Comments on: Religion, progress, and other weighty matters http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/ Writing & thinking about writing Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:10:17 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Scavella http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-193 Scavella Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:19:00 +0000 http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-193 I think you're probably both right, as far as that goes. My general take on all this is that humans are, well, human. Of course, depending on your fundamental assumptions about life, the universe and everything, that means different things, but I hope that it always means that humans are imperfect. And I don't believe in progress because I don't believe that humans have changed fundamentally one iota over the centuries. Societies have, yes, in what they permit humans to do and what they prohibit. These days the kinds of punishment inflicted upon ordinary offenders by the state/municipality/township/fiefdom in the past are catalogued as deviant, but they still exist. And "civilized" nations have no problem in inflicting such punishment — or in arranging to have such punishment inflicted — upon people they define as "enemies". Humans are still dehumanizing other humans; the only thing that has changed is that we have made up laws that say what's "humane" and what isn't. And so they're all red herrings to my mind. No matter what lens we use, humans are humans and capable, for whatever reason, and under whatever philosophy that governs them, of acts of great cruelty and acts of great kindness. Original sin? Divine spark? In my philosophy, yes. But the fact remains, and it warrants an accounting. I think you’re probably both right, as far as that goes.

My general take on all this is that humans are, well, human. Of course, depending on your fundamental assumptions about life, the universe and everything, that means different things, but I hope that it always means that humans are imperfect.

And I don’t believe in progress because I don’t believe that humans have changed fundamentally one iota over the centuries. Societies have, yes, in what they permit humans to do and what they prohibit. These days the kinds of punishment inflicted upon ordinary offenders by the state/municipality/township/fiefdom in the past are catalogued as deviant, but they still exist. And “civilized” nations have no problem in inflicting such punishment — or in arranging to have such punishment inflicted — upon people they define as “enemies”. Humans are still dehumanizing other humans; the only thing that has changed is that we have made up laws that say what’s “humane” and what isn’t.

And so they’re all red herrings to my mind. No matter what lens we use, humans are humans and capable, for whatever reason, and under whatever philosophy that governs them, of acts of great cruelty and acts of great kindness. Original sin? Divine spark? In my philosophy, yes. But the fact remains, and it warrants an accounting.

]]> By: Eloise http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-192 Eloise Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:40:00 +0000 http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-192 See I believe the attraction of Muslim fundamentalism to young men (and women) now is much the same as the attraction of communism to young Russians at the turn of the century: it provides a set of ideals and a future to people who are marginalised by the society they live in. If you are a young Algerian living in the suburbs of Paris, or a second generation Pakistani living in Leeds, both places where youth unemployment (especially for Arabic men) is extremely high, Islam offers something that isn't being provided by mainstream society: a place and a sense of value. Radicalism has always prospered in poor, isolated (sometimes to the point of becoming ghettos) communities. I'm convinced that at the moment, much of the time, fundamentalism is a symptom not a cause of the racial and religious problems affecting Western society. Making a fuss and trying to stamp out the fundamentalists isn't going to help because the problems aren't rooted in religion, they come from a lack of opportunity, be that education or work-related, and unless these failings are resolved, the 'Islamic problem' can only get worse. Of course, I could be wrong, and this is an entirely European analysis, but it's what seems to be happening. Eloise See I believe the attraction of Muslim fundamentalism to young men (and women) now is much the same as the attraction of communism to young Russians at the turn of the century: it provides a set of ideals and a future to people who are marginalised by the society they live in. If you are a young Algerian living in the suburbs of Paris, or a second generation Pakistani living in Leeds, both places where youth unemployment (especially for Arabic men) is extremely high, Islam offers something that isn’t being provided by mainstream society: a place and a sense of value.

Radicalism has always prospered in poor, isolated (sometimes to the point of becoming ghettos) communities. I’m convinced that at the moment, much of the time, fundamentalism is a symptom not a cause of the racial and religious problems affecting Western society.

Making a fuss and trying to stamp out the fundamentalists isn’t going to help because the problems aren’t rooted in religion, they come from a lack of opportunity, be that education or work-related, and unless these failings are resolved, the ‘Islamic problem’ can only get worse.

Of course, I could be wrong, and this is an entirely European analysis, but it’s what seems to be happening.

