The Crusades vs Islam
Given the current on-going discussion in the Gulch following the tragic events of the terrorist attacks in Paris I believe this educational video will shed light on a long standing concept concerning the Crusades and Islam.
http://youtu.be/I_To-cV94Bo
http://youtu.be/I_To-cV94Bo
SOURCE URL: http://youtu.be/I_To-cV94Bo
The "religion" which is Islam gives them the excuse to let the worst of their nature to rule their lives. Utilizing the dictates proscribed by their holy book, and various leaders(imams) of that faith allows all sorts of atrocities in the name of Allah.
The followers of Islam don't seem to be able to use logic and reason to guide them in life. Just an outdated book based on the writings of a degenerate from 1400 years ago, or something like that. Much like other "religions" still around today.
You tell me...
I might add to your comment, that once you take the word "religion" out of Islam -you would have nothing.
I have worked on many a building project over the years in various Arabic countries and over time my opinion slowly changed- for the worse. With some good wine on hand I could regale you for the better part of the day with stories from my work experiences in dealing with the Islamic mentality and while you might start out laughing you would soon begin to understand the consequences of it all and then -it's no longer funny.
Winston Churchill wrote: "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities but the influence of their religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it."
Jan
Even in Colonial America, the first legal, ( under king george) slave owner was a black American. He argued that he should be able to keep his indentured servant for ever.
It was only after near universal public revulsion at what the Liberals in Germany did with the Final Solution did Liberals in America stop liking the Nazis.
The Crusaders may have been trying to defend themselves against Islam but they also killed many Jewish people and sacked a stronghold of Christianity, Constantinople.
In the video Warner said that the Crusaders cannot be compared with Islamic attacks, at least not morally. I think this is a good consideration. If the Crusaders attacks were out of self-defense then they are morally superior, given that self-defense is the only legitimate use of force.
Though I think history is good, I do not think it does much for us to defend the acts of the Crusaders or any other movement of the deep past. We know religion is bad, no matter what happened in the past. Yes, Christianity is a western religion, but as Objectivists we should deplore any sort of religion, and not equate Crusaders with Westerners. There are many actors of the past that have achieved and created great things, things that make modern society what it is today, but we must understand that some of these actors were also religious, for example Issac Newton. But the great things that were created are separate from religion. Those moments of innovation and creativity were moments of focus on this world.
As we move forward, the basic tenets of Objectivism must not be lost. A focus on this world, rationality, and non-sacrifice of self and others, etc. Any self-defensive action should be aimed at anyone who uses force illegitimately. I see on some other forums people arguing over who is to blame for the attacks on Paris and other such attacks. Some say not all Muslims are violent, some say they all are, given their religion advocates such violence. Some are arguing on whether a few or all are totalitarians. An honest look at the Quran clears this quarrel and there doesn't have to be an extensive read of the Quran. There are websites that have extracted all the sentences in the Quran that dictate killing of infidels, of the kafirs. These words of killing are a clear exhibition of the ideas motivating the Islamic terrorists. And any application of the Islamic ideas would be totalitarian, even if done non-violently. But what we must not forget is that even though these people have rejected individualism, they still act as individuals. I think some Objectivists lose sight of this. Ayn Rand's advocacy and description of individualism was not just a moral prescription but a description of how people actually work. No matter how collectivist a person is, no matter how much a person relies on other people's minds, no matter how emotionally driven a person is, they are all still individuals. Just as "society" describes individuals working together, so does "collective action" only refer to individuals working in concerted action. Those students at those "safe-space" US universities may feel some sort of unification with one another, and that they are working as a collective, but truthfully they are each an individual making a choice, even if that choice is based on their neighbor's choice. Individualism is not just a moral or political concept, it is rooted in a metaphysical fact of reality. People who reject such metaphysical facts are acting in contradiction to their own nature. And we must remember this and apply it correctly and unflinchingly.
You have to differentiate between principles, however. This statement as it is presented is a gross fallacy of inclusion, especially when according to several dictionaries, any belief set - even atheism - is a religion.
I agree with you that anyone who objectively examines the tenets of Islam finds principles which disagree violently (no pun intended) with the principles of freedom of thought. But let us be very clear when we speak about such that we identify the actual principles at play and resist the urge to generalize.
I did not commit a fallacy of inclusion. I was being inclusive of course, of any thought process that is religious or religious-like. Can you see how some people worship science today? Where they cannot accept anything without scientific proof. Science is supposed to be a bastion of secular, reasoning thought, but it too is used religiously.
