A lot of people who hate Trump want to drive the bus off a cliff as a matter of principle. — T Clark

Well, maybe we would be done with Covid if Trump had not dismantled the department that was about preventing or at least controlling pandemics, and maybe the economic pain would have been much less if the pandemic had been handled properly from the beginning instead of having a President who denied science and lied to everyone, and is still the king of ignorance flooding our hospitals and requiring refrigerator trucks long after everyone should have been vaccinated. Nothing is more important to this thread than understanding the importance of science, and citizens who understand what science has to do with our survival and democracy. But with a president like Trump who appeals to our emotions but not our brains and a mass that does not understand logic and the difference between nonfiction and fiction or what science has to do with democracy, the challenge seems overwhelming.

We may, for example say factual claims about fictional works. For instance, Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 is a male and a party member, even though there is no Winston Smith in the actual world. — Manuel

That is a scary thought. That means talk of the gods is factual and that does not sit well with me. I do not think that is good logic. I think it is pretty important we distinguish between what is real and what is not and that is why I started this thread.

So, I think it can be seen that the West lost its Greek and Roman cultural heritage NOT because of the Church but because the Romans lost control of their Empire to Germanic barbarians. And the West began to translate Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, not because his works were not available in the Greek East, but because knowledge of Greek had been mostly lost in the West and because of the animosity between West and East. — Apollodorus

Pope Leo III did not like the idea of a female emperor, declared the throne vacant, and in 800 decided to crown Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. The Greeks who saw themselves as the rightful heirs of the Roman Empire protested and this developed into hostile relations between East and West. The conflict led to the East-West Schism of 1054 and the Western sacking of the Eastern capital Constantinople in 1204.

So, I think it can be seen that the West lost its Greek and Roman cultural heritage NOT because of the Church but because the Romans lost control of their Empire to Germanic barbarians. And the West began to translate Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, not because his works were not available in the Greek East, but because knowledge of Greek had been mostly lost in the West and because of the animosity between West and East. — Apollodorus

Oh yeah, the West did loose its Greek and Roman heritage, but it was regained during the renaissance and this ended the Dark Ages and we entered the Enlightenment and Age of Reason that was the beginning of modernization. And if that had not happened we would be as ignorant as people were in the Dark Ages, totally lacking even basic sanitation, throwing our waste into the streets, and burning witches and Jews when a well was polluted or a plague spread. Please, you are not arguing our better standard of living is because of Christianity, are you?

Well, if you have any evidence that Jesus and St Paul spread Christianity by force of arms, feel free to post it here. :smile: — Apollodorus

“I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! 50 I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

53 ‘Father will be divided against son
and son against father;
mother against daughter
and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.’ — Bible

He succeeded. Personally, I think that was a really awful thing to say.

I have enjoyed your post and I do not want to ruin that because we disagree about religion. But I am troubled that you are attacking one of the God Abraham religions and not all of them.

Solomon - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Solomon
According to the biblical account, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. The wives were described as foreign princesses, including Pharaoh's daughter and ... — wikipedia

That is just how people lived back in the day.

The South used the Bible to justify slavery just as the North used the Bible to argue God opposes slavery. How people interpret their holy books differs, and I see more agreements about the holy books as Christians argue with each Christians and Muslims argue with Muslims, and both of these religions have histories of division and killing each other.

All God of Abraham religions are patriarchal and follow a war god. To continue to think like that is just wrong but that is what many religious people do, and it doesn't matter which holy book they use as their explanation for life and moral judgment. Religion is not compatible with democracy and since the US stopped educating for good citizenship and the defense of democracy, as Thomas Jefferson thought education was essential to a strong Republic, we are no longer a strong Republic and do not have a strong culture for democracy. Please, one religion is not better than the other because they are all about a past that was horrible.

↪Athena So this is just yet another thread about god. And here was I thinking it might be interesting. — Banno

Oh no, this is a thread about democracy and the survival of humanity.

I don't see how the belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts is somehow a democratic principle. — T Clark

:gasp: You must be a citizen of the US or maybe a member of the Taliban in Afghanistan? What is your understanding of democracy if it is not understanding what reasoning has to do with democracy? Do you understand what freedom of speech has to do with democracy? Science gives us information that is essential to good moral judgment. The whole climate change discussion is about what has caused climate change and if we can and should do something to correct a manmade problem. There are political and economic and life and death ramifications, to understanding science and what behaviors will increase or decrease our shared problems.

↪Athena I think facts are what true propositions assert. So if the proposition "It is raining" is true, then that it is raining is what's being asserted. That is, it is a fact that it's raining. Not married to that analysis, but it sounds about right to me. — Bartricks

That sounds good to me. However, if we want to be precise we might clarify the time and place it is raining. Unless we are talking with someone in the same place at the same time. However, if you are talking to a child who does not want to wear a coat, it doesn't matter what you say. Just as if someone doesn't want to wear of mask or get a vaccine, it doesn't matter what you say. :lol:

I wasn't speaking about science when I gave my example about WWII, so I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in this part. It wasn't a scientific fact, but a historical one.

