got time to post as I'm off to work but you're stinking the thread out badly SD.

[Paul]

I must say that I'm very surprised at your staunch defence of some pretty abject behaviour simply because it was perpetrated by a democracy, SD. You have posted many times about the unfairness of our first past the post electoral system and yet now you're using that same system in defence of another argument.

[stringvest]

There's nothing idiotic about recognising the superior legitimacy of democracy.

 

aaagh.... I usually never bother, but I'm waiting for my coffee to be delivered.

Wrong. You're potbound by your cultural experience and your willingness to be seduced by misinformation that suits your personal agenda. I only suits you when it brings about the result you desire. You dissed the validity of Hezbollah's democratic victory in Labanon, while neglecting to comment that general elections here are usually won with a small minority of the eligible population actually voting for the winning party. The US's claim to democracy is open to question to say the least. Tactics employed by the Bush campaign last time out to ensure they won were something you might expect in Nigeria.

[stringvest]

I must say that I'm very surprised at your staunch defence of some pretty abject behaviour simply because it was perpetrated by a democracy, SD. You have posted many times about the unfairness of our first past the post electoral system and yet now you're using that same system in defence of another argument.

 

He's using the 'Kicking Bishop Brennan Up The Arse' tactic. Again.

[stringvest]

Beind democratically elected means fuck all. It doesn't alter the morality of your individual actions.

 

I haven't got time to post as I'm off to work but you're stinking the thread out badly SD.

 

Correct. The sheer lack of self-awareness is incredible. The illiberal liberal strikes again.

[Monkeywool]

Here's what I don't get about the whole Muhammad/Aisha thing.

 

Aisha's age is bunk because it came only from one source, fair enough.

 

Didn't the koran only come from Muhammad? Through memory from when "God" came to him and told him everything?

 

How is that not bunk then?

[G Richards]

Can't believe I hadn't read this thread until just now. Very interesting. Some very good points on here, well written and informed. Good stuff. Obviously a bit of baiting too, but for the most part, a high water mark in terms of reasoned debate. I'll stay out of it now as I'll drag the level down!

[stringvest]

I've been negged by the Playmobil politician. Ouch.

[bonzo]

Seeing footage from Cairo 30 years ago, where no women were veiled, to footage from the same city today, where most women wear this humiliating garment, reminded one of a particularly aggressive form of cancer, consuming secular society. It'll take one hell of a chemo session to clear that up.

I went to visit a friend of mine who was living in Syria last year, and I was a bit depressed to see a lot of veiled women (as in the full tent, not just a headscarf) - more in Aleppo than Damascus or smaller towns oddly enough. I said this to my friend (an atheist Irish leftist, by the way), and he told me he'd discussed it with Syrian friends of his (who were mainly atheist Syrian leftists) - apparently they agreed there are a lot more headscarfs and full veils around now than there were 20 years ago, but they made the point that there are, in total, a lot more women out on public streets - whether veiled or not - than there were back then as well. (Apparently the tradition in conservative families was that men would do all the shopping, etc, and women essentially never left the home.)

 

So at least some of the veiled women were actually being liberated by the veil.

 

I'd love to see some statistics on this, but it's very interesting if true.

[Strontium]

I must say that I'm very surprised at your staunch defence of some pretty abject behaviour simply because it was perpetrated by a democracy, SD.

 

I'm not defending "abject behaviour" by anyone - what "abject behaviour" have I actually defended?

 

All I've said is that democracies have a moral right to act on behalf of their people, a right that terrorist or paramilitary organisations or dictatorships do not. I don't think that's too controversial.

 

 

You dissed the validity of Hezbollah's democratic victory in Labanon

 

Hello, is this thing on? Hezbollah have never won an election in Lebanon. Perhaps you're getting them mixed up with Hamas in Palestine?

[Paul]

I'm not defending "abject behaviour" by anyone - what "abject behaviour" have I actually defended?

 

All I've said is that democracies have a moral right to act on behalf of their people, a right that terrorist or paramilitary organisations or dictatorships do not. I don't think that's too controversial.

 

 

 

 

Hello, is this thing on? Hezbollah have never won an election in Lebanon. Perhaps you're getting them mixed up with Hamas in Palestine?

