Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 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?
ever anyone divines by meant of faith is by that
fact true."...Oh, no. Only if you have faith in the
RIGHT thing. Of course, how are you supposed to
know what the right thing is to have faith in?--Oh, you just happen to have faith in the right
thing. But how do you know? Oh, you just have
faith.---I think some people claim that you can
find out by reason what to have faith in; but
what kind of sense does that make? If you ar-
rive by reason at something to have faith in
thereafter, then you can just abandon reason at
that point? Etc., etc. Zenphamy was right about
conservatives and their dilemma.--The solution
is to promote Objectivism.
Please note, life is not a static existence.
What's yours?
Islam like Hillary and Soros are the result of repeatedly following dead end. For one their motive is false.Their conclusions do not serve to perpetuate and evolve the species. But then the same may be said for Republicans and Democrats.
In my humble understanding of English, purpose denotes a relationship where some thing or some action has as its goal or is aimed at achieving something further or more desirable.
The "purpose of procreation" cannot possibly be the same thing as "purpose of life".
If you do not understand that without much cogitating, your cognitive faculties are so low that I do not wish to waste my time explaining and teaching you. Or, which I think is more likely, you are playing games with me. That makes it too obnoxious and insulting for me. In either case, I had enough. If you and your likes continue to infest the atmosphere here, I am leaving.
Goodbye!
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.
db
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'.
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.
Great article, Ted.
When you peel off the colored veneers, it all looks the same.
I agree with you that the law needs to purge itself of the rest of that influence. But Islam does it much worse, and even "moderate" Muslims in the West will protect the perpetrators of "honor killings", FGM, and other crimes such as the Rotherham rape scandal. Which in my view is sufficient probable cause to profile Muslims up to a point.
A "belief" is not truth; if it were truth, it would be demonstrable. A "belief" is not fact; if it was fact, it would be demonstrable.
AR said "Never use emotion as a tool of cognizance." Believers "choose" their belief because of the return on the investment. Whether Islam or Christianity or Buddhism, et al., the choice is personal. When it involves government, it is no longer personal, it is political.
AR said "Never initiate force (or fraud)." When a "belief" excuses the initiation of force, whether it is called a "religion" or not, it is destructive of individuals and flies in the face of rational thought, flies in the face of being objective.
All christians are altruists
Altruism is evil
All Christians are evil
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.
Back then in High School art class, I remember doing one of those diminishing perspective drawings with a dividing wall down the middle.
On the left (interestingly) side was a depicted world of horror with hordes of people bowing to religious icons, stukas dive bombing people, poverty, starving emaciated people, dark clouds, vile lakes......and then on the right side of the wall was a clean, clear society of reason with surveyors with transits, engineers with blue prints, advanced Howard Roark style buildings, blue skies, rays of sunshine, books, railroads, town meetings of free people.
I remember the art teacher just kind of mumbling that it evoked some "powerful imagery".
As is a cop that stands by and watches his fellow cops abuse, rob, or murder others even though he himself doesn't do those things.
Or the husband of Mrs. X is a pedophile and abuses your and his children.
Pedophilia and child abuse is evil
Mr. and Mrs. X are evil.
I'm currently reading a book, 'Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks' by Hilton Radcliffe that addresses the difficulties in today's science that have resulted from 'belief systems' in the performance of science, and how extremely difficult it is for any human to recognize his own beliefs and separate them from his interpretation and/or application of facts. I highly recommend Radcliffe's writing to any Objectivist.
Example #1: A mature gentleman, affable and helpful, became one of my friends. He and I were playing Risk (I do not normally game, but he talked me into it) and he betrayed an alliance. I was upset at this. He told me something that, he said, only his wife otherwise knew: He was a psychopath. He had chosen to handle this condition by carefully selecting his (a) wife, (b) subculture and (c) job to be ones that provided him with behavioral definitions that he consciously approved of.
Example #2. A young man who was a Mormon related to me that he had ceased being a Mormon during his HS years, but had returned to the faith of his childhood when he realized that he did not like the way his life was going. He did not feel he could live a life he liked without extrinsic guidelines.
Religion is a tool. This may be difficult for many of us on this list to realize because we are a list of 'black sheep' (and one dinosaur). We have all been people who kicked over our cultural 'traces' and gone off to define our own lives.
Many of the religions people on this list see god as a 'prime creator' but consider Physics to be the operational rules of the universe; others have picked a reasonable and compassionate path amongst the conflicting advice offered by the bible. Neither of these choices diminishes their ability to make rational decisions in the real world, or alters their ability to be good neighbors.
We are not the rule in the Gulch, we are the exceptions. Many people seem to need the existence of extrinsic rules that tell them 'how' to live a life of the sort they like, 'when' they have done something wrong, and 'what' to do about it when then have erred. Established religions have responded by evolving their own philosophies to fill these needs - and the ones who did not (such as militant versions of Catholicism) have fallen by the wayside. Religions compete for proponents by addressing these concerns.
