THE DANCE OF BELIEF
Or, how humans can hold two totally conflicting beliefs at one and the same time.
“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”
It is not uncommon to find people saying one thing in regard to one issue and exactly the opposite in regard to another. The Do as I say, not Do as I do approach makes some things possible and others impossible. I will apply tolerance and compassion to groups a.b.c but not d. They miss the hypocrisy because we labour under the assumption that humans can be objective. They cannot.
People tend to believe that modern science stands above everything else because it is an objective system of enquiry. That is the goal and the belief anyway, but scientists are simply human beings, doing what humans do in systems created by humans, which do what humans require, i.e. act as a vehicle for power and profit. We think and many scientists think, that the conclusions they reach are sourced in objective research when such a thing is simply not possible. Everything thought, said and done in science is influenced by the humans who do it. Yes, there can be measures put in place to reduce subjectivity but they are limited in their impact.
Peter Medawar was an articulate British biologist who won a Nobel Prize for Medicine. In a talk on the BBC in 1963 he said:
“”The sections called ‘results’consists of a stream of factual information in which it is considered extremely bad form to discuss the signifance of the results you are getting. You have to pretend firmly that your mind ius, so to speak, a virgin receptacle, an empty vessel, for information which flows into it from the external world for no reason which you yourself have revealed. You reserve all appraisal of the scientific evidence until the ‘discussion’ section, and in the discussion you adopt the ludicrous pretence of asking yourself if the information you have collected actually means anything.
Medawar was making the point that people, including scientists, believe that scientists collect facts and then draw conclusions from them. In fact scientists start with a hypothesis, theory, or idea which provides the incentive and garners the funding, to then attempt to prove it. In this process of proving what one believes, there is much which is discarded as anomaly, and more which is ignored because it does not fit the process of proof.
In other words, scientists, like most humans, begin with a premise, a belief, and then work hard to prove it and even harder at disposing of or denying, that which could disprove it. Without a system or discipline which makes us control our subjectivity, whatever we decide to believe will mean the belief has us, instead of us having the belief.
Any scientific experiment is influenced by the beliefs and nature of the individual scientist or scientists; the beliefs and nature of the organisation where the research is taking place; the beliefs and nature of those who fund the research and the outcomes desired by the scientist/s who wish to keep their jobs and continue along a career path, the organisation which wants to keep making money and the needs, desires and demands of those coughing up the cash for the research.
So, if even the much feted field of science cannot be truly objective, what hope is there for the rest of us? This human frailty is easily exploited and that is exactly what happens a lot of the time. We are subjectively objective in how we think about everything.
In many ways we ‘see’ unconsciously what we expect or want to see. The classic optical illusion of the image showing both a young woman or an old woman reveals that in the same picture not everyone sees the same thing. Some see the young woman first, others the old woman first, some can then see both alternatively but never at the same time and some are incapable of seeing anything but one or the other. What we see is dictated by our subjective nature. You have to practise how to look at the image, how to see, in order to alternate between the young woman and the old woman.
Being objective, and some have a greater capacity than others, is just not in our natures which is why the Ten Commandments appeared, to give us a guide for forming conclusions and choosing our actions. Out of those Commandments, have arisen over thousands of years, principles of justice, law and behaviour. They are invaluable in helping us set our course and keeping our natural instinct to justify or prove what we have chosen to believe, no matter how cruel it might be, under control. They help us to balance our subjective nature with our objective capacity.
But for some this is hard. The concept of principles applied equally seems not to enter their minds. Those who state a need to think for one’s self, to research, to be open-minded and free from prejudice are then often found to be exactly the opposite on some issues. Clearly they are not self aware enough to see their own prejudice. Never let facts get in the way of propaganda seems to be the modus operandi when an issue arises to which they have a visceral instead of rational response. Fear is often a factor if not the driver.
I am surprised at how many intelligent, educated and often sensible people hold the view that Islam is to be feared and that it plans to take over the world and is currently frogmarching its way around the globe.
There is no evidence to show this is happening and no evidence to show how it could possibly happen. Muslims are generally a majority in Third World countries and they are not united. They range from moderates to traditionalists with even some non-practising pragmatists.
If every majority Muslim country in the world, and Indonesia is the biggest, were to unite they would have a pitiful level of military power compared not just to the West but to the rest of the world.
Military domination is therefore simply impossible. So, that means conversion would have to be the way that Islam took over the world. Given the increasing drop in religious affiliation in general throughout the Western world and the fact that Islam is one of the more patriarchal of religions, it is very hard to see most women in the Western world choosing to convert even if a lot of men did.
And perhaps more critical, both India and China, the biggest nations are never going to become Islam dominant, it is simply impossible and would not happen. India is a dominant Hindu country and pretty fascist on that count and would never allow Islam to dominate. China has growing levels of Christian conversion but fears its Muslim minority and so would, like India, ensure Islamic domination never happened and do so with brutal force if need be.
There is a snowball's chance in Hell of either India or China becoming Islam-dominated and that takes care of nearly half the humans on the planet. Things might of course change in a century or two, but we are talking about people alive today holding fears they believe are relevant today.
So what is this fear about since it is devoid of reality? Perhaps some people just need someone or something to hate. And Zionists have worked very hard for decades to convince the easily convinced around the world that Muslims are a threat to justify their slaughters in Palestine in particular and in the Muslim world in general. If people fear and hate a group they will care less, or not at all, if someone is killing members of that group and subjecting them to brutal control. History is littered with the blood-drenched outcomes of hatred and fear of various groups.
It makes no sense but then of course bigotry and prejudice never make sense except as weapons used by vested agendas. And of course, if the things said about Muslims were said about Jews there would be hysteria. Indeed, many would be offended if such things were said about Christians or Hindus so the Islamophobia and hypocrisy are in no doubt.
This article was written 13 years ago but it is hard to see, since then, the frogmarch of Islam, as some refer to it, across the entire globe.
No, Muslims are not taking over the world
John Esposito and Sheila Lalwani
The global Muslim population is projected to grow at a slower pace than it did during the previous two decades
A recent study from the Pew Research Centre on religion and public life demonstrates that neither the UK nor Europe are in danger of a Muslim takeover, whatever the American right may believe. The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projections for 2010-2030 is a major and comprehensive study that focuses on the Muslim populations in North America, Europe, Africa and the Asia-Pacific and provides a revealing look into the future of the Muslim population worldwide and the future makeup of the world.
According to the report, the global Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% over the next two decades, rising from a population of 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion in 2030. The study says that the global Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, but that the Muslim population is projected to grow at a slower pace than it did during the previous two decades.
The study makes several projections for the UK. According to the study, more than a quarter of all new immigrants to the UK in 2010 are estimated to be Muslim. These groups largely migrate from former colonial states, specifically Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. According to the study, the UK had a net inflow of roughly 64,000 Muslim immigrants in the past year and will continue to serve as a destination for Muslims. In fact, the study says that the UK is expected to have the largest increase in the number of Muslims in Europe in the next 20 years. The number of Muslims in the UK is projected to almost double from 2.9 million in 2010 to 5.6 million in 2030. By 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 8.2% of the UK's population, up from 4.6% in 2010.
Across Europe, Muslims make up a sizeable population and will continue to do so. According to the study, Europe's Muslim population is expected to grow from 44.1 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2030. Western and northern Europe, where Muslims are expected to approach double-digit percentages, will see the greatest increases.
In 2030, Muslims are projected to make up more than 10% of the total population in 10 European countries: Kosovo (93.5%), Albania (83.2%), Bosnia-Herzegovina (42.7%), the Republic of Macedonia (40.3%), Montenegro (21.5%), Bulgaria (15.7%), Russia (14.4%), Georgia (11.5%), France (10.3%) and Belgium (10.2%). In Austria, Muslims are projected to reach 9.3% of the population by 2030, an increase from the 5.7% today. In France, the population is expected to rise from 7.5% currently to 10.3%. The Muslim population in Sweden is expected to nearly double over the same time span.
According to the projections and if current trends continue, 79 countries will have a million or more Muslim inhabitants in 2030, an increase from the 72 countries today. More than half of the world's Muslims will continue to live in the Asia-Pacific region, and about 20% will live in the Middle East and North Africa. Pakistan will surpass Indonesia as the country with the single largest Muslim population.
The Pew findings demonstrate that fear of a Muslim takeover was largely the product of hysteria. France is not headed toward becoming an "Islamic republic" by 2048, as has been claimed, and Germany is not on its way to becoming a "Muslim state" by 2050.
It is strange that these Pew findings and projections are less likely to circulate as widely or quickly as statistics about predictions of a Muslim takeover.
Commentators seem more focused on ringing false alarm bells than on presenting facts. The reality is that there is no takeover, but that there is a danger of intolerance that threatens the very fabric of British and European society
We are not witnessing a clash of civilisations, but a clash of cultures fostered by those who portray Islam as a monolith and see religious and cultural diversity solely as a threat rather than as a potential source of strength and enrichment. The liberal democratic heritage and fabric of our societies must be safeguarded and fearmongering, religious and racial discrimination rejected and marginalised in a future based on facts not fiction.
When a belief is not supported by facts it is even more important to ask, WHOM DOES IT SERVE? And who is served by many people having a fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims? Anyone who hates Muslims I would suggest, is served by propagating such a belief. Anyone who benefits from a hatred of Muslims is served by such a belief. None of that is good.
Perhaps a better question is, how does my hatred and fear of Muslims and Islam serve me? Does hatred ever serve a good purpose for anyone? Does fear of a particular religion ever work for your good or that of anyone else?
Is fear wise? Is hatred ethical? Are fear and hatred sensible and healthy? The answers have to be NO on all counts. So, if you find yourself hating or fearing, ask Why and ask if it serves your growth as a healthy human being.
There is nothing wrong with holding conflicting views as long as they are not held so tightly you become a hypocrite. It is the challenge of opposites which help us to grow and perhaps it is the dance of belief which keeps us evolving.
Don't underestimate the rise of us atheists :)
I saw the old woman, but not the young one, which is contrary to my voyeurism. But after I rescued a moth, and returned to my computer, I could only see the young woman. I deduce I'm bipolar which isn't as bad as being unipolar - he he.