Three Cups for Peace

Everyone has heard the claim that religion is the root of all war. While I don't wholly agree, I do think there is no doubting that religion is very often one of the major factors in war. The problem with that conclusion is that it is an oversimplification of very complex problems. The extremist religious convictions that call for violent solutions to ideological problems do not just emerge fully formed from sacred scriptures. Regardless of what an ancient text dictates, few people will blindly risk their lives without the presence of other conditions such as poverty and indoctrination. In the case of northern Pakistan, poverty prevents villages from building schools, which allows the Saudi-backed madrassas to easily swoop in and educate young men in a culture of extremism and jihad.

In the West we are currently engaged in two wars with the aim of stopping militant Islam and bringing democracy to the Muslim world. Yet, progress, if any, has been slow and debatable, and much evidence lends credence to the argument that combat in Afghanistan and Iraq has only strengthened terrorist organizations. So, what then is the solution? We have used our might, and the results have not been strong enough to keep public opinion in favour of armed combat. Perhaps, instead of trying to force our ideology on an impoverished uneducated population, with centuries of history behind them to warrant a lack of trust, we should look instead at fixing the root causes of anti-Western hostilities.

Having recently read the amazing book Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, I couldn't believe in this approach more. Greg's work as the founder and director of the Central Asian Institute over the past decade and a half has resulted in the creation of 78 schools throughout the remote regions of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. As a result, children have access to education, which can allow them not only to improve their lives financially, but to learn the basic critical thinking skills necessary to reject extremism. Most importantly, from a world-relations perspective, Greg's work has given a face of peace and acceptance a region that tends to only encounter westerners from the other end of a pointed gun. In my humble opinion, this has done far more to bring peace and prosperity to the region than war ever could.

The title of the book is based on a Balti proverb: "The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger. The second time you take tea, you are an honored guest. The third time you share a cup of tea, you become family." I would like to rework that proverb to express the role learning can have on promoting peace: "The first time you read, you are a beginner. The second time you read, you are educated. The third time you read, you are enlightened."

Very Gradual Change We Can Hope For

So I finished The God Delusion yesterday by Richard Dawkins. From watching previous documentaries he has been in, such as The Root of All Evil and The Four Horsemen, and having visited The Richard Dawkins Foundation I was familiar with his unapologetic atheism before I cracked the spine* of his book. And to be perfectly honest, before reading his book I found the extremity of his position to be somewhat of a turnoff; the intense vitriol of the language he spews at religious followers almost discredits the "reasonable" side of atheism. The result of which was that I was somewhat apprehensive about how the book would resonate with me and thus wasn't leaning towards one response over the other.

Having finished The God Delusion I can now confidently say that Dawkins certainly has the evidence to back up his extreme beliefs—to an extent. His arguments for evolution and natural selection are confident and backed up by numerous scientific studies and observations. After tackling the 400-plus pages, no one with a rational, logical mind would disagree with the validity of evolution as an explanation for our 21st century existence.

My problem with Dawkins' rhetoric is his failure to definitively disprove the existence of God. Although he does an excellent job of demonstrating the fragility of the Bible as a source of evidence, this in and of itself is not enough to prove that God doesn't exist. However unlikely it is, there is always the possibility that God is out there and just did a piss-poor job of getting his written word out there. Dawkins seems to rely on the excellence—and excellent it is—of his argument for evolution as a mechanism to disprove religion. But, the existence of a better explanation doesn't completely nullify the former belief. Dawkins himself admits that he can't disprove the existence of God. And while I agree with him that the onus of proof should be on religion, and not the other way around, I suppose that I was expecting a bit more of a convincing argument from such a noted intellectual.

Where the real strength of the book is, in my humble opinion, is Dawkins' ability to illustrate the harm caused by even moderate religious sympathy. Having already forsaken my own belief in a higher power,  this was also the aspect of the book that contributed the most to my own personal understanding of the divide. I have always disagreed with the uneducated belief of my religious peers, but felt that eventually they would allow themselves to shed the dogmatic instruction of their youth and emerge as Plato's philosopher into the light of reason. It was only after Dawkins so succinctly argued against the mere labeling of a child by religious affiliation did I not realize how truly difficult it is to undo the intensive indoctrination we are exposed to as youth. How is one who grows up being labeled a Catholic child ever to tackle the ensuing identity crisis association with discarding one's religious beliefs?

The most disheartening part of the whole situation, for me, is when I apply Dawkins' arguments to our modern context. In light of the current religious extremism not only in the Middle East, but in Middle America, the cause for rational views towards spirituality is more pressing than ever. Two years ago, an impetus for change swept across our southern neighbor demanding a retraction of the status quo. Quickly, posters began to symbolize the beliefs of those who would no longer accept the wrongs that had been committed in our name. And with that in mind, I can find no more fitting way to end this piece than by sharing my favorite meme of that poster (to use another of Dawkins' famous terms) to draw attention to the cause of intellectual freedom and the quest for a secular society.

*Disclosure: I don't crack spines. In fact I loath the practice and have even trained my husband not to do so. I just like the expression.