15

Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
331 comments | Share | Flag

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?
SOURCE URL: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2015/06/yes-conservatives-islam-is-a-religion/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jconne 9 years, 3 months ago
    Faith vs reason as a means of knowing is indeed the essence. A "tamed" religion, like Judaism and Christianity in the west is less an immediate threat, but deadly when they ignorantly vote our rights away.

    The opening general session at OCON 2015 addresses this explicitly as does the third day's general session. They are all available online through the end of July via Live Streaming. Six 1.5 hr talks cost $130. Just register and pay. I think it's a great deal. Thursday's was John Allison, former CEO (for 20 years) of BB&T, talking on the theme of his brilliant new book, "The Leadership Crisis and The Free Market Cure". His language, his ideas are exceptionally clear and accessible. I recommend studying this to be better able to express our values and influence others. That's what I'm doing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      The religion is not "tamed", its practice is watered down and secularized by people with a foot in both camps. The outcome depends on what they take most seriously at any point. Those with even only a toe in the faith camp are still susceptible to the same destructive premises if and when they take them seriously enough to follow them, and the very common practice among conservatives of claiming to rely on faith as a defense of our secular rights is deadly for all the reasons Ayn Rand gave. This is much more fundamental than how people vote on specific issues. The voting will not be corrected until people understand the reasons behind it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
      Allison is a marvel. I watched him answer questions form 15 or more at OCON and he spoke to each one looking them straight in the eyes until their question was answered and he stayed until everyone was answered. He is a leader and brilliant.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
    Oh brother, Islam was formed 700 after Christianity and used landmarks and people from Judaism, Christianity, and other localized religions to add credibility to itself.The basis of this 'religion' was to unify the nomadic arabs in much the same way that Judiasm unified the Jews. Mohammed used that sentiment (his quran) to justify a wide range of his criminal activity in the guise of divine enlightenment. These crimes included: widespread theft, raiding an killing innocents, sacking cities, making and violating treaties, and subjugating and killing anyone who would not convert to islam. Islam was intially friendly to all monotheistic religions of the time. It wasn't until those other religions rejected islam that mohammed began wholesale terrorizing and murdering of innocents. In short, he drank his own kool-aid to the point that he believed it.

    Again, Objectivism is a life philosophy and serves no use once dead. Why does faith (I'm not being on religions) bother people here so much?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      Nothing "serves a use" for those who are dead. Ayn Rand's philosophy has value for living. Other-worldly fantasies obsessing with death and the supernatural do not. The value of anything can only be for the living.

      Faith is incompatible with reason. They are opposites. You know that and you know why pushing religion is incompatible with the purpose of this forum. Continuing to do so is obnoxious and inappropriate.

      Islam was not founded for "criminal activity" exploiting "landmarks" and "people" for "credibility". Islam meant Submission to God and Moslem meant True Believers. Islam is an offshoot of the Judaism and Christianity prevalent in the 7th century. It came from the same primitive religious tribal mentality common to the whole region by the 7th century. It was heavily influenced by the Judaism and Christianity that dominated from the Roman Empire and not surprisingly shares the same basic beliefs and primitive mentality of faith, myth, and groveling before a single god, augmenting the personality cult with Mohammed as its own prophet. Mohammed was a religious fanatic who opposed the multiple-idoltry, gambling, etc. that he saw around him at Mecca and was an evangelist trying to "save" people based on the Judaism and Christianity he saw was uniting the tribes nearby.

      To try to explain away Islam to the proponents of faith embarrassed by it today as nothing but an excuse for crime is preposterously anti-intellectual and a-historical.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
      What bothers me and probably other people around here is the promotion of religious faith, which, when done in this forum, is OBNOCTIOUS and INAPROPRIATE (to quote another Gulcher).

      Concept of faith is much broader than its application in the religious context. From Wiktionary:

      faith (countable and uncountable, plural faiths)
      1.The reasoning of beliefs hoped true by the proof of things, such as philosophy, that are without the real evidence of sight, sound, and touch. Have faith that the criminal justice system will avenge the murder. I have faith that my prayers will be answered. I have faith in the healing power of crystals.
      2.A religious belief system. The Christian faith.
      3.An obligation of loyalty or fidelity and the observance of such an obligation. He acted in good faith to restore broken diplomatic ties after defeating the incumbent.
      4.A trust or confidence in the intentions or abilities of a person, object, or ideal. I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man.

