Rational Thread

[NoJo]

I share R Richard's "it's all about money" cynicism about the suicide bombers -- although I think it's actually about power. It's an almost universal metonymy that Money is Power (but is it actually true?)

I posted here on the day after the bombs, when we learned that they were planted by British born men, that, contrary to my original opinion, Britain will probably now experience an anti Islamic backlash.

I sincerely hope this will stir people out of their complacency about the myth of the harmonious “British multicultural society”.

I see the diverse organized religions here not as something to be proud of, but as an unavoidable problem in British society. It's only the fact that it's impractical to abolish them that stops me from suggesting it. Communism failed, and along with it, the hopes of rationalists and social planners everywhere. Society has to accommodate irrationality. But it certainly ought not to condone it -- Irrational people can be persuaded to blow themselves up on trains and buses.

When I saw the results of the annual Gallup poll on US people's opinions on evolution in last week's New Scientist, I reacted with almost as much shock as when I heard about the bombs three miles from my home: Only 13% of US citizens believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

There will always be enough young irrational people with suicidal tendencies to provide the financers of terrorism with a supply of bomb-fodder.

 

[shereads]

When I saw the results of the annual Gallup poll on US people's opinions on evolution in last week's New Scientist, I reacted with almost as much shock as when I heard about the bombs three miles from my home: Only 13% of US citizens believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

Maybe part of that 87% were agnostics, hedging their bets. What if God not only exists but is on the board of the Gallup company? Would it be rational to insult him?



Edited to add: There could also be some agnostics, like me, who aren't sure previous life forms were less advanced.

 

[neonlyte]

I'm not sure I can entirely share in the 'it's all about money' cynicism, though I understand the point and can relate to it, even personally. I can see the desperation that might drive an impoverished alienated soul to contemplate the unimaginable knowing his or her family will be financially taken care of - not that I in any way condone such action. I can't imagine those individuals equate Money and Power, I believe that is the realm of those who motivate such individuals.

In the British sphere, it is difficult to believe money had any motivating hand and this is where my greatest fear lies. If the individuals were true ideologues and undertook this desperate deed in the name of Faith, the nation has much to fear and the papered over cracks of British Multiculturalism may soon be exposed.

I've never shared this idea of a multicultural British society, we are polarised on every front, Religion, Politics, Class, Ethnicity and Culturally. Multiculturalism is a mirage as anyone who understands British society should admit. We co-exist alongside minorities because 'we - white Anglo-Saxon British' hold economic power over the minorities, in this sense, Money is Power.
In recent months I've visited Norway, Ireland and Poland whilst living between Portugal and the UK. The country that disturbs me most is the UK. I'm uncomfortable with and for England (not the other British enclaves).

I'm uncomfortable in London because a screen seems to have been drawn between the Anglo-Saxons and the rest; the divide is evident for example in the British Museum. Look who works there and determine their creed, predominately white Anglo-Saxons run the bookshops, information desks, guided tours and security, predominately Blacks and White Immigrant workers runs the cafes, the cleaning and staff the toilets.

Go to the National Theatre, a predominately white Anglo-Saxon preserve for entertainment, and it is similarly staffed. It all speaks of an attitude of mind, an unconscious division of entitlement and association.

There are places in London where it unsafe for a white person to enter, anyone who wants to test this should try driving into Lynne Way in Church End, Harlesden, you will be surrounded by black youths carrying baseball bats in seconds and there is virtually no escape as all the roads, bar the one you entered on, are cul-de-sacs. Harlesden is the murder capital of Britain, yet virtually nothing is done to end this tyranny because stamping down will engender street riots.

In Poland, I saw no Negroid are dark skinned people, there are plenty of white skinned Asians. I asked Polish friends about this and was simply told they don't come here, no one would employ them.

In Ireland, I saw one dark skinned person in Cork, yet many white skinned Europeans live, work and run businesses in Ireland. In the B&B where I was staying an American woman asked me conspiratorially over breakfast if I'd seen any blacks, she came from Houston and couldn't adjust easily to the all white environment. The Irish people I'm working with gave me the same answer as the Poles, no one would employ them.

Norway on the other hand trips over itself to foster relationships with its immigrant communities, most are Vietnamese, Timorese and other Asian. It is as close to an integrated community as I have seen, though not every Norwegian agrees, it is to outside appearance as near to a classless society as can be imagined.

