Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The dilemma of curiosity and its use
Helga Nowotny is author
of Unersättliche Neugier. Innovation in einer fragilen Zukunft
(Insatiable Curiosity. Innovation in an Uncertain Future) and
Vice-Chair of the ERC Scientific Council.
by Helga Nowotny
Albert Einstein once said, “I have no special gift, but I am passionately curious.” Certainly, Einstein was being tremendously modest. But, just as certainly, curiosity is a powerful driving force in scientific discovery. Indeed, along with talent and interest, as well as mathematical or other quantitative abilities, curiosity is a necessary characteristic of any successful scientist.
Curiosity betrays emotional passion. It is a state of being involuntarily gripped by something that is difficult to ward off and for which, since one cannot act otherwise, one is accountable only in a limited sense. We all come into the world curious, equipped with the psychological drive to explore the world and to expand the terrain that we think we master. It is no coincidence that a well-known book on developmental psychology bears the title The Scientist in the Crib, a work that traces the parallels between small children’s behavior and the processes and research strategies that are usual in science.
But the urge for knowledge that drives inborn curiosity to transcend given horizons does not remain uncurbed. Parents can tell many a tale about how, with the beginning of school, their children’s playful approach suddenly changes, as they must now focus on objects dictated by the curriculum. Likewise, however desirable its ability to produce the unexpected and unforeseeable, science today cannot claim that it is not accountable to society.
Curiosity is insatiable and, in research, it is inextricably tied to the unforeseeability of results. Research is an endless process, with a destination that no one can predict precisely. The more that unexpected results, brought forth by research in the laboratory, are a precondition for further innovations, the more pressure there is to bring the production of knowledge under control, to direct research in specific directions, and to tame scientific curiosity. But curiosity must not be limited too severely, lest science’s ability to produce new knowledge be lost.
This dilemma is at the center of many policy debates surrounding scientific research. To be sure, not everything that arouses scientific curiosity is controversial; in fact, most scientific research is not. Still, the dilemma is obvious in pioneering fields like biomedicine, nanotechnology, and neurosciences. Research in these areas sometimes meets with vehement rejection, for example, on religious grounds with respect to stem-cell research, or owing to fear with respect to the possibility of altering human identity.
Curiosity implies a certain immoderation, a certain necessary excess. That is precisely what makes it a passion: it is amoral and follows its own laws, which is why society insists on taming it in various ways. Private investment in research directs curiosity onto paths where new scientific breakthroughs promise high economic potential. Politicians expect research to function as a motor of economic growth. Ethics commissions want to establish limits on research, even if these require frequent re-negotiation. The demand for more democratic input, finally, also seeks to influence research priorities.
These considerations must be borne in all efforts to support basic research. In Europe, the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) is entering a decisive phase, with crucial implications concerning the role we are prepared to concede to scientific curiosity. For the first time, support for basic research is being made possible on the EU level. Individual teams are to enter a pan-European competition to determine the best of the best, opening a free space for scientific curiosity and enabling the unforeseeable outcomes that are characteristic of cutting-edge research.
The dilemma – and it is a decisive one – is that today we cherish the passionate curiosity of an Albert Einstein. But we still want to control the unforeseeable consequences to which curiosity leads. The dilemma must be overcome by allowing curiosity to be protected and supported, while trying to capture those of its fruits that will benefit society. How we accomplish this must be continuously negotiated in the public sphere. Irreducible contradictions will remain, and therein lie the ambivalence that characterises modern societies’ stance toward science.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.www.project-syndicate.org
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Curious about the mores of science
Helga Nowotny's statement that curiosity betrays emotional passion provoked my own curiosity and I found myself asking: in what other ways does emotion play a part in the process of scientific discovery and the "production of knowledge"?
Another way of putting the question is to ask: how do different social contexts affect the development of science?
At a most basic level of analysis it is plainly obvious that scientific research is conducted and managed by people (not machines!) and people exhibit different behaviour patterns in different circumstances. We conform (most of us most of the time) to mores. It is these mores, social or institutional imperatives, that regulate the social systems we've developed. What are the institutional imperatives for the conduct of science?
Should we accept the four institutional imperatives set out by American sociologist Robert K Merton?
'Universalism' - That scientific knowledge is objective and impersonal. That theories and laws of science are accepted only on a basis that is independent of the social and personal characteristics of their discoverers or originators.