      I think that it is fair to say that people here object to religious faith propaganda. I do not think that they are bothered at all by the concept of trust implied in some uses of the word faith.

      I urge you to be more careful while writing here. You will instigate less bother and perhaps achieve a discussion based on careful and unambiguous reasoning. But forget about promoting religious faith here. If you are religious, you do not belong in the Gulch.

      P.S. I was unable to edit out the three blue characters.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      And after death there is no life. One makes his or her own fate and lies in it for eternity. The rest is wishful thinking.

      Second the above activities were learned from the Mongols. Rather good at what they did. The Ka Khan ruled for religous tolerance those who failed to obey were beheaded.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
        Certainly its your right to believe so. To declare it conclusively you'd have to experience death and tell us, which would negate your statement. Until such time science can monitor or assess what happens after a life expires the jury is out and anyone's statement is just a statement of preference.

        As for what I posted about, those are facts of islam. Yes, I'm adequately read when it comes to islam and its history before I make statements.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
          Excellent then what followup books or sources do you recommend? As for assessing death it's what happens when the heart stops and the life signs head south and some come back from whatever is the cross over point. I was in no condition to take notes. I'll un-negate my statement. It's my statement. It serves me well. I don't live nor die for anyone else. Unlike many I am not afraid of the dark and pay no heed to questions that cannot be answered. I leave that to the witch doctors.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
            Offhand, I remember the authors name, Bernard Lewis, but not the titles. I read two of his books.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard...

            There are three others, not written by Mr. Lewis, which I have to look up to member the authors and titles..

            Prior to writing commentary (which you can find on-line by searching my name) I made sure I was not going to be ignorant of the issue of islam.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
              I have Crisis and two others on order. I see you are a neighbor. Now I must acquire your books. I am nothing if not a sponge in the reading department. If you find the other authors name pass them on please. do you also play guitar?

              On the wish list for next payday. Both of them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                here's what I can remember. I apologize but most of the books I read on Islam came from the library. Whats here are mentions of sources that I managed to locate (its been more than a decade).

                The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years - Bernard Lewis
                Cultures in Conflict: Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the Age of Discovery - Bernard Lewis

                The Koran Interpreted - A.J. Arberry

                Between Islam and Christendom: Travelers, Facts, and Legends in the Middle Ages and Renaissance -- Beckingham

                The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades - Robert Spencer


                I fact checked the Politically Incorrect Guide, which I read last, and it was consistent. Of all the books, the politically incorrect guide was the least dry.

                If I come across the others I will follow up.

                I've read many more books related to islam since. To get a contemporary sense of islam today I recommend Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali


                Also, no, I do not play any musical instrument. My son player electric and classical guitar semi-professionally.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      I was always partial to the Mongol Method myself.We should not forget in the Crusades the Christians of Europe killed more Christians than Muslims in the Middle East. While economics is always the cause of war religion is more often than not the excuse. That only started changing about a hundred years or so ago and full blown changing after WWII. When the religions started banding together to fight the neo-secularists - a handy word as all of them by WWII
      wee socialists in their many forms and disguises)

      Somewhere someone wrote something about mankind joining together to fight a common foe - from outer space no doubt - and the end point was only when one part of mankind made a deal with the aliens.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
        Statism, not economics, is the cause of war. See Ayn Rand's essay "The Roots of War". The notion of economic interests causing war (and a lot more) is a Marxist fallacy of economic determinism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Because beliefs from faiths cannot produce empirical evidence and discussing those beliefs with any individual from any one of those many belief based on faith systems invariably leads to their proclamation that their's is the right one, regardless of the evils done in it's name and based upon interpretations of centuries old writings.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
        What happens when you die? Objectively answer me this? Considering man's unique consciousness and that unique consciousness cannot be identified in the human body (at this time), what happens to that unique consciousness when the body fails to function? Is the essence within man energy? If energy cannot be destroyed and only changes its form, where does man's energy go after death? What happens to his accumulated knowledge? Is there a multiverse? I yes, do we transition there and begin a new as a human or another life form? Do we stay in spirit form? Is there life on other planets?

        I do not begrudge reason or even atheism their respect. The fact is neither of us empirically know and we both chose paths to walk in life that maximize our experience. Only one of us chooses to say 'I don't know, perhaps..."

        Thats your issue, not mine.

