in the 1st half of your arguement, you say that middle easteners cant help themselves, and would be savages no matter what religion they follow? and the 2nd part you say that they started civilzation as we know it? am i wrong
In a sense, yes. I guess what I'm saying is that things aren't ever quite as simply as a good/bad, us/them dichotomy. In my view, the most successful cultures are those with "breathing space", so to speak. Where thousands of generations' worth of tribal hostilities exist, there's almost an inevitable side-effect of violence. Such is the case in Eastern Europe. Such is the case amongst perpetually warring African tribes. And such is the case in the Middle East.
Now, that doesn't mean that sparks of the human spirit are absent in these areas. Quite the contrary, because often the harshest, most oppressive conditions fuel the most passionate humanism. The works of the great Russian musical and literary masters always stand out to me as a fine xample of this. And the middle east is no different.
As for 'starting civilisation' I'm pretty sure i din't make that claim; only that in the Golden age of Islam, the great thinkers/scientists/artisans of the Muslim world took and expanded on the library of human knowledge, while preserving and adding significantly to it. Now that the West leads the way in scientific and social enlightenment, it's easy to think it's always been this way; and that it always will be. Neither assumption is necessary true.
but you seem a little too harsh...maybe youre an athiest?
Not sure about what harshness you refer to. If it's in saying that religion has little to no effect, or is insubsequential, you misunderstand me. Religion is, however, born OF man, not external of him. Man makes and dictates the rules, and as such all religion is simply a fragment of human nature.
Religion is like language, I suppose. Universal, but different in expression. Language similarly has its deficiency. The bottom line for me is that people would be incorrect if they assumed religion is a monolithic force that completely renders people's will null and void. Islam is the perfect example, because it's practiced in the greatest level of extremity amongst today's main religions. In all cases, the regionally specific practice of Islam owes its flavour (and more importantly, the behaviour of its adherents) to the larger social context. Wahhabist Islam in southern Saudi Arabia is a world away from Islam in Han China. There's an important lesson in there that is too often overlooked, in my opinion.
And while i'm strictly atheistic in necessarily rejecting all human models as god as inherently narcisistic, I suppose I'm agnostic in the truest sense; the universe does appear to exist by all objective standards, and it stands to reason that there is a force(s) which allows it to do so. "God" is as good a word as any to describe these forces, of which whose specifics are so far beyond the scope of human intellect to render any prospective model, at best, akin to finding a needle in a black hole.
For me, the bottom line is that minus religion, I'm sure people would find other equally (ultimately) inconsequential matters to squabble over. I guess we can only hope to live by example. I've no doubt that you do just that.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Proud member of COW-DJ
reply
share