From: esti@quads.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin)
Subject: Re: religion and violence (was Re: Hindu-Muslim violence)
Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:29:58 GMT

Me:
>>I doubt that any cause has a monopoly on warfare, bloodshed, and
>>riots.  However, as I look over world history, it seems that the most
>>extreme and systematic violence has been carried out in the name of
>>some absolute cause, one that is its own justification. 
>>----[delete]--------
>>But personally, I don't make much distinction between such absolute
>>causes.  They all have one thing in common-- they are immune to
>>contrary arguments...................
>>
>>So, I go along with Alok...
>>>>Solution to avoid religious
>>>>bloodshed or riots is to try to understand each other's religion and faith
>>>>by means of dialogue and sharing, not by becoming an atheist.
>>
>>No one says it'll be easy, but the only alternative I see is eternal
>>warfare between incompatible groups, all convinced of their own
>>righteousness.  

In article <1992Dec13.220947.27453@athena.mit.edu>
tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:

> Having argued against all forms of absolutism in your post, Paul, aren't
> you also falling in the same trap here? - by agreeing that the only
> alternative to "understanding each other's faith by dialogue and sharing
> without being an atheist" is "eternal warfare between incompatible groups."
>
> Perhaps, reading between the lines you post, I would guess that you were
> attempting to emphasize "dialogue and understanding and mutual respect."
> Were you? If not, then I very much disagree.

T.Y, sorry I haven't replied before now... I've been buried this week
underneath finals and research work.  But, actually, there's not much
to say.  Your post was excellent, and I think I agree pretty much
right down the line.  Any misunderstandings were due, I think, to the
fact that I was not sufficiently clear in my previous post.
Nonetheless, I'm going to go ahead and blather anyway. :-)

Yes, I was attempting to stress the usefulnesss of taking a moderate
course, as opposed to taking a course which makes one feel
self-righteous but which escalates the violence.  No, I did not mean
to imply that there are only two alternatives, "eternal warfare
between incompatible groups" and "understanding each other's faith by
dialogue and sharing and without being an atheist".

First of all, it's the dialogue and openness that's key; atheism in
and of itself doesn't matter one way or the other.  I'm not arguing
*against* atheism by any means (I'm a skeptical agnostic myself-- on
the one hand I've never felt a need to *convince* myself there is no
God, but no Supreme Being plays a direct role in my life, either).
It's just that I don't think atheists have any lock on moral
superiority, any more than people of any given religion do.

Secondly, no, it's not that there is such a simple binary choice
between war and understanding.  I don't believe that it's possible to
name absolute rules which always hold, but I do think it's possible to
have some rules-of-thumb (heuristics) which generally hold if they
aren't pushed past the point of common sense.  "It's better to try to
be tolerant of someone rather than declare them evil and start a war"
would be one these heuristics. :-)

> I also argue and support safeguards against any form of "forced absolutism."
> Neither should god be forced down any one's throat/mind; nor should atheism
> be forced down any one's throat/mind. Each individual should be left to
> himself/herself to choose and decide, and enjoy consequences of their
> choice/decision.

As long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights, then as a
general rule, certainly.  (There are always some complications--
questions like "To what degree are parents allowed to indoctrinate
their kids?", "How can information be provided to people so that they
can make intelligent decisions on their own, without unduly biasing
them?", etc.)

> Dialogue is good if both parties want to have a dialogue. But sometimes
> dialogues lead to destruction - the death of Socrates after the historical
> dialogue, for example. Dialogues can easily fuel the spark/fire. Dialogue
> is not same as understanding. Dialogue is just the forum. Within
> the forum parties should be able to communicate. And understand each other.
> Communication is a rare art, and so is reason and good will. Now if faith
> is what is being discussed, well I really can't conceptualize that 
> communication and reason will prevail (For religions/faiths in particular
> build on the premiss of mere beliefs/non-reason). Therefore, in these 
> (and similar) situations - dialogues are not what peace needs. Peace 
> needs fundamental protection, like the way minorities are constitutionally
> protected here in USA. 