Faith is faith because it is based on belief alone, with little to no attention to facts. Science and religion in this sense are not compatible when describing the same situations. Sure, science is not sure proof, but nothing is. It's just that science is the best tool we have for ascertaining facts about the world.

Absent good evidence, we need good reasons to belief so and so. Philosophy can help us here. But if you want to speak about facts and how they relate to religion, I don't think one will get very far. — Manuel

I very much like your explanation. If I understand you correctly apples are not oranges. Some of what we say is factual and not everything we say is factual. If it is factual, there are proves of that, but if it is fictional there are no proves of what is said.

A fact is everything. Everything that is is a fact. That's a fact. A fact of life. Every thing is a fact. Evey fact is a thing. Undeniably, Falsifiably, confirmably, liably. Factual knowledge is knowledge about these things. For example: Hannover is written with two n's. — Donkeywelling

Is a story about a god walking in a garden with a man and woman and that this god cursed them because they ate a forbidden fruit, a fact? Please explain why the story is or is not a fact.

So some guy posts a video as to why and you suppose that is true for all eternity. Many a scientist was firmly convinced of many an error, why do you think your (or his) certainty creates facts where other people’s certainty failed to create facts before? — Ennui Elucidator

Because I have some understanding of scientific thinking.

Your post is not following the rules of a good argument. If you want to argue the man in the video is wrong, first you have to pay careful attention to what he said. Then you have to repeat what he said that you do not believe is true. Then you explain why you do not believe what he said is true. That I could be wrong or that mistakes have been made, is not a good argument against what the man in the video said.

And now of course it's neither what nor how, but what a great guy or girl you are. With exceptions: some people are just plain smart, and smart enough to recognize they'll have to row their own boat. And life itself, which can and does administer its own correctives. — tim wood

A smart person puts a motor on that boat. :rofl:

It would be nice if facts mattered, but they don’t. The wall pushes back until it doesn’t. Your assertion we can never walk through it is true until it isn’t. What was true is no longer true and what will be true has yet to be. Facts are not substance, but wispy things that evaporate the harder we look or the harder we try to hold them. (Go ahead, start with the block universe.) — Ennui Elucidator

If we can not walk through a wall, there is a reason for that being true and that truth is very unlikely to change. Here is a cute video explaining why we can not walk through a wall.

https://scienceswitch.com/2018/04/24/cannot-walk-through-walls/

If something can be confirmed as fact, explain how. — Yohan

It works like this- If someone says don't drink the water because it is polluted and if you drink it you will get sick and may die, and you observe that this is in fact what happens to the people who drink that water, you might agree the fact is true. Fortunately, nature is wise and kills the ignorant. We can see that with Covid. Our hospitals are so overwhelmed we have called in the National Gaurd to help and we have refrigerator trucks waiting to receive the dead bodies. Hopefully, this will also reduce the population who denies global warming and we can get on with the steps to respond to the reality of climate change.

Houellebecq coined it. I think it is supposed to refer to a large shift in the way a civilization views themselves and the world. — darthbarracuda

Now things may be making sense to me? My brain is overheated and I am going for a walk. I found a book on my shelf that will help me know more about Al-Ghzaile. Maybe I will know a little more when I return? Jeeze, I have been avoiding all this brain work and understanding why the Shia and Sunni are at odds with each other, but if this is connected to Aristotle and a metaphysic mutation, I MUST understand it.

"This is the dawning of the Angel Aquarius". :lol: That doesn't belong in this thread but maybe a thread about the New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. Sorry, my bad, but talk of a metaphysical mutation set this line of thinking off. I love not being too sure of what I know and realizing totally unexplored possibilities.

Some say the Mongolian invasion contributed to the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam, especially the sack of Baghdad in 1258 and the destruction of the library. It was also an internal movement to turn away from it it earlier by people like Al-Ghazali. — schopenhauer1

Wow, I think you get the prize for the best post of the day! I did not have this information but thanks to you I looked for it. :love:

Al-Ghazâlî (c.1056–1111) was one of the most prominent and influential philosophers, theologians, jurists, and mystics of Sunni Islam. He was active at a time when Sunni theology had just passed through its consolidation and entered a period of intense challenges from Shiite Ismâ’îlite theology and the Arabic tradition of Aristotelian philosophy (falsafa). Al-Ghazâlî understood the importance of falsafa and developed a complex response that rejected and condemned some of its teachings, while it also allowed him to accept and apply others. Al-Ghazâlî’s critique of twenty positions of falsafa in his Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahâfut al-falâsifa) is a significant landmark in the history of philosophy as it advances the nominalist critique of Aristotelian science developed later in 14th century Europe. On the Arabic and Muslim side al-Ghazâlî’s acceptance of demonstration (apodeixis) led to a much more refined and precise discourse on epistemology and a flowering of Aristotelian logics and metaphysics. — Stanford

I don't think complicated historical events can be broken down into monolithic stages like this. Metaphysical mutations don't seem like good explanations for historical events, IMO. The material basis (like advancements in trade technology) is what drives events; ideological changes are an effect, not the cause. It doesn't make any sense to me that one region of the planet progressed simply because the inhabitants started believing in something different. It just seems more like mythology than history. — darthbarracuda

What is a metaphysical mutation?

