About this blog

In this blog, I write about Religion, Science and Peace, and the relationships between them.

Although I hope my writing  is based on reason and evidence, this is not a dry academic discussion. I am a passionate advocate of all three.

Some say that religion and science are incompatible. Under the topic CREATION I argue that there can be no such conflict. Nor can science prove or disprove the existence of God. On the other hand, is it certainly true that the growth of scientific knowledge must have an impact on religious thinking, and I hope to make some contribution in this area.

Some say that religion is harmful, that it is the main cause of war, that it belongs to a primitive stage in human development, and should now be abandoned. On the contrary, I argue under the topic SHALOM that the ultimate goal of religion is, for the individual and for humankind, that state of peace, well-being, wholeness, harmony and unity that is expressed by this hebrew word. Religious people and institutions do not always live up to their ideals, but overall, I claim that religion is an immense force for good.

Other topics in the blog include

  • SWORDS & PLOUGHS where I concentrate on the need to divert effort from the technologies of death to the technologies of life, in order to secure a better future.
  • RELIGIONS where I comment on particular religions, especially thoughts on my own faith, Christianity; plus what I am learning about Islam.
  • HOT SPOTS where I comment on ongoing conflict situations, particularly in the Middle East, attempting to analyse causes and identify paths to peace.
  • BOOKS where I summarise and comment upon books that have informed this blog.
  • QUICK SCANS where I give a brief round-up of relevant articles recently posted on the web.
  • REFERENCE where I place copies of important documents whose position on the internet may not be permanent.

I now run this blog in my real name, David Gerald Fincham. I include my middle name because I am fairly certain that my name is unique in world, and to avoid confusion with other David Finchams. Previously I used the screen name ‘Walk Tall Hang Loose’.

In recent years most of my writing has been about the Israel-Palestine situation, and other sections have been neglected. I hope to get back to them at some time.

 

  • burtcohen

    How might I contact you for a discussion of your new article on keepingdemocracyalive.com?? My email is burt@burtcohen.com.
    thanks.

  • William Bilinski

    From your recent comment regarding, “How Obama Could Stop Those Israeli Settlements”

    You write, “The 1948-49 war between Israel and the Arab League is often wrongly presented as an aggression against Israel. The day after the end of the Mandate the Arab states informed the UN that they were invading Palestine (not Israel) to restore law and order [en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegr…]. Most of the fighting took place in Palestine, outside the borders of Israel. ”
    I’ve got copy of Martin Gilbert’s “Atlas of the Arab-Israeli conflict” and on page 47 the caption is “The Arab Invasion of the State of Israel, 15 May 1848”. He also writes that “On 15 May 1948 six Arab armies, those of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq invade Israel”.

    Are you contesting Gilbert’s version of events on the ground based on a cablegram, which could be considered to be propaganda or spin?

    • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

      Hello William, thank you for your comment.

      No I don’t think an official document from the Arab League to the United Nations could be called propaganda. However, it does seem to me that the document could be seen as ambiguous. Certainly they entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians, but they may also have had an intention to re-unite Palestine by force. However, Israel did not protest the invasion to the Security Council, and the Security Council made no comment on it. I haven’t studied the war history in detail (and don’t forget that history is written mostly by the victors). I know there were some border skirmishes, and there was some penetration into the Negev, but I don’t think any of it can be characterized as an invasion of Israel, certainly not on 15th May.

      What is certain is that Israel used the war as a cover for an aggressive expansion of the state beyond its legal declared and recognized borders. Please see my article ‘The Borders of Israel’ [religion-science-peace.org/2012/11/02/the-borders-of-israel/].

      • William Bilinski

        Yes, maybe I should have used the word “cover” along with propaganda instead of spin.

        “When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations…”

        I hope you can see the Orwellian nature of this paragraph. One might see the Zionists finger prints on the crafting of this text.

        I can imagine a metaphor of this as a coin flip in which, if heads, the Zionists win; if tails, the Palestinians loose.

      • Chris Berel

        “Certainly they entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians”

        I would need more proof than a cablegram. The Arab League, before and after the re-creation of Israel, did nothing to protect Palestinians. As the record shows, no member of the Arab League had any intention of allowing the creation of another Palestinian state. They were all interested in their own prestige and their own territorial ambitions.

        Don’t use “certainly” unless you are exceptionally well-schooled in the topic.