Islam. Islam is stuck in a terrible and violent loop, and has taken extreme steps to not allow competition by other religions. How many people would remain Islamic if they had the ability to convert and be Episcopalian? How many would adhere to a radical form of Islam if a 10th century version of Islam were available to them instead?
I think that the question of religions has a lot to do with the biblical injunction to judge a tree by the fruit it bears.
Jan, an agnostic quoting scripture
It's slavery, if not of your body, your mind. It's anti-life.
And in the context of the post it's My boss/god's bigger than yours
Yes he is.--No, he's not.--Is so--Is not--The fight's on.
I think that the majority of the human race, given ample philosophical education and free choice, would choose a socialist society for themselves: they would be willing to surrender their right of self-determination in exchange for security. And I think that these people should have the right to that choice.
The matrix in which those socialist communes must nest is a capitalistic one, though: we can see through history that a socialist society cannot tolerate free will and self-determination within it; a capitalist society can and has tolerated socialist enclaves within its boundaries.
Similarly, most people will currently choose some extrinsic religion that assures them that they are doing right. It is important that the matrix in which these religions exist makes clear the right of the individual to change religions or to abjure them entirely. The fact that you ask the question, "Where is your life, your property, your betterment of life at in any of that?" just means that you are someone who would not make that choice. Others, most others, I think, would choose differently.
Jan
The trouble is that almost nobody gets "ample philosophical education" and only some the free choice. On top of that vast majorities think that someone else is responsible for "achieving" happiness for them.
Capitalist societies have no problems co-existing with communes and religious orders, which are socialist societies, as long as it is the Capitalist society that owns the uber rules. Many such individual-choice socialist subsets have existed within the US for all of its existence. (The reverse is not true - Socialist societies do have trouble with Capitalist enclaves because they are destabilized by them.)
My reference to "ample philosophical education" was to indicate that I think that the pro-socialism choice is going to be innate in a large subset of the human population; that it was not a matter of their having been conditioned by our current educational system to believe in socialism. I think that there are genuinely that many people who lack any inclination to excel and who are sufficiently risk-adverse that they would be glad to trade their personal freedom for security.
Jan
Well said. I appreciate it.
I could only locate it about halfway through the trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZl2M...
Do I hear as second?
Jan
Hurrah! Allosaur is now the triangle!
Jan
Applying reason and logic to the problem of Islam might well lead us to different conclusions than if we only react in defense of our individual or group beliefs rather than to demonstrable facts. I'm not a pacifist and I'm not asking for peace nor am I asking for a Holy war against Islam (that's been tried a couple of times before and it's what Islam itself wants).
Get the rhetoric, the political speak, the religious speak, the propaganda speak, the I'm better than you speak out of our internal conversation with ourselves and the public and look for real solutions. What we've been doing since the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan sure as Hell hasn't done anything but make everything worse including our own individual lives in our reactive surveillance-give up our rights state.
The trend seems to be to scoff at Christianity in favor of Rand's ideology. I find it remarkable that the gulch doesn't realize that Judeo-Christian principles are essential to freedom/liberty. It's divinely ironic that Rand, after escaping communist Russia failed to grasp this.
Further, the argument that reason/science precludes faith and because we can't prove the existence of God or his work proves his non-existence. Can someone with this position, please prove that love exists?
Just because one can physically touch, or scinetificly prove, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's the cynosure of arrogance to assume that we know all that's possible to know or understand.
As far as I'm concerned, we can never know all that's possible to know, but our purpose is to continue to learn and understand a little more of the reality we live in.
Reason is essential to a free society and a free society cannot be defended without a philosophy of reason. Judeo-Christian dogma is incompatible with that, was not the source of the founding of this country, and cannot be used to defend it.
Reason and science preclude faith because fantasy is not method of cognition. Rejecting faith in the supernatural and its claims don't need to be disproved. This has nothing to do with the strawman claim of already knowing all that's possible to understand. Obviously, science is a process of expanding knowledge -- including knowledge of the atomic structure of matter, electromagnetic fields, and much more we can't reach out and "touch".
The church and its mentality of mysticism grovelling before the supernatural has a long history of rejecting science as human "arrogance". The Enlightenment overthrew the intellectual dominance of that nihilism, and resulted in the founding of America and an increase in human well-being in only a few centuries that had been undreamed of for millennia.
Rand was a great intellect, but here philosophy wasn't perfect. The fundamental flaw was her rejection of Judeo-Christian morality as the keystone to the freedom and liberty of western civilization. To not recognize this fact is to fundamentally misunderstand what makes the freedom cherished by this group possible.
The truly great minds of science (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.) would profoundly disagree with your assessment the relationship between science, reason, and religion.
You also confuse "the church" with religion and faith. The Enlightenment was about throwing religion, it was about throwing off the tyranny of the church.
