Bridging gaps

This blog is meant to reflect on how the world might move towards peace. However, a certain understanding needs to be reached to bridge the gap between followers of different faiths.

The classical, divinely inspired monotheistic faiths converge at source in that they emanate from one transcendental  Creator who reaches out to individuals, cultures and institutions at various times in human history and guides us forward spiritually and practically and confers meaning on our existence. This view, I maintain,  resides deep within the soul of the most holy, non-worldly people in all religions, the truly devout inner sanctum. My own faith in Christ as the source of  agape love and eternal life is strengthened by this recognition of God's omnipotence and omnipresence.

But there is one faith which does not converge at source with the others, because it has no divine wellspring: atheism. Here is a quote from River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins (1995), p.133

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if, at bottom, there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference ...DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [My italics.]

If what he says is true, no creature would be created able to form concepts of evil, goodness or pity. Maybe Dr D’s views have evolved in the intervening period. In his defence I can’t really believe that he would continue to have such a self contradictory model of reality. I know my own views have changed (hopefully for the better) over the decades and not all atheists subscribe to the above.

In the interests of progress towards mutual understanding – a necessary precondition for peace in the material world - could one of my atheist or humanist brothers enlighten me, as a Christian, on the current world view of the atheist/humanist belief system, or at least of their own particular denomination within it? 

There is no denying the conflict which exists between followers of different religions, even if one leaves atheism out of it. It is hardly surprising since churches, mosques and temples are filled with human beings of varying degrees of spiritual enlightenment. However, I would argue that the religions all spring from a reality which cannot be ignored without dire consequences for us all, that human beings are intrinsically spiritual.  If we try to delete religion from the human experience we cut ourselves off from the elevating truths of a greater reality and drift into the clutches of whatever demagogue (Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung in modern times, collectively responsible for some 100 million deaths) tries to fill the spiritual vacuum, particularly in times of crisis.

However, God is merciful and, I believe, wants us to do the best we can with the world he has given us and recognises that many have become blinded to God's existence by excessive reductionism,  pride in human progress and judgement from within  man-made moral matrices.

Atheists believe there is no Creator; but they do, like the believer, want to rid the world of war. I am hoping this blog will be one focal point by which these two broad camps can understand and respect each other, and so work together to make war and violent conflict no more than a bad memory.

Comments on past posts have come from friends and contacts directly by email and I welcome these; but would prefer them to use the ‘comments’ facility below. However you choose to respond your feedback is the main driver of this blog.

see also

Fighting fatalism

John

Author, 2077 AD

The malevolent minority

In front of me is a copy of the New Internationalist. It campaigns for a better world, one free of rapacious capitalism, insatiable consumerism, racial prejudice, exploitation of the vulnerable, and want of basic needs, with full human rights, freedom of speech and self expression for all. Worthy objectives which most would support.

 Yet to get to that stage we have to deal with the world as it is, recognising that all societies, not just our multinational capitalist system, are filled with imperfect human beings, and that among these are small groups led by people who most of us, especially  those living in the developing world, would call evil, or at least  of evil intent. Not only do they try to indoctrinate and exploit the downtrodden, but they wish to destroy democracy and threaten most of the gains, both material and intellectual, which have emerged from the Enlightenment. The human rights granted to citizens of western societies are seen as a weakness to be exploited in their mission of destruction. Were they to be successful they would replace democracy with a fascist dictatorship, calling it, for example, an 'Islamic' regime (an insult to the true followers of Islam).

Dangerous technology eventually, but inevitably, migrates out from government, university and commercial laboratories. If malevolent minorities can use suicide tactics and AK47s and the fear of innocent civilians to damage the society they hate, it is not difficult to imagine what they would do with powerful ordnance or biological agents at their disposal.

 Admittedly, some of this technology is unjustly used by the regimes which presently control it. But these regimes, even the worst of them, are accountable to their electorates or subjects as well as to global institutions such as the International Court of Justice (UN), European Court of Human Rights, the World Bank and the IMF.

Much is said about the colonial and imperial past of western nations, especially in the UK. That is history, although some exploitation continues and we have the freedom to reduce it. Today we have admirable aid efforts and try to raise the standard of living of countries we previously exploited. Even those exploitative times left legacies of democracy, education, medicine and infrastructure. All these achievements, past and present, are thwarted by tiny terror factions and endemic corruption.

In short, our western society has its faults; but it also permits us to acknowledge and atone for them by helping the developing nations.   To let it be destroyed would not only mean a long, brutal war but result in a dictatorial empire which would itself be unstable and which would involve yet another war.

The battle for justice and human decency is not, I maintain, between the developed and developing nations or  the rich and the poor, or capitalists and socialists, or green activists and climate change deniers, or Catholics and Protestants, or Sunnis and Shias, or Moslems and Hindus. It is between good and evil within each category. You know when good is winning, because good Catholics do not fight good Protestants, good Sunnis do not fight good Shias - good people of any religion, race, or political persuasion do not fight each other or those from any other group.

 Unfortunately, at present it is difficult to fight this battle in the radical, non-violent manner speculated upon in 2077 AD but for all our sakes it has to be won if humankind as we know it is to reach that not too distant time.

John

Author, 2077 AD

Reason: enough to stop war?

In the excellent publication BBC Wildlife  (wildlifemagazine@bbcmagazines.com)   I read a fascinating article called ‘Of Ants and War’ by Dr Rob Dunn (Dec 2010 issue, p.66 – 71).  This reports on the competition for limited resources between cooperative groups of ants, as observed by Bert Holldebler. It  involves violent death and mutual posturing to assess the enemy. Dr Dunn reports Hollberger as saying

‘Wherever you find highly cooperative societies, whether slime moulds, insects or primates (including humans) you will inevitably encounter discrimination and aggression against members of neighbouring societies.’

Then Dr Dunn goes on to say that in ants the tendency to often ferocious competition and wars is balanced by ritual dances etc. He concludes that we humans must use reason to hold back from conflict.  Given the ever growing evidence for intelligence in animals, together with the fact that reason is as likely to make us launch into war as to refrain from it (e.g. when we perceive we have a strategic advantage), what uniquely human attributes might make us freely choose peace even when we feel sure we would win?

 Click below to comment.

John

Author 2077 AD