'Communality' - That scientific knowledge is not personal property but belongs to the scientific community as a whole. That whilst recognition of priority of discovery is granted to individuals, the knowledge gained becomes the common property of all scientists. That individuals or groups of scientists who make discoveries are obliged to communicate their results to the scientific community as a whole.
'Organised Scepticism' - That each scientist is responsible to ensure that the basis of his or her research is correct. That more generally, all beliefs relevant to one's research must be scrutinised in terms of logical and empirical criteria. That all published research must be subject to a high level of criticism by the scientific community to ensure objectivity.
'Disinterestedness' - That the scientist should be sufficiently detached from his or her research to avoid circumstances of personal profit arising from that research, avoiding the pursuit of recognition or monetary reward as a goal in itself.
I'm curious, could it be that Merton was wrong and a scientist's actual primary motivation is usually as self-interested as Helga Nowotny suggests in this article?
Merton's imperatives
Craig Rowley asks, "Should we accept the four institutional imperatives set out by American sociologist Robert K Merton?
"'Universalism,' 'Communality,' 'Organised Scepticism,' 'Disinterestedness'"
Yes. All of the above. And I doubt you'd find any working scientist, myself included, who would reject these principles. But you'd already provided the key insight, Craig: "scientific research is conducted and managed by people (not machines!) and people exhibit different behaviour patterns in different circumstances."
We are human beings, subject to all the usual "fear & greed" motivations that often drive our species. So, in practice, Merton's principles are not always adhered to. What does that mean? Nothing except that scientists are human beings.
I'll comment on one of the principles: "That each scientist is responsible to ensure that the basis of his or her research is correct." Yes, to the best of his/her knowledge. Where science really shines, compared to other intellectual paths to knowledge, is when research is incorrect. And it is - often. One of my advisors told me when I was in the middle of my PhD that I could expect to be "right" for about five years before someone proved me wrong. My own student just completed a PhD thesis which refuted some of the conclusions in my own thesis and subsequent published papers. I couldn't be prouder of him. And I'll be honoured to co-author his papers.
The hypothesis-challenging nature of science means whatever anyone comes up with, someone else is trying to knock it down (sometimes themselves).
A common misunderstanding of science is that we're all circling the intellectual wagons to defend some scientific theory - Darwinian theory, global warming, whatever. In fact most scientists are hard at work trying to find the flaws in such theories. The only reason they have stood up as long as they have is that they've withstood everything thrown at them - so far.
Science hobbled by anachronistic beliefs!
Careful reading of this article exposes a dreadful paradox: Science is very much part of the year 2006 while religion has its origins back several thousand years ago when science was largely a non-event and superstition reigned. Yet, today, the two are in a violent struggle because the former tends to disprove and, indirectly, undermines the latter.
But how can science proceed openly and vigorously when under pressure not to investigate some areas because the results of such investigation might weaken theological claims which in turn might weaken religious control of the faithful?
Looking forward or living in the primitive past seems to be the current dilemma. We can't have it both ways!
Science within Anachronistic beliefs
Daniel Smythe: “But how can science proceed openly and vigorously when under pressure not to investigate some areas because the results of such investigation might weaken theological claims which in turn might weaken religious control of the faithful?”
A strange statement, Daniel, when religious people in European cultures have been at the forefront of a large amount of all science based endeavours and discoveries. The Christian and Jewish faiths more than ever use modern science to enforce and use as evidence the basis of their belief. They are only generally against some science, because of the abuse of moral issues, they do not see the science itself as evil, but more to do with man's use or abuse of the development. After all, science is the result of creation, not the Creator.
We can and we do
Daniel, as a religious person I do not have many problems with science and I do not fear what it might turn up. The opposition by religious groups to some science is not so much what it might disprove, but rather whether it is ethical in terms of how it deals with human life.
You will I think find that millions of people world wide will pursue their religious beliefs and practices irrespective of scientific revelations concerning the origins of the universe and the evolution of species. In the final analysis the believers hold the trump card in my view since science will never be able to prove one way or another whether a supreme being, or God, started and is driving the whole show or not. If it could I might reconsider what I believe. But it will not. We will simply never know. So scientists can go on probing whatever they like till the end of time as far as I am concerned. We believers can never be threatened on the most important issue of all, that is our belief in the existence of a God. So we can have it both ways, and we do.
The problem I have is not with scientific research per se but with certain researchers and the way they pursue their research goals. I deplore their intellectual arrogance and lack of compassion in pursuing scientific goals irrespective of the suffering they inflict on millions of our fellow creatures each year. Much research on animals borders on the obscene.