So Portugal. Some of my best friends are the most bigoted racists I've ever met, we argue continually over racial issues. They are of a generation, born in the 1950's. I'm filled with optimism when I walk the streets of Portugal because the youth of Portugal are well along the path of ethnic integration and there are far fewer problems here with black youths and education when compared to England. But the black kids parents do the menial jobs, work the kitchens, and the construction sites, only time will tell the opportunities available for their children to grow in the ranks of society.

For me that is where the problem lies when considering multiculturalism within a nation state. The Irish and Polish solution works, but you may not find it acceptable. The Norwegian solution works, but has its own distinct boundaries largely determined by population. The Portuguese solution appears to have a chance, but tensions may upset the balance before it comes anywhere near to fruition. And the British, here is a quote from the BBC website:

"Shahid Malik, one of Labour's Muslim MPs and probably the best placed among them by virtue of age to gauge the mood of younger generations, has said before there is a sense of double standards and injustice among some, particularly over foreign policy towards the Palestinians.

But he also says quite frankly there is a nervous reluctance among Muslim communities to admit extremism exists - much in the same way many white people cannot confront racism."

 

[shereads]

Explain again why suicide bombers would be primarily motivated by money. I suspect that murder-suicide and private suicide are motivated by an utter lack of hope. When a murder-suicide wipes out a family, or when a girl like my friend's lovely daughter takes her life in the most brutal way and forces her friends to witness her death, we don't look for a rational motive. We accept that something has happened that's beyond the understanding of anyone who doesn't experience life as a losing battle, and that there was sufficient anger to make the person want others to feel the pain.

The anger is irrational because its victims are people who have done no harm. The despair may be irrational as well, but no one who's been tempted to end his life and had to look long and hard for a reason not to, can doubt that it's a powerful motivation on its own.

I haven't heard a more rational solution to terrorism than Noah Chomsky's: stop participating in it. I don't expect it to catch on, though.

 

[SummerMorning]

I share R Richard's "it's all about money" cynicism about the suicide bombers -- although I think it's actually about power. It's an almost universal metonymy that Money is Power (but is it actually true?)

I posted here on the day after the bombs, when we learned that they were planted by British born men, that, contrary to my original opinion, Britain will probably now experience an anti Islamic backlash.

I sincerely hope this will stir people out of their complacency about the myth of the harmonious “British multicultural society”.

I see the diverse organized religions here not as something to be proud of, but as an unavoidable problem in British society. It's only the fact that it's impractical to abolish them that stops me from suggesting it. Communism failed, and along with it, the hopes of rationalists and social planners everywhere. Society has to accommodate irrationality. But it certainly ought not to condone it -- Irrational people can be persuaded to blow themselves up on trains and buses.

When I saw the results of the annual Gallup poll on US people's opinions on evolution in last week's New Scientist, I reacted with almost as much shock as when I heard about the bombs three miles from my home: Only 13% of US citizens believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

There will always be enough young irrational people with suicidal tendencies to provide the financers of terrorism with a supply of bomb-fodder.

"Gods yes - I saw that article too!" (pun with gods intended)

I believe rationality and social planning will come in its time. We just need better and more precise methods of social control. Then we shall make sure everybody will live nice, rational, normal lives. We'll be ruling them for their own good, seriously.

Alas Ozymandias. *sigh*

We humans are such monkeys.

 

[rgraham666]

Rationality alone is not enough. Reason is a linear, simple and either too slow or too quick a thing to be useful.

My favourite authour, John Ralston Saul has been writing on this theme for over a decade. His book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West covers the history of reason, and how often it fails.

His book, On Equilibrium is an attempt to discover what the important human traits are and more importantly how they must balance and support each other.

Reason alone, without the support of other human traits, ends up in the sterile, bland technocracy we now live in.

Faith without the balance of common sense ends up with people blowing themselves and innocents to pieces.

We, and our society, need all of our traits to survive and prosper. Once any one is exalted above all the others, the society fails and the individuals die or go mad.

 

[SummerMorning]

Noooo! The machine must rule, the animal must wither!

 

[rgraham666]

You will be assimilated.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When I saw the results of the annual Gallup poll on US people's opinions on evolution in last week's New Scientist, I reacted with almost as much shock as when I heard about the bombs three miles from my home: Only 13% of US citizens believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

There will always be enough young irrational people with suicidal tendencies to provide the financers of terrorism with a supply of bomb-fodder.