 

OK, I'll rephrase. I'm surprised at your staunch defence of a morally dubious war for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

On the broader point about democracy, it's something you often cite as a positive in discussions like this. However, I'm far from convinced by it. Certainly it's a damn sight better than living under a non-democratic brutal regime. However, I reckon benign dictatorship potentially has much more to offer than the democratic system we live under.

[JRD7]

This whole "victim" argument is a sideshow. I'm going to address that first, but the main part follows afterwards.

****

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRD7

Thank you for affording me a reply and sort of proving my point.

 

If you think I'm wrong about it being a good time to play a muslim victim, then challenge me, don't make some off hand remark about babies being killed in Iraq. For what it's worth I completely agree about the treatment of the palestinians. If anyone invaded and occupied Britain, I'd like to think I would be a freedom fighter. INstead what you did, was play the victim "cluster bombing babies, israel"

 

I actually don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Pointing out facts, which you yourself concede as facts, somehow means I'm "playing the victim" and should be discounted? What kind of logic is this?

 

The point I was trying to make was simple - it's a good time for muslims to play victims, to which your first comment was about the bombs and babies. Firstly, that sort of suggests an excuse to me and ignores the need for self reflection, and says we're the victims.

 

So for my money, I haven't defended the actions of the west. I've explained I believe in democracy and the philosophies of Thomas Paine for how societies could work more effectively. I'm not taking a West vs Mid East stance here, I'm taking a "demystifying the qu'ran and ideology of Islam" (well, nearly) stance, which is the title of the thread, after all. If anyone starts a demystifying the torah, or a demystifying the bible, I'll be right in there pointing out the nonsense. So excuse me if my ignorance offends you. For the record, so you know, I'm anti-zionist, too.

 

Actually, probably yes (based on what he has publically said, numerous times). But I'm not his spokesman. Go to Afghanistan. Make for the border. Turn right at the sign. 2nd left, and you're there.

 

I used Osama as a specific example, but the conflicts between east and west have become as much about Christians/Jews vs Muslims. Immoral west vs Moral East, or Free West vs Prisoned East. That's not my bigoted opinion, the information and evidence is out there, it's just a case of whether you ignore it. I was asking for your opinion, as a muslim on a thread about the qu'ran. How terribly fucking bigoted I am.

 

This is horseshit. Orwellian doublespeak has become so standard nowadays, people barely think about what they're saying.

 

Originally Posted by JRD7

Would we hear from numerous other, more influential Imans explaining that now was the time for peace? Would we bollocks.

 

I believe my assertion to be true, look around the world, within the next couple of weeks someone is bound to upset the muslim world, afterall, it is perhaps the easiest thing to do currently. Then will we see a measured, calm approach or will we see people on the streets requesting that people are murdered in the name of god and your prophet?

 

Lets see. On the one hand, you have entire countries being invaded, under occupation. 100,000's slaughtered. Millions displaced. Entire generations of youngsters mentally savaged.

 

On the other hand, you have people getting angry over cartoons, and teddy bears. And yes, the odd few guys blowing things up (as compared to ENTIRE ARMIES from your countries, going in and shooting, bombing, cluster bombing and depleted bloody uranium shelling everything in sight).

 

Are you asking me a question there, or is it a rant?

 

Again, you've missed the point of my statement. I abhore the way the west has acted in relation to Iraq and I shouldn't have to explain, again, that I abhore the way Israel have acted towards Palestine, but I'm in the thread (yes, you've guessed it........) demystifying the qu'ran.

 

So, without taking offence or believing me to be Hitler (a claim not taken out of context, when taking into consideration that the secretary genaral of the MCB, Dr Abdul Bari, likened Britain to Germany in the 1930's, for our targetting of Muslims), can I just assume you disagree that Muslims are good at taking offence in offence to the prophet and good at being victimised. It's perfectly ok to agree to disagree. I'm not the final word on anything, and if you'll notice, I ask for your comments.

 

 

You tell me. When will we hear leaders from western, secular, democratic states say "now is the time for peace, perhaps we ought to stop invading, killing, and generally fucking things up".

 

The sheer hypocrisy is mind boggling. You want me to wring my hands when some Muslims somewhere in the world behave like dorks? As if you don't have equal numbers of Christians doing the same thing, somewhere else?

