Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion
Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
I've noticed on the site lately, more and more comments by our more conservative and religious members speaking about the evil of Islam. I've wanted to reply to many of those commenters and posters about the topic of this article, and after reading this article, I'm glad I waited. I couldn't have said it any better. It's not Islam that's the problem--it's religion.
"If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must accurately identify Islam for what it is. It’s a religion.
Why does it matter whether we call this religion a religion? It matters (among other reasons) because recognizing Islam as a religion is the first step in dealing with the problem of jihad—a problem that is much broader than the tenets of Islam calling for the submission or murder of infidels. As I show in “Islamic Jihad and Western Faith,” the fundamental problem is not the specific tenets of Islam, but the idea that faith is a means of knowledge.
'If people can know by means of faith that God exists, what He wills to be true, that His will is the moral law, and what He commands people to do, then they can know literally anything to be true. If a person’s “spiritual sense” tells him that God says he should love his neighbor, then he knows he should love his neighbor. If it tells him that God says he should love his enemies, then he knows he should love them. If it tells him that God says he should turn the other cheek if someone strikes him, then he knows what to do when that happens. If it tells him that God says to kill his son, then he knows he must do so. If it later tells him that God says not to kill his son, then he knows he should not. If it tells him that God says he should convert or kill unbelievers, then he knows he should convert or kill unbelievers. If it tells him that God says the Koran is the word of God and that if he fails to believe and obey every word of it he will burn in hell, then he knows that to be true. . . .
Either faith is a means of knowledge, or it is not. If it is a means of knowledge, then it is a means of knowledge. If faith is a means of divining truth, then whatever anyone divines by means of faith is by that fact true. If faith is a means of knowledge, then the tenets of Islam—which are “known” by means of faith—are true, in which case Muslims should convert or kill infidels. By what standard can an advocate of faith say otherwise? . . .
To lend credence to the notion that faith is a means of knowledge is to support and encourage Islamic regimes and jihadist groups at the most fundamental level possible: the epistemological level. It is to say to them, in effect: “Whatever our disagreements, your method of arriving at truth and knowledge is correct.” Well, if their method is correct, how can the content they “know” by means of it be incorrect?'
If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must be willing to recognize—and to openly acknowledge—the fundamental and relevant truths of the matter. Those truths include the fact that Islam is a religion, and the fact that faith is not a means of knowledge.
Conservatives are uncomfortable with these facts because they are religious themselves, and they want religion and faith to be good things. But discomfort with facts doesn’t alter them. And wanting things to be good doesn’t make them so.
The solution to discomfort arising from the fact that Islam is a religion is not to pretend that Islam is not a religion, but to recognize and accept the fact that religion as such is inherently irrational and potentially murderous because it posits a non-rational means of knowledge."
Let's see what others think of this approach to solving the problems of conflicts with ISLAM.
Is Islam any more wrong in that origin of knowledge, than Christianity or Judaism or any other source of supernatural knowledge?
"If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must accurately identify Islam for what it is. It’s a religion.
Why does it matter whether we call this religion a religion? It matters (among other reasons) because recognizing Islam as a religion is the first step in dealing with the problem of jihad—a problem that is much broader than the tenets of Islam calling for the submission or murder of infidels. As I show in “Islamic Jihad and Western Faith,” the fundamental problem is not the specific tenets of Islam, but the idea that faith is a means of knowledge.
'If people can know by means of faith that God exists, what He wills to be true, that His will is the moral law, and what He commands people to do, then they can know literally anything to be true. If a person’s “spiritual sense” tells him that God says he should love his neighbor, then he knows he should love his neighbor. If it tells him that God says he should love his enemies, then he knows he should love them. If it tells him that God says he should turn the other cheek if someone strikes him, then he knows what to do when that happens. If it tells him that God says to kill his son, then he knows he must do so. If it later tells him that God says not to kill his son, then he knows he should not. If it tells him that God says he should convert or kill unbelievers, then he knows he should convert or kill unbelievers. If it tells him that God says the Koran is the word of God and that if he fails to believe and obey every word of it he will burn in hell, then he knows that to be true. . . .
Either faith is a means of knowledge, or it is not. If it is a means of knowledge, then it is a means of knowledge. If faith is a means of divining truth, then whatever anyone divines by means of faith is by that fact true. If faith is a means of knowledge, then the tenets of Islam—which are “known” by means of faith—are true, in which case Muslims should convert or kill infidels. By what standard can an advocate of faith say otherwise? . . .