It's all in how you frame the question Joe. I consider myself to be a pretty rational person, but I also exercise a modicum of religious belief. I don't find evolution incompatable with Christianity as Evolution doesn't seek to explain how life came about, merely to explain the diversity of life we see.

But if you asked me the above question, I would have to disagree as well. You are basically not asking a person if he believes in evolution, you're asking if he/she believes in God. If you asked the same question, but deleted the phrase, God has no part in this process, I would say yes.

Polls can be misleading, because they are dependant on how you phrase the question among other things. 13% said yes. I am almost willing to bet that the percentage of americans who claim to be atheistic falls very close to the poll results or within it's margin of error.

 

[Kassiana]

The majority of people in the world believe in at least one deity.

The majority of people in the world do not commit crime, whether religion-based or otherwise.

You might want to remember that.

 

[R. Richard]

Explain again why suicide bombers would be primarily motivated by money. I suspect that murder-suicide and private suicide are motivated by an utter lack of hope. When a murder-suicide wipes out a family, or when a girl like my friend's lovely daughter takes her life in the most brutal way and forces her friends to witness her death, we don't look for a rational motive. We accept that something has happened that's beyond the understanding of anyone who doesn't experience life as a losing battle, and that there was sufficient anger to make the person want others to feel the pain.

shereads:
Suicide bombers are not, for the most part motivated by money. They are motivated by the people who run the suicide machine, the people above them in the organization. The people above the suicide bombers and the shock troops who try to kill others are motivated by money.

If you want to recruit suicide bombers or shock troops, you really need to have money. You walk through neighborhoods where hope has died and day to day existence is a real struggle. You spend a little cash and attract to you those who have lost all hope. You then casually point out to those either too stupid or too lacking in hope that there is a way that their families can prosper. Best of all, the targets can make this all happen while getting themselves right with god. All the target needs to do is kill him/her self, along with as many of "the enemy" as practical. "Become a holy warrior and solve not only your problems but those of your impoverished and suffering family!"

This is not theory, I have been on the ground in places where this sort of thing happens. The lower level people, the suicide bombers, are usually too stupid and or too hopeless to consider the results of their actions. The next levels up from the stupid and hopeless are motivated mostly by greed. The further up the terrorist tree you go, the motivation changes from just greed to greed AND power.

Those at the top of the terrorist tree care nothing for those below them, save as cannon fodder to use in a war on humanity.

JMNTHO.

 

[Pure]

update on the bombers

blog style-- informative

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2005/07/lootin-terrorists.html

 

[Op_Cit]

Only 13% of US citizens believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

What percentage of folks on this forum claim to be rational? How many are truly rational?

Personally, I think present day man has devolved from a higher form of life. Hey you don't see dogs running aroung saying, "Let me show you how to run the world." They've got us beat hands down when it comes to that particular form of stupidity.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The majority of people in the world believe in at least one deity.

The majority of people in the world do not commit crime, whether religion-based or otherwise.

You might want to remember that.

The majority of terrorists are Muslims.

The majority of suicide bombers are Muslim.

Generalities work in both directions and are thus, exceedingly dangerous.

 

[NoJo]

There is a trait in humans which terrifies me: The ability, even willingness, to forego reason, and blindly obey. The myth that reason is somehow antithetical to morality couldn’t be more wrong. Passion and fervour, usually religious or political fervour, are evils responsible for many of the atrocities in the world.

Most sickening of all is the myth of the "cold-hearted" scientist, a myth created in the 18th Century by proto-Fascist so-called "romantics", and perpetuated by booze-sozzled depressives and hypocritical Hollywood film-makers throughout the last century, many of them desperate to assimilate into American "God-fearing" society along with the European physicists they subverted.

The fundamental question of democracy has to be asked once more in Britain: To what extent do we want to sacrifice tolerance for security? To what extent are we prepared to tolerate hatred?

The Muslim community in Britain has been justifiably worried in the aftermath of the London bombings by the four cricket-playing Leeds United supporters. These were not starving men, or vigilantes like the suicide bombers of the Warsaw Ghetto, rationally deciding their desperate course. They were probably just young men whose rational minds were corrupted by the invective of Quoran-quoting fanatics.

 

[Op_Cit]

They were probably just young men whose rational minds were corrupted by the invective of Quoran-quoting fanatics.

Now, hold on a second there...

