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?
Previous comments...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the wish list for next payday. Both of them.
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.
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.
I am beginning to wonder whether you are truly sincere with us here.
I never said islam wasn't a religion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All? I do not fall into that BROAD BRUSH mentality of yours.
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.
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.
here is the video: https://youtu.be/qfqq4VKh1xM The topic comes up at 7:47
After watching, I do believe eww's assessment was correct.
Can't figure why anyone would have taken this point.
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.
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).
BTW, just because you never saw a ghost does not make them unreal. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…
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.
As for ghosts, I need more evidence that is incontrovertible to make them a viable reality. Unfortunately, that evidence is sorely lacking.
They stopped talking with me. :)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Religion will not be relegated to the margins unless rational ideas are spread, understood and taken seriously. Such progress is not automatic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.