First of all, I think the problem you have with such atheists is semantic. I would call your belief "philosophical," you would call it "religious." We disagree only in the words we use to describe your beliefs—and like most semantic differences it's not something I feel strongly about anyway.
I'm inclined to disagree. The hallmark of religion isn't a belief in God; rather it's a belief system characterized by its social dimension. Nobody goes to the Kantian temple to practice the Categorical Imperative together.
It's either outright ignorance or intellectually lazy to proclaim "all religious people are wrong", knowing that Jainism and Buddhism are called religions by most everyone in everyday speech, and then only say "yeah well I didn't mean them I meant X" when confronted about it. If you mean something less broad, say something less broad. It's downright insulting, otherwise.
And yet you're 'positing' that their Islamic counterparts in the average Middle Eastern nation are more influential. Which is why questioned whether or not that was a fair comparison. What about their counterparts in Europe or the most industrialized Asian societies? Against those nations, is not then possible to argue that American religious subculture is more influential by comparison?
There is no religious movement more politically active (where the religious leaders have their hands directly on the levers of the government -- sometimes even in cases of a military dictatorship) than the current Islamic revival. So, no, I don't think there's a great comparison -- or at least you'd have to start looking back through history to find those comparisons. I'd say that everyone on every side of the political debate would agree that the Islamic revival is the single biggest political mover among religions today. There are very few nations where political leadership has grown more religious and not less over the last 50 years.. and they all have one thing in common.
And before you say it, GWBush or not, America *has* gotten more secular.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
I'm somewhat insulted by the mischaracterization of agnostism, particularly strong agnostism. My position on strong agnostism derives from the nature of logic. Logic is a process to derive facts or theorems based on some set of axioms (assumptions). A logical argument requires axioms, and the validity of those axioms cannot be devined within that logical framework, they are just assumed to be true. So if we are talking about some form of God interesting enough to be bound in the foundations of logic, it would be impossible to decern the absolute validity of it without assuming it is valid or invalid, or choosing some other set of assumptions. So proving something, and something as difficult as the existence of God much less the definition of God, requires some sort of assumptions.
For probability, a probabilistic argument over the existence of God also requires assumptions. In terms of Bayesian Inference, this comes in the form of the prior probability. If you futz with the prior probability, you can prove God exists (which Bayes himself did) or that he doesn't exist, but it is all dependent upon the absolute validity of your prior. A strong agnositic position doesn't make an argument for any particular prior probability, including as the noninformative prior probability of all outcomes (or particular instances of God) having equal likelihood. Instead it says you are stuck with assumptions in the prior, so you can't say absolutely either way about the existence of God.
In terms of the types of atheist argument going on here, I don't have a problem with the type of atheist which argues along the line of "I see no reason to believe in God, where's the evidence?", as generally their prior assumptions of their senses and mind constructing a not completely skewed representation of reality are implicit. I don't have a problem with naturalistic assumptions as long as it is kept in mind that they are still assumptions, because such assumptions tend to be useful in day to day life and the pursuit of science.
However, I do take issue with a lot of the "evangelical" atheists, who treat everyone else as a bunch of simpletons when quite often they are ignorant about the nature of logic also. Those that proport an absolute nonexistence of God are especially naive, because they don't think they are making assumptions when they are making shitloads of them. It is like some sort of faux sanctimony, and it really irritates me. I'm not saying that people in this thread fit into that category, but I have definately seen it, as religious people can have more logically sound positions than they do.
Savant on
0
Options
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
Did you learn nothing from our PM discussion on FSM? I've tried over and over to tell you that FSM is just a counterargument, not an allegory or mocking of religion.
As for there being a lot of "asshole" atheists, I don't think that's the case. I heard a lot about Dawkins being an "asshole" in the God Delusion, but all I found in there was passionate, well thought out arguments. Speaking your mind and backing up your ideas with reason (even if you're speaking out against something very popular) is not being an asshole.
Cute.
No, I gave it up because I knew the same argument would come up in a topic eventually, and the PMs were getting too tiresome for me to just be talking to you.
But case in point, you asking me whether or not I "learned" anything is exactly the kind of smug shit that gets people. Regardless of who was right or wrong in that long PM debate, I don't think there was ever any instance of you "teaching me" something about FSm that I didn't already know very well.
I agree, no learning occurred. It was just me telling you that the purpose of FSM was not to mock, but to refute, then you ignoring me and asserting it again. This has been like the fifth time I've tried, and you never even acknowledge that I've made that point. I'm getting exasperated that you just ignore perfectly good points. But apparently, I'm not allowed to point this out because it's "smug shit."