This is why I can't help but feel that I find "superior" a religion or
belief system which does not have as a fundamental tenet its
superiority and intolerance to other systems, to one that doesn't.
This is confusing in a way-- it sort of mixes absolutism with
relativism.  But all it really means is that I find superior, say,
some Tibetan monks who mind their own business to some Chinese
soldiers trying to kill them.  Now, in the real world, it's not always
this simple... do I have to wait until one group is actively hostile
to the other?  Do I have to figure out "who started it" before I can
believe either side to be more worthy of sympathy than the other?  And
so forth.  But "tolerating everything except intolerance" does work
well as a general heuristic, in my life.

> Furthermore, even if dialogue leads to understanding, this doesn't
> necessarily mean that mutual respect would be the final result. For example,
> I have had extended debates with socialists, but I don't respect socialism
> and socialists. I leave them alone, for sure, because they have every right
> to contrary beliefs. Much like the way Voltaire said - I do not respect what
> you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say that. To give
> you another example, if a hindu brahmin argues about why society should be 
> split into castes and why the chamaar (the untouchables) should be denied the
> opportunities for brahmins - atleast I would have extreme disrespect for the
> brahmin. Hypocrisy and irrationality can not be tolerated ad infinitum. Yes,
> the brahmin can go live his/her life - but I would refuse to interfere if 
> his life/health/peace goes down the tube. His life or death is meaningless to
> me. I have better things to enjoy and live for. Both, these examples are out
> of my life. I met such a brahmin about ten years ago near Delhi. So, I am not
> hypothesizing.

T.Y., how dare you actually give an example relevant to the newsgroup? :-)
Seriously, you make an excellent point, one with which I heartily agree.

> In summary, respect needs more than understanding which in turn needs more
> than dialogues. 

I didn't mean to imply it was everything "worked" so automatically..
just that in general it's well worth trying.

> Coming back to your alternative - "understand each other's faith by dialogue
> and sharing," seems nothing more than wishful to me, for reasons
> stated above.

Well, I was quoting Alok directly.  I'd've used different words myself.

> There are other alternatives. The one that has worked well here in US, is to
> separate the state and religion; and constitutionally protect the minorities
> of all types/reasons. Protection needs feasibility of force. I am reminded
> of the FBI sting in Montana with a white supermacist group recently. 

The U.S. was founded on concepts like these... which are really just
institutionalized versions of "tolerate everything except
intolerance".  Oh, certainly the U.S. (or anyone trying to follow this
rule) will fall short of the ideal goal, and there are lots of grey
areas (having a school "moment of silence for meditation or prayer"
seems pretty innocuous to me, but it was declared unconstitutional due
to the word "prayer"), but it's still a goal well worth striving for.

> Another more interesting solution seems to be the feasibility of free 
> migration all over the globe. Individuals who feel sick and tired of
> threat/culture of one place could move on to nations more compatible with
> their needs and beliefs. 

Hmm.  Interesting idea.  Certainly there are still economic
considerations, but aside from that I'd certainly have to agree on
principle, though it'd be interesting to see what would happen in
practice.  It always confused me when a country forbade some hated
minority from exiting the country, be it Huguenots from France, Jews
from USSR, or whatever.  Forcing all immigration to be accepted, on
the other hand, could be pretty chaotic.

> Another alternative that you seem to discount away is "atheism by choice." 
> This alternative has worked well for me. Having attempted to know what faith
> really means, having quized fathers/priests about the fundamental premisses 
> of religion, having understood what followers of different faiths have done
> to non-believers, having spent substantial effort to get to the roots...etc.
> I have found it but natural for myself to be an atheist. I now focus myself
> on questions, problems, challenges and journeys that begin with me as the
> starting point. I do something because I am curious and I want to do that.
> I don't need a faith to discover what is good. And I don't need a faith
> to be good. Being good is a genuine source of happiness. Questions are my
> only source, thought is my only means, and reason is my only absolute. The
> end, of course, is my happiness.
>
> But then, each human is unique. What works for me, may not work for you or
> for others. So, discover yourself. And do what you want to do.

Sorry to up the bandwidth by quoting T.Y.'s article in its entirety, but
that was really well-said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    _/_/_/  _/    _/    _/    _/_/    _/  _/ Paul Andrew Estin  313-994-3869
   _/      _/_/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/_/   U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology
  _/_/_/  _/  _/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/    _/     estin@csmil.umich.edu
     _/  _/    _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/_/   esti@midway.uchicago.edu
_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/ HoloMuck 128.135.120.46 5757