John <You asked me for my solution to a fundamentally religious problem/dilemma so my suggestion was to get away from the cause of the problem, namely religion. One can't have it both ways.... >
Hey, I give you permission to be king for a moment, and right away you try and act like a god! (g) Your freedom to create a solution as king didn't give you the ability to recreate the species. And eliminating religion isn't going to happen any time soon - whether you are king or not.
<If you want religion you will have to accept all that goes with it...>
I don't want it any more than you do. But as an atheist, I recognize my view of the world is so different than the mainstream, and held by so few, it doesn't matter for any meaningful purpose. The following is a perspective that I try always to maintain:
“That I might investigate the subject matter of this science with the same freedom of spirit we generally use in mathematics, I have labored carefully not to mock, lament, or execrate human actions, but to understand them; and to this end I have looked upon passions such as love, hatred, anger, envy, ambition, pity, and other perturbations of the mind, not in the light of vices of human nature, but as properties just as pertinent to it as are heat, cold, storm, thunder, and the like to the nature of the atmosphere.” (Spinoza)
Don’t be too impressed with my knowledge of the great philosophers, it is the only spinoza I’ve ever read! (g) What this says to me is that we have to accept our species for the way it is, not the way we would like it to be. And those human characteristics (meaning those we share broadly as a species) are not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or anything for that matter, they just are characteristics. (This is wholly different than the issue of specific human behavior, which I agree can be good or bad.)
And among those deeply-ingrained, nearly universal characteristics are religious belief and tribalism. Mix them together and what do you have: self-righteousness, intolerance, religious wars, inquisitions, conquests, persecutions, holocausts, bigotry, inhumanity etc etc.
But the bigger issue as it relates to human conflict (I won't call it a 'problem' since that violates spinoza's advice - and we must simply deal with what we have, not try and change it) , is the issue (characteristic) of tribalism. The tendency for groups to divide (and then sub-divide) along any number of lines - skin color, religion, type of music you enjoy, football team you follow, etc, etc. as opposed to remaining homogenous.
So when times are great and there is enough of everything to go around, we temporarily convince ourselves that we can be tribal AND live in pluralistic societies. But when when things get tight, everyone looks around at their tribal brothers and starts asking how long are we going to put up with these evil-doers in our midst? And the next thing you know, blood is being spilled until the population/resource imbalance is restored (if only temporarily and only locally).
Therefore, I don’t see religion as the cause of anything in this conflict (no more than WMDs had anything to do with the recent Iraqi war). Just one tribe versus another. In fact, isn't there a real danger that in spending so much time arguing, justifying, contemplating, etc. all the details we lose sight of the real issue(s) - too many people, not enough resources.
Here is a thought that lead me to wonder if a different approach is needed:
E]recting walls that separate "us" from "them" is a necessary correlate of morality since it defines the scope within which sympathy, fairness, and duty operate...
The great achievement of Western culture since the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over the wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western Culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important.
Neglecting for the moment the debatable point that Western culture ever granted any other people any respect, I wonder if, given our tribal tendency, we must allow 'walls' (no, we must insist on walls!) and separate ourselves as we
feel we need to.
Ah well, probably no more practical than eliminating religion, but at least a little more do-able for a king.
John |