        Again, objectivism is a life/living philosophy, nothing more. This "approach" of yours deny's possibility.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          AJ, I have no way of determining what happens after we die. As far as I know, we die, and our bodies return to the Earth from which they came. As to after that, it's not a question that can be answered rationally with reason or experimentation.

          For myself, I'm not going to spend a minute of the life I have worrying or wondering about something I can find no way of knowing, nor am I going to spend any energy or thought preparing for some imagined transformation or apologizing to some deity in another dimension for what I've done or not with my life.

          At the end, I will have lived. And I won't have harmed another human because his religion says something different than what another says.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
            I've never harmed a human being because of my beliefs - my faith or otherwise (though I have wanted to belt a liberal more than a few times). I suspect the large majority of people in this country, can't speak for others, have never harmed someone because of their religious beliefs.

            As you know, I write speculative sci-fi...if I was as rigid as staunch objectivism demands I couldn't write effectively. I find the 'possibility' fascinating, intriguing, and, in some capacity, seductive.

            Respect.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
              Philosophy is not fiction. Objectivism does not demand that you can't write fiction.

              All those who for religious reasons have opposed abortion, contraception, stem cell research, and supported taxes for welfare have hurt a lot of people. The lack of rational defense of a free society by those insisting rights come from a god, abandoning the realm of reason to the left, is preventing the cultural and intellectual reform that is necessary and without which will not only continue to harm people but may result in losing the country entirely. Yes the religionists are hurting people on a grand scale.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                "ll those who for religious reasons have opposed abortion, contraception, stem cell research, and supported taxes for welfare have hurt a lot of people."

                All? I do not fall into that BROAD BRUSH mentality of yours.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                So are you contending that Rand's philosophy is the only one? It is the truth? The light? Sound familiar? I hope so.

                No one knows conclusively how we are what we are or what happens to us, our consciousness, once we die. To say you conclusively know there is something or nothing after life is just bluster, your personal opinion - for you, Rand, or any Objectivist.

                The only difference between you and me is I prefer to think Jesus was nailed to the cross and you choose to give that role to Rand.

                Notice how I didn't take points for having a different viewpoint.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
          Don't you know that consciousness is a property of the brain?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
            Yes, but then no one is sure how human 'consciousness' came to be different than that of the animals (Great example, 2001 space odyssey chapters 1-2, Clarke). No one is certain what happens to our collected knowledge when we die (Frightening answer in Childhoods End, Arthur C Clarke).

            Life, existence, is far too wondrous, to me, to be limited to just my senses. If that doesn't work for everyone here thats fine by me and I won't knock anyone because of it. I've said from day 1 that I am a primarily Constitutional Conservative and, despite my admiration for Rand, that hasn't changed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
          There is no such "perhaps" as a rational possibility. All evidence is that consciousness does not function without a living brain. No speculation for any of the unlimited and contradictory fantasies one may imagine has any cognitive value at all, and none of the wishful thinking fantasies establish any "possibility" for anything. Reason does not deny the concept of "possibility". It rejects arbitrary assertions of what is claimed to be possible as meaningless. When you know nothing about a subject it's time to shut up, not speculate with wishful thinking claimed to be a possibility.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 3 months ago
    Islam is a variant of Christianity, much as is the Church of Latterday Saints (Mormons). We accept Mormons. We also accept Unitarians who deny the Trinity. Islam is not much different than those insofar as it is an extension of Christianity. You can find a Quran online in English and search for "Jesus" (Iesu) and "Mary" (Mariyam). You will find Jesus mentioned something like 25 times, called the Messiah and called the Son of God. You will find Mary called the Virgin and the Mother of God.

    The sticking point is that God cannot die. When the men took Jesus down from the cross, he appeared dead… they thought he was dead… Well, absent the death of Christ, there is no Resurrection, and no Salvation. … but, again, we have Unitarians among us who deny the Trinity, and we seem not to care.

    If we declared war on Unitarians and Mormons, we could easily make them into terrorists.

    Religions are ideas. They can only be changed or defeated with better ideas. You can find Zeus-worshippers and Odin-worshippers, and of course, Wiccans. They do not hold much sway. Eventually, all religions will be relegated to the margins of sociality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Riftsrunner 9 years, 3 months ago
      Islam isn't a variant of Christianity. They are two of the Abrahamic religions with Judaism as the third. Islam claims origin from Abraham's other son Ismael who was banishished into the desert after Isaac's mother wanted her son to gain inheritance over her concubine's son (First born males were giving the right to inheritance).In Islam Jesus is just another prophet like all the others from the Old Testament. So there is no divinity to Jesus in Islam unlike any of the Christian religions.