To lend credence to the notion that faith is a means of knowledge is to support and encourage Islamic regimes and jihadist groups at the most fundamental level possible: the epistemological level. It is to say to them, in effect: “Whatever our disagreements, your method of arriving at truth and knowledge is correct.” Well, if their method is correct, how can the content they “know” by means of it be incorrect?'
If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must be willing to recognize—and to openly acknowledge—the fundamental and relevant truths of the matter. Those truths include the fact that Islam is a religion, and the fact that faith is not a means of knowledge.
Conservatives are uncomfortable with these facts because they are religious themselves, and they want religion and faith to be good things. But discomfort with facts doesn’t alter them. And wanting things to be good doesn’t make them so.
The solution to discomfort arising from the fact that Islam is a religion is not to pretend that Islam is not a religion, but to recognize and accept the fact that religion as such is inherently irrational and potentially murderous because it posits a non-rational means of knowledge."
Let's see what others think of this approach to solving the problems of conflicts with ISLAM.
Is Islam any more wrong in that origin of knowledge, than Christianity or Judaism or any other source of supernatural knowledge?
What I cited was a generic answer for the case for specific vs generic references to the numerous sects of Christianity. If you want to get into a detailed examination of the principles of what could constitute a logical and coherent version of Christianity, I would suggest that be taken up in a private thread.
But if we go to the core, the divinity of Jesus, how are you to know it? This is the issue. Christians hold this to be true by having faith as the primary means of knowledge from which all is to be derived. But Jesus divine status requires the preexistence of god and in fact there is quist a story about god and the history of the world including floods which precede Jesus. So how are we, who hold that knowledge is empirical, to know that this story is true and of course the answer is that we cant because we hold reason as the guide to knowledge not faith.
You say that Jesus' atonement is part of his divinity but atonement for what? For human violation of god's commandments which presumes god's vision for man is the basis of morality. If so then the morality of reason which Gulchers have in common doesn't fit the morality of god which we rascally humans have been busily violating for our benefit since before Jesus and will be again rationally again. Remember Rand said what is needed is a moral revolution, a revolution against faith and for reason.
Could you sort out the attribute of atonement without presupposing or requiring god? Two who wrestled with the empirical based of knowledge versus faith were Locke and Jefferson. Locke's struggle is fascinating and I urge you to study it as you see him fully grasp the contradiction and never give up empiricism, Locke demands god provide empirical proof of his existence.
Are Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit one entity or three? And what does each one look like? How are we related to them if at all?
What is the final disposition of the soul? Is there just one Heaven and one Hell for everyone? What do Heaven and Hell look like and what are we going to do there?
What is "salvation"?
What ritual performances or ceremonies are critical for "salvation"?
Who has the authority to perform these ceremonies?
Is there a requirement of action involved to obtain "salvation"?
What is our purpose here?
There are vast differences in the answers to these questions among the various sects of Christianity, which is why I label them as similar but not the same. Because they differ, it is illogical to conclude that all are true. There can only be one truth in the end: either one of them is true and the rest only partially true at best, or they are all false together. Since there are a plethora of various sects, if I were looking at the matter, I think I would start with the most critical points and see which sects drop out of the running with each subsequent principle evaluated. If there are any left standing, they would merit consideration. If not, that too is an answer.
I completely agree. If we give these confidence intervals, we can say that a reliance on previous personal experience is going to yield the highest confidence factor (90% or above) while anything else is going to have a reduced confidence associated with a variety of factors such as our relationship with the other person claiming experience, our own perceptions on the matter, etc. It is objective to categorize and individually evaluate our confidence in our data sources and then compare them with the perceived ramifications of each course of action.
Edison might be a good example. He didn't approach his work on the electric lightbulb on faith alone. Many others had done much work with light derived from passing current through a resistive element. I believe that the carbon arc light already existed at the time. Edison also had a lot of experience in the types of work necessary to accomplish his goal, and he had the knowledge of the sciences involved as well as business and financial acumen. His effort was to develop a light source that would operate at home/business safe voltages and currents, was economical, and was manufacturable.
And yes, there are certainly cases of people operating on beliefs formed from pure faith that something was possible that accomplished their goal or achievement, though I doubt that there wasn't some experience or insight or maybe genius involved. But I would argue that there has been a vast number more that were accomplished with a combination of experience and factual knowledge based belief (even if derived from other than formal sources). Look at Jobs/Wozniak.
