[Fwd: Iraq Dispatches: Inside Abu Hanifa mosque during attack

[James E. Henderson]

Ralph Shumaker wrote:

> James E. Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> boblq wrote:
>>
>>> There is likely no escape from the problem of being human.
>>>  
>>>
>> War was not a human invention. It was devised to divide a species 
>> into small, somewhat isolated groups so that the entire species would 
>> not be destroyed by a single disease. Read Carl Sagan's "Shadows of 
>> Forgotten Ancestors". Many species have used it, along with the alpha 
>> to omega power hierarchy, but none have elaborated it to the extent 
>> that humans have. We've made our groups bigger and more complex, our 
>> hierarchies within hierarchies bewilderingly, gothically byzantine 
>> and, with our technology, our warfare deadly beyond imagining.
>>
>> But war is still 'us' against 'them'. We still claim 'they' are the 
>> spawn of the devil as the result of deviant sexual practices. If we 
>> didn't demonize them, they would be just people, the same as us, and 
>> it would be harder to push the button that kills them. The two 
>> groups, 'us' and 'them', cannot be allowed to merge -- they must 
>> remain distinct -- for the process to work. It's been the same 
>> whether the human groups were bands, tribes, city-states or mighty 
>> nations. It works the same way for lions and wolves.
>>
>> It evolved for survival of the species. We have reached the point in 
>> our development where it is counter-survival. The ideal solution, 
>> where our technology seems to be leading us, is to become one big group.
>>
>> That will take a while.
>>
>>> I am hopeful that we shall find a way. My optimism flies in the face 
>>> of much data except for one important observation. Slowly, often 
>>> with backsliding, the balance that allows for more freedom within 
>>> order seems to be coming into being.  The reasons for this are that 
>>> the technological and economic underpinnings of freedom and justice 
>>> are being created to which I suspect (and hope) James H. will 
>>> testify (or critique).
>>>  
>>>
>> The chances are good that we, or those who come after us, will evolve 
>> a way. What you've described is, in a sense, a form of evolution ... 
>> and we're not done evolving yet.
>>
>> We'll be done evolving when we no longer survive. Our immediate 
>> survival requires that we fix our messed-up economic situation so 
>> that everybody will have enough. That will do two things: it will 
>> give us the luxury to permit freedom by removing the base causes of 
>> conflict, and it will encourage people to seek luxury and procreate 
>> less, as it has recently been reported that more prosperous Hispanic 
>> women are doing (marrying later, having fewer children).
>>
>> Our long-term survival requires us to leave this doomed planet. We've 
>> taken a few steps in that direction and a few people are aware that 
>> the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable. We have the 
>> capability to begin an exodus now ... or will have, once we 
>> unscramble our economy.
>>
>>>>> Think about it a moment. It has been about 100 years since there
>>>>> has been a major war on the North American continent. Why is that?
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pacific and Atlantic ocean.
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You miss the point, for which I apologize. I should have been more 
>>> explicit. Why is this continent not subject to wars in the way that 
>>> Europe has been?
>>> I am not asking why we are easily defended from their wars. Oceans, 
>>> I agree, have been fortunate barriers against the importation of 
>>> foreign wars.
>>> But I am asking why we do not have wars of our own. 
>>
>> One expert said that the Crusades resulted when one of the Popes got 
>> tired of the "Frankish knights forever fighting among themselves" and 
>> sent them off to fight where they could cause less of an annoyance.
>>
>> But I'll refer you to a different 'expert' for this one: John 
>> Steinbeck in his book "Travels with Charlie" observed that the people 
>> of the North American continent have developed a single identity. 
>> They think of themselves as Americans. We did have a nasty little 
>> spat, supposedly over slavery but really over a number of matters, 
>> but both sides were still Americans when the dust cleared. Europeans 
>> have no such unity.
>>
>>>>> We already have this problem with the ordinary police in our cities.
>>>>> Ask why the "peaceful" USA has the highest per capita incarceration
>>>>> rate in the world.
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is obvious as we also have the highest crime rate.
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Duh, Tautology. If we had no laws we would have no crimes. Do we 
>>> have people who are somehow more criminal than the rest of the 
>>> world? I don't think so. I think we have an oppressive system that 
>>> both encourages a certain segment of society to become criminal and 
>>> then penalizes them severely when they act as we encourage them to act.
>>>  
>>>
>> Our laws often create new crimes. It is called criminalization.
>>
>> 200 years ago, good medical practice consisted of surgery to stop 
>> excess bleeding, bleeding the patient when you didn't know what else 
>> to do, giving whiskey / brandy to stimulate somebody who was 
>> lethargic and giving opium to calm somebody who was excited. Since 
>> then, we've attempted to outlaw alcohol and have made drug sale, use 
>> or possession a crime; it is even a crime to have apparatus 
>> associated with drug use even without the drugs. A large fraction of 
>> our current prison population is there on drug charges, especially 
>> those marijuana related. We created those crimes with our laws.
>>
>>> I am not religious. I am a devout agnostic. I don't get answers to 
>>> many fundamental questions. OK, call that a religion if you
>>> will, but it does not follow from a lack of belief in god or God
>>> that one should not care for one's fellow humans nor does it follow 
>>> that the only mechanism for that caring is an uncaring bureaucracy.
>>>
>>> I do believe that we need the secular equivalent of churches,
>>> sermons, and direct voluntary social  action. I hear lots of talk  
>>> about what politicians and governments should do by people who walk 
>>> right by the homeless every day and do nothing.
>>> I refuse to accept the notion that caring for others is a sign of
>>> weakness and naivete. I suggest the real problem is fear. People
>>> of all political and religious persuasions are afraid of the 
>>> underclass,
>>> perhaps because their own middle class situations are so precarious.
>>> I just don't know though. So ... I tire. My tirade winds down.
>>>  
>>>
>> At the time evolution evoked language in humans, it gave us the logic 
>> to ask questions and religion to invent answers for them. Without 
>> religion, the unanswered questions would have driven us even crazier 
>> than we are. The answers didn't have to be correct in an absolute 
>> sense, but they were the right answers if they worked to relieve 
>> stress and to bond people together into their groups more firmly.
>>
>> Face it. There is no rational reason to believe that some supreme 
>> being(s) are watching out for us, to grant us an afterlife of glory 
>> that will make up for some of the grief and pain we suffer in this 
>> life. If you're going to be completely rational, you're going to 
>> create a lot of stress for yourself. The innocent / ignorant true 
>> believer frees himself from those worries. He gives himself 
>> superhuman guidance and, as a bonus, he finds a way for his 'sins' to 
>> be forgiven. He can screw up and not pay for it!
>
>
>
> This is not quite accurate.  While I have no need to "pay for it" with 
> God, this *forgiveness* does not come without cost.  Imagine the 
> person you love the most in this life "paying for it" every time you 
> "screw up".  Unfortunately, some Christians do take this for granted.
>
> Also inaccurate is your assertion that the "true believer" is 
> "innocent / ignorant".  Many have become believers because of the 
> *loss* of ignorance due to investigation.  And calling the "true 
> believer" "innocent" is a veiled way of calling him naive.  Very few 
> become true believers out of ignorance or naivetee.  And none who 
> become true believers then become ignorant or naive as a result nor as 
> a prerequisite.  It is ignorant and naive to assume that "superhuman 
> guidance" and "forgiveness" is a contrivance.
>
> Secondly, you are only talking about Christians here because AFAIK no 
> others have the system of "forgiveness" to which you refer.  All other 
> religions AFAIK have either justification or some type of penance.  
> Most religions have forgiveness as something earned (or unnecessary 
> because of justification).  AFAIK, only the Christians have 
> forgiveness offerred as a gift from God (and paid for by God at an 
> extremely high price).
>
Two short paragraphs are inadequate for painting an accurate picture. 
I'm afraid I'll have to elaborate.