And, your assertion about the founding of America is also at odds with historical record. The Founding Fathers were profoundly religious and recognized that freedom and liberty (our natural rights) were endowed to us by "our Creator". You may want to go back and review the Declaration of Independence and personal writings of the Founding Fathers.
Science and reason are mission critical, but we should never be so arrogant as to presume that out inability to understand/prove the existence of something negates its existence.
There is simply no way to honestly judge history without recognizing that Judeo-Christian principles are what makes freedom and liberty possible.
We continue to demonstrate the point of this post in these conversations of the relative rightness of Christian religion, rather than understanding that allowing belief and faith to guide or direct us through life and determine our actions and reactions to other human life because they don't believe the same thing we do is the problem.
Once you've read that, you would do well to read their personal writings and note that over half of the signers of the DOI were ministers/theologians themselves. To assert that the Founding Fathers didn't found America on Judeo-Christian principles categorically false.
I've heard and read all of these arguments for 60+ years. It's like trying to define Franklyn as a Quaker. He was raised and lived in that society, but there was little of his life style that would have made his Quaker elders happy with him. Hancock and Adams were smugglers. Jefferson and Madison were Deists. It just doesn't follow that they were 'profoundly religious'. Those men were far too complex as individuals and a group to be defined by one small aspect of their characters and public lives.
I realize none of these arguments will make any difference to you, but you'll note that at that time, there was no other country on this continent or all of Europe that separated religion and government as those Founders did. I think that speaks volumes.
The Founding Father were profoundly religious, and not for appearance sake. You really should take time to study them more and read their personal writings, in addition to the DOI.
Further, the Founders did not separate religion/church from the public square. Again, you're demonstrating lack of historical knowledge. The separation clause was specific to Congress supporting a church at the federal level. At the time of the signing, all the colonies had a church supported by the individual colonies. The Founders wanted states and citizens to have freedom to establish their own church and vote their feet. Church services were actually held in the US Capitol during Jefferson's term in office.
With regard to Jefferson/Madison being deists, that in no way diminishes their deeply held religious beliefs. It simply means they didn't believe God inserted interfered with the daily life of man. They believed we were created by God, and that our natural rights were derived from Him. As it relates to the question of Islam, they (Jefferson/Madison) firmly believed that muslim theocracies were incompatible with freedom/liberty and would pose a threat to the west. Always found it interesting that the Marine hymn references Jefferson sending Marines to Tripoli.
I'm happy to continue to the debate, but we must be clear on the historical record.
It never ceases to amaze me, that belief can so distort reality.
If you're going to have an honest, intellectual debate on this subject, you need to know your history.
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.
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.
Christianity is the anti-thesis of the Declaration of Independence - particularly "the pursuit of happiness (your own)
db
"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
for example:
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Even so, his quote doesn't change the sentiment expressed in the quote I used - the need for a religious and moral people for the Constitution to remain relevant, nor the fact that the judeo-Christian ideology was used as a standard, one of many, to base the Constitution on.
Someone takes my point for stating factual information related to the Framers intent AND providing a direct quote attributed to John Adams to support my statement?
Weak. Sadly, Expected.
Other than that I don't get your complaint. I'm an advocate of more active voting, both negative and positive. I personally think the Gulch does an excellent job of rational discussion, just not one well suited to ideologues and religionist.
As for my quotes, every man is a contradiction. The Framers, great men because their sheer audacity, are naturally contradictory in their statements. How else could they have built a nation such as this where all beliefs are to be tolerated and none have precedence or priority over any another?
About the point - I generally do not get nasty. I try to explain making my points. I very rarely back-down on a subject I feel strongly about. I can admit that I am wrong when I feel I am. Very seldom do I take a point from anyone unless they are getting rude, crude, or disrespectful.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/new...
I think those that don't conduct themselves in that manner, and instead attempt to justify and rationalize their belief based judgements and life event reactions, will inevitably harm themselves or others in some anti-life manner.
Objectivist use their objectivity to make decisions, no? That would be their belief and their morality, no?
The early successes in the science of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were in spite of religion, not because of it. They did not use religious faith as a substitute for validation through observation and reason. Einstein was not religious at all. No one said that an inability to understand or prove the existence of something negates its existence. You made that up. If you mean your faith in the supernatural, that is meaningless and arbitrary with no referents in reality to discuss and nothing to understand. It has nothing to do with science, evidence or proof. There is no reason to take fantasy seriously as at all. That is why it is properly rejected as anything to take cognitively seriously, let something to either believe or believe to be "possible".
Your militant repetition alleging a "dishonesty" in rejecting your religion as the foundation of this country while ignoring what had just been explained to you and has been discussed at length is non-responsive and rude. The founders of this country were not "profoundly religious" and religion was not what the Declaration of Independence was about. If Christian other worldly asceticism and duty to the supernatural had continued to dominate we would never have risen out of the Dark and Middle Ages, let alone achieved America. The country was founded despite the remnants of religion, not because of it.
