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... You are currently on page 2.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams, First Vice President, Second President of the United States
Christianity is the anti-thesis of the Declaration of Independence - particularly "the pursuit of happiness (your own)
db
They had absolutely no designs on removing religion from the public square in any way, shape, or form, as they knew the very survival of freedom and liberty depended on Judeo-Christian principles... that our natural rights are endowed to us by our Creator.
Of course they did want a theocracy, and you're correct in stating the Founding Fathers wanted the individual to decide how he/she would worship. That's why they left it to the states, which allowed people to "vote with their feet" (if you didn't want to live in a Anglican dominated state, you could move to a state where the Congregational Church was dominant). But to assert that the founding principles of America were not based on their religious beliefs is simply factually inaccurate.
The intent of the Founders was to keep religion out of the government and the business of interfering with the individual rights of citizens. They fully intended to place religious beliefs and activities in the hands of the individual and the practice of religion at the level of the individual as a matter of individual choice and reason, and to eliminate all coercive influences and powers of the European practice and history. They abhorred those practices and history and intended to provide a country based on reason and individual freedom of the mind.
Altruism is not charity. Altruism is the use of coercion to transfer wealth and/or property. Charity is a voluntary act which even Ayn Rand acknowledged to have done in the support of her husband. Christianity does not advocate for altruism, but does for charity.
As for being a friend of reason, that is all a matter of opinion. When one holds a fundamentally different view of life and its purpose, of course there will be disagreement on the matter. You are holding that any argument other than that which agrees with Aristotle to be necessarily without merit - a wholly fallacious proposition. In order to establish the relative merits of any belief system, one has to first establish the principles on which each is based and evaluate them. A categorical denial without a legitimate examination is prejudicial at best.
It should also be noted that the Church of England is not a Christian religion. It was invented by a man - Henry VIII - to support his own view on the matter of marriage because the Catholic Church would not grant him a divorce. Locke rightly denounced the Church of England for abandoning reason.
"Everywhere we find individuals struggling to get out from under the moral, intellectual, and political coercion imposed by protestants. See creationism and abortion positions of protestants."
That is your opinion and if you want to go into a more concentrated discussion, I will initiate a private conversation. Both of those discussions is colored deeply by one's views on the origin, purpose, and disposition of life.
" Add "All protestants are Christians" to my syllogism and it still works."
They may profess to believe in Christ, that is true. But they separate themselves from one another because they have doctrinal differences. They are similar, but not the same. Thus the comparison is actually an overly-broad mischaracterization because it says that because one or more groups share a single belief that they are all the same regardless of their individual disparate beliefs. To apply the same logic is to equate any two philosophies which believe murder is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason why. I caution against such broad strokes and instead advocate for the individual examination of principles rather than people or institutions.
Further, the difference between societies founded on Judeo-Christian principles versus Islamic is also demonstrable. We don't need to theorize about this, there are living examples today.
There seems to be a preternatural aversion to recognizing the facts on the ground.
No one is saying there are not differences between Judeo-Christian and radical Islam. What is being asserted is that both 'defend' their beliefs with faith. So once the rhetoric ceases, it eventually becomes a contest of which faith blinks and which faith is better armed among the holders of the 'real truth'.
The evil that is addressed in John Galts' pledge is identified when force is involved by one or a group inflicted on another in the name of either altruism or pure aggression. That is not charity by definition.
When true charity is engaged in - i.e. without coercion involved, the exchange of value is perceived by the charitable individual to be the immediate and eventual return of good will. Between cognizant individuals this kind of interaction is beneficial.
As to the basis of altruism preached as a fundamental good by religion through some evocation of guilt without differentiating the choice of individuals - hoo, boy, you've got a Pandora's Box, there, which I think is what you are getting at.
If you're going to have an honest, intellectual debate on this subject, you need to know your history.
This ideal scenario of the gulch is only possible when tethered to a moral compass. I challenge you, or anyone in the gulch, to provide examples of a culture devoid the Judeo-Christian moral compass that resulted in greater freedom, liberty, property rights, and ability to prosper on one's own merits than existed in the last half of the 19th century America.
Maybe my kilt and sporran got a bit askew.
That's obviously impossible since we all have beliefs formed from instinct, but maybe a country of men that are capable of assessing beliefs against the reality of life. Might be a small country. Might be a Gulch.
You've managed to convince me that's no longer possible in this country.
Load more comments...