absolutum dominium

diana, ben, myself, as well as a couple of diana's friends, have been having a vigourous debate on her blog. basically, she presented her views on the reality that God was real and that we did not create him, and ben and myself found it imperative (individually. there was no concerted effort) to a) point out the logical fallacies (for ben); and b) to defend the stand that we took (for me as a self-professed agnostic).

anyway the vigour of our commentary led to a relatively spirited, yet magnanimous defence by her friends. however, what i will talk about on this blog has little to do with religion, or with friendship - because diana, ben and i, are still close friends and she is not upset with us, because she understands tt this debate is just a cyber extension of the real world debates tt we used to have at the university village starbucks a couple of months back. =)

however, what i will talk about, is the fallacy regarding the conflict of ideas; namely in response to this line in this comment:

"I think the human race is destined to kill each other off with the conflict of ideas."

the premise is in the heat of the debate, the call was for everyone to live happily together without the intrusion of religious faith and scientific ideas.

i don't believe the writer of the comment has access to my blog, but nonetheless, i don't mean him any disrespect, nor do i think tt the comment is stupid. for the most part, this is akin to an envisionment of a utopia, where everyone exists in harmony. where there are probably no wars, and no physical conflicts tt exist in the world today.

but besides the fact tt such a utopia is a practical impossibility in this world, i also feel tt the idea tt a conflict of ideas will inevitably kill off the human race, is a fallacy.

you see, as far as i see it, there is no such thing as a right and a wrong, a black and a white, and people will always throw up a plethora of different ideas, hold different value systems, have different ways of seeing things. even within the realm of religion, it isn't as simple as having a belief in the spiritual vs. having no such belief. even within religion there are so many different schools of thought, so many ethos. there is christianity (and the various denominations, of which there are already differences between each, and a synapse between that and catholicism), there is islam, there is judaism, there is taoism, buddhism, and many more. some hold a belief in a one God, others, in a few, and yet others, in a mere ideal of spirituality. hell, if you believe in scientology, you will even believe in aliens!

my point, is that as long as people hold different ideas, there will always be a conflict. however, difference should not be shunned, but embraced as individuality. to me, harmony through conformity is a revolting thought. i am an individual through and through, and i renounce concepts such as society above self, or conformity. while i believe tt as far as behaviour ought to be regulated so as not to cause harm to others, i do firmly uphold the belief tt self-expression, freedom of thought, and individualism should be staunchly protected.

we are not meant to be robots. if we all thought the same, if we all agreed on everything, we would be highly boring people. seriously. and we would never evolve or improve because no one would throw up new ideas for people to ponder.

in order for there to be dynamism, there has to be open debate. and this necessarily has to come about through a conflict of ideas. when your ideas about something clash with someone else's who clashes with someone else's, you have to come together and debate it out, to see who has the sounder, more logical argument. it is from here where you reach a consensus, where somehow a solution may (or may not) be reached, but somehow something will usually come out of it, usually for society's betterment.

even in law, tt is how precedents are being made. when an area of law is not covered, or where there are legal disputes, people argue and debate until at some point in time, be it now or much much later, somehow some kind of headway may be made into changing or improving the law. and even if somehow there has been a deprovement, this can still be rectified by later debates and arguments.

however, where things are settled or agreed on, sometimes it is scary. as i learnt in my islamic law class, the pre-modernism islamic legal system was incredibly dynamic and forward looking, namely because of the amount of ijtihad or legal debates that went on between the legal scholars over the areas of the law that they could not agree on. and although this was all just supposed to be the intepretation of the Quranic law, there were tons and tons of ways with which to intepret one passage.

however, in post-modernism Islamic law, there have been talks about how much more rigid and static the system is, because there is no more such debate. the law as it stands has been described as unchanging; there are little reforms. and intepretions such as as to the criminal punishment of thiefs in iran (the cutting off of hands) or as to the status of women, no matter how illogical they seem in the modern context, are enbedded because there are no challenges in this sphere.

i believe that a complete lack of conflict, total agreement that something, tt a certain system, is completely infallible, is the most dangerous thing tt you can have. the assertion tt a religion is the one true religion, or tt a government is undoubtedly a first-world government, is just too good to be true. short of us living in tt idealistic utopia, we know there is no such thing.

therefore as i have said before, a conflict of ideas is a way to show difference, and a way to progress.

however, this assumes 2 things: 1) tt there must be a respect for diversity; and 2) tt there must be a willingness to consider others' opinions.

the way i see it, the problem with people, is not so much tt a conflict of ideas will bring about mankind's downfall, but rather, tt the intolerance of mankind, will bring about his own downfall. taking extremist partisan stands and assuming tt your one opinion is correct whereas everyone else's is wrong, is a fine example of intolerance. dismissing someone who does not subscribe to religion because you do is therefore doing so for reasons ranging from societal conformation to blind materialism, is another form of intolerance. if you were to first inquire as to the reasons behind the position taken, or the intentions behind taking up such a position, it would be a lot less difficult to be tolerant and accepting.

so in conclusion, a conflict of ideas does not necessarily lead to the downfall of man (i.e. by promoting war and infighting). instead, it is actually intolerance and the unwillingness to respect diversity, tt will result in the downfall of man.

so just so you know. my 2 cents worth. lalala.