Why Doubt?

While the title makes me think if Gwen Stephani regrets her solo adventures the following link is an interesting take on why Israel finds itself incapable of defeating her foes.

http://www.saneworks.us/On-Israel’s-War-Why-Democracies-are-Incapable-of-Winning-the-War-Against-Islam-Part-I-article-137-1.htm

I find the arguments compelling for a number of reasons. He posits that one reaches a critical mass of rights within the democratic framework in which you are very well protected within your own society but can’t bring yourself to truly defeating your enemies in other nations or societies. I have personally noticed that we project onto other cultures our basic principles simply because we have rightly legislated tolerance.

This idea of mine appears dangerous to me as I greatly value my privacy, my right to discuss whatever stupid idea is on my mind and the opportunities our rights afford us all to discover inspiring processes in the Universe. Yet, I define myself as a person through my family, my countries and my people. I am willing to forgo certain rights for the duration of the time I think these groups are in eminent danger.

The difficulty in identifying eminent danger is a product of our abundance of rights. Democracy has progressed to the point where we have marginalized consensus and portray certainty as bigotry. Yerushalmi posits we will find it impossible to protect family, country or people from enemies because, to value the life of a Chinese, by Chinese politicians and Chinese citizens, over the life of an Indian, is in the current liberal tradition, counter-progressive. You can no longer be an American, a Jew, an Israeli, Chinese etc… you can either be progressive or regressive. You are either scientific or superstitious. You are either on the verge of historical leap forward or about to be bred out of the gene pool (seeing that one can’t kill because all killing is a misunderstanding which we will progress out from once we understand each other’s humanity, but lets not be silly enough to exchange reproductive information with the proud nationalists of the world). Once you have progressed beyond the counterprogressive monkies you are now obligated to drag them into the Enlightenment through sarcasm, mockery and self-conscious condescention.

While I personally would like all people to live in peace I reserve the right to kill you if you start hunting me and mine. This basic principle appears to be lost to liberal politicians and their constituency. Yerushalmi puts the onus of this state of affairs squarely on the shoulders of the Enlightenment and the preeminence of scientific method among the Enlightenment’s biggest followers who, I think, are the sort to gravitate to this website. It is certainly what has brought me here.

I take a scientific principle to bed with me at night which is, can I see if "their" arguments have any way of killing my ungodly opinion. If they do I'll wake up the next morning and thank god for returning me to my body after sleep. But, I have yet to hear a non circular argument for god. Has Mr. Yerushalmi pointed to an evolutionary reason to have some sort of faith? Can the faithful kill us out of the gene pool (which to us atheists is the highest value), not because there is a god but because our ideas about the universality of human ideas and the equal value of each person keeps us from pulling the triggers and pushing the red buttons our culture did so well in inventing? As many as we've seen die in our last couple of wars, neither we, Israel or Europe seem to have the stomach to hold that trigger long. Does this wavering will come from our nearly religious sense of uncertainty?

I require more time to reflect on these ideas and in the mean time would very much like to read some of your thoughts.