15

Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
331 comments | Share | Flag

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?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, it's you that have completed avoided addressing my points. You also failed to counter my assertion of America in the last half of the 19th century or to provide a single example of a society that's flourished under your parameters, which I take to mean you weren't able to find an example.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    or it could mean she valued her life and made a statement not to give libtard donohue a toehold to build from?

    here is the video: https://youtu.be/qfqq4VKh1xM The topic comes up at 7:47
    After watching, I do believe eww's assessment was correct.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I forgot, hope is a faith oriented thing that objectivists know nothing of?

    Can't figure why anyone would have taken this point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your replies keep sidestepping the fundamental point being made, then you raise some tangent or straw man. Take it as a signal that you've skipped a step in your logic and back up to address it.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Religion-free countries have existed and do today, and they're by no means free. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Vietnam, and the list goes on and on and on. It makes for a great John Lennon song, but it's a fantasy.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, you have your definition of freedom and they have their definition, and you're both in error in the world of reality and reason. And now you should realize why so many of us would give our eye teeth to find an actual Gulch, to sit out the destruction that comes from belief over reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Only if reason requires we jettison the foundational building blocks of western civilization... which it doesn't.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 9 months ago
    great post. still getting through all the comments. what zen gets up to while k was away! :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I truly hope you're being sarcastic, because you can't possibly be serious. In the case of IS versus Judeo-Christian society, it's quite easy to determine who's the good guys and who's the bad guys... one group is in favor of freedom and liberty and the other chops the heads off of their opposition to enforce their tyranny. You see... easy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A "set of Beliefs tethered to a moral compass" IS moral relativism. Zen's point is that 'belief' cannot serve as a foundation for freedom or morality. All objectivity is sacrificed at that point because "a set of beliefs" is subjective.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not a physicist, (but as an engineer I've been exposed to physics a good bit) but I agree with Einstein on that point. I always thought the Uncertainty Principle sounded like a cop-out. ;-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The silly point concerning ghosts, is demolished here-
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
    -the sacred orbiting china teapot.

    'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio… '
    This was used by a clergyman against philosopher Bertrand Russell, there was no logic or argument just an effusion of words to obfuscate in an attempt to show more knowledge, it dos not work of course.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mohammed would disagree except for the parts that were taken from Judaism. But he was also a politician. A good deal of politics and religion is to replace common sense and pragmatic observation with faith when it comes to being afraid of the dark. Otherwise we wouldn't have Stephen King and James Carville
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Again, for what I presume to be a well educated person, you're demonstrating a remarkable lack of historical knowledge.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorta like "Global Warming", or whatever they are calling it these days. Its a belief, not verifiable by duplication of the processes to reach the conclusions drawn. Science is not proven via consensus, as the believers don't seem to understand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with your assessment completely that we're at war with radical islam. That conflict is the product of the tenants of radical islam, and has nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity beyond the fact that they (radical islam) hate us.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yep, at 73, I'm with you. I've given up some of my "necessary fictions"(luv that description) as I get on in years. Keeps me alive and relatively healthy, I suppose.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok, you've officially jumped the shark. And, this is what happens when you subscribe to moral relativism rather than a set of beliefs tethered to a moral compass. To be a "freedom fighter", one must actually be fighting for freedom. Bin Laden (and radical Islam) have nothing to do with freedom. It's not a cultural thing, it's a tyranny thing. One must be able to objectively observe facts, which I would have assumed you would, and recognize the difference between the good guys and the bad.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nor mine, I kind of take it as a good sign sometimes, it means at least one person read my comment.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo