Reason vs. Religion

The Recent Nightclub Bombings in Bali Illustrate Just What the "War on Terror" Is Really About

On the night of Saturday, October 12--the second anniversary of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, a year, month, and day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, and mere days after terrorist attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and the Philippines--two car bombs detonated outside neighboring nightclubs on the island of Bali, triggering a third explosive planted inside, and killing nearly 200 people (the majority of whom were Australian tourists), injuring several others, and redirecting the focus of the war against terror to Indonesia.

Also on the night of Saturday, October 12, the following bands and DJs were playing and spinning at several of Seattle's rock and dance clubs from Re-bar to Rock Bottom: FCS North, Sing-Sing, DJ Greasy, Michiko, Super Furry Animals, Bill Frisell Quintet, the Vells, the Capillaries, the Swains, DJ Che, Redneck Girlfriend, Grunge, Violent Femmes, the Bangs, Better Than Ezra, the Briefs, Tami Hart, the Spitfires, Tullycraft, B-Mello, Cobra High, Randy Schlager, Bobby O, Venus Hum, MC Queen Lucky, Evan Blackstone, and the RC5, among many, many others.

This short list, taken semi-randomly from the pages of The Stranger's music calendar, is designed to illustrate a point that is both facile and essential to reckoning the effects of the Bali bombings. Many of you were at these shows, dancing, smoking, drinking, talking, flirting, kissing, groping, and presumably enjoying yourselves, much like the 180-plus tourists and revelers killed at the Sari Club and Paddy's Irish Pub in Bali. Though no group has come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, they were almost certainly the work of Muslim radicals launching the latest volley in the war against apostasy.

Whether the attacks turn out to have been the work of al Qaeda or one of the like-purposed, loosely connected, multicellular organizations that function in the region--groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah (an umbrella network that seeks a single Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore), the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council (led by the nefarious Abu Bakar Bashir), Laskar Jihad (which waged holy war on Christians in the Spice Islands before mysteriously disbanding two weeks ago), or the Islam Defenders Front (which makes frequent "sweeps" of bars and nightclubs, attacking non-Muslims, and violently guarding against "prostitution and other bad things")--will ultimately prove to be of little consequence. What matters is that the forces of Islamic fascism have struck again, in a characteristically cowardly, murderous, and yes, blasphemous fashion that must register as an affront to every living human with even a passing interest in freedom.

The facile part: It could have happened here, at any club in Seattle. It's a ludicrous thought, of course--at least as ludicrous as the thought of shutting the Space Needle down on New Year's Eve because some crazy terrorist was arrested at the Canadian border--but that doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't mean we should be looking over our shoulders and under our chairs every time we go to a show. It simply means that it could happen anywhere, because anywhere is exactly where rabid Islamists can find evidence of blasphemy against their precious, imaginary god.

Which brings us to the essential part: The Bali bombings were not an attack against Bali; they were an attack against humankind. In all the jawflap about the whys and wherefores of the multiple conflicts currently dotting our collective radar screen--the war against terror, the war on Iraq, the coming holy war, et al.--it seems worth restating (at the risk of sounding pious) that the war against basic human liberty, waged not by us but on us, is at the heart of the matter. Discourse has justifiably, necessarily turned to complexities of strategy, diplomacy, and consequences. The moral truth, however, remains agonizingly basic. We are still dealing with a small but indefatigable contingent of radicalized, militant absolutists who believe that every living being is accountable to the stricture of Shari'a, under penalty of death. As Salman Rushdie wrote, in an oft-cited Washington Post editorial, the fundamentalist faction is against, "to offer a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex." If these were fictional villains, you'd call them hyperbolic, not believable. But they aren't fictional. Their code would be laughable if it weren't so aggressively despicable.