Have you fully examined the possibility that their actions might have been completely rational? (OK, for those who don't get me, this is a serious question.) I'm not saying they were rational, but what I am offering is that they probably spent more time and effort examining their (future) action than 99.9999% of those people calling them irrational or fanatics.

It's possible that if you expand the scope of one's analyses, their actions may have in the long run the best effect. I'm not making that claim, I am questioning the average person's assumption that they themselves get it.

I'm the complete atheist here, and in my repeated examination of right and wrong, good and evil, I keep coming to the conclusion that there is a correlation. That "evil" is unexamined consequences. That is, most of what people find to be evil are actions for which the consequences are not fully considered. Effect from cause not fully extrapolated.

This is the basis for why I think humans are not yet truly intelligent, as true intelligence would go hand in hand with wisdom. Now, before anyone goes off on the inability of the human mind to extrapolate all the eventual effects of a butterfly... there are two sides to that simple wisdom: The more Taoish/Buddish side of things that tends to say don't undertake actions outside of your ability to control (or perceive the ultimate effects).

(As for corrupted thoughts... I haven't found anyone else around here that is not still corrupted by the invective of the Myth of the State.)

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I do not see the terrorist leaders as either Islamic or nationalistic. Quite simply, they are power players on the political field.

It is as true in the West as it is in the East, that such power players often resort to manipulating the mob through the use of religion and patriotism, because those are two of the handles on the machinery of power. Other handles are fear, bigotry, hatred, money, legal (as well as extralegal) intimidation, and death.

To the terrorist leader, the suicide bombers they can attract to their cause are the cannon fodder which every general must have in his army.

The dead have no more meaning than spent bullets. Soldiers are honoured, only to the extent that they can be used to work on the patriotism of the mass which the leader wishes to manipulate.

And that, too, is the same be it in the East or the West.


Whether a person actually believes in creationism (anybody’s creationism) or in evolution, has no weight in their considerations. Their interest in religion extends only so far as it is useful to move the masses that give their power legitimacy.

Were the terrorist leaders to learn that the only way they could hope to retain their popularity and power was be to urge Christianity on their people, no doubt they would.

Were the neocons to learn that the Religious Right had switched over to Libertarian causes, and would no longer support them, but that they (the neocons) could retain power only by espousing multicultural causes, neoconservatism would soon become another word for ecumenicalism.

(Please note that I do not mean the people. Somehow they always manage to hold on to their hates, fears, and bigotry for several generations after it has become counter productive — assuming it wasn’t always. I speak only of the leaders — East and West.)

 

[rgraham666]

Sub Joe, reason and ethics are not related phenomena. Rationality has been used for the most hideous of purposes. The Holocaust was a supremely rational act.

In the words of Northrop Frye, "It is a mistake to believe that only emotions can panic the mind."

 

[haldir]

Well, well, well.

So - money is the root of all evil.

Most terrorists are muslim.

Most suicide bombers are muslim.

All GI's/squaddies obey orders and kill when they are told to.

Can anyone tell me what the fuckin difference is? ( and please don't just tell me that soldiers are in the service of their country - fuckin think about it!).

Ghandi was right - passive resistance is the most powerful way to combat the strong and corrupt. instead of fighting back we should be saying "Is this it? Is this the promised Hell on Earth? Is this the best that you can do?".

True power lies in love and compassion - not in hatred and death. It's time we in the west grew up and grasped our inheritance.

Finally - as a point of historical record - most terrorists in the history of the world have been white and at least nominally christian.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Deleted because I have no objectivity on this subject.

 

[neonlyte]

The fundamental question of democracy has to be asked once more in Britain: To what extent do we want to sacrifice tolerance for security? To what extent are we prepared to tolerate hatred?

I suspect hatred is too often an unspoken truth masquerading as tolerance, certainly I believe this to be so in the Britain I experience, which I know may be unfamiliar to the Britain you inhabit - by this I mean, you Joe live in a multicultural environment, St Albans is largely an white christian environment where non-whites are 'tolerated'. We have to tolerate them because our taxi service is run exclusively by Muslims, some of whom are professionally qualified as scientists and physicists and cannot find any other employment.

Of course we don't believe the taxi drivers are making bombs in their garages, most will be outraged that Muslims may (this has not been confirmed to my knowledge) have been responsible for the London bombings, others will feel some degree of sympathy for the actions, it is in the nature of things.