I am adding information I just came across because of Schopenhauer's post. I am still not sure of what metaphysical mutation means but understand it now seems important.

Sure. But (1) KKK and neo-Nazis are racist, not religious fundamentalist, (2) they are not supported by Western governments, or indeed, by the Western public, and (3) they do not attack Muslim countries. — Apollodorus

Oh dear, we don't usually disagree and I am uncomfortable with this. If the Southern government had made racist laws and protect racism as a way of life, there would not the Black pain and anger that we have today, and please, that was supported by Christianity and still is.

Yes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam are the same religion but with different cultural understandings of the God of Abraham religion. And discussing this could be a way to better judgment and even peace. We need to end the lies that have been very divisive and are behind the wars we have had.

However, there are times when our disagreements lead to me searching for more information and this piece of information seems very important to resolving a misunderstanding.

Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy
In Arabic, Aristotle was referred to by name as Aristutalis or, more frequently, Aristu, although when quoted he was often referred to by a sobriquet such as 'the wise man'. Aristotle was also generally known as the First Teacher. Following the initial reception of Hellenistic texts into Islamic thought in al-Kindi's time, al-Farabi rediscovered a 'purer' version in the tenth century. In an allusion to his dependence on Aristotle, al-Farabi was called the Second Teacher. Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes, was the last great Arabophone commentator on Aristotle, writing numerous treatises on his works. A careful examination of the Aristotelian works received by the Arabs indicates they were generally aware of the true Aristotle. Later, transmission of these works to Christian Europe allowed Aristotelianism to flourish in the scholastic period.

We should not take at face value the Islamic philosophers' claims that they were simply following Aristotle. The convention in Islamic philosophy is to state that one is repeating the wisdom of the past, thus covering over such originality as may exist. There was a tendency among Islamic philosophers to cite Aristotle as an authority in order to validate their own claims and ideas. — Muslim Philosophy

I do not think the Taliban was influenced by Aristotle. The condition of life for the Taliban does not promote a refined intellect. They are not seeing the more civilized aspects of their Holy Book because the conditions of their lives not supporting civilized living. This was also true of Christians who lived for holy wars, not the refinement of civilization.

I do not think the US would elect a person who was not Protestant or at least Catholic. I would go into shock if an atheist or even a deist, became our president. Christian domination in the US has questionable power of domination and not all of these people are knowingly and intentionally influenced by Aristotle, however, oddly many of them do embrace Neitzche and Hegel and the notion of national Protestanism. That is an ingredient of war and the Military-Industrial Complex and very bad decisions made in the Mid East.

Absolutely sure. Christianity started as a peaceful movement within the Roman Empire and spread peacefully and gradually through its teachings. — Apollodorus

:gasp: Are you being sarcastic or is that what you really believe. If that is what you believe we have read different books. What can people do when they believe different facts and do not agree about something as important as how the world came to be as it is today?

Citation, please. I can't find that.
This just one entry;
"ignorance (n.)
1200, "lack of wisdom or knowledge," from Old French ignorance (12c.), from Latin ignorantia "want of knowledge"

To ignore is an action. It appears that ignorance is at best a passion, or unawareness. But I agree that an ignorant person can indeed ignore. — tim wood

For me, what is important is if the person can perceive the necessary information or not. That is different from having the capability to perceive information and choosing to ignore it. I have checked dictionary definitions and they do not clarify that point. It is like everyone takes for granted our ability to receive knowledge.

Most of the time, I read what you all are saying, and it is over my head. I am a gifted idiot. I have a terrible time understanding what people are saying. I have college lectures produced by the Great Course company and I listen to them again and again and still do not receive the information that is given. I am not ignoring the information. I just can not understand it. It bounces off my brain like a rubber ball bounces off a wall. I know it would help if I were more intent on learning and wrote notes while listening to the lecture. It takes a lot of effort and energy to learn something, and often comprehending what you all are talking about seems totally beyond what I am capable of. You use the word "unawareness", we have to know something before we can learn more. But that is not intentionally ignoring the available information. That is the point I want to make. Along with the points I want to make about education in other threads.

Believing a holy book and not the science that is vital to the health of our nation, is an educational failure that comes with replacing liberal education (how to think) with education for technology (what to think) and leaving moral training (the ability to think) to the church.

