The Erudite Jihad

Am just catching up with this article about the scholarly support for jihad.

It reminds you that the rationalists who want to dismiss religiosity as something unsophisticated or undeveloped are missing the point.  Here's a wealth of intellectual firepower -- pretty intricate reasoning, actually -- in support of car bombings and the deaths of children and the targeting of particular civilians.

Lack of intellect isn't the issue here -- the issue is how intellect is applied.

Taking a broader view -- this has the potential to blow up the argument between science (intellectual, rational, good) and religion (superstitious, irrational, bad).  Once you raise questions about morality and intent you come out somewhat differently -- science (Einstein or Mengele?) vs. religion (Osama or Dr. King?) 

In other words -- it's not an either/or.  It's what you do with your science, and what you do with your religion.

While I'm not, at this point, a big fan of Ken Wilber (who seems to be veering off into a Tony Robbins-like commercial self-help space), there's something to be said for his latest argument that science can be developed or undeveloped, and religion can be developed or undeveloped, and development happens along multiple lines.  Intellect is only one of them, and morality and empathy and compassion operate separately.  So it's more than possible to be a scholarly Jihadist or a Nazi doctor.

And unfortunately the cure isn't as simple as Dawkins or Hitchens would have you believe.

Because morality and compassion seem to operate in their own space.

And apparently virtue is its own reward.

Damn.