Welcome tyke. Faith and Violence do exist as bedfellows and they have for thousands of years. We might note the absence of science in early religious days and how biblical reference to violence may in fact contribute largely to the concept that through violent acts victory will be achieved and favor will be found with God. I'm sure the church thought they were doing the right thing to Galileo. The controversy is that while God is presented as loving and as having omniscient characteristics there are numerous accounts where violence is either committed or ordered by God. "The belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man", Thomas Paine. God's violence is the basis for many of the teachings in the bible and therefore his followers would also find justification in the torment and killing of an enemy. God commits war time atrocities, the annihilation of entire cities, men, women, children and animals. God ordered the torturous death of his own son. God further issues dictates of pestilence, famine, fire and brimstone to name a few. This is all in the past of course but what about the future. The bible says that when Jesus returns he is going to send us sinners into the abyss of fiery damnation to be eternally tormented. See you in hell, friends, lol. So I guess God's violent tendencies are not yet over. Considering that God's solutions to humanities problems are of a violence nature it is easily perceived that humanity's solution to problems has always been through the use of violence and it still is. George Bush claimed that God wanted him to become President and then ordered the bombing of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents. I find, generally speaking, that religious people are perceived to be kind gentle souls living in the light and love of the Lord, but just don't piss them off or you might find yourself under the knife. Truth is that many wars and atrocities have a underlying religious theme, someone say Jihad?, the permissible killing of people under the Muslim faith. Well the list goes on and the examples are too numerous to cite, but we get the gist of what is going on with violence in the world. I think the bibles are not any word of God but simply a convenient manual for humanity to justify its warped sense of getting along. Personally I don't buy into any of it and strive towards a melioristic approach to a peaceful environment. Violence is simply a byproduct of judgment which many times is related to religious retribution.
On Dec 8, 1:09 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > We have pondered a lot on this in here Tyke. Not sure I should be in > so much agreement with someone with a handle suggesting Yorkshire, > having commitments this side of the Pennines myself! But I agree > entirely, not least because we seem to need more than 'rationalism' to > solve basic problems of getting along. Our increasing connectedness > takes many forms, involving floods because trees have been hacked down > (a theme in terms of water rights of many old Westerns) and buying > products from sweat-shops (etc.). In other terms, despite so far the > Internet, we remain divided and ruled. > There is much violence and violent competition in nature and also much > cooperation in it. Religion appears easy to use to motivate violence > and this scares me, along with seemingly inevitable problems with > faith being so irrational and incapable of accepting facts at the > expense of retaining dogmas. One thing I believe bolsters this is the > insistence of science as a rational activity and worse politics as > one. I working on a chapter about Einstein working on relativity at > the moment. The relativity principle was already 'old hat' as he came > to it rather than something he dreamed up, and there's a key point at > which he realises a need to re-invent the underlying kinematics of > physics to incorporate the relativity principle and consolidate it in > electromagnetics. You use a great phrase above 'as it appears is the > problem of a whole social structure or social sin which is outwardly > ordered and inwardly ridden by psychopathic obsessions and > delusions'. This resonates in metaphor with a choice he had to make > in reconciling Maxwell's work with the relativity principle. Most > were taking the route that one had to take one or the other. He made > the choice to try to reconcile them - broadly succeeding. > What has to be said here, is that it is easier to stick with the > science, at least for me. I find the world outside this insufferably > irrational and nasty, very much as in your rather Freudian phrase. > Most people don't do science and though I believe many more could if > we didn't mystify it so much, for most it has to be taken on faith, > through demonstration of its products and so on. Given the > difficulties involved, it is hardly surprising that people default to > stuff they think they can understand like religion and tradition. > Even as we might debate this, the majority either have no access to > the debate or no care for it. Sooner or later, in our democracy, we > come back to them for a vote. This is not what we would do to decide > whether I'm right on Einstein or in developing what is now his > established theory - we restrict this to elite, esoteric groups. > > Science tends to predicate understandings of religion in neuroscience > (there is a 'godspot') and such stuff as in-groups and out-groups. > Even amongst animals we find violence. Human history is full of > examples of the violence between in and out, and religion is a general > presence. The idea of religion as basically mythical and about social > control is old. We probably need to reflect more than we do on > science as social control (there is plenty of academic work - Foucault > was a recent favourite). I suspect we tend to see it as producing > results anyone should understand - a very faulty perspective. Much of > what happens socially is based on ignorance, something none of us can > do more than claim to be free of, a claim that turns us into liars as > we make it. I tend to see the answers in public scrutiny, but our > understanding of this is currently a can of worms - we elevate it to > an ideal forgetting how easy it is to corrupt. Religion too might be > a way out, yet again is easy to corrupt. Developing personal > integrity and virtue is another, again easy to claim whilst using the > claim to manipulate others (our idiot political model - perhaps > derived from religion?). > > There has been much work on a model that the correct position to take > is the depressive position - pragmatic and seeking only normal > unhappiness. This is contrasted with the paranoid-schizoid position > which demonises any opposition seeing out-groupers as 'enemy'. > Violence easily perpetuates itself as the winners survive. We have > even tried Mutual Assured Destruction to evade it. We lack reliable > history and this is something religion evades in its theories in use, > which are in sharp relief to the espoused theories. What we need are > practical, peaceful theories in use. > > On 7 Dec, 17:37, tyke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Our world is no longer limited to territorial sensitivity as in times > > past. Our global reality becomes more apparent with each advance in > > human sciences. Everyone and everything is increasingly connected. > > Amidst this, religion emphasises that purposeful interdependence with > > the human community and with its nature as the basis of ultimate > > happiness and fulfilment. This purposefulness triggers the idea of how > > adherents of religious beliefs make some particular choices that > > affect and effect the self and this self becomes a source and object > > of actions. can religion be argue out as the object of violence or > > perhaps nicely coined as the 'faith of violence' > > Can faith and violence exist as bedfellows? Do the adherents of > > religious faith indulge in violence? The problem of violence is not > > the problem of a few rioters and rebels, but as it appears is the > > problem of a whole social structure or social sin which is outwardly > > ordered and inwardly ridden by psychopathic obsessions and delusions. > > for as it appears and historiographically the realities of Christian > > Crusades and Islamic Jihad explicate further the relationship between > > faith and violence.hence is religion + violence = faith of violence? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
