Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I've noticed on the site lately, more and more comments by our more conservative and religious members speaking about the evil of Islam. I've wanted to reply to many of those commenters and posters about the topic of this article, and after reading this article, I'm glad I waited. I couldn't have said it any better. It's not Islam that's the problem--it's religion.
"If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must accurately identify Islam for what it is. It’s a religion.
Why does it matter whether we call this religion a religion? It matters (among other reasons) because recognizing Islam as a religion is the first step in dealing with the problem of jihad—a problem that is much broader than the tenets of Islam calling for the submission or murder of infidels. As I show in “Islamic Jihad and Western Faith,” the fundamental problem is not the specific tenets of Islam, but the idea that faith is a means of knowledge.
'If people can know by means of faith that God exists, what He wills to be true, that His will is the moral law, and what He commands people to do, then they can know literally anything to be true. If a person’s “spiritual sense” tells him that God says he should love his neighbor, then he knows he should love his neighbor. If it tells him that God says he should love his enemies, then he knows he should love them. If it tells him that God says he should turn the other cheek if someone strikes him, then he knows what to do when that happens. If it tells him that God says to kill his son, then he knows he must do so. If it later tells him that God says not to kill his son, then he knows he should not. If it tells him that God says he should convert or kill unbelievers, then he knows he should convert or kill unbelievers. If it tells him that God says the Koran is the word of God and that if he fails to believe and obey every word of it he will burn in hell, then he knows that to be true. . . .
Either faith is a means of knowledge, or it is not. If it is a means of knowledge, then it is a means of knowledge. If faith is a means of divining truth, then whatever anyone divines by means of faith is by that fact true. If faith is a means of knowledge, then the tenets of Islam—which are “known” by means of faith—are true, in which case Muslims should convert or kill infidels. By what standard can an advocate of faith say otherwise? . . .
To lend credence to the notion that faith is a means of knowledge is to support and encourage Islamic regimes and jihadist groups at the most fundamental level possible: the epistemological level. It is to say to them, in effect: “Whatever our disagreements, your method of arriving at truth and knowledge is correct.” Well, if their method is correct, how can the content they “know” by means of it be incorrect?'
If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must be willing to recognize—and to openly acknowledge—the fundamental and relevant truths of the matter. Those truths include the fact that Islam is a religion, and the fact that faith is not a means of knowledge.
Conservatives are uncomfortable with these facts because they are religious themselves, and they want religion and faith to be good things. But discomfort with facts doesn’t alter them. And wanting things to be good doesn’t make them so.
The solution to discomfort arising from the fact that Islam is a religion is not to pretend that Islam is not a religion, but to recognize and accept the fact that religion as such is inherently irrational and potentially murderous because it posits a non-rational means of knowledge."
Let's see what others think of this approach to solving the problems of conflicts with ISLAM.
Is Islam any more wrong in that origin of knowledge, than Christianity or Judaism or any other source of supernatural knowledge?
"If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must accurately identify Islam for what it is. It’s a religion.
Why does it matter whether we call this religion a religion? It matters (among other reasons) because recognizing Islam as a religion is the first step in dealing with the problem of jihad—a problem that is much broader than the tenets of Islam calling for the submission or murder of infidels. As I show in “Islamic Jihad and Western Faith,” the fundamental problem is not the specific tenets of Islam, but the idea that faith is a means of knowledge.
'If people can know by means of faith that God exists, what He wills to be true, that His will is the moral law, and what He commands people to do, then they can know literally anything to be true. If a person’s “spiritual sense” tells him that God says he should love his neighbor, then he knows he should love his neighbor. If it tells him that God says he should love his enemies, then he knows he should love them. If it tells him that God says he should turn the other cheek if someone strikes him, then he knows what to do when that happens. If it tells him that God says to kill his son, then he knows he must do so. If it later tells him that God says not to kill his son, then he knows he should not. If it tells him that God says he should convert or kill unbelievers, then he knows he should convert or kill unbelievers. If it tells him that God says the Koran is the word of God and that if he fails to believe and obey every word of it he will burn in hell, then he knows that to be true. . . .
Either faith is a means of knowledge, or it is not. If it is a means of knowledge, then it is a means of knowledge. If faith is a means of divining truth, then whatever anyone divines by means of faith is by that fact true. If faith is a means of knowledge, then the tenets of Islam—which are “known” by means of faith—are true, in which case Muslims should convert or kill infidels. By what standard can an advocate of faith say otherwise? . . .
To lend credence to the notion that faith is a means of knowledge is to support and encourage Islamic regimes and jihadist groups at the most fundamental level possible: the epistemological level. It is to say to them, in effect: “Whatever our disagreements, your method of arriving at truth and knowledge is correct.” Well, if their method is correct, how can the content they “know” by means of it be incorrect?'
If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must be willing to recognize—and to openly acknowledge—the fundamental and relevant truths of the matter. Those truths include the fact that Islam is a religion, and the fact that faith is not a means of knowledge.
Conservatives are uncomfortable with these facts because they are religious themselves, and they want religion and faith to be good things. But discomfort with facts doesn’t alter them. And wanting things to be good doesn’t make them so.
The solution to discomfort arising from the fact that Islam is a religion is not to pretend that Islam is not a religion, but to recognize and accept the fact that religion as such is inherently irrational and potentially murderous because it posits a non-rational means of knowledge."
Let's see what others think of this approach to solving the problems of conflicts with ISLAM.
Is Islam any more wrong in that origin of knowledge, than Christianity or Judaism or any other source of supernatural knowledge?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 11.
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.
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.
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
They stopped talking with me. :)
I do not begrudge reason or even atheism their respect. The fact is neither of us empirically know and we both chose paths to walk in life that maximize our experience. Only one of us chooses to say 'I don't know, perhaps..."
Thats your issue, not mine.
Again, objectivism is a life/living philosophy, nothing more. This "approach" of yours deny's possibility.
"If one is right than both must be right."
I agree that Enlightenment was transformative where monarchical kings used religion as social order.
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.
Load more comments...