But I do take your argument to apply some level of risk analysis into the decision. There is certainly a gamble in almost everything that involves the future.
Future events always have less than 100% predictability for the simple expedient that they haven't happened yet. Really all you are saying is that you won't even posit anything that falls below some arbitrary confidence level you set for yourself. That's a part of life we call risk avoidance and everyone has their own individual level of risk avoidance. That's completely understandable and part of what we should all understand about ourselves. What should also be recognized is that our risk avoidance level may change according to the topic.
What we have to be careful about is demanding an unreasonable level of predictability before we are willing to act. THAT is fear. Faith says that even though I may not be completely comfortable with the level of risk involved in a decision, that I'm going to make the decision anyway because the potential rewards outweigh the risk. Entrepreneurs have a high level of risk tolerance. And entrepreneurs often fail. None are guaranteed success. So why after one failure do they not just give up? Thomas Edison reportedly tested more than a thousand filament components before discovering tungsten (which worked). He didn't have any idea what material was actually going to work. What spurred him on despite all those failures? Edison believed that he would find an answer despite the failures. But that belief was only substantiated and became evidence once he was willing to act (and fail and act again).
I can understand why people discount faith and belief, but we should all be aware that it is directly tied to risk avoidance and knowledge about a topic. When one sits down to analyze the problem and begins asking questions so as to quantify the risks and rewards, one can begin to formulate a real risk quotient, but it doesn't happen magically. It takes work and effort to believe there might be an answer, and that is the crux of belief/faith. Fear is allowing our risk aversion to dissuade us from any action whatsoever.
Objectivist use their objectivity to make decisions, no? That would be their belief and their morality, no?
As for my quotes, every man is a contradiction. The Framers, great men because their sheer audacity, are naturally contradictory in their statements. How else could they have built a nation such as this where all beliefs are to be tolerated and none have precedence or priority over any another?
About the point - I generally do not get nasty. I try to explain making my points. I very rarely back-down on a subject I feel strongly about. I can admit that I am wrong when I feel I am. Very seldom do I take a point from anyone unless they are getting rude, crude, or disrespectful.
I think those that don't conduct themselves in that manner, and instead attempt to justify and rationalize their belief based judgements and life event reactions, will inevitably harm themselves or others in some anti-life manner.
Other than that I don't get your complaint. I'm an advocate of more active voting, both negative and positive. I personally think the Gulch does an excellent job of rational discussion, just not one well suited to ideologues and religionist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/new...
Someone takes my point for stating factual information related to the Framers intent AND providing a direct quote attributed to John Adams to support my statement?
Weak. Sadly, Expected.
Back then in High School art class, I remember doing one of those diminishing perspective drawings with a dividing wall down the middle.
On the left (interestingly) side was a depicted world of horror with hordes of people bowing to religious icons, stukas dive bombing people, poverty, starving emaciated people, dark clouds, vile lakes......and then on the right side of the wall was a clean, clear society of reason with surveyors with transits, engineers with blue prints, advanced Howard Roark style buildings, blue skies, rays of sunshine, books, railroads, town meetings of free people.
I remember the art teacher just kind of mumbling that it evoked some "powerful imagery".
Even so, his quote doesn't change the sentiment expressed in the quote I used - the need for a religious and moral people for the Constitution to remain relevant, nor the fact that the judeo-Christian ideology was used as a standard, one of many, to base the Constitution on.
Nope - these are totally inconsistent with Christianity.
for example:
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
I think belief enters the mind, first from instinct; life, fear, the normal operation of the mind to fill in the gaps, etc. It next enters through association and indoctrination from others. After that, much like a house of cards, we construct further and more detailed belief structures on that original foundation, with reliance on the soundness of the original beliefs.
Our efforts in science and Objectivism are to check those beliefs against what we can determine, measure, and analyze in reality and nature and from that make a prediction, then check to see if that prediction is true for everyone else that checks using the same evidence and measurement. If any one of the foundational beliefs prove wrong--the entire structure comes down. If any one of those beliefs can't be checked, then we're gambling against unknowable odds.
The problem we get into is first of all, getting those with belief to check those beliefs (premises) and then to keep politics and religion out of the process and to control for our own beliefs.
So yes, there are beliefs. But our job in science and Objectivism is to protect ourselves from blindly action on those beliefs and avoid building upon or predicting based on those proved wrong or unprovable either way.
db
Load more comments...