Every religion has a code of ethics. Science is developing one, as yet unfinished, because the goals of 'free scientific enquiry' can be frustrated by ethical problems and constraints. I believe that curiosity being allowed to drive scientific research without ethical boundaries diminishes us as human beings. Atrocities committed on any living thing, whether it be by Dr Mengele on children in the Nazi death camps, or some employee of a multinational chemical company forcing a product down the necks of animals until 50% of them die, in order to establish the LD 50 levels, are just that, atrocities.
Ethics committees (and I have sat on a few) go some way to meeting community concerns, but there is a long long way to go yet. That is the main reason churches are active in seeking to set some ethical boundaries. As I said, I do not think it is fear of what might be revealed.
Re: We can and we do
Jenny Hume writes:
I want to second this comment and expand a bit. A common misconception is that science and religion are mutually inimical. This view persists, in part, because of a belief that science is inherently atheistic, i.e. asserts there is no God. Not correct (I'm not ascribing this view to you, Jenny). You are correct, Jenny, that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence or action of a supreme being. The God question lies outside the bounds of science. Though science cannot rule out a God, the rules of the game say we cannot require her.
Science differs from religion in having no dogma or self-evident truths. All scientific truths are tentative, probably temporary, and constantly subject to challenge. (In principle. Scientists often forget this. See my "Merton" post.)
The degree to which religious doctrine is open to challenge varies within and among faiths. Judaism, for example, has a long and rich history of re-interpretation and re-re-interpretation of its scriptures, with a huge body of Talmudic scholarship (with counterparts in Islam, Christianity, etc.). On the other hand, Judaism also has its fundamentalists.
Though it's true people have done a lot of bad things in the name of religion, they have also done a lot of good. Christian organisations, for example, have taken a leading role in speaking out against the Darfur genocide, and in trying to alleviate the suffering - of Muslims.
I disagree with Roger Fedyk's view that Christianity (or any other religion) has "failed." Christians, because they are human beings, have failed to live up to the ideals of their faith. Jews have failed. Muslims have failed. Atheists have failed. Secular humanists have failed. Whatever ethical framework we claim to espouse, religious or secular, we often fail to live by it. That is not, in itself, the fault of the framework. It's not Christianity's fault that so many Christians are not very Christian.
Jenny, you are right on target in pointing out the ethical difficulties often raised by science. Animal medical testing, and human testing for that matter, has seen a lot of dodgy practices. The ethical dilemmas thrown up in the course of science are too important to be left to scientists alone, because they are not scientific questions as such. Science sets up a possibility that we can do something (say, clone human embryos), but does not provide a good framework for deciding if we should.
Will and Roger, thank you for your input
Will, thank you! You summed up so much better what I wanted to say overall. I truly regret my unruly behaviour in my English classes so long ago as I now struggle to get my ideas across. I nearly always failed that subject. But then again I always failed religion too! I failed Religion because at the age of 14 I persisted in constantly challenging the Minister leading the class and continued my argument against his dogma into his exams. I don't think he appreciated it. So I protested by losing interest altogether, and in doing that I failed myself. I am trying to catch up so I do take seriously what others write on this subject and think about their arguments a lot. I doubt I will change my basic beliefs because they flow out of something far deeper in my life, but I do not have a closed mind on the subject.
Yes, the churches take a leading role in speaking out on many issues and tragedies in the world, and on social issues in Australia. Christians are not perfect, they are only human too, with all the potential failings that humans are capable of, but I think without them speaking out as they do, and doing their charitable works, the world would be an even worse place. And yes, I have many friends who are scientists and good Christians at the same time.
Roger Fedyk, you have given me a very considered answer to the question I posed to you. Thank you. I agree with you in parts, as many religions do have a lot to answer for, or rather, adherents to many religions over the millenia have a lot to answer for. But as I and Will argue, it is people who fail. I think if there is a God up there he would be appalled at times at the monster man has become. I mean, how could someone calling themself a Christian go home to his/her family at night after spending the day working in a Nazi death camp! But thousands of them did just that and were never punished for it. But then we have the Pol Pots of this world. Evil is evil, irrespective of what ideology the perpetrators try to hide behind.
I do believe strongly in the separation of state and religion. In fact I think religion should be an individual and very private thing. I have some real problems with Bush on that score.