Most simply, because beliefs can serve purposes that facts and truth do not. To my way of thinking, a person gets a pass on his or her beliefs because they're a kind of private property. Of course, as you note, the problems come when believers want to impose on others. And this not confined to religion. It's on display in a nearby thread on abortion. And politics is riddled with it.

Here's a variety of it in action.
"I'm always right"
"I believe X."
"X is therefore a fact."
"X is therefore true."
"Therefore pay me."

A powerful argument, with so much wrong with it that it is hard to refute, and the Kelly-Annes of the world thrive feeding on in it. — tim wood

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. THANK YOU :love:

But changes in usage are inexorable, usually to the side of increasing ignorance. Probably because ignorance is the easier way. — tim wood

I have to stress- the word ignorance means to ignore something. I do not think people intentionally ignore facts that mean we will survive or we won't. We will go to war, or we will not. We will allow scientific exploration of cells and ending birth defects or we will not. However, they may not have the thinking skills to do the required thinking. Learning how to think scientifically is a learned thinking ability not one that comes naturally just because we have a brain.

We can not change the way people in Afghanistan live without changing how they are taught to think. Let us be very clear about this- Our concern needs to be withhow people learn to think, not what they learn to think.

Facts cannot turn out the be false. — Banno

Determinism

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. — Oxford languages

But quantum physics has proven uncertainty. I think that is a fact that makes a previously accepted fact wrong.

What we believe here has social, religious, legal, and political ramifications. Those nations that centered on determinism were conservative and that hindered all forms of progress. I think the science and the results of the different beliefs prove we can determine our own future. However, all our decisions need to be based on the best reasoning possible because the human will has created a man-made reality and not all this is good.

But it can soon become quite complex, as when new evidence renders the proposition obsolete. Maybe a new fact comes about in which we'd have to conclude that the WWII ended in 1946 because of some technicality concerning some document arises. — Manuel

Oh no, that could not be because I was born a little over 9 months after the end of the war and my birth certificate says that year was 1946. However, I read something about when we figured out the year of Jesus's birth and the beginning of our calendar, that was 4 years off the actual date. So when we were figuring with the Mayan calendar the beginning of the new age we could not be sure of the correct date for that moment of transition. For reasons like this, I don't think we should say science is truth and assume there is no doubt that what believe is true. My very old logic book, explains we should never be too sure of what we think we know, and in fact. Unlike religious beliefs, in science, there are rules for determining facts and a belief can be changed with new information. The difference is religion is mythology and science is validated facts.

I like to address everyone who addresses me, but I might look like an egomaniac if I do that with so many replies so I am condensing. Some of you got, I am getting at the problem of religious conflicts, and the democratic belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts. We do not want religious wars and we do not want people treated badly for religious reasons, so when it comes to knowing God's truth, shouldn't we pay attention to what is a fact and what is not a fact?

My preacher nephew is glad when archeologists prove an event in the bible did happen, but he was not at all happy when a terribly bad time was revealed as a climate-caused event. I thought he would be happy about that proof, but no, he was mad because his belief system demands such things be the act of God, not nature. Okay, but he is glad when the ruins of a building prove an event in the bible happened. However, then I must point out, even though archeologists have evidence of Troy that does not prove the gods are real.

Help me on this. If we are going to make laws that affect everyone, and put people in penitentiaries to save their souls, and go to war because that is the will of God, shouldn't we have really good grounds for what we believe?

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

Yes, yes, and yes. How can anyone today believe a god walked in a garden with a man and a woman and this is the beginning of our history? If that story is accepted as factual, isn't there a problem with our thinking? Like before scientific thinking why wouldn't everyone believe that story? There was not a method for thinking that would clarify the story as a myth, not a fact. Democracy is about reasoning and that is only possible when our minds are prepared to think independently and scientifically, right?

How do you know your address? Presumably you remember it. And so on. — Banno

:lol: No I don't remember it. I look for an envelope that has my address on it.

How do you know it's true? That's an account to be given, imo - although there may be different means for different facts. — tim wood

aaha, you asked the second question. :grin:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

Thank you. I hope there are a few more definitions before I ask the next question.

True about Renaissance and philosophy. Philosophy was locked up in dogma until that point, for the most part. — schopenhauer1

Thank you and we should know the big, big difference was Aristotle and the Catholic church's Scholasticism that got philosophical and scientific thinking going. But even at this point, not much would have happened. The silk road lead to Europe replacing Roman numerals with Arabic (Indian) numbers which gave us the essential math to progress and also the technology of printing and making paper from China and that made it possible to make books that spread knowledge, including the Bible written in the languages people spoke so they read the Bible and determine truth for themselves. This was not so different from the forces that made Islam great, and it was what lead to democracy, not Christianity.

You are probably right in a sense. However, we shouldn't ignore the differences.