Ayn Rand had no "fundamental flaw" in rejecting "Judeo-Christian morality" as the "keystone to the freedom and liberty of western civilization" or anything else. Christian morality is based on other worldly duty to sacrifice, which is the diametric opposite of the right to one's own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own happiness on earth. Rational egoism is a central and fundamental aspect of her philosophy. See her book The Virtue of Selfishness and, again, Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for explanation to get started, assuming you are interested in learning.
The reasons for rejecting your religious proselytizing here have been given many times. It directly and fundamentally opposes Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, which is the purpose of this forum, and the nuisance distraction does not belong here. Reason and faith are opposites and incompatible. If you think that is nothing other than "scoffing" then it is your problem in not following the discussion or taking an interest in the purpose of the forum. This is not a place to evangelize for religion.
The scientific thinkers referenced above were devoutly religious (that's entirely different from "the church") and viewed science as a means of gaining greater understanding of their Creator for myriad reasons I've pointed out.
To assert that the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious is to have a profound lack of historical knowledge. More than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers and/or had degrees in theology themselves. There is no question whatsoever that western civilization (and America) were founded on Judeo-Christian principles. To deny this is to maintain a preternatural rejection of historical facts. Were the references to the Creator in the DOI and personal writings of the Founding Fathers typographical errors?
This forum is a for honest intellectual debate, which is what I'm attempting to have. I'm not evangelizing my religion. Rand was, without doubt, a great intellect, but she was not infallible.
You consistently avoid "the watch" question and "the building question", because it spotlights the fact that creation requires a Creator by Rand's own assertion. She admired the architect who designed something as simple as a building, while denying the most complex system in the universe must have a Creator.
One can believe in property rights, freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and be either an atheist or a Christian. The difference is that it's Judeo-Christian principles that allow for both to exist. Look to where Judeo-Christian principles are not observed, and you will find less freedom, less liberty, and less property rights.
Their
Nope - these are totally inconsistent with Christianity.
To believe there's no Creator, we must believe (as what pointed out by another Gulcher last week) that it's possible to place all the pieces of a watch in a bag along with a lit stick of dynamite. After the explosion, the result will be a perfectly tuned precision watch. Creation requires a creator.
Oh, and you completely avoided the point about proving the existence of love. Lack of proof or ability to scientifically demonstrate doesn't negate existence.
There is no such things as "creation" out of non-existence and change in the form of existence does not require a conscious intent by some being, supernatural or otherwise. It has nothing to do with imagined watches manufactured by blowing something up. Specific means are required in the formation of anything. It is not random.
Your meandering off on demanding a proof of "love" is irrelevant. Everyone has experienced love and knows that it exists from direct observation. That is not faith in the supernatural. You have tried that line before. It didn't work then and it doesn't now.
I'm not sure where you observed me saying science knows all. I said exactly the opposite.
And, you seemed to have missed my point entirely with the watch. According to you/Rand, we're expected to believe that something as basic as a pencil requires a creator (never mind a watch), but the most complex set of systems in the universe happened by accident as result of an explosion.
Ironically, this position also flies in the face of Rand's ideology. She holds as the highest expression the creation of a skyscraper or new technology or ..., yet denies that we had a Creator. By that logic, the Empire State Building would have spontaneously happened given enough time, as the raw materials were just waiting for the right set of random circumstances.
See, the logic falls apart. Interestingly, Christianity allows for and explains how we came to be here and our endowed rights (natural rights) enable freedom, liberty, and the right to create, while Rand's ideology actually contradicts itself in this regard by not explaining how we came to be.
Rand nor anyone else claims that biology or the cosmos happened by accident. The 'Big Bang' theory was the creation of a Catholic priest, and has to be continually 'adjusted' to match direct observations and measurements. Your continued reliance on the theory only demonstrates that scientist can also suffer from the influence of their belief systems, to the detriment of their work.
What atheists want the rest of us to believe is that the universe, which operates with absolute mathematical precision, and man, the most complex mechanism in the universe, are the result of randomness. But, a pencil must have an inventor/creator.
We're the result of evolutionary processes that have taken millions, maybe billions of years to work, and has no doubt involved processes and maybe events that we don't have a good answer to yet. It doesn't mean that we can't learn about it without consulting some supernatural explanation. Your pencil couldn't exist without man's mind nor without the effects of life. Still doesn't imply that god had anything to do with it.
As to the existence of love, every human at one time or the other experiences the subjective experience of love and the effects of it on a human is directly observable and measurable--the physical and mental effects are well quantified and studied.
Regarding love, yes most people have experienced love (but not all), but it's impossible to quantify or prove empirically. Brain activity when thinking about love/loved ones can be replicated by many other things, so it's a matter of belief and/faith. We can't prove love, but we know it exists.