You said I have to differentiate between principles, which principles? The principles of Christianity and Islam. I see very well the difference between the two. Christianity is a far more peaceful religion than Islam, both in its actual avowed principles and historically. I see that very well. My stance was for reason, not to differentiate and show which religion is better or worse. I was attacking religious thought in general. To defend Christianity as if it did not inspire anything evil is dishonest. I was trying to point that out. I wrote a long comment, I could have extended it to be more clear on the differences between the two religions, but I have to stop somewhere, or else I would write a book.
Generalizations are not bad, given the context. My generalization was not saying that Christianity and Islam are on par with one another, when it comes to evil deeds. I was saying that neither religion is exempt from evil deeds. Atheism is included here. Soviet Russia was atheistic and secular, but it sure did commit a huge atrocity, and the atheism there sure was religious-like. And no matter those dictionary definitions of religion there is still a distinction. Religious thought necessarily follows from all religions, but not all religious thought follows from religion. An atheist that puts faith into nature or evolution, has a thought process that is comparable to religion-based thinking, but his faith in nature is not a religion. A religion must have a God or gods. This is why Buddhism isn't considered a religion. Buddha is not to be worshiped, Buddha is a task for all living beings to become. Everyone is capable of becoming Buddha, supposedly. Buddha isn't a singular, independent being, Buddha is a state of being. But in Christianity and Islam, God or Allah is an independent being that lords over everything in existence, no one can be/become God or Allah. By the way, I am not a Buddhist, I just saw it as a good example for religion versus a religious-seeming-non-religion.
You took my sentence out of context and ascribed it is a "gross fallacy of inclusion". And just looking at that sentence by itself doesn't seem bad at all. The first half could exist on its own and it would still imply the second half. And a "fallacy of inclusion", what does that even mean? I have never heard of such a fallacy. This "fallacy" seems more like an attack on generalization in general, instead of on rash-generalizations. Inclusive thought, generalizations, stereotypes are all legitimate, but they can be illegitimately used. Certain people will fit a stereotype, but to ascribe a stereotype to someone rashly, or without first seeing that the person really fits it would be bad thinking.
If friend A throws bowling balls at me, and friend B throws marbles at me, of course A is doing more damage, but it wouldn't be wrong of me to say that people that throw things at people do harm and are bad. My attack would be on the action of throwing things at people. It wouldn't be a comparison, but I would definitely rather someone throw marbles at me, instead of bowling balls. I would rather live in a world with Christians only, than in a world with Muslims only. But since I live in a world with both, I want to see both stopped, but, of course, I have more urgency for Islam to be stopped.
For example, there is a principle in Islam that calls for fasting - the voluntary abstention from certain foods for a certain time - during Ramadan. Science has shown that periodically abstaining from food for 24 hours allows our body to flush out toxins and return to a healthier state, so the principle itself has merit. The problem is that the fasting as exercised by Muslims only happens during the day, and when night falls the fasting period ends and becomes instead outright gluttony. To me, the principle is true, but it's exercise in practice has become perverted.
Let's look at altruism. Some want to equate that with charity, but really, altruism is government forced subsistence of others rather than voluntary assistance. Getting government involved perverts the principle and practice of true charity.
I can go on and on, but I hope these examples show why one must look at the individual principles in play and not necessarily the imperfect practitioners.
"An atheist that puts faith into nature or evolution, has a thought process that is comparable to religion-based thinking, but his faith in nature is not a religion."
Actually, by many definitions, ANY belief set put into practice is a religion. There are just many atheists who can't stand the word religion and so want to avoid its use, but in reality, it's all belief sets.
Man is constantly looking for betterment. His ideals of what that betterment consists of shapes his life and thought processes. That movement from "I don't represent what I want to" towards the ideal is the exercise of religion, with the ideal in the distance being one's god - whether it be nature, "spiritual enlightenment", or the coalescence of those concepts into a human or human-like form. Objectivism is no different, holding up the 100% logical being such as Rand or Galt as that ideal one seeks to emulate. If one worships nature (which I find to be quite ridiculous and backward), isn't one in fact saying that they believe that a return to nature and the abandonment of the advancements of humanity is their ideal? Yes.
So the real question is this: what is the ideal you are seeking for and what is the path to it? That is the discussion of philosophy and religion both. It is the study of the aggregation of individual principles (owning one's self, value for value, etc.) which lies at the heart of philosophy and religion. But the more I study them, the more I find that there are bits and pieces of truth scattered all over. And they are mixed up with lies as well. The task is to ferret out the one from the other.