For example:

1. Christianity spread through persuasion, Islam spread through invasion and conquest.

2. There are very few (if any) Christian fundamentalist governments in the world, but many Muslim fundamentalist ones.

3. There are very few (if any) Christian terror organizations, but many Muslim ones.

4. Women are more likely to be oppressed and discriminated against in Muslim than in Christian countries, etc.

I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Of course some may argue that the US President is "just as good or as bad" as the head of the Taliban, but I think this is debatable. — Apollodorus

Are you sure Christianity was not spread by the sword? We might have read different accounts of history?

What were the steps of persuasion used? How about economic warfare?

Point two, yes, many countries have not modernized as the West did following the renaissance in Europe. And thanks to this discussion, I have been pondering how anyone could write a history book for the East that made them think democracy is their inheritance from the Greeks and Rome?

Point three, would you call the KKK a terrorist organization? How about the Nazis?

Point four,

The 15 states that did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1982 deadline were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. — ERA

And none of us had equal rights for that long. We sure can not applaud Christianity for our equal rights gains and protection from sexual predators because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are basically the same patriarchial religion.

"I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights." Yes, but that is what we gained through philosophy and conditions that lead to women having liberty, it is not because of religious differences. And can we keep in mind, at one time Isam was far more advanced than Christian Europe, and can we focus on why that was so? I think it is a mistake to think Christianity is better for democracy than Islam. If it had been for the renaissance and philosophy, we would not be a democracy and we would have protected freedom of speech and would not have liberty. Our failure to understand that and what it means to defend democracy in the classroom has us in deep trouble right.

Our president in the US was born a nation that began with liberal/classical education and had education to teach citizenship and defend democracy. We stopped that in 1958 and left moral training to the church. That was a huge mistake.

One more thing Kennedy and Biden were/are Catholic and that means universalism. Most US Presidents are Protestant and that means nationalism like the Christian Republic of Germany we defeated in two world wars and now resemble in many ways.

This is exactly the point that I have been trying to make :smile:

Of course fundamentalism, of any denomination, should be opposed. The question is, what can be done about it?

As I said, it is essential to understand how empires operate in order to understand how we got to this point. However, this is only the first step. The second step, which is equally important, is to understand the opponent.

For starters, we must avoid kidding ourselves and romanticizing Islam. The 7th century Arab is an outsider to what we call civilization, i.e., the urban civilization of Greece, Rome and Persia. He is at home in the Arabian desert whose barren expanse is only interrupted by scattered oases. But he is not content in the desert. For he has seen the unparalleled wealth and opulence of Christian Syria when traveling to the seasonal market at Damascus and the rich merchandise carried by the returning caravans which he and his comrades in arms have often raided. He has also heard of Constantinople, the “Great City of the Romans” (Rūmiyyat al-Kubra) “nothing like which was ever built, neither before nor after”.

Presumably, getting their hands on the gold and silver of Greece and Persia, and enslaving their populations, especially the women, was one of the motivations behind the Arab invasions. But the religious aspect of it should not be neglected.

Islam means submission to the will of God as supposedly revealed in the Koran.

Submission means Peace, non-submission means War or struggle between the forces of submission and the forces of rebellion.

Islamic Law (Sharia) divides the world into (1) areas of Peace or Islam, called the “House of Islam”, Dar al-Islam, where Islamic Law prevails, and (2) areas of War or Struggle, called the “House of War”, Dar al-Harb, where non-Islamic Law prevails.

The concepts of “House of Islam” and “House of War” do not appear to occur either in the Koran or in oral Hadith tradition. However, they were introduced by Muslim law-makers during the Muslim conquests and are part of Islamic Law.

Divisions of the world in Islam - Wikipedia

Presumably, Muslims who accept Islamic Law, also accept the division of the world into these two antagonistic camps, in which case it is not difficult to see why Muslim extremists see the existence of territories that are not subject to Islamic Law as a provocation and invitation, indeed obligation, to wage holy war or jihad against the “infidels.”

What compounds the problem is the Muslim belief that Islam was the original true religion that has been distorted by Jews and Christians whose current scriptures teach falsehoods and lead believers astray.

Clearly, the issue is more complex than it may seem.

So, can Islam be reformed? On the available evidence, I tend to doubt it. If we think about it, Christianity emerged within the evolved culture of Greece and Rome. In contrast, Islam had no comparable cultural background. It moderated itself for tactical reasons and through contact with other cultures. But it never reformed itself.

When external pressures force it to do so, Islam will stay within a certain range of moderation. But left on its own, its own inner logic will cause it to return to its unreformed and unmoderated roots.

This may be seen from the example of Pakistan. So long as it was part of British India, surrounded by Hindus, and dominated by European culture, it moderated itself for reasons of self-preservation. After Independence, when its main point of outside contact was Mecca in ultra-fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, it became more and more radical.

Education seems to be part of the problem. When you have millions of Muslim villagers with little or no education except what they are told by radical mullahs, then the outcome is entirely predictable. And, as we can see, there is a growing movement of opposition against Western education.