      I do agree that religion will become relegated to the margins of society, unfortunately I fear it will never leave us. Because of our intelligence we are able to create abstract hypotheses to explain unknowns and fool ourselves into believing that they are correct. For example, if we are in an old, dark house, our imagination will create supernatual explainations for the normal settling that the house experiences. Thus the ghost stories told by various people. That's all religion is, our ancestors fears made manifest and anthropomorphized (though I do believe some ancestors realized that religion is also a good societal control and used it as such).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
        Mohammed would disagree except for the parts that were taken from Judaism. But he was also a politician. A good deal of politics and religion is to replace common sense and pragmatic observation with faith when it comes to being afraid of the dark. Otherwise we wouldn't have Stephen King and James Carville
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
        All the main beliefs of Judaism and Christianity are shared with Islam: the whole cult of a duty to a single god, being saved, etc. The theological dogma of which prophets to follow, etc. are secondary and only serve to distinguish Islam as yet another religious sect from the same mentality at the time.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 3 months ago
        Have you ever read the Qu'ran? You can find it in English online. You will find that Jesus is acknowledged as the Messiah, and Mary as the Virgin. Your first paragraph is just common misinformation.

        BTW, just because you never saw a ghost does not make them unreal. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 3 months ago
          The silly point concerning ghosts, is demolished here-
          http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
          -the sacred orbiting china teapot.

          'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio… '
          This was used by a clergyman against philosopher Bertrand Russell, there was no logic or argument just an effusion of words to obfuscate in an attempt to show more knowledge, it dos not work of course.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Riftsrunner 9 years, 3 months ago
          In Islam, Jesus is the last prophet (before Mohammad) sent by god to lead the isrealites onto the true path of Islam. While he is called the Messiah and was giving a virgin birth by Mary, he is not divine (or God). According to Christianity, Jesus is divine and God (though Mormons push this to its breaking point due to their theology), thus Islam cannot be a christian variant. Accordingly, Jews and Christians are people of the book (Qu'ran or Koran) who have lost their way.

          As for ghosts, I need more evidence that is incontrovertible to make them a viable reality. Unfortunately, that evidence is sorely lacking.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
            I once told a group of muslims that they and all muslims around the world should convert to Mormonism since Joseph Smith was the latest greatest prophet sent by God. :) They asked how I can be sure Joseph Smith wasn't a fale prophet, I asked them how they were sure mohammed wasn't a false prophet?

            They stopped talking with me. :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
              Of course they stopped talking. There is no intellectual way to resolve disputes from competing faiths. Unlike most Mormons, the Islamic leaders take their obsession seriously enough to scream "infidel" and behead the heretics. Just be glad the ones you were talking to weren't in that class.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      I doubt that religion will ever be relegated to the margins. Belief systems have a strong set of roots in the human psyche and it takes a strong person to understand that belief has no part in life and will always come into conflict with someone else's belief. Only when one accepts logic, reasoning, and evidence within reality will rationality overcome belief and faith.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 3 months ago
        Belief always has, and always will, play a prominent role in the life of all human beings. I believe that I exist. I believe that you exist, although all I can know is the idea of you in my mind. Etc. I believe "facts" because the idea of the facts in my mind is consistent with the idea of other facts. I don't "see" as such. I develop an idea that integrates the pixels of signal the visual nerves send from the eye to the brain. What my brain sees is that idea, not the light itself.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
          We certainly do see and know reality as the basis of our beliefs. We are not trapped in our own minds unable to see the world.

          The role of reflected light, the eye, and nerves to the brain is the mechanism of how we see, not an obstruction to it. Sight is the form in which we are directly aware of reality when we look. Every perception must exist in some specific form, limited to the nature of what it is. Rational beliefs are knowledge of reality we know to be true based on perception of reality and inferred through reason conceptually.

          The notion that we are only aware of a phenomenal world of our own making, forever cut off from "things in themselves" is thoroughly Kantian nihilism undermining our ability to know the world through reason based on our sense organs.