I did read with interest Roslyn Ross's post on aid to Africa and yes, aid dependency in any form anywhere can in fact work against people moving forward and taking control of their own destiny and lives. We wrestle with the same issues and same dilemmas here when we keep on pouring money into the Aboriginal communities with seemingly little overall progress in terms of better life outcomes for them. And we fail there for the same reasons. The problems that keep many people in poverty world wide are so very complex, that it is not surprising that money and goodwill alone cannot fix them.
But applying the principle of tough love to a dysfunctional impoverished nation because corrupt rulers are creaming off much of the aid is not a path the world can go down. Nor can I. So I go on supporting charities like the Christian Blind Mission, knowing that a blind child would rather have its sight, than wait for a corrupt government or ruler to see the light.
I tend to see the AWB issue in much the same way. While Australians have been justifiably appalled at what that company did, and at the Government's failures, I have not seen anyone ask what might have been the result for the millions of Iraqis who depended on that wheat to feed their children if that wheat had never been delivered. The wheat did get through, but would it have been better to have let the Iraqi people starve rather than allow Saddam Hussein to cream off his cut. Sure, the AWB had commercial considerations as its priority, but that does not alter the fact that that wheat was desperately needed by ordinary people to feed their children, which until the oil for food program was put in place had been dying in record numbers. Whether we like it or not, Saddam was going to get his kickbacks or it was no wheat for his people. That is the natural consequence of power in the hands of an evil despot.
I do read your posts with interest on the subject of religion and have recently taken a more active interest in philosophy and religion generally. Previously I studied Islam in Pakistan. In philosophy I thought I would start with my namesake, David Hume. But I found him so extraordinarily heavy going I've headed back to the Greeks thinking if I start at the beginning I might get somewhere. On religion I have started reading the Bible from the beginning and as expected have run into some problems with the ancient laws that are enshrined in the old Testament. As a farmer I cannot see myself stoning the beast that gored its master!
At the same time I've been delving into some old letters written by my great great uncle, David Welsh, who was the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in 1842 who led the walkout of 400 ministers to form the Free Church of Scotland. I thought that was a good thing for it got rid of the patronage system once and for all. Our family had previously suffered a lot as Covenantors but those struggles in the Protestant Church did regain for the congregations some power over their church. But I confess I was rather shocked at David Welsh's judgemental remonstrances at what he saw as the failings of his brother. For instance, poor old gt grand dad got a blast from the Reverend when his son was very ill telling him: "If you read the good book more often, rather than spending your evenings on your indulgences, then you would not suffer such misfortunes". I do not think Christ would have gone along with that over the head of a sick child. But all in all, I think the Reformation did a lot for Christianity. I certainly could never adhere to the dogma of the Catholic church.
I guess this is getting away from the thread about curiosity and scientific research, but so be it. I see its after midnight so if this post is a bit waffly, that is why. Cheers to you both.
T-Bone Crucifix
You don't need to stone the beast that gored its master, Jenny.
Just eat it.
You just need the will, Will!
Will writes the following:
Seems 'there's a whole lotta failure goin' on!'
As an atheist, I have no faith. I know there is no God or life after death. What I see is all there is. You prove otherwise!
Secular humanists like me have not failed. It's just that, currently, we are in the minority because people think that goodness has to be associated with some religion or other (when, all too often, the opposite is the case).
You don't need religion and its false promises to be a good, caring, loving human being! You just need the will, Will.
The House Of Secular Humanism - Bow Please
It sounds to me like you have set up your own religion as certain and unbending as the most rigid medieval philosophy, Daniel Smythe.
Don't get too far away from that farm. You might fall off the edge.
The Hows Of Secular Humanism
Geoff, me old mate, you're still around! This weekend I think you should do yourself a favour and investigate The Hows of Secular Humanism then you might be better able to appreciate what it means and its advantages for the world. All that religious stuff is spooky!
You really should visit me on the farm sometime, get away from all that polluted air, see the stars clearly, become part of nature, get close to reality for a change. Cities are spooky too!
Jenny, I'm disappointed you are not going to start explaining to the illustrious trio that killing lots of people with turbans is hardly a Christian act. Why does everyone leave everything to me?
Seriously....
Daniel, I'll be serious. First. I do not subscribe to the notion of left/right politics anymore so my views in this forum will vary depending on the issues. Those labels to my mind no longer have any relevance. Twenty five years ago I used to be in the Country Party and bought and read The Land. I married a former Trotkyist who bought and read The Tribune. So you either burn the house down with the heat of argument, or you learn to engage constructively with people of opposite viewpoints. When you do, you usually find a middle road.