If I grant your “belief set” idea, then I can still show you are wrong because I can then say that a ‘belief set’ built with false principles is bad, while a ‘belief set’ built with true principles is a good one. Your example of Ramadan is not a good example. Just because MODERN science has proven fasting to be a good thing, does not mean this was the knowledge that ancient Muslims, or even ancient Greeks, were working with. Modern science has shown that there are certain benefits from going without eating for some time, based on biology. This knowledge was not available to ancient Muslims and Greeks. The closest thing that can be biologically based is the Greek’s recognition that going without eating for some time fostered better thinking, which has a modern explanation. When we eat, more blood is directed to the stomach for better digestion. So, when we don’t eat that blood that would otherwise be directed to our stomachs, is used by other parts of our bodies, like our brains. But this knowledge was not available to Greeks. I have experienced this clear thought from not eating, it is apparent.
Did Muslims know this? Maybe, another principle of Ramadan is introspection, so this fasting may foster better introspection.
Whatever the reason, most of the people accepted it on faith, and do not fast for introspection but because it is a commandment from a god. And just a philosophical lesson for you, you said, “the principle is true”. That is incorrect. The stricture to fast is a commandment; commands are not true or false. It is true that someone commanded it, and it is true that there is a benefit from fasting, but that principle wouldn’t be called true, it should be called good, or valid.
In understanding if a system of knowledge is good or not, delve deeper with the disciplines of metaphysics and epistemology. Some religions, like Objectivism, have an objective metaphysics, though quite flawed. They believe that a god, or God, actually exists in the world, universe, whatever. But if that being does not actually exist then principles founded on the axiom that God exists are not good, or not well founded.
The huge contribution to philosophy was Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Its epistemology has the 3 axioms: existence, identity, and conscious. I will not go into the second 2; I want to focus on existence here. Making existence the fundamental axiom is what enables us to found our knowledge in metaphysics, the supposed first philosophy, the discipline that discusses things “about the world” (for any student here that has taken a philosophy class, I know metaphysics can be confusing especially when you compare the Objectivist metaphysics with the idea of metaphysics that is taught in these classes. I will help clear that up. There are multiple definitions for the prefix meta-, it means both “about” and “after”. It got its “after” definition from the people that organized Aristotle’s student’s notes. They had found a bunch of things that did not fit into Aristotle’s Physics, so they put it AFTER the physics, thus metaphysics. So, often teachers teach metaphysics as if it is not about the world as it is, but about the world as we define it. The important distinction with Objectivist metaphysics is that when Ayn Rand spoke of it, she was using the prefix meta- using the ABOUT definition, so this is why she says metaphysics is about the world.) For those of you that don’t know, epistemology is the study of how we know. There are also other more nuanced applications of epistemology but I will not go into them here.
The world exists apart from our consciousness, meaning it is not our consciousness that creates reality. Reality exists and we interact with it. That is the Objectivist metaphysics.
You mentioned that a belief set is condensed and used for our benefit. But is it really for someone’s benefit if he lives a life of austerity, when he doesn’t have to, for a world that supposedly exists, like heaven? No. Austere living is a principle of Christianity. A lot of Christians, especially rich ones, are not living austerely, but some of them think they should give more of their money away to the “less fortunate”. If there were abundance available, use it, to renounce it for an afterlife that doesn’t exist would be stupid.
This is why we should look at systems of knowledge, philosophies and religions, as complete wholes. It is okay to scurry the works to find some perhaps good things, but to say that a religion isn’t bad because some principles are good, is the opposite of your “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, you are saying we should keep the bathwater. Distill the bad ideas out and keep the babies. But still know that the religion from which those “good” principles were distilled from is still a bad one.
My point was that one must separate and individually identify true principles, but that individually true principles can and do exist even in "packaged" ideological/belief sets which overall are "false". To use your example, just because the one engineer came up with a faulty battery doesn't mean that the other engineers who worked on the screen, sound system, etc. produced bad products.
"Your example of Ramadan is not a good example. Just because MODERN science has proven fasting to be a good thing, does not mean this was the knowledge that ancient Muslims, or even ancient Greeks, were working with."
Principles are true regardless how much of the principle is understood. Knowledge is not a prerequisite of truth in a principle, it is an acknowledgement of the truth of a principle. If one was to go back in time to the glory of Rome armed with a loaded handgun and give that handgun to a Legion Centurion, would the gun still fire? Of course - even though the Centurion would have no idea why one of his Legionnaires suddenly fell over dead following a large bang. The principle of combustion leading to the principle of Pascal's law (pressure and temperature of a gas) leading to Newton's laws of motion didn't suddenly spring into existence simply because they were scientifically identified and studied centuries later.
