Last Post

In class on Friday, I talked about how the stresses of modern life contribute to a sense of helplessness and "disconnected connectedness" many people feel.

I think this helps explain why people don't feel they can make a difference in the way the modern world is run. For all the talk of democracy and freedom, there is actually little any one person can do. People innately want to have some control over their circumstance, and, when they feel there is nothing they can do to change anything, they lose the desire to act. Oftentimes, they seek out unimportant "decisions" to make in their free time (e.g., TV, sports, video games, shopping, etc.) to give them the sense of control their "real" life apparently lacks.

I think this going to be my last post for CIE200.

Take care everyone!

More Global Warming

I've been thinking about what it would take to make any progress in solving the problem of global warming.

Eventually, we will run out of readily accessible fossil fuels and be forced to find new sources of energy or regress technologically. One way or another, the problem of global warming will be solved: either soon with legislation designed to motivate people to behave for the greater good or much later by sheer necessity.

As optimistic as I want to be, I am inclined to believe that people (and leaders) will not act in any powerful way unless necessity compels them.

Americans especially just do not believe any steps to at least mitigate the problem are politically or economically feasible or even warranted. As untrue as it may be, this sense of inertia is fostered by vested corporate influences in our political and economic system who do not wish to risk future profits until absolutely necessary.

Global Warming Readings

In reading through the article, one of the most compelling things I found out about global warming was that studies of fluctuations in oceanic currents and glacial opaqueness showed a feed-back loop is created that exacerbates the effect anthropogenic global warming.

I really don't understand how people can reject the idea of man-made global, which has the "scientific consensus," when they readily accept other scientific ideas that also have the blessing of the "scientific consensus." These people make themselves hypocrites and attack the scientific community with faulty logic and find radical "scientists" (who they claim are mavericks) to back up their ideas with poorly done research.

I am always inclined to believe it comes down to either an economic or a religious argument. Either these people are using positions of power to cast doubt on science for profit and more power over the masses, or they are doing it because they feel dealing with global warming is a moot point if the world is going to end soon (I guess the logic is to screw it up while there's still time?). In fact, I argue both these motives ultimately come down to self-gain in the vast majority of cases.

One More Islam Post

I really found the contrast between the Bhutto and Qutb readings quite shocking. Where Bhutto used history, logic, and the Qur'an itself to try to prove extremist views wrong, Qutb seemed openly and unabashedly against any interpretation that would "weaken" Islam.

Qutb writes, "This group of thinkers, who are a product of the sorry state of the present Muslim generation, have nothing but the label of Islam and have laid down their spiritual and rational arms in defeat. They say, 'Islam has prescribed only defensive war'! and think that they have done some good for their religion by depriving it of its method, which is to abolish all injustice from the earth, to bring people to the worship of God alone, and to bring them out of servitude to others into the servants of the Lord."

By contrast, Bhutto writes, "I know that some authors have speculated that women in Islamic countries can never achieve self-actualization or a degree of assertiveness unless they look at this [their situation] from a non-Islamic point of view. I don't agree with that at all. I believe that Islam within it provides justice and equality for women, and I think that those aspects of Islam which have been highlighted by by the mullas [religious scholars] do not do a service to our religion."

Only enough, they both try to blame thinkers and scholar for the prevalence of the opposing view.

Another Islam Post

Rein mentioned in class that Tariq Ramadan has written quite a bit on the Muslim minority in non-Muslim countries.

Ramadan argues that the only way to end the current cultural/political/military conflict between the West and Islam is for both sides to embrace a more reasonable approach that respects the sensitivities of each party.

Ramadan writes, "The fracture is not between the West and Islam but between those who, in both universes, are able to assert who they are and what they stand for with measure in the name of a faith and/or a rational reason and those drive by exclusive certainties, bind passions, reductive perspectives of the other, and hasty conclusions."

I believe that this sums up much of Ramadan's belief about what causes strife between these two societies and what can be done about it.

First Post in a while

Sorry I haven't kept up with posting. I had a chem test this week, and we only met once this week (today). There really wasn't much to talk about, but I'll try to stretch what we did talk about to three posts over the next few days.

Today in class, we talked about the reading by Tariq Ramada. Actually, we really didn't talk about it per se. We just talked about how perceptions of religion vary with culture. Western culture has come to place more emphasis on internal rather than external expressions of religion, something that is relatively unique when considered in the broad scheme of other cultures.

Middle Eastern/Islamic culture, from what we gathered from the reading, is basically the opposite, placing more emphasis on external rather than internal expressions of faith.

In class I talked about why that might be. In the West, culture has developed a sense of tolerance in response to religious pluralism. Events such as the Reformation and periods such as the Enlightenment made tolerance a necessity if society where people hold different things to be indisputably true is to remain stable.

This is not true of Islamic culture which, while not homogeneous, has responded differently to the challenge of religious diversity.

Islam Readings

For today we read 3 readings on Islam (2 by Tariq Ramadan and 1 by Ali Shari'ati).

I didn't really like the reading by Shariati because it seemed to blame the situation of third world countries and the Middle East solely on Western capitalism and culture it carries with it.

I contend that this is a dramatic oversimplification of the reality of events. While those in power may have misused Western ideas and forced them upon the inhabitants in many situations, I argue that many Western ideas can improve the quality of life and not damage pre-existing cultures.

I am also critical of his characterization of Western culture as a homogeneous entity. There is more variation and flexibility than he seems to acknowledge.

Sorry I couldn't cover everything we read in this post. I'll try to cover more on Saturday or Monday.