You and I have opposite viewpoints. Maybe you should try living with a good Christian for awhile. (No that is not an invitation!). But can't you see that rigid views, whether they be anti religious, or anti a certain group in society, only serve to divide and alienate people from each other. I can live with a non believer, but could you live with a religious person? Now, keep your hair on.
As for the trio killing lots of people with turbans. Well, I did not vote for Howard anyway, but those people are doing a pretty good job on themselves, and that was entirely predictable. Anyone who has lived in that part of the world could have told Bush and Co they would have an awful mess on their hands once they removed Saddam. Whether it was over oil, or WMD was immaterial. When a dictator rules by aligning himself with one side where there are ethnic and religious differences, then you only have to remove him to see the simmering pot explode. It seems nothing was learnt from the demise of Tito. The only way to have avoided the civil mayhem going on over there now was to leave Saddam firmly in charge, killing those he saw fit to kill, in their thousands.
Ulltimately all the sanctions would have had to be lifted, and no one has been able to say just what Saddam would have done once that happened. Whether we like it or not, the man was a despot, like Stalin and Hitler and Mugable. Mugabe is no threat to the West. He is too busy destroying his own country. But do people on this forum really believe that Saddam was going to live a quiet and peaceful life once the sanctions were removed and that he did not have grandiose plans of a greater Iraq. Do people in this forum really believe that he never had any intention of going back into WMD once the checks were off. Despots with grandiose ideas don't change their stripes. Whether we like it or not, Saddam Hussein was a time bomb waiting to go off. The UN was never going to act against him. Maybe it would have been better to have just let him be and waited to see what he would do. Either way Iraqis were going to continue to die in large numbers, and no doubt will continue to die after the COW finally gets out. I really feel for those people. They seem destined to live with fear and death all their lives.
And Geoff, eat the beast? No way! I feed the man meat, but as far as I am concerned the beast can roam in freedom. Yes, Daniel, a vego and a meat eater in the same house. That can work too!
Jenny, a serious woman is
Jenny, a serious woman is someone to be treated seriously.
You ask: could you live with a religious person? Yes. As long as she didn't snore!
You say: Now, keep your hair on. Let's just say I'm further down the evolutionary path than some.
You claim that: But can't you see that rigid views...only serve to divide and alienate people from each other? I do! I do! That's why I'm trying to get religious folk to think again, take another look, closely examine their rigid beliefs, ask themselves if the whole religious thing is credible or necessary.
You observe, wisely, that: where there are ethnic and religious differences, then you only have to remove him (Saddam) to see the simmering pot explode. I'm trying to help to remove or negate the religious and racial differences between nations before the pot explodes bigtime.
You claim that: the man was a despot, like Stalin and Hitler. I don't really think that our Saddam was in the same class as the aforementioned do you?
In conclusion, the COW (don't get excited, Geoff) have probably killed far more people than Saddam, which seems an irony given they are claiming to be spreading Christian-based democracy and freedom.
Jenny, obviously we both care about our world and its people. Perhaps we have more in common than you think!
We probably do
Daniel: I am sure we do probably have more in common than you realise, and also with a lot of other Christians as well. Believe it or not I examine my religious views all the time, question them, and if the Church leaders push anything I don't agree with I say so.
But you are right, you only have to look to Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq to see that religious bigotry and tensions can and do lead to violence. But underlying that violence you will also nearly always find other things such as fear, economic disparities, and/or ethnic and cultural differences. It is not necessarily always religious difference that is the precipitator. It just adds to the soup when there is underlying discontent.
I notice in the SMH today, though I now cannot find it, but a group of surf Christians have invited Muslim kids to join them at Cronulla, reaching out to them in friendship. I'll bet those yobbos who were drunk and violent during the recent riots were not among them. I do believe when one subscibes to the essential elements of a Christian life, one's baser instincts and behaviours are moderated somewhat.
But I have real problems with Bush. That he can speak of being guided by God, and then render people for torture in other countries is appallling. The Abu Ghraib business sickened me, but did not surprise me. When I was younger, I worked in the old Intelligence Bureau during the Vietnam war. I used to read cables coming in and they worried me for they reported on US interrogations of prisoners. One did not have to read between the lines. We also had US servicemen stay at our farm, and the things they told me were pretty disturbing, so nothing has changed in forty years.
I also saw the ugly face of America in a woman once on the Pakistan/Indian border when I was studying in Pakistan. It was at the border crossing during a time of high tension between those two countries. We had to wait in the heat for hours. She got impatient and when she found she could not take her Indian currency across the border she tore it up in front of beggars saying: If I cannot have it, then nobody can. I was so ashamed and for once thanked heaven I was in Muslim dress. As a Christian I could never have done a thing like that.
