On Erathoniel's blog is an article On Evil, and in the comments, cscoles mentions that "Evil is not working together to make the world a better place." to which Erathoniel responds that that is exactly what *he* believes. But Erathoniel also states in his article that "Evil is any time man walks away from God, the Creator." Can those two statements exist peacefully side by side?
There are many belief systems in our world. The problem is that many advocates of these belief systems are intolerant of other belief systems, and the most fundamental of them refuse to work with others who believe something different. Some belief systems suggest that anyone not of their belief system should die. Some would have governments run based on the principles of their belief system knowing full well that it would be at the expense of groups of people of other belief systems. I propose that this is neither tolerant nor is it "working together."
So if you are one who agrees that we all need to work together, what is required? It seems to me that tolerance of beliefs that are different from our own is necessary for this to occur. The only other solution I see would be to eradicate anyone that doesn't believe what you believe from the world entirely. Well...mankind has been trying that last idea since the beginning, hasn't it? Doesn't seem to be working too well.
So here's the problem in a nutshell. You have a set of beliefs that you think the world should operate by. Next door to you is someone who has an entirely different set of beliefs that he thinks the world should operate by. How can you resolve this and "work together?" In order to work together, common ground must be found. It's safe to say that you will not find that common ground in the entirety of your respective belief systems. So the first thing that has to go in order for "all to work together" is the belief systems. I do not mean stop believing what you believe - I mean suspend it for the purpose of group progress. I mean be tolerant of other beliefs long enough to make some headway into reducing suffering for all.
How do you do that? Well, in my opinion, it is by placing "objectivity" in a governing place. Belief is subjective and it's personal. If either of you holds to your subjective belief as a governing factor for what actions should be taken and what decisions should be made for progress, there will be conflict, and "working together" will be hampered or impossible. The common ground, therefore, is the set of testable and verifiable things also known as the "objective."
This, contrary to religious spin doctors, is the goal of science. Science wants you to put down your beliefs long enough to make some actual progress. It doesn't want you to stop believing what you believe. Science doesn't want anything to do with the "Belief Business." It just wants us all to find a common objective ground on which we can all agree regardless of belief so that we can "work together to make the world a better place." I do NOT mean that science asks you to believe a particular set of facts that it discovers. It wants you to agree to a method for TESTING facts that isn't subjectively based, and if a proposed "fact" isn't testable, then it belongs in the subjective realm - the belief realm - and should not be considered for any actions or decisions that affect everybody.
So if you believe that it is "evil" to not work together to make the world a better place, then I ask you, what experiment have you done today? What evidence, testable and verifiable, on ANY subject have you produced? What goal do you have in this regard to lessen the suffering of all?
Or do you spend all your time listing things that should not be tolerated and pointing at your doctrine for proof of it? If you do, then by the above definition, you're "evil."
Another very insightful article Ock,
Intolerance is a big part of us, we learn it early on as soon as we're thrust into social situations such as school when we formed clicks. Later we formed clubs and legends and dressed a certain way so we can be easily recognized by others of like mind. The ability to truly see things from someone else's perspective is rare, most people have to talk at length with someone they harbor intolerance for before they can begin to put aside their differences. That's why the only cure for intolerance is diversity, it forces us to deal with with our differences.
Intolerance for other beliefs just showed up on the big screen with that lying propaganda movie Expelled. Such intolerance for what they've decided is a competing religion they went as far as to blame the holocaust on it, and people are buying this vile hate speech from Stein.
Link
Your God doesn't have a monopoly on directing loving others in humility, J, so it is unnecessary to draw that line, and in fact, drawing it alienates any group who doesn't believe in your God. You can think to yourself that they are wrong in their choice of deity, and that should be enough for you. As long as the work continues amicably, and the progress gets made, both groups are "showing love to each other in humility." One says it's because it's your God's Way, and the other doesn't, but they're both doing it, and neither is alienated. This may not be the ideal for a group which is commanded to proselytize their way, but it's the only way that ALL have an equal chance to contribute to the whole.
You ask which of those two groups would be able to work with everyone, and the obvious answer is the one that is commanded to love regardless of their belief system, but I know of no such group. Oh yes... ...I know that some CLAIM that that is their way, don't get me wrong...I know that's what some profess *chuckle*... but I haven't seen any that actually do it. What I see usually is complete intolerance for any way but one way.