 

I'll tell you what. The next time some Muslims somewhere get upset at a cartoon or something, and you get all bent out of shape ("how dare they!!!"). Realise, in those same 24 hours, quite a few Muslims have already been blown to bits BY WESTERN SOLDIERS, or by troops backed by WESTERN COUNTRIES, or starved by blockades instigated by WESTERN SURROGATES, or by sanctions (how many Iraqi children died in the 90s?). And then try to think how screwed up your priorities are.

 

Ok, right, we're going round in circles. I'm really not defending my "christian country" here. I'n not patriotic in anyway, I'm anti-patriotism and anti-theist but a I'm positive humanist. Thus, I have no allegiance to my country over any other, other than to protect my family, but I'd have that same allegiance to those same people wherever they were.

 

I accept patriotism to be an accident of birth, much like religion. So before you ad hominem the fuck out of me anymore, I thought I'd once again, and for the last time state my stance on this. I believe Islam is anti humanist, the same way I believe christianity is, and any other ideology that speculates about untruths and unknowables is. Again, start a thread about the actions of the west and we'll be on the same side. If not, can we discuss Islam and the qu'ran please?

 

 

Oh, and that line about the Imams calling for peace. Do you have a clue what 99.99% of the worlds most influential imams say. And have said at the time of the cartoon protests, or during some particularly eggregious suicide bombing? You're the intellectual - you go check it out. You might want to send them an apology afterwards, once you realise how consistantly they reiterate that the killing of innocents is so so wrong, how Muslims need to improve THEMSELVES, etc, etc.

 

And that other <1% of Imams who keep getting quoted by "certain" sites (like the one you linked to later). Balance that out with the number of Christian preachers who say that the Prophet was a devil, that Allah is a false God, that Muslims are heathen scum, etc etc. Don't believe me? Take a trip down rural Texas someday..... (or listen to Billy Graham of old, preacher to multiple US Presidents)

 

If this is true then I accept I was wrong (no screaming and vitriol - if I'm wrong, I'll admit it - that's what we call learning and the debating of ideas, it's how opinions are changed), however, I still feel that unless these 99.99% (could you provide some evidence for this, please) speak up over the 00.01%, then islam is stuck in a vicious cycle and there is no way out. Thats why I mentioned the need for a reformation in islam. Untill people are allowed to debate and riducule these ideologies in public, without fear or retribution, then you're still living in the dark ages. I'm not patrionising you, but the similarities between the christian dark ages and current islamic states and ideals is frightening.

 

Ahh, good old Billy Graham. I remember my brother got taken in by that lot for a bit, he went to meetings all round the country, untill my Da sat him down, told him to take a look at himself and sort his life out. So whilst I agree, he is an absolute cunt (BG not my Da)of a man (a bigoted anti-semite amongst other things), I can't help but smile when I see or hear anything about him.

 

You can throw any other names you want in the mix, Blair, Bush, Mother Teresa (an absolute cunt of a woman - I'll expand on this if requested to do so) or any other name you want in to the mix. Chances are, if they are anti-humanist then we'll agree. The only difference is that you have your own set of ideological prejudices with which to look through, whereas I can look at your beliefs, prophets etc, in much the same way you look at others, without any mental double bluff.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRD7

Instead I didn't actually make any incedinary remarks, only remarks that you took to be incedinary.

 

If you seriously believe that, then you need to sit down with someone else, and have him/her re-read what you posted.

 

You say Potayto, I say Potarto.

 

Ok, now onto the main issue, on which I had responded to you

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRD7

I accept your superior knowledge on the Koran (obviously!!), however, I don't think it's strictly true about Aisha and you've given me your iterpretation. It certainly wouldn't be fair to commit to scholarly consensus.

 

http://http://www.answering-islam.or...epubescent.htm

 

For me the question of Aisha's age certainly indicates Mohammed to be a paedo. Let me ask this another way, as a man from God, singled out to receive this all powerful knowledge of our creation story and laws and morals for us to live by, should he be setting a better example than (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) marrying 11 year old girls to bone them when they're 14?

Mohammed wasn't some 16 year old chav, he was about 54/55 years old.

 

You know, for someone who tries to come across as a liberal-minded thinker, and far too intelligent to indulge in mass halucinations like religon (any religon), you've done a fair old job of sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring basic arguments.

 

I don't try to come across as anything, my friend

 

My "superior knowledge on the Quran"? Hardly. Did you read anything I posted above? Not a single Quranic quotation. I did NOT quote theology to you (as if I would be qualified to, anyway). I spoke to you in basic terms, and made a number of arguments based on realism, and politics. Did you read any of them?