I do think Saddam was in the Hitler, Stalin league. Maybe not in numbers, but gassing people. That sounds familiar.
Anyway, I see you are on a farm. Where is it? We have a slab on the north west plains, been over five years in drought now. So we mostly just run kangaroos. I refuse to have them shot so we don't make any money. There's no money in wheat anyway. But the stars, the birds, the isolation - that is the closest thing to heaven. Sorry!
Must to bed. No, Ian tells me I don't snore so its safe to visit if the fancy takes you. Condition. Come with me to church, just once. If only for the cup of tea afterwards. Cheers.
The House of Nonsense, falling off the edge
Geoff, secular humanism means you can practice your religion as you wish within the confines of the law. That hardly sounds "medieval" to me. And I don't think Daniel is a follower of any religion.
Luminescent Winged Dinosaurs
Peter said that, The Christian and Jewish faiths more than ever use modern science to enforce and use as evidence the basis of their belief.
I certainly agree with that. America and Israel, militarily, use the results of scientific endevour to enforce their beliefs on other people.
Jenny, I agree with your comments about hapless animals, etc. It's disgusting. However I have to disagree with you when you say that: So scientists can go on probing whatever they like till the end of time as far as I am concerned. We believers can never be threatened on the most important issue of all, that is our belief in the existence of a God. So we can have it both ways, and we do.
What about if I said that last night, I looked up into the sky and thought I saw a luminescent winged dinosaur flying across the sky. Then I could say with conviction that I believe luminescent winged dinosaurs exist and challenge scientists to prove otherwise. The fact that they couldn't wouldn't validate my belief, would it?
Jenny, hold onto your beliefs. But if you could stop your fellow believers (of whatever faith) threatening the future of our world, I'd appreciate it!
Only America and Israel??
Daniel Smythe writes "America and Israel, militarily, use the results of scientific endevour to enforce their beliefs on other people."
So America is trying to militarily instill its belief in democracy on Iraq. OK, but what belief is Israel trying to instil on others? Belief in its own right to exist? If that's what you mean then your comment applies to all countries that have military hardware for self-defense.
Self-defense, Mike?
Mike asks, in all seriousness, what belief is Israel trying to instil on others?
I thought it was obvious to everyone that they were trying to impose upon the hapless Palestinians the belief that they, the Israelis, are entitled to possess most of, if not all of, Palestine.
And if the Palestinians won't accept this belief, then they, the Israelis, unilaterally and militarily, will just take what they want of the Palestinian Territories and simply leave the Palestinians the scraps.
This is not self-defense. It's called IMPERIALISM.
Israel is trying to occupy Jordan?
Haven't heard that one, Daniel. Jordan comprises about 70 percent of historical Palestine. Israel and the Palestinian terroritory together comprise the remainder.
The Palestinians are hardly "hapless," having tried to annihilate Israel ever since it was first established by the UN. Do you think Israel has a right to exist? I don't agree with all their actions but the occupation was precipitated by attacks from the areas now occupied.
That is a big ask!
Daniel, I don't think the winged dinosaur bit is a very good analogy but so be it. The other believers I know, Christian, Muslim and Buddhist are not into threatening the future of the world. They are peace loving good people. The world has been threatened time and again, by those proclaiming to do so in the name of religion, and also by atheistic despots.
Evil people are just that, evil people and I cannot see me being able to change them or stop them. The world just has to try and deal with them as best it can. I am certainly not heading off to the wilds of the Pakistan/Afghan border to try and convince Bin Laden to desist. I've been right up into that border area, and had a pretty scary time. I slept with a gun in my hand and a dagger under my pillow. I ain't going back there mate, not for you or anyone!
Jenny, you don't have to
Jenny, you don't have to seek out Bin Laden. Why don't you just make a start on the warring-mongering Christian trio of Howard, Bush and Blair who spend each Sunday in Church?
Do you think I'd have a problem setting up The Church Of The Luminescent Winged Dinosaur? Don't be so sure.
Have a go and if you succeed
Daniel, have a go and if you succeed, you can call yourself Archbishop Neon Archaeopteryx and then you can wing your way over to Kirribilli, No 10 and that House and deal with that lot for yourself. You won't need me. But don't forget to calll by Bin Laden on the way. You might just be able to scare him to death and do us all a service.