The name of the Islamist extremist organization "Boko Haram" (active in Niger and other African countries) literally means "Western education is forbidden" or "(Western) Book Forbidden," the only permitted book being the Koran. — Apollodorus

I see Christianity as just as good or bad as Islam. I hear about what is happening in Texas and wonder if are we coming to the end of our democracy because of Christian radicals? Texas is behind our conflicts with the mid-east and is no more tolerant of non Christian beliefs or racial differences than radical Muslims are tolerant of others. What do you think makes fundamentalist Christians different from fundamentalist Muslims? The Christian Mythology that takes credit for our democracy is no different from what you said about Muslims, and the power of that Christian mythology is the direct result of replacing liberal education with education for technology and leaving moral training to the church.

They might indeed. But it may equally be a cynical ploy to get the world to recognize their government and start pouring billions in aid into the coffers of their Islamic Emirate. — Apollodorus

That would be a terrible mistake for the reason TheMadFool mentioned. This conflict is as old as the Persain war with the Greeks. Any help the Taliban gets needs to remain in the control of those who provide the help. The Taliban must be kept in the position of beggars, until they are developed enough to be independent. I am putting that out there for the purpose of discussion, not because I am sure what I am thinking. But I would never give a teenager or young adult an unlimited credit and hope nothing goes wrong. In God or Allah we trust, must never be a supported belief! It must be very clear who is providing the needs of the people and what it takes to provide those needs. That is the East West difference. (until we come to Trump and then the East and West mentality is exactly the same.)

I don't know how to parse your recommendations. Some of them do sound like what a philosopher might say but I'm not certain whether it'll work or not. Are there any records of historical precedents? I mean that in the middle east and some mulsim southeast asian nations at least, rich philosophical traditions have been literally wiped off the face of the earth by Islam but the reverse has never happened. I'm doubtful that your well-meaning suggestions to improve the situation in Afghanistan will bear fruit.

Morever, the crux of the problem is this: The Taliban is about Islam, not Afghanistan. The west, on other hand, despite the possibility that it's just lip service, want Afghans to think hard and feel deeply about Afghanistan. That's all I have to say. — TheMadFool

Thank you, thank you. The answer to your question is yes. But until we share the same source of information I don't think anyone will believe me. At least over ten years of trying to convence people of the importance of education, have not gotten good results.

My source of information is several books on the history of education. I am sure many people in the forum would love these books, but you will not find them in a regular book store. However these books can be found on line- Textbook in the History of Education by Paul Monroe 1910 and A History of Education by James Mulhern. Then I have old gradeschool text books and other books about education. Or we can come to the same information through an explanation of Liberal Education coming out of the Age of Reason and what scientific thinking has to do with what makes the West different from the East. A difference that was the foundation of war between the Greeks and Persians and has never been resolved. Your last statement is exactly right.

Well, the Taliban aren't going to be just left with their own ideas. The neighboring countries and the Great Powers, even if not enthusiastically, will try to influence what will happen in Afghanistan. Hence they won't be left alone I think.

For example Vietnam didn't have it peaceful after the South collapsed and the country was unified. Then they had a border war with China and then intervened and overthrew the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Only afterwards it's been rather peaceful in that area of the World. even if South-East Asia has it's fair share of insurgents lurking in the jungles. — ssu

That gives a good perspective.

Can we agree on some truths?

While the Taliban and ISIS mean well, religious truths can not take the place of understanding how to run a government and economic system in the modern world. In the past when the Muslims were the middle man between East and West they had an advanced economic and bureaucratic system, the best for the time in history, but even if everyone remembered it, is that enough in today's world with the large populations dependent on many services such as clean water and sewage systems, a year round food supply, electricity, education for living with 21 century technology and employment?

Right now the Taliban can not pay wages, so the people are starving and many may die of starvation. Others will die if the medical system collapses and because these people have not been paid wages, the medical system is likely to collapse. An invading army can do only so much to enforce social order, but if people are dying, the invading army can not build a nation. Might the Taliban realize they bit off more than they can chew?

I don't wish to make the issue a game to be played without care or concern; if anyone insists its a game, so be it, but the consequences won't be a laughing matter. That's that.

There are two ways we can manage this. Either attempt some sorta unification of religions, politics, ideologies, etc. or just learn to accept our differences and agree to coexist peacefully i.e. stamp out diversity or embrace it. Which path the world chooses will decide the future of humanity. — TheMadFool

I am so sorry! I never meant to indicate I take all this lightly and it certainly is no game to me, but if we loose our sense of humor, there is no hope. I don't think there is any chance of sanity if we do not focus on reasoning. Number one to this goal is correcting the problem of literal thinking by using education to prepare people for abstract thinking. We need to teach people "how to think" and that is not education for technology. If everyone interpreting their holy book abstractly there would be hope of reasoning ending religious conflict.