In sacrificing tolerance for security we run the risk of further alienating minorities since vetting for security will commence with 'the obvious suspects'. We managed to alienate a whole generation of black youth with the 'stop and search' policy - I'm not keen to see that avenue re-opened, and how would you deal with cities like Bradford, Leeds, even Luton? With a haversack ban? No matter how good the security, the fanatic will still wield his sword - witness the Iraq suicide bombing today, 29 children blown to pieces and two US military killed whilst passing sweets to children at the opening of a water treatment plant.

I honestly don't know how you square the arguement on tolerance and security; Israel hasn't managed to bring the suicide bombers to heel and I would imagine most Israelis are more than aware of the potential for bombers in their midst.

The glib answer on tolerating hatred is not to tolerate it, but we all know that's a dud, hatred is the unspoken truth, few speak of their intolerance except within the safe environs of comrades, on both sides. But I would personally start with attacking the mediums that promote intolerance, they are not preaching a truth, they only serve to incite and polarise bigotry. I would personally start with closing down The Mail newspaper before tackling any minority media voicing intolerant views. It might show we are not afraid to tackle the problem head on.

 

[elsol]

I have to swing on the same vine as Colleen.

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

This is actually a 'Do you believe in God question FAR MORE than it is an evolution question?'

I believe God said "Let there be... Damn, I'm good! Did anybody see that... Oh! Hmm... I need witnesses!" but then again, I don't think we're the center of existence. I'm sure there's a slug somewhere in some star system in another galaxy that God prizes FAR ABOVE me.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[CharleyH]

Edited to add: There could also be some agnostics, like me, who aren't sure previous life forms were less advanced.

A Scientologist? :|

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I share R Richard's "it's all about money" cynicism about the suicide bombers -- although I think it's actually about power. It's an almost universal metonymy that Money is Power (but is it actually true?)

I posted here on the day after the bombs, when we learned that they were planted by British born men, that, contrary to my original opinion, Britain will probably now experience an anti Islamic backlash.

I sincerely hope this will stir people out of their complacency about the myth of the harmonious “British multicultural society”.

I see the diverse organized religions here not as something to be proud of, but as an unavoidable problem in British society. It's only the fact that it's impractical to abolish them that stops me from suggesting it. Communism failed, and along with it, the hopes of rationalists and social planners everywhere. Society has to accommodate irrationality. But it certainly ought not to condone it -- Irrational people can be persuaded to blow themselves up on trains and buses.

When I saw the results of the annual Gallup poll on US people's opinions on evolution in last week's New Scientist, I reacted with almost as much shock as when I heard about the bombs three miles from my home: Only 13% of US citizens believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part in this process". I'd imagine that most of the 87% who disagreed with this opinion would claim to be rational.

There will always be enough young irrational people with suicidal tendencies to provide the financers of terrorism with a supply of bomb-fodder.

My mind is split on this thread, Joe. I always thought you were one of the rational ones.

Maybe this was written sarcastically - I haven't been able to figure it out, but it certainly looks like it - and if that is the case, then kudos.

Otherwise, I just want to say I'm disappointed.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Have you fully examined the possibility that their actions might have been completely rational? . . . I'm not saying they were rational, but what I am offering is that they probably spent more time and effort examining their (future) action than 99.9999% of those people calling them irrational or fanatics.

It's possible that if you expand the scope of one's analyses, their actions may have in the long run the best effect. . . .

I have no doubt that each individual suicide bomber thought about the implications of his career choice before he signed on, at various times after that, and with increased regularity once assigned a target and the date in which to perform his particular office.

But thought alone does not lead to rationality. That thought must be based upon something more than an illusion. All religion (East & West) is based more upon illusion than objective observation, and so, is not a point from which rational actions may be reached.

On the one hand, most religions (East & West) offer a value system, and a set of arbitrarily imposed rules which, if followed, will keep their practitioner from following the more destructive paths which their life's journey might take them. Unfortunately, too man religious leaders (East & West) have corrupted the religion which they teach to manipulate their followers, in order to increase that leader’s earthly importance.

Neither followers end up following the tenets of their religion, nor does their meditation lead to rational acts.

Those acts can only be made to demonstrate rationality in light of the leader’s objectives, not the religion’s principles, not the follower’s concern for redemption.

. . . I'm sure there's a slug somewhere in some star system in another galaxy that God prizes FAR ABOVE me. . .

And why not?


The slimy trail that slug leaves in its wake eventually evaporates. Much of the worst crap that man leaves behind goes on forever.