<p>“I suggested that the truth of any belief system could be judged relative to the degree that any of its followers kill on the basis of it. (From that perspective, what Jesus actually said - which we’ll never really know - or what Muhammed actually said are entirely irrelevant.)”</p>
<p>Belief system = true if noone kills based on it. Belief system = false if people kill on the basis of it. I am not sure there is anything especially subtle there that I missed. I might even agree with it but there is nothing logically compelling there. It is simply an unsupported opinion. The truth or falsity of any belief is not dependent on the behavior of its adherents. </p>
<p>God, as the poet said made man “Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.” You don’t have to be a practicing Christian or even believe in God to recognize the frailty of the human will when confronted with a challenging moral choice. </p>
<p>BTW how does man live without killing? Every breath we take is fueled by the mortal remains of some plant or animal.</p>
<p>" BTW how does man live without killing? Every breath we take is fueled by the mortal remains of some plant or animal."</p>
<p>So your assigned readings are about Jaina ethical systems, the doctrine of “syadavada”, and the development of nonviolence. When you finish that one, we’ll be on to further assignments. </p>
<p>“Belief system = false if people kill on the basis of it. I am not sure there is anything especially subtle there that I missed. I might even agree with it but there is nothing logically compelling there. The truth or falsity of any belief is not dependent on the behavior of its adherents.”</p>
<p>I do not know why you insist on the extremes of the argument, and leave out the degree to which an argument can be true or false.</p>
<p>“The truth or falsity of any belief is not dependent on the behavior of its adherents.”</p>
<p>To my way of thinking, the truth or falsity of any belief is SOLELY dependent on the behavior of its adherents. That is because it is a “belief” - something which adheres solely to those who believe it, not to the object that it addresses. All a “belief in” (whatever that means) God proves is that someone “believes in” God; it says nothing either way about God’s (non)-existence. The truth or falsity of God or the Spaghetti Monster might depend on something else, but not upon belief (unless you “believe” that believers created God in their own image, which is a reasonable argument, but still has nothing to do with God’s reality or lack thereof.)</p>
<p>“I DO care what people believe when it results in others dying as a result.”</p>
<p>So, does that mean that enforcing peace (at the potential cost of some lives) is better than allowing carnage to happen? Does that mean that the US Congress was wrong to withdraw funding for South Vietnam when the result was hundreds of thousands (or millions) of innocent people dieing? Does that mean that perhaps the support for a democratically elected government in Iraq is better than allowing it to devolve into yet another state of carnage. Or is carnage OK just as long as no more people with US citizenship happened to be present? </p>
<p>Given that death of people has been part of the human culture since the earliest part of our history, what role does a society have to mitigate deaths of the innocent if the role of mitigation may also result in death that is targeted at the transgressor?</p>
<p>FF, if I thought we could enforce the peace, I’d be for staying. I think carnage in Iraq is inevitable. There aren’t any easy answers to any of these questions. I don’t think American lives are worth more than Iraqi ones. As Spock was fond of saying, should the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? We muddle through, I’m not sure that the belief in God ends up leading us to the right answers, if there are any.</p>
<p>mathmom,
Your view comes from the notion that, in effect, the sectarian strife to the point of lethality is ingrained in the Iraqi culture. This is not the case. While there certainly have been inequities and tensions between the various factions over the years, the Iraqis have not indicated from their past that this always leads to bloodshed. There are many mixed marriages and mixed neighborhoods in Iraq. The Shia initially showed remarkable resolve to avoid retaliating in the earlier phases of the war. This resolve showed that they really were interested in a unified government. It was only after a successful campaign of bloodshed targeted at the Shia from al Qaeda in Iraq with the culmination of the bombing of the Shia shrine that caused the Shia to become fully engaged with the creation of the death squads.</p>
<p>While it certainly will not be easy to revert back to where the Iraqis were in terms of sectarian strife a few years ago, given their history of somewhat reasonable coexistence and clear desire to avoid civil war, it would seem best at this point to bring back the refrain of the 60’s/70’s and “give peace a chance” rather than just throw up our arms and let them go about the process of killing each other and in the process destabilize the rest of the region.</p>
<p>I believe in God but I don’t trust people who are religious. I’m much more comfortable with people who are spiritual than people who are religious.</p>
<p>I’m very wary of people who wear their religion on their sleeves as though there’s a need to advertise that they are somehow better Christians than everyone else.</p>
<p>That as opposed to people who are clearly in touch with their spirituality and whos actions speak louder than their words. They are first in line to offer a helping hand in a time of need, or to offer words of encouragement in difficult times whether or not they attend church regularly. They are the people who will be there like a shining light when things appear to be at their darkest.
They are the kind of people I aspire to be.</p>
<p>It sounds like you’re referring to the “Holier than thou” attitude of some religious people and indeed of some religions in particular.</p>
<p>Can it be because the nature of many religions is exclusivity rather than inclusiveness - the attitude that their sect is the correct one and that all of the others are wrong? Some believe that the only path to ‘salvation’ is through their particular sect regardless of any other circumstances (such as someone having never been exposed to their sect). This way of thinking is really quite illogical.</p>
<p>Well, that and then the people who action in church seems to be calculated to demonstrate to the rest of the congregation how religious they are.</p>
<p>“So your assigned readings are about Jaina ethical systems, the doctrine of “syadavada”, and the development of nonviolence. When you finish that one, we’ll be on to further assignments.”</p>
<p>Sorry mini I’m way too fond of garlic and onions to make a good Jain.</p>
<p>"I don’t “believe in” creeds. I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t either. (But, if he did, I think he was mistaken.)</p>
<p>I DO care what people believe when it results in others dying as a result."</p>
<p>Well mini I can definitely see your point there. It is a utilitarian arguement. But in this world it is eat or be eaten. There is a point at which non-violence become a form of violence. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek he was talking about your check. When a Jain talks about it he is willing to go so far as to sacrifice his neighbors cheek. I would shoot a mad dog like that VT student in a heartbeat and sit on his corpse and finish my lunch without a twinge of conscience.</p>
<p>He and I might then both have to work our ways back up the karmic food chain but at least everyone else in the room would have a shot at spiritual liberation.</p>
<p>No. I really can’t say why except that I’ve looked into Christianity and found it lacking in logic and heavy on the supernatural, something I just can’t talk myself into. I’ve not looked into any other religions for those very reasons.</p>
<p>There was a very wise man, his name was Maimonides - Jewish, although he likely got this idea from an Islamic philosopher - who opined that in the world as it is there is always a very subtle, delicate balance of good and evil. One little bit more evil in the world, and it tips off into the abyss. Just a little bit more good, and it rises to paradise. We live on the knife edge. He suggests, therefore, that we simply do a little bit more good. Doesn’t particularly matter what you believe, or who you are. Just do a little bit to tip the balance, and you may the one responsible for the ultimate outcome, rise or fall.</p>
<p>There are two books I’d like to recommend that might be of interest to readers of this thread. One is “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris, and the other is “Infidel”, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Both authors point out many, many instances in the holy books of Christianity (the Bible) and/or Islam (the Quran) where violence in the name of religion is not just excused, but actively incited. Take a peek. I’d love to hear what everyone thinks.</p>