As headlines about Bali cross-fade into news of North Korean nukes, and there are further debates about the finer points of Iraqi de- and restabilization, it's crucial to remember that there is, in fact, a very real enemy, with a very real will, and the very real power of delusional self-righteousness. How to remember? Consider the scene of the attacks (as reported by various Australian and European news sources):

It's a typical hot, sweaty, drunken, lascivious Saturday night. People, primarily young Aussie tourists from Melbourne, Geelong, Perth, and Adelaide, are crammed into the clubs, mixing it up, spilling out into the street. Rock band noises mix with techno music and innumerable voices as latecomers clamor to squeeze inside. Just after 11:00 p.m., a car bomb explodes outside of Paddy's, followed a few seconds later by a second blast that smashes the façade of the Sari Club and leaves a hole in the street a meter deep and 10 meters across. The second bomb is strong enough to damage buildings miles away. All at once, everything's on fire. People are incinerated. Cars go up in flames. Televisions explode. Ceilings collapse, trapping those still inside. Screams. Blistered, charred flesh. Disembodied limbs. Mangled bodies. Victims covered in blood. Inferno.

Now transpose this horrible, fiery mass murder from the seedy, alien lushness of Bali to, say, Pioneer Square, where clubs and bars are lined up in the same teeming proximity as the Sari and Paddy's in the "raunchy" Jalan Legian district, the busiest strip of nightlife in Kuta Beach. Imagine a car blowing up outside the Central Saloon and another, across the street at the New Orleans. Again, it seems too simple an equation, but the fact remains that the victims were not targeted at random, or for merely political purposes. They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.

There is an ongoing lie in the official governmental position on the war against terror, which bends over backwards to assure us that, in the words of our president, "we don't view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form." Clearly, in every sense, this is a war of religion, whether it's declared as such or not. And if it isn't, then it certainly should be. Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. This is the war our enemies are fighting. To pretend we're fighting any other--or worse, that this war is somehow not worth fighting, on all fronts--is to dishonor the innocent dead.

Why do you simultaneously argue that reason/religion is a false dichotomy AND that religion uses a method that is beyond the limits of ("human") reason?

Because they are not incompatible. Compare brute strength to reason, by imagining a man trying to move a bolder using his muscles only. The smarter man would utilize a lever ('If I had a long enough lever I could move the Earth" -- Archimedes.) Wouldn't the supplement of reason to strength work in harmony, not conflict, to make the impossible possible?
Well, as I and many others know it to be, faith works in harmony, not in conflict, with limited human reason, to accomplish things not possible by mere human reasoning and will alone. Because when you activate faith, yhou are able to begin to draw on the infinite strength and wisdom of our Creator. Does this mean that just having faith, or just having 'religion' will automatically transform you into some sort of superhuman? No, just as merely reading one book doesn't make you into an instant savant. But faith, once activated and nourished, slowly grows in one's heart and mind to transform one's life and reveal God's plan for life -- yours, mine and everyone's. God desires complete happiness for his children, but He doesn't just reveal himself to the demanding skeptic. You have to make an effort to know God. As Jesus said "Knock and the door will be opened". If you refuse to knock, you can't expect miracles and revelations to come pouring into your life. God did not create us to be passive beggars, but active participants in our own spiritual liberation. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of prophets and saints teaching mankind? Are we supposed to just wait for God to act, then blame Him when things go wrong in our lives and the world? That's passive religion, not real spirituality, as I see it.

faith works in harmony, not in conflict

You're confusing the coincidental use of concepts with their definitions. You may need to move a brush both up and down to paint a fence, but "up" and "down" and still opposite directions.

Back to the point, one may reason back and forth within the axioms of a religious belief, or of course employ sophistry in its defense, but noone yet has been able to use reason (you use "human" reason as if there are different brands) to conclusively demonstrate the necessity of their particular religious beliefs. And people almost never apply scientific falsifiablility to their religious beliefs, esp not Christians, since that demonstrates a LACK of faith--as in the NT story of Thomas.

The common denominator of most religions is faith--belief without the need for evidence, which may be refuted, or reason, which may be argued.

Anyway, you mean this in exactly the opposite way that I do. I am not a reductionist, just the opposite. I don't think you explain the nature of a thing by reducing it down to essence and being, it is the entirety of a thing as a whole. You cannot separate something's essence from its existence, that's just Platonism.

I don't understand your objection. Does this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Essence and Existence" describe your objection? I understand the argument up to possible and actualized essence but I don't understand the "nice point" (in bold).

The question agitated in the School arises at this point: What is the nature of the distinction that obtains between the physical essence and the existence of creatures? It is to be borne in mind that the controversy turns not upon a distinction between the merely possible essence and the same essence as actualized, and thus physically existent; but on the far different and extremely nice point as to the nature of the distinction to be drawn between the actualized and physically existent essence and its existence or actuality, by which it is existent in the physical order. That there is no such distinction in God is conceded by all. With regard to creatures, several opinions have been advanced. Many Thomists hold that a real distinction obtains here and that the essence and existence of creatures differ as different entities. Others, among them Dominicus Soto, Lepidi, etc., seem to prefer a distinction other than real. The Scotists, affirming their "formal distinction", which is neither precisely logical nor real, but practically equivalent to virtual, decide the point against a real distinction. Suarez, with many of his school, teaches that the distinction to be made is a logical one. The principal arguments in favour of the two chief views may be summarized as follows:
Thomists:
* If essence and existence were but one thing, we should be unable to conceive the one without conceiving the other. But we are as a fact able to conceive of essence by itself.
* If there be no real distinction between the two, then the essence is identical with the existence. But in God alone are these identical.
Suarez:
* A real physical essence is actual in the line of being and not merely possible. But this actuality must belong to it, as a physical essence; for it is, ex hypothesi, neither nothing nor merely possible, and the actuality of an essence is its existence. Cardinal Franselin cast the argument in this form: "Est omnino evidens in re positâ extra suas causas, in statu actualitatis, ne ratione quidem abstrahi posse formalem existentiam" (De Verbo Incarnato).
* It is inconceivable how the existence of a real or physical essence should differ from the essence of its existence.
These positions are maintained, not only by argument, but by reference to the authority and teaching of St. Thomas, as to whose genuine doctrine there is considerable difference of opinion and interpretation. It does not, however, appear to be a matter of great moment, as Soto remarks, whether one holds or rejects the doctrine of a real distinction between essence and existence, so long as the difference between God and His creatures is safe-guarded, in that existence is admitted to be of the essence of God and not of the essence of creatures. And this would seem to be sufficiently provided for even in the supposition that created essences are not distinct from their existences as one thing is from another, but as a thing from its mode.

What I was referring to was the entire Universe, taken as a Whole. The Big Picture.

Are you a monist? Pantheist? Save me some time here.

There is no separation between being and essence. The statement 'things do not exist by nature' has no meaning for me. To me, that is a contradiction in terms. Doesn't explain much for me in that regard.

Aristotle advanced the idea of "being in potency" and "being in act" to explain 'the problem of change.'

Thus, there are three principles necessary for change to take place. There must be something new that comes to be, something old that passes away, and something that stays the same throughout. In the Aristotelian tradition, these principles receive the names form, privation and matter. Form is what comes to be, privation is what passes away and matter is what stays the same throughout the change.

Robbins said that Rand's view was faulty because there must be something in the 'tabula rasa' mind of a newborn to structure the sensory experience or it could never be organized as concepts in the first place. Pure Kantianism, nothing new at all. The 'a priori' knowlegde without ever calling it as such. As a Kant critique I read noted, Kant attempted to logically prove that logic was invalid, thereby depriving him of the very reasoning he was using to make his case. This results in the deepest form of subjectivism.

Why do you say it wasn't called 'a priori' knowledge? No one is trying to hide their advocacy of a priori knowledge. And just because you point out that this is a reference to a priori knowledge does not refute the argument. You are begging the question here. As far as Kant trying to prove logic invalid, too bad for him. But that is not an argument against a priori knowledge either.

This word [faith] ceases to have any meaning. A concept is only as valuable as that which it represents, it denotes, and if a concept's definition becomes so muddy that it can mean anything anybody wants it to, then it means nothing. And no communication is possible.

I agree. That's why I posted a definition of the word in post 965. I'm willing to negotiate.

Go watch the Miracle Worker, or watch it again, and ask yourself why Helen Keller, with any 'a priori' knowledge she may have had, will all the sensory experience she had, with all the prayers in the world, with whatever you think is an a prior axiom to sensory experience, she remained an animal until she got that first concept stuffed in her head that represented a sensory experience. And she could only get that concept through sensory experience. It only took one, but once she had that, she could gain all the others. Refutes Kant, refutes Robbins, refutes you.

She had plenty of sensory experiences already stuffed in her head, as you noted. What is this "first concept" you are referring to? What do you mean by a representation of a sensory experience? Is that a memory, an abstraction, what? And what was the mental process she went through to distinguish it from the sensory experiences she had to date? Oh, but I forgot, there was no mental process (tabula rasa-remember?) until the first concept. What was so magical about the particular sensory experience that kick started her mind? Was it a gift from the god of sensory perception?

The devil is in the details. Roll it back into the shop, the engine won't start.

You do believe God is cruel and arbitrary. He was from the very beginning. It has always been so. Jehovah has always been a real cruel dude.

Mind elaborating on what you call cruel and arbitrary.

Or sacrificing an innocent man? What is more arbitrary than that? It isn't me who had been influenced here.

You mean allowing His son to be sacrificed by the masses in order to redeem the masses. Ah, yes, so cruel to redeam all of mankind through His son.. Cruel to save all of us and Him too, right?

I covered this in a thread elsewhere on the witch accusations that took place all through the Middle Ages. Christians did exactly that, only for different reasons. Women and children were burned at the stake in 'sacrifice' only they didn't call it that. The rational doesn't matter, only the fact. And today, every time you read a story about some fanatic who starves a child, or refuses medical treatment for a child, based upon faith, put it in the same category as that 'sacrifice.' It is no different. It is death based upon irrational beliefs.

Wow, Islam has radical nutcases and Christianity has a bunch of pretenders - pretenders at Christianity. Are you amazed? Tell me, what do you call it when people say they believe one thing, yet do another? More to the point, if a mobster wears a NYC police uniform and badge on a heist, is he a cop or a mobster? Let's look at what Christ said about Taking to the sword:

Matthew 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. [52] Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. [53] Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? [54] But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Then of course there is what Paul said: Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." These are both from the New covenant - the books of the NT which is what we operate under. So what religion were the Roman Catholics and "protestants" practicing? Don't forget, Roman Catholics had been putting people to death dating back before the inquisitions or for at least 600-700 years straight - no minor mistake. Who were they following? Christianity is following Christ. They weren't following His teaching, so who is it they were following and what is their religion? You tell me. I might add that this is just one point in which they were not following Christ. If I gave a list it would require me to write a book right here. Protestants have largely been no better. If you are going to judge Christians on message, judge actual Christians why don't you. I'm sure Ford automotive wouldn't appreciate taking flak for an error made by Whirlpool or Fiat.

"Sounds like you've skimmed my writings"

I did only read the last 100 or so posts, so it was ,I'm sure, only a portion of the thread. When drawing conclusions about someones belief system we have a tendency to compare it to our own, 'cause lets face it, there all different, and if they don't agree, we often feel attacked and attempt to defend it.
I have no idea obviously what you believe in or don't for that matter. What I have a hard time understanding though, is atheism.
If i didn't believe in God, and an afterlife, then we would be just animals, and anything goes. We are not all created equal. Murder, theft, rape, molestation are ok. The law of survival of the fittist is the only law, and do what ever 'feels good'.
Humanism is a belief system created by atheist to keep the masses in line. Its core beliefs are that we are all equal, and that crimes against humanity, ie; murder, theft,etc. are bad. But, by whose standard, and based on what, the teachings of Hamurabi, Moses, Plato, Buhda, Christ, Confusius, Stalin? That's horses88t.
Whether, God created man or man created god, is yet to be proven to many, but my life experiences have shown me things that science and mans current level of understanding can't explain. Real miracles, no other explanation, period.
Maybe they'll come up with some understanding in the future, but I'm not taking any chances.

"It's funny (peculiar) though, as I was reading your post I thought to myself, this sounds like a pastor. "

I'm not a pastor, just a dumbass follower of the Church of Rome. My outlook on the spiritual stages of man won't apply to all. Just that I have made observations on my own life and others around me. I was an un-confessed atheist, in my twenties. In my thirties, I came to realise, with the recognition of the finality of life, that there has to be something more.
What that is, not sure, but my catholic up-bringing seems to have many answers, not all, but many.
I suspect from your post that you had a nun as a teacher in your youth as well. I will take the liberty to assume from your writings that perhaps you went through some of the stages I described in my post. That you experinced the stage of looking for meaning to life. I cannot determine if you've found what it was you were/are looking for (I believe we look for some peace of mind).
Am I closer to understanding your background at least yet?
This has been interesting, I've only discovered this website recently, and it has been very stimulating mentally. Being from NJ makes it hard to have any type of intelligent conversation with the overabundance of liberals.
Laugh when ya can!

"I do get tired explaining the same stuff over and over,so sorry if I sound strident. "

No, let me apologise for not having read the 1000 posts prior to posting you.

"Because if I say that cannabalism is 'good' then it is 'good' for someone to eat me. That is not 'reasonable.' "

Sure it is, I'm larger than most other men, and more intelligent than most. Superior, in an atheistic world. Its up to me to defend myself from others trying to eat me.

"Now if you are like everybody else you will conflate the 'ideal' of 'goodness' and mix that up with the actual practice in reality, which cannot be perfect, as nothing in reality is. "

I agree that reality is not perfect.

Do other animals feel fear? I watch my dog, she gets frightened by the thunder, and comes to me for comfort. Fear is not 'good'. Zebras are afraid of lions, not a 'good' thing for the zebra. Zebras can kick a lion in the head resulting in another 'non-good', death. Cake tastes 'good'. Cake is expensive and fattening, 'non-good'. Thats what I take as your meaning of the word good in this post. Thats all a matter of semantics.

Does this mean the lion shouldn't eat the zebra? Should I do as Marie Antionette suggested and only 'eat cake'. Of course not, because by not eating the zebre, the lion faces an even worse 'non-good', starvation. By eating nothing but cake, I face a 'non-good', poverty and having to be airlifted out of my house by Jerry Springer. This is a reality.
On the same lines, lets say the taste of human flesh is 'good'. The 'non-good' side to this; get caught by others, who in modern society, aren't out to eat me, but to imprison me. The 'good' side, the taste of flesh, may out way the risk.
Good(ness) and evil are conceptual, being in that side of the mind that can conceive art and music. We as humans are the only creatures who can conceptualise. (There are those that will argue against this with examples of certain birds that sing and apes in captivity who draw and speak, but it's all pavlovian.) Where these concepts come from doesn't matter for my point.
It is agreed by all (christian to atheist) that canibalism is conceptually evil in a modern society. But what of the tribes in New Guinea that still are proported to practice it? Is there concept of good faulted? By whose standard?
The bigger stronger smarter tribes survive. They can reason, that everyone has the same 'right' not to be eaten, But choose to see it differntly than us.

You suggest that others have a "right not to be eaten", By what standard do you define the concept of a 'right'?

I get them (my concepts) from christianity. It works for me, and modern western society is built upon judeo/christian moralty. So, I think you would agree, it works for you to. In a sense, you would be a christian.

I'm not trying to convice you of anything, but did I conflate your posting? I like being underestimated, it is a strength.
Take time to laugh!

Wait, wait. No you are saying all is not our DNA. Before you admitted that we can indeed suppress our inclinations. So where does this 'suppressing of inclinations' come from then?

Neurons firing. We got neurons so that we could make choices appropriate to whatever environment we found. Earthworms have them, and they make choices with them, including especially, choices to move to another environment.

You have discounted DNA and the environment just does not cut it as the suppressor.

Hmmpf! "suppressor" eh? Use more straightforward discriptives, and perhaps you won't be led so easily into laughable positions. The environment worked fine as a way to develop neurons. Ours are so cool that they can conceive of environments that don't exist, and work for them. Other creatures do that as well, but we do it better, up to and including inventing entire imaginary universes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.