Even though it was a joke, J, you said in some other reply "We can't go back to seeing things in the way you do, where things are true for one person and not for another. It's true for everyone, which means a lot of you are going to hell." I notice you fail to include "If we're right about this."
Some of those that are going to hell would be more than happy to "work together to make the world a better place" but they aren't likely to do that with someone that has such disdain for them. And even if they could swallow the disdain, the "working together" can't really happen. Because you are BOUND by your beliefs that making the world a better place REALLY means make it a more Christian place. They, obviously, are not going to agree. So again, I emphasize that the only place differing groups can actually work together is over non-religious, objectively true, testable, proveable things. Religion needs to get out of the way of progress.
Opinion: If society lasts another 1000 years, it will be because we were somehow able to do just that. And at that point, this age will be labeled "The Second Dark Ages."
In closing, if your idea of "working together" with someone only works so long as you keep your mouth shut about your belief that they are going to hell for not believing what you believe, (which you can't do because a lie of ommission is still a lie), then maybe you DO stand corrected.
First of all, great post.
Well said. I think you've succinctly identified the biggest problem when it comes to multi-faith group dynamics. It is easy to see past these differences if the individual is prepared to let themselves see past (okay, that was clumsy but I'm sure you understand what I mean).
Some time ago, I worked in a large open plan office where 60 different people worked. There were representatives of all the major religions of the world working there, side by side and quite happy to help and guide each other. The shared common goal was the one thing keeping everything together. It didn't stop anyone from believing what they wanted and it certainly didn't stop any discussions regarding different beliefs. But it provided a cohesion that helped us all get along with each other.
Maybe we all need a common goal in order to learn to get along with each other, regardless of our beliefs.
Out of respect to others who do not believe what you believe, Jay. When you state "THIS IS SO, NO IF ABOUT IT!" but you can't prove objectively whatever "it" is, it's not endearing. I don't discount the possibility that what you say is true, but you pre-discount many things as even being possible. That's not humble, that's humiliating.
I want to comment on this more, but I don't want to rush those comments, and it's time to go to work. I shall return!
It wouldn't if it was left as subjective (aka keep it to yourself). You, Jythier, DO tend to keep it to yourself. And you and I have enjoyed some times just kickin back over a chess board. We tolerate our differences of opinion and set them aside because the goal is a good chess game.
Some folks aren't so content with their own beliefs...they need others to cosign them (and of course they'll scream loudly that they don't need any such thing, but then they'll prattle on with their subjective reasoning.) When any group gets loud enough about wanting others to bend to their will (which of course they say is god's will - as if they really know this), it creeps into politics where it affects everyone, and that's just not right.
I agree. Unfortunately, it's hard to get large groups of people (nationwide/worldwide sized) to agree what the goal should be. It's doubly hard when small groups wish to taint the large group with subjectivism. But that's my point in a nutshell, isn't it?
I am very curious, what was the goal of the 60 people?
Bingo, give the man a cigar (and not one of those cheap, crappy ones either - assuming, of course, you do like a cigar).
But seriously, I see this as one of the biggest problems in the world today. Faith is, as you said, and as far as I'm concerned, supposed to be personal, private and individual. Shouting from the pulpits is fine because the audience already believes the message. In a recent post (here: http://roylevosh.joeuser.com/article/309961/Soap) RoyLevosh quoted Anthony De Mello as saying "My experience is that it's precisely the ones who don't know what to do with this life who are all hot and bothered about what they are going to do with another life". I think for a man who dedicated his life to religion, this is a particularly profound thing to say. There is a lesson for all of us in these words.
I was talking with my wife about this last night. When I mentioned your idea of 'working together' and my common goal comment, she said "oh, you mean something like Global Warming?" As I said, the problem with this is some believe it and some don't and some don't want to believe it and some don't care. I was a bit surprised she thought of a negative rather than a positive as an example but the reality is it will probably be something devasting that will bring us all together rather than something positive.
It was a large Revenue service for a public hospital. I know it doesn't sound glamourous (and it wasn't) but we all worked hard along side each other for long hours. And we all got on very well.
A little off-topic, I know, but I couldn't resist sharing my favourite De Mello quote: "I'm going to write a book someday and the title will be I'm an Ass, You're an Ass. That's the most liberating, wonderful thing in the world, when you openly admit you're an ass. It's wonderful. When people tell me, "You're wrong." I say, "What can you expect of an ass?"
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