Likewise, billions of people have experienced God without the ability to prove it. The lack of proof does not equal non-existence.
At some point, you and i'll stop this conversation, yet our conflict with radical Islam will continue and many religious conservatives will continue to argue that it's because they just don't understand the judeo-christian belief system and ethical framework, and they'll continue to argue that as their god revealed to them, that they're doing what their god wants.
And people on both sides will continue to die and our government will continue to use that as an excuse to take away more of our rights and freedom. Those are facts, that is reality. That situation will never be resolved by 'my religious beliefs are right' and 'your's are wrong' arguments.
The freest Muslims in the Middle East live in Israel. If radical islam puts down its weapons, we would have peace. If we put down ours, we would be dead.
The greatest minds in science didn't sacrifice themselves or their achievements because of their belief in God, so it's safe to say reason and Judeo-Christian principles happily coexist.
Religion is not the problem. Religion is a tool.
It is always interesting to me that so many people have the ability to be rational about one tool. Most everyone here is with a gun. Yet totally and completely irrational about another tool religion.
It is the mind and only the mind that can choose to use a tool for good or evil. The article has it wrong.
Science is also a tool. Today its being used in our schools to condition children that the country is their god. Does that make Psychology evil? It does not take much imagination to go on and on about the why in which people use science to hold down others and maintain power by the means of push and pull. Does that make science evil.
Yes people have chosen to use religion as a weapon it does not mean we should do away with god centered religion to replace it with a different religion that has no god and worships something else instead. No more than it means we should abandon psychology because governments are using it to brain wash people into submission without even known they are submitting.
The dark age was so because the minds of men decided to use the social and technological tools of the time to hold people down in order to maintain power. That can be done by men of religion or men of science. The fact is in most of the free world, its science that is enslaving this time, and its a better tool for the job.
If you wish to find the root of the evil you see in religion you must look no father than the mind. It it the only thing capable of such evil, and the only thing capable of the good that can counter it.
True, a gun is a tool, but it's purpose is to wound or kill. That's all it can be used for or the threat of it's use. A gun is a fact in reality.
And Psychology is a tool whose only purpose is to control and/or influence the mind and thought of an otherwise healthy brain. Psychology can be demonstrated in reality.
Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith that rely upon deceit and fraud and story telling to gain control of masses of people by convincing them that their source of knowledge is to believe, There is no reality, just what the story teller puts in, either good things or bad things.
This article and yourself give examples of the effects of religion in reality. I would say it has a very strong effect in reality and is therefor very real as the tool that it is. To attempt to view it as something else is denying the power of the mind.
From my point of view the religion of atheism is based on deceit and fraud. You would say that about my flavor of Christianity. I have no problem with that it is what you have faith in, and you are entitled to it. You can no more prove god does not exist than I can prove that he does.
I do not have to prove that god does exist, unless I am attempt to convert you, You only need to prove that he does not if you are attempting to convert me.
Lets not try to convert each other but rather respect that fact that neither of us wishes to use force on others and we wish to earn what we get by the sweat of our own brow and not allow another man to live for our life.
Attacking Religion is quite honestly nothing but destructive in the same way that attacking a gun is nothing but destructive. Its not the gun that needs to be attacked. Its the person that decides to use that gun to manipulate and control or kill others that needs to be attacked. The same is true of the religious zealots regardless of if they are Muslim, Atheist or Christian. Those that would initiate the use that tool to attack, kill or control by force others are in the wrong, not the tool.
It is not "irrational" to reject religion as just another "tool" with no consequences. Religion has supernatural content and method based on faith. That is destructive thinking. A civilized society in which the rights of the individual are protected cannot be based on religion and cannot be defended with religious beliefs. The a-philosophical libertarian subjectivism ignoring the consequences of philosophical ideas people hold is profoundly anti-intellectual.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Read the first line Athiesm Qualifies.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
A=A looks like atheism fits perfectly.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
Certifiably fits here as well.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
Nope does not qualify but then neither do nearly all religious poeple.
5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
If your advocating there in no god you must have faith in that, as it cannot be proven any more than I can prove there is a god. Fits here as well.
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
Certiantly based of this thread it fits here.
Atheism is a religion. Its a godless one but so is secularism, budism and many others that are godless.
You do not see it as irrational I do.
I do not want a society based on religion. I want a society free to practice the religion of there choice. I want government and state separated. I would agree that a state based on Christianity, Atheism and/or Muslim would be bad. I do not want one group of believes forced on anyone.
Again the problem is not religion, it is the way in which people use religion. There are crazy atheist that attempt to cram that down on people as well.
Enforcing any of these religions on a group of people is irrational. I have just as much right to reject the idea of "no god" as you do to reject the idea of god.
I am not attempting to convert anyone. I am stating that religion is a tool like any other idea or concept.