          From Ayn Rand's For the New Intellectual:

          "Even apart from the fact that Kant's theory of the "categories'' as the source of man's concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man's consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
          Belief forms a basis for the future. Evidence and logic are how we evaluate the past. That is the reason both exist and are necessary. To deny either is to deny the linear nature of space and time. What we believe in is subject to debate, certainly, but to discount or denounce belief as some here do is nothing short of denying the possibilities inherent in that thing we call future.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
            We have a strong difference in how we define belief vs evidence and logic. True, we use evidence and logic to evaluate the traces of the past, but we also use it to measure and evaluate the present and then we use that factual data and evidence to predict the future.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
              "If any one of those beliefs can't be checked, then we're gambling against unknowable odds."

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                Degrees of Risk Aversion/Taking is an interesting way to look at the effects of acting on the basis of belief. But what's important (IMO) is the source of the belief. Is it a matter of pure faith in the supernatural, or is it a matter of previous experience (your's or another's), or is it a matter of the degree of objective factual knowledge gained/not known at the point of action. But there's also a personal commitment to hard work and persistence.

                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
                  "Degrees of Risk Aversion/Taking is an interesting way to look at the effects of acting on the basis of belief. But what's important (IMO) is the source of the belief. Is it a matter of pure faith in the supernatural, or is it a matter of previous experience (your's or another's), or is it a matter of the degree of objective factual knowledge gained/not known at the point of action. But there's also a personal commitment to hard work and persistence."

                  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.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 3 months ago
      Islam is NOT a variant of Christianity. No way in HELL. Not even close at all. Mohammed took what dim understanding he had about Christianity and turned every single story about all the people (Cain and Able, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc) and twisted the history so that he could be seen as in the same company as they were & thus implying to his forced followers that he too, is among the prophets.

      Here are some shining examples of how islam and Christianity having nothing in common:

      In the Old Testament ~ the Garden of Eden is on earth.

      Mohammed says that is a lie and it was in heaven.

      In the Old Testament, Cain killed Able because of Cain's jealousy over his perceived view that God had a higher preference for Able.

      Mohammed said the reason why Cain killed Able was because Cain was jealous of Able's wife, who was in fact Able's sister. (Yes, incest is perfectly allowed in islam)

      In the Old Testament, God instructed Noah to build an Ark so as to rescue animals from both sexes (hey, why both sexes and not just males? Uh, because homosexuality ISN'T sustainable....just sayin') because God was going to destroy the earth and rid the sinful nature that humanity had become lost to.

      Mohammed said Noah cursed the people who had made fun of him because Noah was a prophet and because of that, the people needed to submit to him. And when the people refused to acknowledge him as a prophet, allah sent forth a flood to punish all who denied Noah the prophet status.

      In the New Testament, Jesus died on the cross for EVERYONE's sin's. On the 3rd day, He arose from the dead and was seen by multiple people.

      Mohammed said Jesus didn't die, but in fact had someone else go his place.

      Every single Commandment that God gave the Jewish people was directly broken by Mohammed. How many did Jesus break?

      Perhaps the most disgusting thing Mohammed ever did was when he was caught on top of his dead aunt in the grave. And when his followers asked him what he doing, he replied that he had a revelation and that he had to forgive her of her sins and the only way he could do that was by sexual contact.

      You really expect me to believe your statement that islam is a variance of Christianity? The mormon thing as well: You need to read (KJV only) Revelations Chapter 22, verses 18 and 19. Joe Smith clearly didn't heed the warnings. And nope, I am not a god, and nor will I ever become one and become in charge of my own damn planet.

      I've read more than enough of islam since 1996 to be absolutely beyond disgusted with it. I hate getting involved in discussions about Christianity on a forum that supports AR, but it would be wrong for me to stay quiet when I read your first line KNOWING you are quite wrong.

      Want to discuss this in more detail? A debate on mormonism perhaps and how it closely follows the masons far more than Christianity? No problem, but not in this forum.

      I do however, completely agree with your statement about if we declared war on the Unitarians and Mormons they would be considered terrorists. And that why 'the war on terrorism', ~ a tactic of war, is so incredibly stupid and a waste of life, (American lives) and our $$.

      For the Globalists, environmentalism is their religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      MikeMarotta: "Eventually, all religions will be relegated to the margins of sociality."