However, we have all signs of the last days and this also needs to be addressed. People do not kill everyone around them when they need those people for labor. The US is not the only country overwhelmed by refugees. What we have today is overpopulation and our faith that technology makes it possible to continue overpopulating the earth is as bad as believing a god will protect us from the consequences of our bad judgment and bad actions. I am not sure we have a future if we do not have the right reasoning and education for technology will not bring us to good reasoning.

We had a chance in Afghanistan and we blew it because of our failure to understand the education that is essential for higher-order thinking skills, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for the higher-order thinking skills, and the teachers in Texas had to take Texas to the Supreme Court, to stop the leadership of Texas from teaching creationism as science. Texas supported Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush and using our military force to regain and maintain control of foreign oil, leading to the extreme division of the rich in poor, the powerful, and the powerless in the mid-east, which in turn leads to the fundamentalist fight against evil. There would not be the problem we have today, without the actions of the US. And this paragraph is trying to say too much. :cry: If people do not learn the higher-order thinking skills, which we could have taught the Afghanistanians when we were there, there is no hope. But it isn't only the mid-east fundamentalist who need to learn the higher-order thinking skills.

There may not be a global center for the whole Muslim ummah, but there are centers of radicalism that can be tackled if there is a political will to do so. And you can take counter-measures against the governments that support them.

Seeing that Muslims demand Islamic states for themselves, perhaps the solution would be for non-Muslims to demand their own states? China and India seem to already be doing this.

Otherwise, I think the conflict is bound to continue until one side defeats the other .... — Apollodorus

That means Armageddon because it is it is not just a branch of Islam that is fundamentalist and more than willing to enter war against the powers of evil. It is just as much an Evangelical Christian thing. These are the folks Bush appealed to when he assured the Brits that there would be no problem getting the US to show their "power and glory" in a war against Iraq. These are the same people who got Trump elected. I don't know what can be done about this Christian and Muslim fundamentalism but we can not correct the problem if we do not properly identify it.

I just got a better understanding that while the US is the center of Christian fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is the center of Muslim fundamentalism, and it never made sense to me that we made war on Afghanistan and then Iraq, but not Bin Laden's home Saudi Arabia.

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not agree on much, but Saudi Arabia may be an exception. She has deplored Saudi Arabia’s support for “radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.” He has called the Saudis “the world’s biggest funders of terrorism.” — Scott Shane

The center of this problematic brand of Islam is not so different from the fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who are well organized to get their man in the presidency and to use political means to make US laws conform with their literal interpretation of the Bible. These are the folks Bush was appealing to when he turned our war powers on Iraq and sanctioned torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. This was announced as our Power and Glory and Evanical Christians loved it. Why don't see the mentality is the same? Political powers using religion to enhance their power.

I don't think we should ignore that what is happening is driven by both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. The makes the center of the problem, not a geological location, but literal thinking and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Weapons of war can not kill this enemy.

They are not a nation, but many (especially the fundamentalists) see themselves as one world-wide Muslim community or ummah.

And they see Westerners exactly as we see them, i.e., as the "bad guys".

Additionally, though most Muslims are not terrorists, they do agree with Islamic Law. And the problem with Islamic Law is that it tends to become more and more oppressive in addition to encouraging extremism.

The terrorists' reasoning is that if 75% of Muslims want Sharia Law, then it is right for them to fight the 25% that do not. And this goes for non-Muslim countries too. If Muslims are a minority, this means that Islam is being "suppressed" and this situation needs to be redressed by creating a Muslim majority.

India is a good illustration. The Muslim minority in British India demanded their own state. In 1947, they got Pakistan and Bangladesh. But some Muslims chose to stay behind in India and now the fundamentalists among them (and those of Pakistan) demand that they be liberated from infidel "oppression".

As fundamentalism is popular with the uneducated masses (and even some of the educated classes), politicians tend to encourage it for their own agenda, and one wave of fundamentalism is followed by a more radical one, just as the Mujahedin were followed by the Taliban and the Taliban by al-Qaeda .... — Apollodorus

Where is the center of the Muslim world? Like attacking the Mormons may seem like a good thing to do but it would not change the power and influence of the United States. It is futile to attack something that is not a centralized power, but like an invasive species, impossible to get rid of and spreading everywhere.

I see Westerns as the bad guys. At one time the US had all the minerals and resources it needed, But England and France, and then Germany were spreading everywhere and competing to control world resources. Then they were united by world wars and where Britain began to loose power, the US stepped in. It is like the story of Athens and the Persian war, which caused Athens to developed a navy and then merchants and didn't want to give up spreading its power once it had a taste of it. Sparta slapped Athens down and then Roman became the dominant power, but thanks to Alexander the Great Hellenism was spread everywhere.

:lol: My time is up but I must comment about the fighting for what we believe is right. The Christian right seems to be winning the fight against abortion rights. There is talk of this uniting democrats who might come out in larger numbers and defend the right to have an abortion. Fighting for what gives our lives purpose and meaning is a wonderful thing. The problem is the rules for fighting. When we include military weapons in the fighting, the destructiveness can not be justified.

