History and Religion

Question:
I suppose it depends on which accounts of Islamic history one reads, in regards Banu Quraiza........I know the "official account" that you make reference to. It makes no difference, actually, since both Christian and Islamic history is replete with huge examples of violence and murder, all done "in the name of God".

I do not accept that my rejection of the religious God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam is wishful thinking. While I do believe in some Designer, or Source of All, I, along with many millions of others, find this "God" of the three religions as a product of the human hand, trying to understand "God", perhaps the best way they knew how. "In those days", most Gods were seen as alternating between cruelty, violence, anger/wrath and mercy/love and kindness. ..just like the human animal who developed their concepts. If we were donkeys, we would have tried to grasp "God" as being a donkey.

Response:
I do understand that there could be different versions of historical events. However you choose the one you think is the more acceptable to your line of thinking or what you might call faith. It sounds unacceptable to some people that faith should define what course history has taken. However I believe that such line of thinking is acceptable so long as faith is acquired and regularly made to go through intellectual scrutiny. We all have a world-view and we all interpret new data in accordance with it.

Our world-view must be subject to constant scrutiny and must show signs of weakening if serious evidence gathering against it begins to grow in volume. If the trend continues, it must collapse. If faith is allowed the facility of such scrutiny, it can never mislead.

In the meanwhile, if there are marginal decisions to be taken regarding the correctness of one version of history or another, there is no harm in deciding them in favor of one's faith, especially when that version of history appears to be equally plausible compared to its rivals if not more.

Views: 316