Big Think

Ike Eslao commented on Is there a clash of civilizations? on February 28, 2008, 4:43 AM

From empirical observation, people tend to group themselves into opposing world-views: the 'rejectionist' versus 'rejectees'. They gravitate around any cause that fit their 'world-views' regardless of civilizational affiliation or historical timeline. The rejectionists believe that diversity is an anomaly and should be suppressed. The rejectees believe that the world is ruled by rejectionists and the game is destroy-or-be-destroyed. This is the divide that generate the 'clash' and it does not matter which civilization you are in.To take one example: Reason - for the rejectionist, any deviation is a problem and therefore must be eliminated; for the rejectee, reason is subservient to a higher goal which is survival.

Ike Eslao commented on Is there a clash of civilizations? on February 27, 2008, 11:43 PM

From empirical observation, people tend to group themselves into opposing world-views: the 'rejectionist' versus 'rejectees'. They gravitate around any cause that fit their 'world-views' regardless of civilizational affiliation or historical timeline. The rejectionists believe that diversity is an anomaly and should be suppressed. The rejectees believe that the world is ruled by rejectionists and the game is destroy-or-be-destroyed. This is the divide that generate the 'clash' and it does not matter which civilization you are in. To take one example: Reason - for the rejectionist, any deviation is a problem and therefore must be eliminated; for the rejectee, reason is subservient to a higher goal which is survival.

Ike Eslao commented on Is religion necessary to live a good and honorable life? on February 26, 2008, 10:29 PM

Just like a pair of socks, religion can be misused. For the ungroomed, a pair of socks is a stinking piece of cloth and therefore unnecessary junk. For the well-groomed, it is an essential mark of good grooming as well as a hygienic necessity.

Ike Eslao commented on How do you explain the rise of fundamentalism? on February 26, 2008, 2:32 AM

At best fundamentalism is an incomplete, non- integral world-view. It is a myopic attempt to put the entire universal truth into one's pocket and hope to have all the questions fit the answers. The question is not limited to Islam but more so in Christianity. As an example, Sola Scriptura doctrine. When one has everything fit in one pocket, a lot of other important things are left behind, hence it becomes incomplete. Incomplete things become un-truths or half-truths. The question is, why would decent people settle for half-truths?

Ike Eslao commented on the dilema of free will on February 26, 2008, 2:07 AM

The idea of predestiny is not supported by majority of theological studies, except for some groups of Calvinism. Even taking theology aside, the idea of a pre-set choice across different times and random events violates the concept of free choice.