I do not think a philosophy of reason should be dismissed as "Deceit and fraud" but you provide a strawman that substitutes a religion in for a part of a philosophy, which is in and of itself deceit and fraud.
Maybe my kilt and sporran got a bit askew.
ISLAM is a Theocracy. A Theocracy combines both religion AND government. You cannot separate the two in any way since they both exist a a single thing.
Do not kid yourselves, we are at war with a Government, not just a religion.
Theocratic enforcement and conquer are practiced by the obsessively faithful who take their faith in religious duty seriously. Islamic conquer in the 7th century and beyond was not alone in the region and the religiously inspired conquests didn't start with Islam. The Roman Empire had had quite a run of it by then and they continued at each others' throats. Islam has had its own internal bloody feuds between the Sunni and the Shi'i over a family power struggle for who should follow Mohammed as the leader.
Abandon reason for faith and there is no way to establish truth for the arbitrary fantasies of faith and no way to settle disputes between competing fantasies other than force. That some American neo-Christians claim faith in political freedom is no different than the method of any other faith and is no defense for a civilized society of reason and individualism. Christianity, the primitive philosophy of the Dark Ages, was not and could not have been the basis for the founding of America, which rose out of the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism breaking the intellectual death grip of the church over western thought.
THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
noun: theocracy; plural noun: theocracies
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.
"Religion is part of Theocracy,"
"Theocracy is not part of religion."
Islam has the "Priests i.e. Mullahs who rule and govern in place of their God and Prophet."
I am not sure you really know what the issue is between Sunni and Shi'ia. But just to help educate you a bit on that history you are in part correct.
The divide comes from a philosophical issue, as to who the REAL successor should be. Fundamentally the issue was, Either a direct descendant or an elected leader.
At its real core.
Shiites are for the direct descendant.
Sunni for an elected leader. Sunni's make up 85 - 90% if the Muslims, Shiia the remaining.
Shia tend to be the more radical of the two, however they both believe in the tenets of the Quran which at its core is, "Kill the infidels."
Comprehension I think is the problem here. Not mine but yours....where has your reason gone?
"The divide comes from a philosophical issue, as to who the REAL successor should be. Fundamentally the issue was, Either a direct descendant or an elected leader."
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels...
"Most of the Prophet Muhammad's followers wanted the community of Muslims to determine who would succeed him. A smaller group thought that someone from his family should take up his mantle. They favored Ali, who was married to Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah."
By your logic, Bin Laden and Washington were both freedom fighters... not quite.
Bin Laden and Washington within their individual beliefs, perceptions, and context; both are considered as freedom fighters. Just ask anybody that fought with and/or for them. Just different beliefs and cultures.
It's like debating a liberal who says the only reason liberalism has never worked is because it wasn't implemented correctly. No, it's a flawed premise to begin with.
Freedom and liberty require the moral compass of Judeo-Christian principles to exist. If you can show me examples in human history where a society flourished with the freedom, liberty, and free markets to a greater extent that occurred in America in the last half of the 19th century, I would love to see it. That was the closest man has ever come to what you advocate, and it was based on the Judeo-Christian principles of America's founding. If you're correct, history should be replete with examples supporting your position, but the opposite is true.
Again, I would love to see successful examples of what you advocate if you can provide them.
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.
If you claim belief (in whatever) as the foundation of your position, you've placed yourself in the ultimate position of being Attila or his slave. Someone can always claim their belief is greater, more "right", or from the "true God". So, the alternative to the 'belief arms race' is to tie your freedom back to the real world of existence.
Rhetorically, who determines "the good guys and the bad"? Based on what? Can the 'opposition' claim the same with equal contextual validity? If so, someone has to back up and check the premises of their position. If belief is the foundation, then someone can always say their beliefs trump yours.
"If one is right than both must be right."
I agree that Enlightenment was transformative where monarchical kings used religion as social order.
I do agree that all human's appear to suffer from the results of belief systems. Look at how many children believe that monsters hide under their beds when the lights are out and have to be shown that there are no monsters under there, a number of times.
This country wouldn't exist if Christianity was as islam is.
I do take some offense to you taking my point for having a difference of opinion. But, I do kind of expect that here.
This country wouldn't exist if American Christianity were the Christianity of the 7th century.
When folks here torpedo everything I say on this subject it reminds me that Rand, the woman, is more than respected by those here it borderlines worship: "You shall have no other gods before me."I find this kind of ironic, all things considered.
Is margarine the same as butter even though they serve the same purpose? Is Kroger brand Root Beer as good as A&W? Is a fender electric kit at Guitar center equal to a 1996 Fender telecaster? I do hope you see my analogy here.
But the answer for right now is no.
Catholic, Protestant, Mormonism are RELIGIONS.
This is NOT proselytizing.
Christianity is a belief in the message taught in the Bible and b y Christ.