"And just a philosophical lesson for you, you said, “the principle is true”. That is incorrect. The stricture to fast is a commandment; commands are not true or false. It is true that someone commanded it, and it is true that there is a benefit from fasting, but that principle wouldn’t be called true, it should be called good, or valid."
Truth is universal. You are trying to argue that the messenger or vehicle of delivery affect the truth of a principle. I'd point out that your own words acknowledge "The world exists apart from our consciousness, meaning it is not our consciousness that creates reality. Reality exists and we interact with it." We don't create truth simply when we recognize it. It existed independent of us and will continue to do so. The only thing recognition changes is us. The universe goes on about its merry business.
"In understanding if a system of knowledge is good or not, delve deeper with the disciplines of metaphysics and epistemology."
Ah, but neither metaphysics nor epistemiology can answer the question of good and evil. It never makes the attempt. It simply tries to tell one whether or not the arguments being made adhere to a system of rational thought. In order for "good" or "evil" to exist, one must be able to delineate purpose. (FYI, existence in and of itself is not purpose.) Purpose demands change - a starting point versus an ending point and some method of traverse from point A to point B. The epistemiology of Objectivism only helps to identify Point A. It does nothing to address point B or the path from A to B. That task falls to the philosophy rather than the epistemiology. The "why" versus the "how". Both are important.
"You mentioned that a belief set is condensed and used for our benefit. But is it really for someone’s benefit if he lives a life of austerity, when he doesn’t have to, for a world that supposedly exists, like heaven? No."
Again, you have to go back to purpose. I'm not arguing for or against Christianity or Islam here. I'm pointing out the philosophical questions which are fundamental to any ideology. Answer the question of purpose first. Then and only then will you be properly equipped to distinguish good from evil - whether in principle or in practice.
"Some religions, like Objectivism, have an objective metaphysics, though quite flawed. They believe that a god, or God, actually exists in the world, universe, whatever. But if that being does not actually exist then principles founded on the axiom that God exists are not good, or not well founded."
Let's walk through this statement.
First, you state an argument heavily laced with opinion and with the ambiguous conditional "some". You'd be better served to be specific in your argument by naming the precise topic of address, i.e. the religion/principle with which you find issue. The second is a re-state of a position or principle but again needs to be specific to be most effective. The last is a conclusion that I would agree with as a valid statement: that if something does not exist, it can not be the origin of something else.
Validity, however, is separate from soundness. Any argument that follows from its premises is valid. Only valid arguments based on proven premises, however, can be sound. The premise in this case is the primary bone of contention, because that "existence" makes or breaks the soundness of either side's argument. And once again, purpose becomes a primary avenue of determining the question of existence.
Faith and reason are opposite concepts. Any philosophy based on faith is bad. It is destructive in its essence regardless of the form and particulars of its dogma. See Ayn Rand's "Faith and Force" in particular.
Atheism is not a form of religion, not faith, and not a philosophy. "A-theist" means rejection of belief in the supernatural. It says nothing about what one's philosophy is or whether it includes faith.
Scientific understanding of laws of nature in general and sciences like evolution are not "faith". That is in contrast to environmentalism which is based on nature worship, regarding it as an intrinsic (mystical) value superseding human objective value.
Altruism is not "government forced subsistence", it is a concept of ethics meaning living for others as the fundamental standard of ethics. Socialism is political philosophy for those who take altruism seriously.
Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism is not a hodgepodge of rationalizations in a competing religious "belief set". This is a forum for advancing Ayn Rand's ideas and their understanding, not for trashing and misrepresenting them by eclectic religionists pursuing "bits and pieces of truth scattered all over". Blarman's post is not a "reference". Those who are serious about the purpose of this forum and a systematic understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy can find guidelines for where else to look here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Define good and evil. Define faith. The problem is that in both of these you are starting out with erroneous definitions. You insist that the definition of faith is an anti-definition: "the opposite of reason". That's nonsense and it's a false definition. And you can't define good and evil until you identify purpose. You want to insist that the purpose of life is death and oblivion. If that is the case, neither "good" nor "evil" can exist. If there is no benefit to living life according to lasting principles, then there is no reason to qualify any belief set as better than another.
"Principles are not "packaged into containers" and not classified for someone's subjective "benefit"."
They absolutely are. Objectivism is one package. Christianity is another. Judaism is yet another. And there are hundreds more. They may be called "religions". I use the broader term ideologies or belief sets, but each one of these labels doesn't describe a single principle, but rather a collection of them. The argument of being contrary just to be contrary is the argument of the idiot.