      Religion will not be relegated to the margins unless rational ideas are spread, understood and taken seriously. Such progress is not automatic.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      We didn't declare war on Moslems or turn them into terrorists, they declared terrorist war on us. The ideas can only be defeated by rational ideas, but the physical attacks and threats are real war and it is essential to understand the ideological cause of that war.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 3 months ago
      I was raised in Massachusetts as a Unitarian and didn't buy any of it even as a youngster. And that was even before being influenced by Ayn Rand. I became the village atheist.

      Now, many decades later, my thinking has evolved to a point where I have defined a god concept that is way outside of the conventional major religion based concepts. To the point where I don't use the word god anymore, too much baggage. It works for me and is based upon the best empirical knowledge that I have arrived at holding that reality exists outside of one's consciousness.

      The link with this original post is great. I had not seen this site to date. I think that what it is stepping towards is that western conservatives need to examine their own basis of culture in religion as well. I think if that is accepted and the fundamentals and the history is examined, it will emerge true that Judeo-Christian traditions in the long slog of history have been a positive influence. The fundamental teachings of Christ do hold that the individual is foremost. And that is an important root for western culture as opposed to some others. That is what conservatives need to remember and bring forth as the true distinction between cultures/religions that do hold that value and those that are fundamentally collectivist in nature.

      Heavy stuff and I like it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
        The Christian religion has not been a positive influence. It was the primitive philosophy of the Dark Ages that collapsed and prevented human progress for millennia in addition to motivating the slaughter and torture of countless people. The better aspects of Christian culture were in spite of the mystical other worldliness and demands for sacrifice, not because of it. The only "individualism" of Jesus was to save one's own soul in another world, not for living in this one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 3 months ago
          I think this is a bit of an over simplification. There are many scholars that maintain the Dark Ages is a myth. I see it more as a tough balance between the teachings of the value of humans as individuals (that is where the traditional western value that all human life is sacred derives) and the never ending proclivity of human organizations to morph into collectives, with all the attendant misery, slaughter, and torture you mention. Christianity was/is hardly alone in that aspect.

          But it is out of the enlightened side of Christianity that set the stage for a renaissance and then the Age of Reason. That is the age that brought us some of the most enlightened and inspired thinking that gave us the brilliant concepts embodied in America's founding documents.

          I have always been repelled by organized religion and the dogma and ritual so always characterized by the fundamental drive to control people. I think the balance is still at play today where the collective malevolence of organized religion is overshadowing the inherent beauty of what the man Jesus was trying to espouse. I think from the get go, his death became a martyr for the collective, with so much embellishment of miracles etc., that his actual principled nature is near lost. And 2000 years down the road his name is used to push altruism. His teachings of the value of the individual are near lost. I would love to have met the man. Something certainly profound occurred with his life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      And replaced with what? I have no idea except conjecture amd possibilities as far as the general populaion is concerned. Will man allow it to die or will it's importance as a convenient scapegoat for war be enough reason to keep it alive. I don't see wars and conflicts ceasing. Only the players. The strong survive the weak fall by the wayside. Let me change that. Only the strong who have the will to survive will continue. Those without the will to survive no matter how strong will fall by the wayside. Religion will be the excuse and economics the reason.

      The Muslims have se themselves up or have been set upto take the fall. Either way or both works for me.

      But then so have the citizens of the ÜSSA.

      To the common man the finger on the gas chamber button is immaterial.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      Including the secular versions? Islam is the second largest of the the nine monotheistic religions in the world. Some of them have one thing in common which is linear development. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Ba'hai. with offshoots of Zoraster, Krishna and Bhudda.

      All of them have two things in common which is the Golden Rule of Do unto others.

      Something none of them have in common with the secular versions.

      Another common factor is an inability to follow their own teachings. which includes the secular versions.

      In the end it'is the individual who makes the choice to do unto others and hence each version of the Ten Commandments not the church. Except for the secular versions who have no standards.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
        How do you hold "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in your mind?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
          Exactly where it should be. I had to clear some junk out of the ay to get the threads lined up properly. Meaning....i will comment on religion in general but follow the First Amendment just to see if I can get away with it.

          Generally gods is plural I'm monotheistic.There is only one god so that's not a problem. Most of the divisions and schisms are 'silly semantics.'

          Wars are economic the reasons put forth are more often than not - religious - and are used a propagada to gain the support of cannon fodder. and the cannons hand maiden baby factories.

          Being a secular progressive is a very difficult way to commit suicide and to no purpose under heaven.



          That's close enough.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo