xanthpi wrote:
B.Schuss wrote:
shifts of power are nothing unusual in history, even among different religions. we tried to capture their land ( and our reasons were no better than theirs, catholicism was in a barbaric state back then ), they tried to capture ours. We beat them back, they beat us back. it was the usual struggle for predominance back then.
The point is that Islam claims to be a religion of peace and yet it was spread by the sword, with the sole exception of Indonesia.
No honest Westerner would claim that the West has always been peaceful. But ask a Muslim how Islam was spread and they will almost always say that it was spread through mass voluntary conversion (totally false). Only a few very honest jihadi types will admit that it was spread through war.
B.Schuss wrote:
I don't know where you live, but I suppose it is a democracy with laws sufficient enough to counter violence or crimes, religiosly (sp?) motivated or not. You'd be better off supporting your local community and make sure that your police enforces the existing laws.
How can they enforce the law if they are going to be accused of "racism" and sued the moment they target a Muslim gang?
B.Schuss wrote:
Are you trying to blame the muslims for the shortcomings of your police force ?
The fault lies with:
a) Muslims for constantly accusing everyone who targets a Muslim, or who critisises Islam in any way, as being an "Islamophobe" or "racist" and threatening legal action.
b) The idiots who go along with them out of political correctness.
B.Schuss wrote:
If they break the law, they should be treated as criminals, regardless of their religion or ethnic basis.
And if you are afraid that your country might loose its identity or loose its cultural heritage ( which I suppose is western/christian ) because of muslim lobbying, I guess it all depends on how strong your democracy really is. Either your cultural basis will prevail, or it won't.
We are not allowed to have our own culture in my country. At least, not in the cities. It is "racist" to do so, apparently. We are told that we are "enriched" by diversity. Whilst this is true when it comes to choosing a restaurant in which to eat, it fails when you have one bunch of people who don't think it is right to beat their wives and one bunch who think it is. Mutil-culturalism can only exist under a dictatorship.
B.Schuss wrote:
The important question to me is what measures your country will be willing to take to preserve its heritage.
Absolutely none.
B.Schuss wrote:
your stance on that is quite obvious ( some would say radical ).
Some would indeed say radical, but it would not be helpful to listen to those people. It would be more helpful to listen to the opinion of a frog or a piece of wood.
B.Schuss wrote:
You are surely not supporting western values or the democracy you live in by demanding that basic human rights should be taken away from a selected religious minority.
On the contrary. It is the MUSLIMS who are at fault, not myself or the people in my country who abide by secular ideals.
B.Schuss wrote:
I wonder what your government's stance on this issue is.
They need the Muslim vote so go figure.
B.Schuss wrote:
where do you live ?
London, UK.
B.Schuss wrote:
As far as the Qu'ran is concerned:
no, but you most likely read a translation of the original arabic text, which by definition is an interpretation.
I've read two different translations of the Qur'an, both of which said the same thing.
B.Schuss wrote:
Nevermind, I believe we have made our views on this issue clear enough. I must admit I know nothing about scientific pantheists, but a little bit of googling will help.
Scientific Pantheism: A Manifesto.
Scientific pantheism is not atheism, for it acknowledges the existence of a supreme power responsible for creation. However, the choice to label that power “god” rests entirely with the individual, and bears no substantive implications to the character of that power other than to acknowledging its transcendence. For the purpose of this document, I will use the word “god” as shorthand for that supreme power; the “god” that is the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe.
Scientific pantheism is also not agnosticism, although it acknowledges that a conclusion of “god” is at least as much a leap of faith as it is a logical inference. But in contrast to the “intellectual punt” of agnosticism, scientific pantheism holds that “god” is essentially knowable, even if our knowledge at this time is incomplete. It further presumes that the quest for more perfect knowledge is by definition good, and that no avenues of inquiry are proscribed, forbidden, illegitimate or wrong.
Scientific pantheism is more than anything else a philosophy of mankind’s place in the universe, our relationship with the rest of creation and the natural law that constrains, conforms, guides and makes possible our existence. It is humanism with humility, concerned fundamentally with humanity and the human condition, but without assuming human centrality in any cosmic scheme.
And it is deeply personal, dependent upon each person’s ability and interest in observing and understanding and reaching his or her own conclusions.
On the Knowledge of “God.”
The scientific pantheist does not believe that the universe “is” god, as if there were small pieces of god dwelling within the trees, rocks, water and other components of creation.
Scientific pantheism understands god to be the sum total of all natural laws in the universe. “Creation” is not god, it is OF god, in the sense that all “created” things are the current results of unvarying natural law. This natural law is only incompletely understood by man, and may ultimately consist of the very simple and comprehensive “Theory of Everything” that is the ultimate grail of cosmologists. But whatever its most profound and sublime form, such law preexisted the occurrence of the “big bang” and will exist long after “heat death.”
As such, it is not coexistent or coterminous with the universe in which we dwell. There may be other universes, earlier universes, or universes of the future not yet in existence. All of these conceptual possibilities are subsumed within and guided by the same ultimate natural law that is god.
Our knowledge of god comes only from observing the results and affects of that law. As this same law constrains and conforms the senses with which we observe the creation and the brains with which we interpret that sensory input, such observation can be trusted to yield information that is at some level a reflection of objective reality. There are no other intermediaries between the law that is god, and our ability to perceive directly the results of that law.
There are no prophets sent from god with messages, or rules, or salvation schemes, or other esoteric “gnostic” knowledge. There are no revealed texts, no divinely prescribed rituals or prayers, no appointed priests or priestesses, and no structures of authority or coercion. There is only natural law, its results, our senses with which to perceive them, and our mind’s ability to analyze and understand them.
On the Nature of “God”
Unlike “revealed” religions, scientific pantheists must depend entirely on inference from creation for our understanding of the nature of god. The closest that mankind can come to a face–to-face encounter with god is the exploration and definition of the natural law that constrains and conforms the universe. The characteristics of that law are the characteristics of god.
Natural law does not vary with time.
The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to view across space historic events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has unrolled within the guiding context of the same natural law that guides it today.
From this we can infer that god is eternal. God is not arbitrary, does not tinker with creation, does not change or break “the rules” at whim, and does not perform “miracles” which would be violations of his very godhead.
Natural law does not vary with place.
As the extremes of the universe have come more clearly into our sphere of observation with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.
From this we can infer that god is unitary, omnipresent, and universal.
Natural law does not vary with species.
In spite of mankind’s awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.
From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in “god’s plan,” that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.
In converse, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.
Natural law does not vary with person.
While equality of opportunity remains an elusive goal for mankind, each of us remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities as dictated by natural law. We are organisms with varying biological and environmental potential, true. But no disparity of wealth, power, intelligence or natural ability renders any individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.
From this we can infer that god does not play favorites with individuals or particular human groups, and that he provides all of creation with the same potential for “success” or “failure” (as those created beings conceive the terms). And certainly, we all achieve the same eventual conclusion to our respective existences. There is no “qualification test” for salvation, no punishment or reward in an afterlife, no distinction between believer and infidel. There is no “true” religious faith capable of excluding members of any other faith from either the perils or benefits of existence.
There are no “chosen” peoples, no national divine providences, no divine participations in the rise and fall of peoples or nations. God is not on the side of “justice,” or “righteousness” or the “bigger battalions.” Human conflict is entirely an internal human issue with no cosmic significance whatsoever.
Natural law does not vary with respect to moral outcome.
Natural law operates. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.
There is neither unalloyed virtue, nor unalloyed vice. There is neither obvious good, nor obvious evil. There is only the unvarying operation of natural law, and the constrained consequences of the choices we make within those boundaries.
It is only through the agent of human choice that a consideration of morals or ethics becomes relevant. There is no moral or ethical component to the outcome of natural law. There is only a moral or ethical component to the outcome of human choice. To the extent that such outcomes are personal and private, the choices are equally personal and private. To the extent that such outcomes are communal, the individual making them is responsible to that community for them. Responsibility and accountability for the eventual “goodness” or “badness” of those outcomes rests squarely with the individual who made the choices.
From this we can infer that god is not a moral agent. God neither prescribes nor proscribes, neither approves nor forbids. There are no “sins,” no transgressions of divine law, no arbitrary rules of ritual or conformance.
The social contracts we adhere to are of human convention, and we are responsible as humans for their rationality, their utility, and their enforcement. God does not care about them.
Summary thoughts on the “nature” of God:
In final measure we can infer that god is not personal. God is not in our image, nor are we in his. God does not have a body or a mind. God does not have emotions, feelings, longings, desires or intentions. God is neither angry, nor jealous. God does not demand worship or homage, sacrifice or prayer. God does not help his creation, nor does he hinder it beyond the operation of his law. God does not hear our supplications or respond to our requests.