 

You're right, I didn't address your points. Let's rectify that. The superior knowledge was a reference to myself as a middle-class white boy, and would have been better desribed as superior knowledge of islam. Unless you want to seperate the hadiths from the qu'ran?

 

Its a long standing issue people like to use as a stick.

 

The whole issue is that the Prophet was supposed to have legally married Ayesha when she was 6, and that the marriage was consummated when she was 9.

 

Here's the thing. These numbers only come from one source. A man who stated these numbers, based on a conversation WITH HIS FATHER.

 

So you choose to ignore the Hadiths? Isn't this from of the hadith? The 100 years statement is nonsense as some were probably written even later than that. What's your point? Traditional islam takes the hadiths as the most important part of the message doesn't it? Just so I know exactly what you do believe, could you clarify your positioin on this, and highlight any innacuracies, and why they're wrong, please?

 

That is the only source for those numbers.

 

Basically, its bunk. Here's why:

 

1) The Prophet (pbuh), by this time, was not just the leader of some obscure sect preaching monotheism. By this time, he was a ruler, general and statesman. In short, he was in the public limelight. And he had many enemies, spreading all sorts of gossip as slander (this is a large discussion, in itself).

 

And yet, not a single one of these charges ever included this allegation. Not one. One would think, if it were indeed true, that it would have been a wonderful stick for his opponents to beat him with. God knows, they used everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) else.

 

People even tried to come up with alternative Qurans (attempting to answer a challenge in the book itself)

 

And yet, nothing (on this specific issue) ..... This is basic politics (something which is practically unchanged throughout human history). His enemies at the time would have used this.

 

(and no, marriage to pre-pubescent girls never was, nor is, an Arab custom - so it could never have been excused from that perspective)

 

This is purely speculative - if this happened, why didn't that happen? I'm suggesting that contrary to what you may believe, child sex and brides are not condemed completely across islam. In fact, even in Saudi, the minister for health (i think that was his position) said recently that a girl could be married at one (she'd only get a good thighing though till she got a bit older), as they take the prophet as the example and there was the other recent child (aged 8) in yemen, who had to divorce her 28 year old husband. Take your head out of the side and criticise the bad things about your teachings, don't ignore them.

 

Your argument based soleley on the belief that people never married/had sex with young girls in Mo's time. For if they did, then it's not really a weapon to beat a politician with, is it?

 

"Let me put it to you, that the right 'onourable gentlemen had sex with a young girl"

"well, let me put it to you, that you had her twin sister"

 

So in order for me to accept that as proof, I have to also take that same leap of faith, and that I can't honestly do. If anything, I'd say people probably (almost definitely) had more sex with younger girls than happens these days (across all societies).

 

2) The scholarly concensus, cross-relating Aysha's birth with other events, the fact that multiple sources place Fatima (the prophets daughter) as her elder by 5 years, etc - put her age at over 14 (ie: post-puberty) at the time of marriage.

 

I disagree for the reasons above, get me a scholar that says it's wrong, I'll find you one that says child love is ok. I'm not being flippant or dismissive but it's not quite the open and shut case you proclaim, and I'm open minded enough to be aware there is a debate.

 

 

3) One of the biggest things which has thrown people off is Aysha's description of her early married life, when she played childish games, etc. People have taken this as some kind of affirmation of her being 9 when married. Yet, she herself never said she was 9.

 

Instead, we DO have constant first hand references of her father constantly chiding her - POST MARRIAGE - for her childishness and lack of maturity. In short, she wasn't acting her age, in his opinion.

 

What? Come on, you can do better than that. Isn't it mentioned she's playing on the swings with her dolls. You can talk about 16 year old girls doing that if you like, but the first image that comes to mind, is of my 7 year old niece playing in the garden, not an immature woman. Anyway, if the evidence pro 6 year old is false, why isn't anti 6 year old evidence false?

 

All of sudden, it starts to make sense.

 

- why didn't anyone else make even a mention of her age at the time. Everything else of note in his life was documentated by multiple sources?

 

Again, your assumption is, that it didn't happen. You take the Prophet's word on the Koran being delivered word for word by the angel gabriel, though? Can't have it both ways.

