Belyea Rd 4 - Democracy, World View and "Action", Perceived threats

Arising out of a discussion with Kerri, I talk about how we pretty much agree on what is happening in the physical world but disagree on what is to be done. On the other hand, Liberal Democracy assumes that some general agreement should exist on what can and should be done, including freedom of choice, association, and speech.

I mention the connection between Islam and the European enlightenment.

Religion is constantly changing, even though it claims to be somehow continuous and "eternal", which boils down to accepting the culture they were born into as their idea of what should be done.

Shouldn't religions agree on a wide range of issues? In theory, shouldn't we agree on what is virtue? Isn't it true that most practical disagreement is based on philosophical differences?

How is it that some see skin color as a threat? This would seem to be totally cultural  - a first-class example of how our "enhanced" experience of reality differs.

---

I mention the different uses of the word "law" in the religious world versus the Scientific idea. In Science, law is a provisional description of how the world acts. In religion, "law" is what "God" wants, usually as interpreted by some expert on the subject.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Facebook and Bing - A Killer Combination

A Process ...

Warp Speed Generative AI