God simply is, and all of creation is simply the result of his existence.
On the Issue of “Human Purpose”
Throughout much of history, those human beings who were afforded the luxury of leisure have wrestled with the philosophical idea of “human purpose.” These considerations were enabled only by the ability of humanity to reach a point in socioeconomic evolution where effort and energy were no longer exclusively required for securing subsistence and survival. While there can be great disagreement as to the driving mechanism of this “need for purpose,” there can be no doubt that most modern religions and philosophies pertain at least some measure to the identification, codification and fulfillment of “human purpose.”
Religious faiths, particularly modern ones, have tended to define “human purpose” as something externally imposed on mankind by the creator god. But from the viewpoint of the scientific pantheist, there can be no external imposition of either purpose or meaning.
Humanity is only one of the many current results of the operation of unvarying natural law. As such, man can be expected to have no more or no less extrinsic purpose or meaning than any other entity, from mangrove to manatee. However, blessed with a seemingly unique combination of intelligence, consciousness and self awareness, humans are able to define and develop an intrinsic “purpose” which no other organism obviously enjoys.
Each individual human being maintains ultimate responsibility for determining, defining, accepting and fulfilling their own “purpose” according to the dictates of their conscience and the shared values of their community. Whether such “purpose” is directed inward or outward, whether it is measured by personal or community benefit, whether it is trivial or profound… all of these are individual and personal choices.
But each individual human being likewise maintains ultimate responsibility and accountability for the tangible affects of that purpose as expressed through any resulting action. And it is such action that extends the sphere of personal responsibility into the realm of community responsibility.
On Ethics and Morals
“Purpose” implies action, though it does not demand it. But it is the outcome of action, not unemployed ideas, that is subject to social contract. Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And any community of individuals will experience events and instances where individual prerogatives and desires compete, impinging on those interests.
A community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs.
Human ethics and morals are codified agreements among the members of a community designed entirely to secure those shared communal interests, at the least possible violence to the individual. They are not eternal. They are not “sacred.” They are not absolute. They can and must evolve along with knowledge, technology and the specific circumstances of existence in time and place.
As they are absolutely communal by nature, ethics and morals can only be evaluated on a communal basis. Their ultimate “goodness” or “badness” rests entirely on a utilitarian assessment of their outcomes, not on the specific impact to the individual. There can be no ethical or moral implication to the private act of an individual, but there is always an ethical or moral implication of any act that involves or affects two or more.
To this end, communities can and will define “norms,” or laws for the purpose of securing the shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And the community has full recourse to enforce such norms in that pursuit. But the presumption must always remain with the individual freedom of choice in the absence of any competing community interest, and coercion to conform would theoretically only be proportionate to community risk.
Scientific pantheism recognizes the reality and authority of community structures designed to enforce the morals and ethics of those communities. But it also holds a presumption of individual freedom, maintaining an essentially “libertarian” prejudice. “Moral” or “ethical” frameworks that exceed their rationale of community interest are illegitimate, and are ironically neither moral nor ethical.
If there is no real community interest, there is likewise no moral or ethical component to an individual’s behavior.
B.Schuss wrote:
I wonder though, what your values are based on. you say they come from your brain. That basically means you have created yourself your own set of moral values which you follow. nothing special so far. that is what everyone does. and as long as your values don't contradict with the laws ( legal expressions of values ) of the country you live, you should be fine.
I'm lucky in that they are "honourable" values to have, I suppose.
B.Schuss wrote:
Apart from your personal efforts to talk people out of their religion of choice, what else have you done to promote your ideas ?
I do next to nothing to promote "Scientific Pantheism" (by the way, don't confuse us with Pantheists, as many of those guys like to hug trees). Why really promote it? It's just a logical conclusion to come to.
Every time there is a Muslim terrorist attack I simply give more money to the anti-jihad (yes, there is one!) and I'd like to think that my money has helped kill jihadis in Israel and Kashmir
I've been approached by several political parties to consult on this issue of the global jihad but have declined since agreeing would entail me going public (and hence coming to the attention of Iranian intelligence, who are active in hunting down and assassinating criticisers of Islam in the West).
You see, Islam is so sure of itself that it can handle criticism from all quarters
Or rather, Muhammad decreed that the penalty for anyone who criticises Islam is death.