I tried to create a dichotomy, dividing those whose belief system is 
faith based (the innocent true believer) and those rare individuals who 
reject faith of any kind for that which can be demonstrated (the 
rational skeptic). You obviously belong to the first group. The second 
group is very small in comparison. Evolution favors the believers, who 
have mechanisms for coping with stress not available to the skeptics.

It isn't only Christianity (or the Abrahamic religions as a group) that 
believe in forgiveness. The religions (such as the Hindu) that believe 
in karma see redemption as a process happening over many lifetimes. 
Ancient Egyptians believed the soul would be judged following death, 
when all of one's good and bad deeds were recited and their weight on 
the soul was compared with the weight of a feather. From the 
Zoroastrians we have adopted the concept of a constant battle between 
good (led by the being who represents ultimate good) and evil (led by 
his counterpart, the manifestation of ultimate evil) which will lead to 
an ultimate showdown with the fate of all individual souls being 
determined by the outcome. Many other religions have their own form of 
redemption belief.

>
>> Who will live longer and be happier? It's no contest.
>>
>> Meanwhile, enough people have become proficient with the tools gained 
>> from evolution to invent the technology we enjoy, often destroying 
>> themselves in the process. The race benefits and advances.
>
>
>
> The "tools gained" are not from evolution.  They are from the 
> creativity built into us by our creator, driven by our desire to make 
> things easier for ourselves (including our safety by military means), 
> and then promptly abused because of our hopeless depravity and desire 
> for personal gain even at the expense of others.  Ultimately, mankind 
> is caught up by his own selfish desires.  The Bible claims that the 
> heart of man is "desparately wicked".  And our history seems to bear 
> that out.
>
You reject evolution because of your religious beliefs, not for any 
rational reason despite your claims to the contrary.

>
>> Never regret being of a rational bent. There have to be a few of us 
>> for the race to advance.
>
>
>
> I do not regret being rational.  I'm not going to believe evolution 
> just because the masses seem to agree that it has been proven.  The 
> masses once believed that it was proven that the earth was flat and 
> that only fools would believe otherwise.  Just because the masses 
> believe something does not make it so.
>
> The rational person realizes that evolution is a belief (several 
> millenia old) that cannot be proven.  The rational person realizes 
> that the concept of evolution (in its present form) defies logic.  The 
> rational person realizes that evolution was not cooked up by science.  
> Science has been used (and abused) to try to prove a belief 
> (evolution, creation, whatever) that cannot be proven.  Just because 
> evolution has been declared to be proven does not mean that it really 
> has been proven.  It has not.  In every field of science, the foremost 
> experts admit that their field of expertise offers no proof for 
> evolution.  Everyone seems to think that it has been proven somewhere 
> even though no one can tell you where.  They blindly follow those who 
> just simply *claim* that evolution has been proven.
>
Not really. They use evolution as an explanation because, like the 
theories of Newton and Einstein, it provides explanations for observed 
phenomena that nothing simpler can explain (Occam's Razor).

>
>> The rest are sheep.
>
>
James