Jews were COMMANDED to obey the Roman Government's laws, pay taxes, and observe the laws, and only refuse when they conflicted with God's Laws.
God's Laws were in essence "Do No Harm."
Christians are COMMANDED to obey the Superior Authority (Romans). Except where they conflict with God's commands, which is in this order:
1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
Aside from that Christians are obligated to obey the secular authority, meaning there is a vast difference between "True Christianity" and Secular Religion and Islam.
The Bible is the most translated and most widely published book in history.
The Earth is 92,960,000 miles from the Sun
Christians believe in a single God
Some Christians believe in a Tri-Une God, i.e. Trinity, Three Gods in one.
Egyptians believed in many gods.
Jainism believes in harming no living thing hence they do not eat Dairy products or meat products.
Now. Stating facts is not proselytizing any more than stating the distance of the earth to the sun.
Your religion of Atheism is no different and your violent outbursts making unfounded accusations is actually NOT something that a true Objectivist does.
I did not state a belief in one religion over another. I did not encourage you or anyone else ever to convert from your religion of Atheism.
Quite the contrary YOU are the one doing all the proselytizing trying to convert people by using all tactics liberal. You are name calling, insinuating stupidity, you have been most rude and ignorant to others you attempt to use emotion in your claims of reason. You demand others be removed form this site for not agreeing with you, and your not even a person flagged as a producer.
A=A If something is true it is true else false.
You again mis-quote, I did not say True Religions, I said True Christianity just as I have said in other posts True Muslim.
If you CLAIM a belief and fail to follow the tenets of that belief you are not TRUE.
You claim to be all things Objectivist yet you are not a "Producer" on this site. Since you are not a producer, then are you an Objectivist or a Moocher? You have three choices. Looter, Moocher or Producer and being your not flagged Producer there are only two other choices.
A=A
I also find your vitriol on religion interesting. I am not sure you can hate the thought of a God with so much vigor when you claim there is none.
How can you hate something that does not exist?
I speculate that this is why many of them so vociferously maintain, mistakenly, the atheism is just another religion. It makes it just so much easier to hate atheists. Why, they are only barely distinguishable from, say, Jews or Muslims.
I have never heard an atheist voice hatred for religious people because of their religiousness. Maybe I did not live long enough. I am only about 80 years old. The hatred I see everywhere is against murderous behavior in the name of religion. Most recently in the name of Islam.
I have not called atheists stupid, or lacking reason for their belief system, I only expect the same courtesy in return when others perhaps do have a faith in what atheists call mysticism. To each their own.
Atheists have the same issue proving their belief as anyone with any religion. That has always been my statement. Also I would challenge anyone here to look up any of my previous posts and tell me what religion am I? You would be very hard pressed to come up with a definitive answer.
Every Atheist has their reasoning based on their perceptions of reality and based on their interpretation of "evidence" just a most religious people I know who have their perception and their evidence that they reason on using their perception.
You can have 50 people all watching the same train wreck and get 50 entirely different view points and 50 entirely different reports and statements all describing the exact same identical thing, and the irony is they may all be 100% correct.
I can however point to a resident Atheist and self proclaimed "Objectivist" here in the Gulch who has repeatedly done this.
"At a fundamental level, in their reflection of first principles, beliefs found in atheism, Islam, cosmology, or Christianity are in no essential aspect different from one another. They differ only in the way they express details; at their roots, they are astonishingly similar. And that, my friends, is what makes my mission so difficult to achieve. Believers in any of the four faiths cited above, if they are reasonable, rational people, will readily accept this basic commonality to be true. However, they invariably preface their reasonableness with the caveat that the particular group they belong to personally is the single exception.
Atheists are quick to imply that they have no belief, but they're wrong. They believe that there is no God, although their assertion can never be proven true. Muslims spawn a high proportion of radical extremists within their ranks, based upon the premise that their's is the one true faith, but in the opinion of theis writer, they are just as misguided as the atheists. Somehow, sooner than later, we must come to the realization that our own belief is not the exception to the rule, thereby stripping the implied sense of divinity from what is in reality no more than our fragile point of view, fiercely held."
Atheism is generally defined in relation of a belief that there is no god and their reasoning from there is based upon or around that belief. Objectivist on the other hand, are rejecting the entire concept of supernatural explanations for anything that directly effects the lives of any human (other than internal to their minds) or as a source of knowledge about the world of verifiable facts and reality. Rand addressed the first principles of Objectivist as Existence exists and Life is life. From that base, she then built up the philosophy.
Although, as you say, the atheist belief that there is no god may be similar and valid in the eyes of an Objectivist, the route used to arrive at that conclusion is often very different and is often just the choice of a belief that makes more sense than a belief in a god.
A couple of observations.
