Good vs Evil

(Chaos vs Order-: with thanks to M. Smart)

An Absolute-:Something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative; “no mortal being can influence the absolute”[i].

An absolute belief in the right of man and the importance of democracy were enough to stir western nations to war in the past. Things seemed to be much more black and white in those days, not just television. It was of course partly, because we did not have television then. Today war zones are shown on our TV screens, as are horrfic terrorist attacks. We are a 'global vilage' conneced through the super highway of the internet, cable tv and various satellite technologies . A Jewish woman in Tel Aviv could theoretically sit and chat with a Syrian woman in Damascus. Could, but most likely won't. Why not? They no doubt would have much to discuss.

Today we frown upon absolutes as extreme and of course they are. They are, because of the very fact that they cannot be influenced by man, at least in the eyes of the believer. They are dangerous, because if they are beyond man's control, what happens to one man, becomes insignificant. All for the glory of the greater good.

Absolute truth varies from region to region and culture to culture (see my basic premises). We may believe in the absolute right of man to Human rights. Believing in this absolute has been the reason for western countries in the 20th and 21st centuries to engage in conflict; yet this absolute right/truth only dates back to the 18 century as a popular concept.

Generally when use the expressions absolutism and extremism in one sentence we tend to be talking about religion. We of course could talk about any “isms” in exactly the same vein. Wordweb defines an “ism” thus: A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school. Plainly Socialism, Communism and others fall under this category.

What about Atheism? Is it possible that the atheists rejection of a greater being an absolute belief. It allows the Atheist to label the religious believer an extremist, unable to deal with the realities of the scientific world. In this way a large percentage of the world’s population can be “swept under a convenient rug”, by labelling them unquestioning ignoramuses. This is done unquestioningly, because clearly they are wrong. Is this not "the pot calling the kettle black"?

Therefore it clear that the extremism is not born out of belief, but rather, out of never questioning that belief. The religious Jew, Christian or Muslim living in an insular religious environment has no understanding of the society around them. In that situation it is easy to look outwards and only see Evil, because it is a society that does not reflect theirs. The atheist or even scientist that is not prepared to look past their comfort zone have their heads in the sand in much the same way as their religious counterparts. They too, feel more comfortable within their own “zone”. It is a fear of the unknown.

Evil is the unknown, because we have no understanding of it. That is how we feel about other people’s religions, cultures and ways. This feeling is multiplied when those strange people reject our lifestyle and our beliefs. Killing the Evil enemy becomes easier when they lose their human face.

All absolute beliefs portend to represent pure good. By definition then, anything outside of that world must necessarily represent the opposite. We will never stop people believing, or their beliefs; nor should we. We must however encourage a review of how the "outside world" is approached.

We must try to understand other people's beliefs; not necessarilyaccepting them as our own, but as beliefs that exist around us. This reduces the fear of the unknown and the extremism. That is why most people can live with their neighbours. Our beliefs must live side by side with other beliefs. We need to be able to explain our beliefs and listen to others explain theirs. We don’t have to accept their ideas, but do have to accept that they believe them. And of course visa-versa.

One of the problems of an overly politically correct western world is to assume that if we are sympathetic to "them", it follows that "they" will be sympathetic to us. Not true. We have to listen with the same goals in mind. We have to be able to discolour the language so that both sides can understand the substance before getting lost in argument over terminology.

Groups or societies who have been in conflict for years or generations need to completely reeducate their society and employ Orwellian 'Newspeak' to overcome the jargon of the past, the jargon of conflict.

I believe, questioning your own beliefs should reaffirm them, rather than weaken them. Of course, if it doesn’t then.........well draw your own conclusions.

[i] Wordweb