rechord the melodies

I am greatly puzzled as to why people desire to argue so much about everything under the sun, particularly about sensitive religious issues. Most of the time, nothing good ever comes out of it. What results instead are both parties going away huffing puffing mad with stronger conviction regarding their POV. Perhaps people find it attractive to have intellectual sparring regarding grey areas because it makes life interesting, but frankly, i think it is rather stupid.

For two parties to engage actively in whatever topic, it would require a strong belief or interest in that topic for you to have done sufficient reading to hold up your own in that conversation. This then leads to an intellectual(?) face-off from which a consensus is rarely made. This is incredibly stupid because both sides are probably dogmatic about their views and while they may be willing to accept some of your points, they usually would not adopt your perspective straightaway.

This problem gets worse regarding religious issues. There’s a reason why they are usually sensitive. Just an example- compare a discussion for cloning between two non-believing (of any faith) academics. It would be a simple cloning has its benefits but it also has demerits and there will then be a weighing of whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages or not. In the same discussion between an unbeliever and a person with a strong conviction in a faith, a moral dimension is added in, during which the believer would quote cloning as ‘playing God’ and interfering with intelligent design so on and so forth. The discussion would, for the believer, transform from a harmless intellectual debate into a personal attack on his belief system. Sometimes, he may get emotional, even irrational, such that the other party wins by default because this person, whose worldview is being challenged, is losing his edge. Does any good arise from this?

Quite obviously not. No consensus can be arrived at regarding such issues as both parties’ worldviews are fundamentally different. Seriously, if you believe in a higher being(s) and consequentially an after-life, you do things quite differently, you do it in reverence, out of worship, fear of consequences etc. The believer would probably dismiss the unbeliever’s argument on the basis that he does not have enlightenment. An unbeliever, be they free-thinkers, agnostics, atheists, has an entirely different worldview where there are doubts of the existence of a higher being(s), and thus regard the argument of a believer as being irrational or impractical for real issues such as cloning. It is really quite similar to why the Cold War broke out- an ideological rift, in which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to communism; capitalism involves the use of market mechanism which will lead to income disequalities and this is unacceptable in communism which believes in a classless society. This ideological rift led to mutual antagonism, aided by a history of mutual mistrust, eventually resulting in the outbreak of the Cold War.

[edit:] In the same way, believers and non-believers can and would behave in a manner that may appear offensive to the other party, but this cannot be helped due to the completely different worldviews that are intrinsic to each belief system. Solutions are needed, but they are not often readily accepted. Racial and religious harmony is that important, but it can only come about through more knowledge, and thus more understanding about the different value systems. Not everybody is ready to do that, and the lack of understanding often leads to (irrational?) fear, which could possibly lead to actions which antagonize the other party further and on goes the vicious cycle.

Sure, a compromise can be reached, resulting in a new school of thought like theistic evolution. Yet this does not satisfy, seen rather obviously from the number of people subscribing to theistic evolution.

This post is really a result of a discussion i had with a friend regarding whether Israel had a right to exist. He thought they did not have the right to exist on Palestinian soil because it was won through underhanded means. He used a modern historical perspective and a socio-political argument. Me? I believe that the Israelis have a moral right to the land, after centuries of Israelite diaspora. Sure, I disagree with the ungodly methods with which they conduct affairs, but this does not change my belief that they are meant to possess that land only because God has allowed it to happen (think, Jews-God’s people. going into the Promised Land).

An unbeliever would argue that my God is an unreasonable God who is being unfair. I say, God is God, He has the power to do whatever He sees fit to do, and I am nothing to go against my God. As much as I’d like to bring up the great and wonderful deeds that the Lord has done, I second the words of Pat Barker under the character of Wilfred Owen in Regeneration, that ‘I don’t think it’s possible to call yourself a Christian and just leave out the awkward bits.’ I myself do not understand why the unfair world works this way, but more knowledgeable Christians have taught me that it is due to sin and everything will work out in God’s own plan. I have yet to comprehend that, I doubt I ever will in this present life, and I question God, but I cannot dispute what He is doing, in the end I still stand on the side of my God. I admit that I am dogmatic regarding certain matters, and no amount of dissuasion will make me change my views, unless of course new information surfaces that allows me to question my own stand on issues. I then ought to know my limits and not try and impose my beliefs on others because I know that the other person has a mindset fundamentally different from mine and it is impossible to attune his beliefs to mine unless of course, there is divine intervention. I say this because I believe it.

I am sorry, I did truly start the post desiring to be objective.

P.S. – if I did not make the thrust of my post clear enough, I state here that I would not appreciate anyone who wants to pick an argument regarding this post, ok?