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 13.
BTW, just because you never saw a ghost does not make them unreal. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio…
I do agree that religion will become relegated to the margins of society, unfortunately I fear it will never leave us. Because of our intelligence we are able to create abstract hypotheses to explain unknowns and fool ourselves into believing that they are correct. For example, if we are in an old, dark house, our imagination will create supernatual explainations for the normal settling that the house experiences. Thus the ghost stories told by various people. That's all religion is, our ancestors fears made manifest and anthropomorphized (though I do believe some ancestors realized that religion is also a good societal control and used it as such).
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.
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.
The opening general session at OCON 2015 addresses this explicitly as does the third day's general session. They are all available online through the end of July via Live Streaming. Six 1.5 hr talks cost $130. Just register and pay. I think it's a great deal. Thursday's was John Allison, former CEO (for 20 years) of BB&T, talking on the theme of his brilliant new book, "The Leadership Crisis and The Free Market Cure". His language, his ideas are exceptionally clear and accessible. I recommend studying this to be better able to express our values and influence others. That's what I'm doing.
All of them have two things in common which is the Golden Rule of Do unto others.
Something none of them have in common with the secular versions.
Another common factor is an inability to follow their own teachings. which includes the secular versions.
In the end it'is the individual who makes the choice to do unto others and hence each version of the Ten Commandments not the church. Except for the secular versions who have no standards.
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.
Great article, Ted.
The sticking point is that God cannot die. When the men took Jesus down from the cross, he appeared dead… they thought he was dead… Well, absent the death of Christ, there is no Resurrection, and no Salvation. … but, again, we have Unitarians among us who deny the Trinity, and we seem not to care.
If we declared war on Unitarians and Mormons, we could easily make them into terrorists.
Religions are ideas. They can only be changed or defeated with better ideas. You can find Zeus-worshippers and Odin-worshippers, and of course, Wiccans. They do not hold much sway. Eventually, all religions will be relegated to the margins of sociality.