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 4.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What's yours?
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.
But it is out of the enlightened side of Christianity that set the stage for a renaissance and then the Age of Reason. That is the age that brought us some of the most enlightened and inspired thinking that gave us the brilliant concepts embodied in America's founding documents.
I have always been repelled by organized religion and the dogma and ritual so always characterized by the fundamental drive to control people. I think the balance is still at play today where the collective malevolence of organized religion is overshadowing the inherent beauty of what the man Jesus was trying to espouse. I think from the get go, his death became a martyr for the collective, with so much embellishment of miracles etc., that his actual principled nature is near lost. And 2000 years down the road his name is used to push altruism. His teachings of the value of the individual are near lost. I would love to have met the man. Something certainly profound occurred with his life.
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.
Please note, life is not a static existence.
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!
Load more comments...