 

- why didn't anyone close to the Prophet ask him why he was marrying someone so young. Something which was NOT in their custom to do? Why not? He was asked 100's of questions daily, even down to the most mundane (and sometimes quite embarressing) nature.

 

- why didn't his enemies (remember, he was now a statesman, who was basically challenging the ENTIRE established order, across the entire region) ever mention this charge during his lifetime?

 

- why would such a man, with a recorded history of genorosity of spirit, and exemplary treatment of women (especially by the standards of the day) - why would he put all this at risk for the sake of one marriage? Such poor leadership judgement? From THAT man? You don't have to acknowledge his prophethood to realise that he was an exceptional leader.

 

Other than your actual point of only one person mentioning it, there's not really anything in there. I wish you'd take the "if only one person says it, it can't have happened" approach to the whole thing, but I guess we're agreeing to disagree here. He was an exceptinal leader. I just don't think he had a flying horse

 

Instead of pretending to be the only rational thinker amongst a sea of deluded zealots, how about actually being one. Stop hanging onto your preconceived notions, whose only sources are propoganda which all hang on a few lines written 1300 years ago (approx 100 years after the Prophet). Don't try to dismiss the whole thing just because of our disparate understandings of the Quran.

 

For what it's worth, I used google to quickly - and that was the first thing I found. I don't educate myself on sites like that, at all. I've laid out my political and life-views for you. Why is it wrong for me to disect your beliefs in some words given to one man (only - no witnesses that you seem fairly keen on citing) in a cave, by using a few more words written about that same man? There is nothing bigoted in my stance, it's called debate.

 

The most intolerant thing in the world? Not religious, or irreligous people. Just those who are so convinced that what they say are right, that they are unwilling to even look at cogent, non-religious, rational alternative points. Because obviously, "the other guy" is the one who is deluded and believes in mystic nonsense, so why should "I" listen to what he's saying.

 

I think you misunderstand me, I am not intolerant, nor do I profess some superiority over anyone. I think you're deluded for living your life in order to please some unkowable, evidenceless creator god, that demands fear and love in the same breath, but that's an irrelevance to the point. I've already shown that I'm not convinced everything I say is true.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRD7

There is nothing mystical about Islam, it is a system of control, the same way early judaism and christianity were. No biggie. I've also explained that I fear the American theocrats more than the muslim ones.

 

I'm not going to try to tell you what Islam is, or isn't. The only miracle that Islam really has, is one which is accessible to everyone. The Quran. Unchanged. If you're interested, check it out. If not, don't. But don't pretend to know what Islam IS, unless you have actually looked at it (and no - viewing it through the lens of propaganda, websites and all, doesn't count).

 

I don't pretend to know what islam is or isn't. But i do know it's a system for submission. It's in the title for fucks sake. If you submit yourself, you hand over control. Doesn't the phrase "if allah wills it" prove my point here? When people conform to the extent the way the muslim world does (talking non-westernised miuslims here. Traditionalist muslims - followers of the hadiths), you're already primed for a dictator figure to come in. there is already subservience amongst the people.

 

Can you now define what you believe to be true, please? and correct any mistakes i may have made about the hadiths. Cheers.

[JRD7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRD7

Where islamic states reign, they tend not to develop, so their only hope of causing major harm is to purchase a nuclear device.

 

Oh sweet heavens above .... where did you get that one from? Fox News? Where Islamic states reign, they tend not to develop? Hmm, so much for history then. Those centuries of scientific and technological advancement, which propelled a bunch of desert-dwelling nomads into one of the most advanced powers on earth - guess they never really happened.

 

Those centuries of scientific advancement based on the works of the greeks, you mean? Those same greeks that began to develop science and maths hundreds of years before Christ and a thousand years before Mohammed? I actually commended the muslims for protecting these crucial works in my earlier post, from the christian crusades. But then look at the similarities - early christianity was a forum for debate and speculation before organised religion got hold of it and dominated the world. Islam is 600 years older. read the history of christian europe 600 years ago. See if you notice anything familiar about the dogmatism. Although as you only accept the parts of islam you like, then maybe you'll be confused by what I mean.

 

But tell me again, what is the latest scientific research being undertaken by the muslim world? Is it to try and combat global warming? Is it to try and discover the first few seconds after the big bang? Is it to develop stem cell research? Is it even on the dangers of inter breeding, which is very much neccessary amongst some of the poorer islamic countries, and is also a minority problem in England (my ex-gf was a nurse who worked specifically with muslim children who had disabilities as a result of in-breeding) so I know it happens. Is it an evolutionary study into bacteria and the mutation of the HN51 virus? The only science project I can think of is Irans plutonium refineries.

