the clash of uncivilizations
of course religion isn't the same as civilization--unless you make it so, proclaim it so, and allow religion to direct every motion and artifact of that civilization. if this is the case, one might say that you have an anti-culture, or an anti-civilization. the clash between islam and christianity in nigeria provides an amazing petri dish for observing this phenomenon. it removes such a statement out of the realm of the politically incorrect, intolerant realm and places it it within a domain where the politically correct and the religionists might have to answer some serious questions. a population has lived side-by side (not without tribal conflict and economic strife, but still, side by side for the most part) since anybody can recall. while islam has been a part of the cultural landscape in nigeria for quite some time, the wildfire spread of christianity has now divided the country, quite literally, in half, from north to south. where the two meet, on that "border," violence and rioting is commonplace. resulting casualties run high. the chants through the streets are 'sharia' or 'no sharia.' folks are asked their religion and shot for giving the wrong answer. no folks, this ain't economics, this ain't poverty--this is religion, minus the Enlightenment. christians raid christian communites to attack and burn the houses of the few muslims. muslims raid muslim communities to burn the houses of the few christians remaining in their neighborhoods. it's like clockwork. it appears to obey some natural law--as dawkins says--like a virus. i'll concede, perhpas more than ever before that suicide bombing is a complex phenomenon, incorporating various realms of cultural experience. but this is just the pure stuff, no filler.
so many cliches come to mind...'the distance between ecstatic vision and violent zealotry is all to short' rings nicely here. what if we conducted a basic test--standard of living and civil liberty as it compares to religiosity in a given country? would we find that the most secular countries are the most impoverished, that they have the highest mortality rates and worst record of civil liberty? i don't know the real results (i would like to), but i doubt it. it's a kind of judge a person by actions, not words kind of thing. "but," the marxist or sociologist would say, "you forget that in these countries, people take refuge in religion because of the horrible living conditions forced on them." yes, yes, i know. but no good marxist ever seems to go that extra mile and explain why it was, then, that marx thought that, in order for a real revolution to take place, the people would have to shrug off religion. why was his political plan charged with secularism? because he knew that religion was keeping the people complacent--not only that is was keeping them complacent, but that it was a major TOOL of those who wanted to exploit those people for their own ends. it also taught them to value all the wrong things--things that would never be necessary for a real world change. is this not what we see today? crazed imams filling the heads of disenfranchised (sometimes disabled) youth so full of the qu'ran that they are willing to blow themselves up? the prositution of the living by god--fees to be paid in the afterlife...if only there was one...
religion is not a bottom-up worldview that starts with economics. classical marxists would say that everything starts in the material world--but that doesn't mean economics only. the brain is also a material entity. max weber knew this. he knew that people also created the world according to what they believe--that the brain could make the world as much as the world could make the brain. and this is why it is important to be less tolerant of the beliefs of certain people today. less tolerant of what they're putting in their brains, because it's ending up in the streets, leaving puddles of blood and charred flesh to show for itself.
and this goes back to the doubt, uncertainty, and virtual atheism of everybody on this planet. everybody knows, not too deep down, that they have no idea what happens after death or if there is or isn't a god. these wars and bonfires of hate just start to look like dramatic stagings of that argument you have with somebody who knows they've been caught in a lie. but instead of owning up, they argue more passionately and try to convince themselves that they're telling the truth while they're trying to convince you (hence the doubled effort). those people always argue with the most fervor and agression, all the while accusing you of being the hateful one.
people always point to buddhism as a religion that hs never caused much harm. sadly, buddhist superstition perpetuates some of the most foul states of life on the planet right now. it's the wrong question to try to answer. i have a better one: i'd just like to know who has ever waged a war in the name of the law of thermodynamics or the theory of general relativity? how many swords pierced how many chests? how many bullets in how many brains? is there a such thing as a biological fundamentalist? well, yes, that would be all of us. we take the observation of viruses, bacteria and genes to be 100% real verifiable truth to the letter (or number). nobody has to fight about it (unless there is a religionist somewhere whose power is being threatened by such a statement). strangely, when it comes to science, fundamentalism isn't too much of a problem because one of the fundamentals of science is self-criticism and the ability to modify one's conclusions according to new information. religion tries to wear this bage, but it does so reluctantly and wears it so clumsily that one is tempted to take it back. it's dishonest, really, all of this modernized, secularized post-Enlightenment religion. in nigeria, it's honest again. and its so, so ugly.
so many cliches come to mind...'the distance between ecstatic vision and violent zealotry is all to short' rings nicely here. what if we conducted a basic test--standard of living and civil liberty as it compares to religiosity in a given country? would we find that the most secular countries are the most impoverished, that they have the highest mortality rates and worst record of civil liberty? i don't know the real results (i would like to), but i doubt it. it's a kind of judge a person by actions, not words kind of thing. "but," the marxist or sociologist would say, "you forget that in these countries, people take refuge in religion because of the horrible living conditions forced on them." yes, yes, i know. but no good marxist ever seems to go that extra mile and explain why it was, then, that marx thought that, in order for a real revolution to take place, the people would have to shrug off religion. why was his political plan charged with secularism? because he knew that religion was keeping the people complacent--not only that is was keeping them complacent, but that it was a major TOOL of those who wanted to exploit those people for their own ends. it also taught them to value all the wrong things--things that would never be necessary for a real world change. is this not what we see today? crazed imams filling the heads of disenfranchised (sometimes disabled) youth so full of the qu'ran that they are willing to blow themselves up? the prositution of the living by god--fees to be paid in the afterlife...if only there was one...
religion is not a bottom-up worldview that starts with economics. classical marxists would say that everything starts in the material world--but that doesn't mean economics only. the brain is also a material entity. max weber knew this. he knew that people also created the world according to what they believe--that the brain could make the world as much as the world could make the brain. and this is why it is important to be less tolerant of the beliefs of certain people today. less tolerant of what they're putting in their brains, because it's ending up in the streets, leaving puddles of blood and charred flesh to show for itself.
and this goes back to the doubt, uncertainty, and virtual atheism of everybody on this planet. everybody knows, not too deep down, that they have no idea what happens after death or if there is or isn't a god. these wars and bonfires of hate just start to look like dramatic stagings of that argument you have with somebody who knows they've been caught in a lie. but instead of owning up, they argue more passionately and try to convince themselves that they're telling the truth while they're trying to convince you (hence the doubled effort). those people always argue with the most fervor and agression, all the while accusing you of being the hateful one.
people always point to buddhism as a religion that hs never caused much harm. sadly, buddhist superstition perpetuates some of the most foul states of life on the planet right now. it's the wrong question to try to answer. i have a better one: i'd just like to know who has ever waged a war in the name of the law of thermodynamics or the theory of general relativity? how many swords pierced how many chests? how many bullets in how many brains? is there a such thing as a biological fundamentalist? well, yes, that would be all of us. we take the observation of viruses, bacteria and genes to be 100% real verifiable truth to the letter (or number). nobody has to fight about it (unless there is a religionist somewhere whose power is being threatened by such a statement). strangely, when it comes to science, fundamentalism isn't too much of a problem because one of the fundamentals of science is self-criticism and the ability to modify one's conclusions according to new information. religion tries to wear this bage, but it does so reluctantly and wears it so clumsily that one is tempted to take it back. it's dishonest, really, all of this modernized, secularized post-Enlightenment religion. in nigeria, it's honest again. and its so, so ugly.