Eloise

]]> By: Ed Parsons http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-191 Ed Parsons Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:21:00 +0000 http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-191 I've recently been mulling over Gottfried Benn's claim that "The fact is that in my view the West is doomed not at all by the totalitarian systems or the crimes of the SS, not even by its material impoverishment or the Gottwalds and Molotovs, but by the abject surrender of its intelligentsia to political concepts. The <I>zoon politikon</I>, that Greek blunder, that Balkan notion — that is the germ of our impending doom." While I don't agree with Benn that anyone is <I>doomed</I> by the turn to the political, I do wonder if politics is become the lens through which people/intellectuals-in-general/Westerners see the world at the moment. The relevance of this here might be that talk of religion deflects attention from a political view (i.e. the view which accords most fruitfully with the prevailing intellectual climate); and possibly removes events from the discourse most likely to offer practical solutions. To put it another way, when avowed atheists talk about religion's culpability in causeing wars, they remove causation from the sphere that they approve (e.g. rationalism, humanism) and place it in another (religion) - then the problems which result in wars can be ascribed to - almost identified with - a 'bad' system of thinking and talking, leaving the chosen sphere unadulterated. I can see the attraction of doing so, but I don't know that the causes of wars etc can be eliminated by eliminating categories of thinking - when wars occur, we think about them according to the tenor of our times - today, either in terms of politics, or, by scorning the preoccupations of our ancestors, religion. I hope it's clear I'm not attacking Harry or anyone here - I'm not even saying that their analysis of religion isn't correct. It's just that the choice of a particular discourse to explain events, whether 'religion', 'politics', 'rationalism', may ultimately say more about us and our intellectual ways of being than about events themselves. I’ve recently been mulling over Gottfried Benn’s claim that
“The fact is that in my view the West is doomed not at all by the totalitarian systems or the crimes of the SS, not even by its material impoverishment or the Gottwalds and Molotovs, but by the abject surrender of its intelligentsia to political concepts. The zoon politikon, that Greek blunder, that Balkan notion — that is the germ of our impending doom.”
While I don’t agree with Benn that anyone is doomed by the turn to the political, I do wonder if politics is become the lens through which people/intellectuals-in-general/Westerners see the world at the moment. The relevance of this here might be that talk of religion deflects attention from a political view (i.e. the view which accords most fruitfully with the prevailing intellectual climate); and possibly removes events from the discourse most likely to offer practical solutions. To put it another way, when avowed atheists talk about religion’s culpability in causeing wars, they remove causation from the sphere that they approve (e.g. rationalism, humanism) and place it in another (religion) – then the problems which result in wars can be ascribed to – almost identified with – a ‘bad’ system of thinking and talking, leaving the chosen sphere unadulterated. I can see the attraction of doing so, but I don’t know that the causes of wars etc can be eliminated by eliminating categories of thinking – when wars occur, we think about them according to the tenor of our times – today, either in terms of politics, or, by scorning the preoccupations of our ancestors, religion.
I hope it’s clear I’m not attacking Harry or anyone here – I’m not even saying that their analysis of religion isn’t correct. It’s just that the choice of a particular discourse to explain events, whether ‘religion’, ‘politics’, ‘rationalism’, may ultimately say more about us and our intellectual ways of being than about events themselves.

]]> By: Scavella http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-190 Scavella Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:46:00 +0000 http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-190 Fair enough. This is a chicken-egg question, I imagine. I think I probably agree with your last paragraph, having thoght it over — and with Rik in his last post over at your place. I do think, though, that if the politics were different fundamentalist belief might not flourish as much. Fair enough. This is a chicken-egg question, I imagine. I think I probably agree with your last paragraph, having thoght it over — and with Rik in his last post over at your place.

I do think, though, that if the politics were different fundamentalist belief might not flourish as much.

]]> By: Harry http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-189 Harry Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:15:00 +0000 http://scavella.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/religion-progress-and-other-weighty-matters/#comment-189 OK, I've been thinking about this as I packed, and this is where I have my main problem with what you're saying: "The reason young men do this is superficially a religious one." Everything about their actions and words suggests that the reason is deeply and sincerely religious. Certainly I agree that if the political background was different, these things wouldn't be happening. But maybe if the religious background was different they wouldn't be happening either. It doesn't seem clear to me that the politics is fundamental and the religion superficial. On the contrary, it is the mix of religion and politics which seems to be especially poisonous. OK, I’ve been thinking about this as I packed, and this is where I have my main problem with what you’re saying:

“The reason young men do this is superficially a religious one.”

Everything about their actions and words suggests that the reason is deeply and sincerely religious. Certainly I agree that if the political background was different, these things wouldn’t be happening. But maybe if the religious background was different they wouldn’t be happening either.

It doesn’t seem clear to me that the politics is fundamental and the religion superficial. On the contrary, it is the mix of religion and politics which seems to be especially poisonous.

]]>