 

Islam, for me, is a problem. It conflicts with modern ideals. Simple as that really. I'm not a racist or an islamophobe (great word that seems to have appeared recently within british vocabulary - wonder where that could have come from)

[wiiksie]

Is it just me, or does JRD7 seem to be arguing with himself?

 

Use the [ quote ] [ /quote ] tags mate, you'll look less mental.

[JRD7]

Is it just me, or does JRD7 seem to be arguing with himself?

 

Use the [ quote ] [ /quote ] tags mate, you'll look less mental.

 

Cheers. I wondered about that. I suppose I should have read how to do all the techno things before posting. While you're at it. How do i put a youtube/any other vid in my posts?

 

Also, The guy they're meant for will understand them. If you care to read back, you would too. However, I guess you only came on to make an irrelevant point. Care to discuss the points I raise?

[Stu Monty]

I'm sorry, the idea that being democratically elected gives you a moral right to fight a war is, quite simply, bollocks. Did Labour put in their manifesto that they'd be carpet bombing people to ensure they stayed bessie mates with an oil hungry pal? No. So how is that in any way the wish of the people.

 

Then, even if it is the wishes of the people how does that make is any more moral? If the majority of people decide razing some foreign country for oil is a good idea then it doesn't make it moral.

 

The democratically elected administration of the US recently sent special forces and weaponary to kill the people fighting against their NAFTA backed extermination in South Mexico. I don't need official elections and an official army badge to pick which side was in the right.

[wiiksie]

Cheers. I wondered about that. I suppose I should have read how to do all the techno things before posting. While you're at it. How do i put a youtube/any other vid in my posts?

 

Also, The guy they're meant for will understand them. If you care to read back, you would too. However, I guess you only came on to make an irrelevant point. Care to discuss the points I raise?

You posted huge amounts of unreadable stuff mate, Im just offering friendly advice. Put text you are quoting in between [ quote ] and [ /quote ] and it will be much easier to read (remove the spaces in the start [ quote ] and end [ /quote ] tags when you actually come to quote somebody, I've added those so you can see what the tags are in this post).

 

Same goes for youtube clips, put the movie ID in between [ youtube ] and [ /youtube ] tags.

[bonzo]

There's been some really high quality stuff posted in this debate. Also, possibly some of the longest posts ever. Here's my medium length thoughts anyway.

 

Dirk laid out very clearly the evolutionary basis for altruism and morality. The evidence is overwhelming that these are universal in our species, shared by all societies.

 

One thing that can differ hugely between cultures, however, is who people feel are the 'us' that these moral feelings should extend to. For people in a small tribe, 'us' might be only the other tribe members; the Nazis worked very hard to get Germans to redefine Jewish, Roma, Slav, disabled and handicapped people as a subhuman 'them'.

 

But one key insight that was shared by the founders and key thinkers of the great Axial Age religions and philosophies - Buddhism, Platonism, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism - and later by Rabbi Hillel, Jesus, Muhammad, and so on is that 'us' must be universal.

 

The Golden Rule which Paul quoted - 'love your neighbour as yourself' can be found in some form in all those movements. (This common ground was exactly the basis for understanding and dialogue identified by Muslim religious leaders in their open letter last year to Christian leaders.)

 

But it's easy to say and not at all easy to live.

 

We are all born with a range of instincts - for walking, for running, for throwing, for learning languages, for altruism and compassion. I believe that, just as we can with concentration and practice get better at running or throwing or using language, in the same way we can exercise and improve our capacity for compassion.

 

And this is what great religious/philosophical leaders did - the Buddha said that the way to enlightenment is not to be comfortable, building up a wall against other people's suffering, but to work hard to open yourself fully to others' points of view, to the most painful aspects of reality. And if you are in this open state, it is the most natural thing in the world to see everyone as 'us', for your thoughts to be with anyone you meet and your actions to be for them.

 

For me, the big problem with organised religions throughout history is that it's hard to work on developing universal compassion, but it's easy to be part of a group, fit in with its structures and revert to thinking of anyone outside the group as 'them'.

 

Having said all that, my current beliefs about actual religion are best summed up by Father Dougal...