When it was. It's an interesting history just why it then went into the backwardness and only was abruptly awakened by Napoleon invading Egypt. But then it was too late and the Ottoman Empire was "the sick man of Europe". — ssu

When Europeans began sailing around the tip of Africa to reach China and India, it was the end of Islam's glory. The mid-east stopped being the all-important middle man that connected the East with the West. Also, the connection between East and West resulted in the renaissance, a reawakening of scientific thinking that made mankind more dependent on what could be learned and then do under his own power, instead of being dependent on a God. We returned to an explanation of nature being the cause, instead of everything being the will of a God. This radically changed the West and man's understanding of his position in the world, throwing the West into progressive motion and Islam into decline.

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

What data are you drawing this conclusion from? I said both patriarchy and matriarchy are made-up concepts based on an uneducated opinion regarding differences between genders. That neither is true or better than the other, it's just a concept made up by us through culture and religious biases, it has no valid grounds in science or psychology. — Christoffer

The first data would be the hormonal difference between males and females. Next is zoology a study of animal behaviors and physical reasons for them. Then anthropology and cross-cultural studies. Also, archeology and geology can give us important information. Where the climate is mild and it is easy to grow food, commonly there are signs of matriarchy and then a switch to patriarchy. Where life is hard and the main source of food comes from hunting, and where raiding and wars became common, there is patriarchy. I have read nothing of a patriarchy becoming matriarchal however, this might be happening today. Why? Because as in the valleys where the climate was mild and food was abundant, we once again are experiencing the good life of physical and food security.

How many women went with the men to burn the Blacks out of town, or were in the cloaked mob to linch a Black person? Women supported this behavior and at times instigated it, but I think the behavior is lead by men and those who engaged in that behavior were men. But if they were Bonobo instead of humans or chimps, it would be the females maintaining social control.

Christianity has been a force in the world of charity for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, christian charity has been marred by much controversy - I believe the donations were a cover for a more insidious objective, proselytizing. I'm sure that there are huge benefits in being/becoming christian but I was under the impression they were of the spiritual and moral nature, not monetary.

The USA's military capabilities are there for all to see. Which country has been/is ever ready to project power? Anytime, the USA doesn't get what it wants, it engages in gunboat diplomacy and saber rattling - read the headlines of news media for the past 60 years, you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Nevertheless, the USA is the world's only hope for peace and stability but...it's not the best option, it's the least worst.

As for communism, it's become some kind of bogey man, capitalist countries use to scare people into submitting to their demands and creed. Communism is dead! We don't need to dig up the rotting corpse of an old enemy to bring people in line. What we need to do is, in the absence of the red menace, overhaul the system that we've tolerated to counter Marxism. You know, like a soldier, who after a battle, tends to the demons inside him.

I don't know why I said what I said. Suffice it to say that these are not my own views but that of others which I offer as ponderables. — TheMadFool

Oh, I so want to argue against what you said just for the fun of it and I love your ending statement that clarifies we are playing with all these ideas is just fun. :love:

What if we could bring Islam and Christianity together? I know that is an insane idea considering neither religion can avoid division and fighting against each other, so there is not one Christianity or one Islam. And some of us are strongly opposed to both religions, but how can we be philosophical about all this and work on reasoning for peace? Instead of attempting to have peace through power? Ah, is this thread about Afghanistan or patriarchy versus matriarchy, and do we want to bring an end to rape culture, as in raping the earth as we rape each other? :lol:

I think my comment about communism was the bait switch. The threatening enemy was communism until the USSR fell, so we had to have a new enemy to do exactly what the US stood against from its very beginning, that is maintain its WWII military might and fight for global control. The new enemy became terrorists but that is very hard to defend and use to justify our military presence around the world. Who are the terrorist? They are not a nation and wars are against nations, not a handful of nuts cases. Oh, the terrorists are Muslims. You know those people who do not know God and follow his commandments and who are jealous of the US because God blesses the US and not them. Right there, that is proof of who God favors and it is the will of God that we control the resources of the world. But everyone can have religious freedom so we should not attack people for how they understand and worship God. Obviously, religious freedom makes us superior to Muslims and their notion of Shia law is threatening to us. cockco, cuckoo Can we call that reasoning? What is really happening? Is there are a philosophy that explains this insanity?

You guys are absolutely awesome! I am overwhelmed as I see this thread taking a whole different direction. I have been way too focused on the US, and feel as ignorant as a jackass at this moment. That map showing who is where and the explanation of different styles of occupation is a whole different subject and I am thrilled. How about starting a thread focusing on this jockeying to control world resources and the different styles of occupation and PM me. How can this be a philosophical subject or do we even need to try to be philosophical? Can we be just absolutely fascinating?

:lol: I don't think many citizens are aware of how their tax dollars are being spent and the global level politics. Just pick a political party or one issue and vote accordingly as though voting is about our petty human desires.