"Atheism is not a form of religion, not faith, and not a philosophy."
Sure it is, it's just like I said, you don't want to be associated with the word religion. But it absolutely is a belief set that influences your values, how you go about your life and how you think you will end up. It affects the choices you make and the policies you support. If you deny this, you only deceive yourself.
It is also disingenuous to "pick and choose" parts of the whole and thus interpreting them out of context and imbuing them with the opposite of their intent. And furthermore, sarcasm, which you could have avoided, closes the door to discussion. Those of us who remain dedicated to this forum are here to participate and advance our knowledge in objectivist reasoning. It is an arduous path and you might be more advanced on this objectivist path than others here but the path is the objective and the importance is to stay the course.
Thank you, Blarman.
To add some context to this I would offer a quote from Rand: "Whoever preserves a single thought uncorrupted by any concession to the will of others, whoever brings into reality a matchstick or a patch of garden made in the image of his thought- he, and to that extent, is a man, and that extent is the sole measure of his virtue."
I did not extend the idea individual far enough when I wrote that comment. I see my mistake now.
Since human action can only be ascribed to individual actors, the ultimate choice still comes down to the individual, this is why we can still find people guilty of something, even if they were coerced or manipulated into doing so or followed someone else's thought instead of their own.
I was trying to use the Aristotelian idea of 'is and ought'. Because people are individuals, they ought to act as individuals.
Some people will not independently make a choice. These people, if alone on a deserted island would perish quickly without anyone to help them. They will perish because they will not know how to act against the contradiction they accepted.
I should have said, "No matter how collectivist ..... metaphysically they are still individuals." They will be individual people, but not individual thinkers.
Hmmmm.....actually, even those who follow other's thoughts in doing something are still making individual choices to do so. And at any point in the act of following that other's thoughts, further choices could be made to deviate from those thoughts. To see the error of their ways, so to speak.
Jan
Wars change, the people change, the reasons change but the words to describe the dead never change...
Predictably Face the Nation this morning featured the chairmen of both the Senate and House Intelligence committees as well as NY Police commissioner Bratton saying that the development of more effective encryption services brought on by Snowden's revelations and refusal of the developers to furnish their keys to the government is greatly hampering their efforts.
Frankly I'm beginning to waiver. What does the Gultch think?
Jan
Paris Attacks Blamed on Strong Cryptography and Edward Snowden
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...
History of past terrorist use of cryptography:
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/e...
The Risks of Mandating Backdoors in Encryption Products
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...
What is the DoD's Position on Backdoors in Security Systems?
https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/...
Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...
Technical review by 15 security experts:
Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications
https://www.schneier.com/paper-keys-u...
This will be helpful to better understand.
It is certainly a fine line to tread (rights and privacy) to get more bang (safety and results) for further relinquishing of our freedom. In my opinion, giving further access to our private lives to the government is a NO. Let them WORK and THINK for a change and beef up foreign intel, create a better network of interchange with our allies and instead of asking more concessions from its citizens, let them begin to overtly watch the enemy's people by surveilling mosques and meeting places. Why not begin there? What is this political correctness as evidenced by New York's Mayor stopping any "spying" (a cut to the point) on Islamic activities there? Why do we have to have the government come straight through our front door to crawl through a window of some suspected jihadist? Just go straight to the point and impose these inconveniences on those that specifically represent the problem- Muslim/Islamist (non separable). Yes, this would have to include the innocent to get to the guilty but it strikes straight at the heart of the matter with a precise target -Islam. AND, if the Muslims/Islamist here in the US don't like it then maybe, just maybe, they will finally stand up and declare their position against jihad and unanimously denounce and ostracize their jihadist brothers!
I do love how Westerners try to vilify the Crusades having little or no true knowledge about it.
Charles Motel (Christianity) saved Europe for islamic conquest. We don't teach this, instead we create self loathing. Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...
(I"m sure there is a better link than Wikipedia. This was just the top of my google search).
Term2, if you start at an early age with the "indoctrination" of Islam or Socialism/Collectivism the mind will atrophy. As you state, "...they don't use their brains to think", yet thinking/reasoning is a solitary act. Too many have never thought for themselves, they use "group think", and herein lies the demise of free-thinking societies as we know them today.
I would clearly agree with you on the example of the long continued Irish "Protestant-Catholic" wars. That deserves an unequivocal apology from both sides.
a glass of cognac, a bowl of nibblements [milk chocolate, dark chocolate, nuts, and sometimes raisins], a crackling fire, a BIG glass of ice water, and some intelligent, like-minded company --
time spent like that is a reason to work at other things.
Things change when you're not looking.