Bishop Facks: So, Father. Do you ever have any doubts about the religious life? Is your faith ever tested? Anything you would be worried about? Any doubts you've been having about any aspects of belief? Anything like that?

Father Dougal: Well, you know the way God made us all, right? And he's looking down at us from heaven and everything?

Bishop Facks: Uh-huh.

Father Dougal: And then his son came down and saved everyone and all that?

Bishop Facks: Yes.

Father Dougal: And when we die we're all going to go to heaven?

Bishop Facks: Yes. What about it?

Father Dougal: Well, that's the bit I have trouble with.

[Paul]

Assuming for one second that altruism is innate/genetic, how does that marry up with opur innate aggression and selfishness which seems similarly so? For me, true universal altruism as Bonzo defines it above requires conscious thought and choice rather being an instinctive response. Anything that urges people to make such choices is a good thing in my opinion.

[Guest TK-421]

Assuming for one second that altruism is innate/genetic, how does that marry up with opur innate aggression and selfishness which seems similarly so? For me, true universal altruism as Bonzo defines it above requires conscious thought and choice rather being an instinctive response. Anything that urges people to make such choices is a good thing in my opinion.

 

This might be a bit oblique but I would say it can also be the opposite and very much bioligically or genetically based. For example, if we were passing a man dangling on the edge of a cliff most of us would rush over to help without a second thought or element of choice - it would come naturally. Similarly in the insect world the workers sacrifice themselves for the good of the queen. Or am I talking shite?

[Stu Monty]

Assuming for one second that altruism is innate/genetic, how does that marry up with opur innate aggression and selfishness which seems similarly so? For me, true universal altruism as Bonzo defines it above requires conscious thought and choice rather being an instinctive response. Anything that urges people to make such choices is a good thing in my opinion.

 

It is, I think, all still centred around selfishness and the survival of each individual's genetic code. I was watching some of Life of Mammals the other day and it featured these deer. For most of the time the hyenas stayed away because they knew that if they tried to attack then the deer would attack as a group: defending the group and therefore also being good for the individual. This changes dramatically around the time of the mating season. At that time the males have to continually fight each other for the most central positions on the mating ground. This left the weakest of the group on the fringes and, due to the fact that they are all on the verge of collapse from the fighting, vunerable. That's when the hyena attack and there is no longer a group defense at the deer are looking after themselves and their positions on the mating ground.

 

Even the most basic of creatures realises that sometimes what is best for themself is what is best for the group. And then sometimes, it isn't.

[aws]

Assuming for one second that altruism is innate/genetic, how does that marry up with opur innate aggression and selfishness which seems similarly so? For me, true universal altruism as Bonzo defines it above requires conscious thought and choice rather being an instinctive response. Anything that urges people to make such choices is a good thing in my opinion.

 

I think we're "hardwired" with both a sense of altruism (society) and an instinct for survival (self-interest) Sometimes they conflict and sometimes they don't. Religion can be a force in favour of choosing altruism when there is a conflict.

[Paul]

This might be a bit oblique but I would say it can also be the opposite and very much bioligically or genetically based. For example, if we were passing a man dangling on the edge of a cliff most of us would rush over to help without a second thought or element of choice - it would come naturally. Similarly in the insect world the workers sacrifice themselves for the good of the queen. Or am I talking shite?

 

In that specific example, I would agree with you. However, choosing to do voluntary work or donating a sum of money to a good cause that is more than you'd really prefer to spend, for example, requires conscious thought, in my opinion. I think that is less likely to happen than for someone to twat someone else when pissed, say.

[Paul]

I think we're "hardwired" with both a sense of altruism (society) and an instinct for survival (self-interest) Sometimes they conflict and sometimes they don't. Religion can be a force in favour of choosing altruism when there is a conflict.

 

That makes sense to me.

[Stu Monty]

I think we're "hardwired" with both a sense of altruism (society) and an instinct for survival (self-interest) Sometimes they conflict and sometimes they don't. Religion can be a force in favour of choosing altruism when there is a conflict.

 

And equally a force in favour of survival, surely? I think even the clash of ideals from the left and the right can be seen as two very different views to achieve the same purpose. Some would see their genes continue by wiping out and opressing those they see as an external group, thus gaining superiority, wheras other see the best route to the continuation of their genes to be a more harmonious situation with external groups.