Proving that something does not exist, without limitations of space and time is always impossible. We quickly approach here the question of what IS means. Remember Clinton's testimony? [I meant the verb, not the Islamic State ;-)]
I think that it would be more accurate to say that atheists do not believe in existence of any gods. I think that claiming that atheism is a religion distorts both concepts. Atheism may be an ideology or a philosophy, but it certainly is not a religion.
Some of the religious people cruising around the Gulch try to describe atheism and Objectivism both as religions. Whether consciously or unconsciously, they try to smear both by depriving them of their basic rationality.
The concept of god is such a deep abstraction. The analysis of the concept quickly leads to considering the meaning of understanding and faith. One of the supreme Christian authorities, Augustine of Hippo, wrote about this. Because I vehemently disagree with his description of those two concepts (understanding and faith), I posted a reaction to his quote in the Gulch. If you are interested, here it is:
Is Augustin of Hippo Right? ... Or Not? - Galt's Gulch. If you search for Augustine of Hippo, it will show up on the list in philosophy category.
Stay well!
Proving a negative is impossible and unnecessary, but if if a claim is self contradictory you can say it is impossible..
I think I will read this book. Sounds very inciteful.
Two easy ways out of the dilemma. Crisis Of Islam by Bernard Lewis. Second. If you truly supported the Constitution you would never dream of asking "What religion are you - or aren't you." If it is isn't on the t-shirt it's none of your business.I just threw that in for educational development. It is a political and cultural system completely controlled by religion.but it is a religion.
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.
Are Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit one entity or three? And what does each one look like? How are we related to them if at all?
What is the final disposition of the soul? Is there just one Heaven and one Hell for everyone? What do Heaven and Hell look like and what are we going to do there?
What is "salvation"?
What ritual performances or ceremonies are critical for "salvation"?
Who has the authority to perform these ceremonies?
Is there a requirement of action involved to obtain "salvation"?
What is our purpose here?
There are vast differences in the answers to these questions among the various sects of Christianity, which is why I label them as similar but not the same. Because they differ, it is illogical to conclude that all are true. There can only be one truth in the end: either one of them is true and the rest only partially true at best, or they are all false together. Since there are a plethora of various sects, if I were looking at the matter, I think I would start with the most critical points and see which sects drop out of the running with each subsequent principle evaluated. If there are any left standing, they would merit consideration. If not, that too is an answer.
But if we go to the core, the divinity of Jesus, how are you to know it? This is the issue. Christians hold this to be true by having faith as the primary means of knowledge from which all is to be derived. But Jesus divine status requires the preexistence of god and in fact there is quist a story about god and the history of the world including floods which precede Jesus. So how are we, who hold that knowledge is empirical, to know that this story is true and of course the answer is that we cant because we hold reason as the guide to knowledge not faith.
You say that Jesus' atonement is part of his divinity but atonement for what? For human violation of god's commandments which presumes god's vision for man is the basis of morality. If so then the morality of reason which Gulchers have in common doesn't fit the morality of god which we rascally humans have been busily violating for our benefit since before Jesus and will be again rationally again. Remember Rand said what is needed is a moral revolution, a revolution against faith and for reason.
Could you sort out the attribute of atonement without presupposing or requiring god? Two who wrestled with the empirical based of knowledge versus faith were Locke and Jefferson. Locke's struggle is fascinating and I urge you to study it as you see him fully grasp the contradiction and never give up empiricism, Locke demands god provide empirical proof of his existence.
What I cited was a generic answer for the case for specific vs generic references to the numerous sects of Christianity. If you want to get into a detailed examination of the principles of what could constitute a logical and coherent version of Christianity, I would suggest that be taken up in a private thread.
Such would be the "angel" that appeared to Mohammed.
Well, what do you expect from someone who calls himself allosaur?. A complete conformist?
I'm not even a complete Christian conformist. I believe in evolution. I walk alone.
Good luck with that...
Evaluate Islam for Islam. Evaluate each individual Christian sect for its own. Evaluate socialism for socialism, fascism for fascism, and Objectivism for Objectivism. Ad infinitum.
Do I find objections in the religion called Islam? Absolutely - the main one being the use of violence and deceit codified within that belief set as being permissible tactics to further the religion itself. That alone is enough for me to decry it as being false and anti-freedom.
Why do I decry socialism? Because it is nothing more than feudalism by deceit: you still have a small cabal of rulers who glut themselves on the works of the masses while pitting the masses against themselves. Communism and fascism have similar flaws.
In the end, we must get down to the individual values and principles. Grouping them all under a single heading like "Objectivism" or "Catholicism" or "Hinduism", etc. comes only afterward. It is fallacy of association to simply lump in every philosophy that shares even a single concept just so as to dismiss them. To do so is to say that since Christianity and Objectivism both believe in the same "don't kill" rule that both are equivalent in their merit. It's not only ridiculous, but openly disingenuous. We can say that in some respects philosophy A and philosophy B are similar, but the differences deny the equivalency of A = B.
Load more comments...