I have a slightly different take on Wikipedia. I consider Wikipedia to have two parts:
Wikipedia-technical: Science, technology, fact based articles.
Wikipedia-opinion: Political ideology of people, magazines, controversial current affairs etc.
Based on my experience, I will not keep Wikipedia-opinion in the centre of the triangle. Wikipedia-opinion will be more on the Twitter side (i.e. Open and highly-active). It is in fact, worse than Twitter because incumbents can propagate their bias and shut the contradictory opinions. The new Twitter under Elon has partially solved the echo-chamber problem in Twitter/X. But Wikipedia-opinion remains very biased. I have been so disturbed by this phenomenon that I have stopped my regular financial donations to Wikipedia.
On the other hand, Wikipedia-technical is a brilliant achievement of humankind. Since I stopped donating to Wikipedia, I have made it a point to make 2-3 quality edits (per year) in Wikipedia-technical in the fields of my expertise. I have chosen to donate 'in-kind' to Wikipedia-technical.
Great piece and argumentation. Its not the dogmatic belief in religion alone, but also the unreasonable assertion of Only My Religion that's scary. Religion and spirituality need not be congruent. This aspect needs to be deliberated too.
"An absence of religion will have terrible consequences in our personal lives." This is simply what people who follow religion tell themselves to justify their belief.
Most people in the some of the most advanced societies in the world do not subscribe to any religion. There is no evidence that this mass lack of religious belief has led to terrible consequences either.
This is more about Tom Holland's take on christianity than about whether Ayaan has got it right.
the claim Holland makes is that there is a christian consensus on the nature of morality. So it's not so much about whether you can find instances where there have been deviations, but the stark difference between how people engage with others and modes of correct behaviour are different in pre-christian europe (Scandinavian/Roman/Greek) as compared to the the christian world.
re islamic and other traditions, the theory is that the pre-islamic arab society was deeply influenced by the christian substrate that had been around for 500 years in that part of the world. so islam builds on christianity and zoroastraniasm to differnt degrees, again in its formulation of mercy, good and evil, etc.
I've not thought enough about the hindu/buddhist traditions and how they fit into this. the equivalents would be ideas of karma and dharma which do shape how we live in the world, but also create a determinism that's missing from the judeo-christian consensus, and might have contributed to social stratification and caste in a way that would not have been morally feasible otherwise. but like i said, I haven't thought about this enough.
but my overall point is that it's a mistake to counter this argument with examples of non-western golden ages and western inadequacies. it's the basis of moral behaviour that's at stake.
Theologically, Judaism and Christianism have very little in common (Judaism is based on practice, not on any article of faith) and Christians still beleive that in the end, all Jews are going to convert to Christianity.
Historically, the "Judeo-Christian" concept has been in use only since the end of WWII and the deep feeling of guilt of the Occident towards the extermination of the Jews.
Politically, it has been reinforced after 9/11 for racial propaganda reasons : Jews and Christians were now united as the good race (White Suprematists), Muslims became the barbaric race to be eradicated.
Best to simply stick to "Christian" and not use "Judeo-Christian" anymore.
I have a slightly different take on Wikipedia. I consider Wikipedia to have two parts:
Wikipedia-technical: Science, technology, fact based articles.
Wikipedia-opinion: Political ideology of people, magazines, controversial current affairs etc.
Based on my experience, I will not keep Wikipedia-opinion in the centre of the triangle. Wikipedia-opinion will be more on the Twitter side (i.e. Open and highly-active). It is in fact, worse than Twitter because incumbents can propagate their bias and shut the contradictory opinions. The new Twitter under Elon has partially solved the echo-chamber problem in Twitter/X. But Wikipedia-opinion remains very biased. I have been so disturbed by this phenomenon that I have stopped my regular financial donations to Wikipedia.
On the other hand, Wikipedia-technical is a brilliant achievement of humankind. Since I stopped donating to Wikipedia, I have made it a point to make 2-3 quality edits (per year) in Wikipedia-technical in the fields of my expertise. I have chosen to donate 'in-kind' to Wikipedia-technical.
Insightful, as always.
Would love to read more of you on this - “An absence of religion will have terrible consequences in our personal lives”
Great piece and argumentation. Its not the dogmatic belief in religion alone, but also the unreasonable assertion of Only My Religion that's scary. Religion and spirituality need not be congruent. This aspect needs to be deliberated too.
"An absence of religion will have terrible consequences in our personal lives." This is simply what people who follow religion tell themselves to justify their belief.
Most people in the some of the most advanced societies in the world do not subscribe to any religion. There is no evidence that this mass lack of religious belief has led to terrible consequences either.
re the RSJ piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
This is more about Tom Holland's take on christianity than about whether Ayaan has got it right.
the claim Holland makes is that there is a christian consensus on the nature of morality. So it's not so much about whether you can find instances where there have been deviations, but the stark difference between how people engage with others and modes of correct behaviour are different in pre-christian europe (Scandinavian/Roman/Greek) as compared to the the christian world.
re islamic and other traditions, the theory is that the pre-islamic arab society was deeply influenced by the christian substrate that had been around for 500 years in that part of the world. so islam builds on christianity and zoroastraniasm to differnt degrees, again in its formulation of mercy, good and evil, etc.
I've not thought enough about the hindu/buddhist traditions and how they fit into this. the equivalents would be ideas of karma and dharma which do shape how we live in the world, but also create a determinism that's missing from the judeo-christian consensus, and might have contributed to social stratification and caste in a way that would not have been morally feasible otherwise. but like i said, I haven't thought about this enough.
but my overall point is that it's a mistake to counter this argument with examples of non-western golden ages and western inadequacies. it's the basis of moral behaviour that's at stake.
The "Judeo-Christian Tradition" doesn't exist.
Theologically, Judaism and Christianism have very little in common (Judaism is based on practice, not on any article of faith) and Christians still beleive that in the end, all Jews are going to convert to Christianity.
Historically, the "Judeo-Christian" concept has been in use only since the end of WWII and the deep feeling of guilt of the Occident towards the extermination of the Jews.
Politically, it has been reinforced after 9/11 for racial propaganda reasons : Jews and Christians were now united as the good race (White Suprematists), Muslims became the barbaric race to be eradicated.
Best to simply stick to "Christian" and not use "Judeo-Christian" anymore.