I think its perfectly reasonable to label the FSM as an image meant to be taken offensively. I'm fairly certain the "cosmic teapot" and "pink unicorn" existed before it, and they were far less insulting in their nature. Obviously, it was meant as a tool of refutation but that doesn't make it any less demeaning.
Not that I have such thin skin that such things send me into fits of tearful weeping. I just don't think I'm out of line by calling people assholes when their intent in using the FSM is solely for mocking purposes.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
Do you want go ahead and cite this for me? Like, some polls or something?
BTW, this is the sort of problem I have with Dawkins: diagnosing vast swathes of people with blanket statements of cheap psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalysis? Are you referring to his use of the word "Delusion"?
Has he said faith is a form of mental illness? I've always thought his use of the word "delusion" was rhetorical. As far as I know, he's never really talked much about pschology. I think you are being unfair here.
Indeed he has at least once, in an interview on British television, though I can't recall the name of the show. I don't think he means to be psychologizing when he uses such words; I think he just means them pejoratively, in which case he's just being rude rather than (once again) sticking his nose into a field of expertise he knows nothing about.
So you have no problem with the entire book "The God Delusion," your problem is simply that Dawkins asserts faith is a mental illness and doesn't offer support?
Sort of. As I said just above, I think he is just being pejorative rather than completely serious, so what I really want him to do is just quit being a jerk in the way he presents his ideas. If he did that, my problems with his work would be purely rational.
And again, I don't recall him asserting this. He does compare faith to a virus in the context of his ideas about memes. But something tells me you're getting your impression of Dawkins more from how he is introduced by others than what he himself has written and said. (I've heard people introduce Dawkins as "the man who thinks faith is a mental illness" and other abrasive epithets. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard Dawkins say that or even discuss it.)
He's really quite explicit in that interview. He compares believing in Jesus to believing that you're Napoleon Bonaparte. But again, I think he's taking pejorative rhetoric to one step beyond "stupid" rather than actually saying that theists are literally insane. I hope.
I'm familiar with a large number of highly intelligent religious people and I believe they are all completely wrong. I also believe that many of them have been brainwashed to believe in God, which I see as a "Delusion" because it is a belief that has no basis in reality.
Which is to say, I agree with Dawkins and I don't see much difference in our attitudes towards believers like yourself. What is your opinion of me? Am I arrogant and condescending because I believe you are wrong and that your belief in God has no basis in reality?
Certainly not; I feel the same way about your belief. The arrogance and condescension stem entirely from style, attitude, and word choice. But if you are going to dumb down the word "delusion" to merely mean "falsehood" rather than its usual psychological connotations, then you shouldn't even use the word at all. If (and I suppose that is a big "if) we are all truly interested in finding out the truth of a particular matter, we shouldn't need to resort to hateful, polemical rhetoric. Anyone who does can rightfully be labelled a "fundamentalist," and in my opinion Richard Dawkins does that.
And, though, I'd love to continue this discussion, today is Holy Saturday and tomorrow is Easter, so I probably won't have to time post anymore in this thread.
I think its perfectly reasonable to label the FSM as an image meant to be taken offensively. I'm fairly certain the "cosmic teapot" and "pink unicorn" existed before it, and they were far less insulting in their nature. Obviously, it was meant as a tool of refutation but that doesn't make it any less demeaning.
Not that I have such thin skin that such things send me into fits of tearful weeping. I just don't think I'm out of line by calling people assholes when their intent in using the FSM is solely for mocking purposes.
The FSM was created in response to religious encroachment on secular education, so yes, it's mocking and demeaning. It's right to be so.
Aroused Bull on
0
Options
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
People have a right to say whatever they want. I fail to see what relevance this has. ;-)
And yet you're 'positing' that their Islamic counterparts in the average Middle Eastern nation are more influential. Which is why questioned whether or not that was a fair comparison. What about their counterparts in Europe or the most industrialized Asian societies? Against those nations, is not then possible to argue that American religious subculture is more influential by comparison?
There is no religious movement more politically active (where the religious leaders have their hands directly on the levers of the government -- sometimes even in cases of a military dictatorship) than the current Islamic revival. So, no, I don't think there's a great comparison -- or at least you'd have to start looking back through history to find those comparisons. I'd say that everyone on every side of the political debate would agree that the Islamic revival is the single biggest political mover among religions today. There are very few nations where political leadership has grown more religious and not less over the last 50 years.. and they all have one thing in common.
And before you say it, GWBush or not, America *has* gotten more secular.
Actually, the Christian revival in the United States began several decades before Bush II (particularly since 1972, following Roe v. Wade), so no, I wouldn't say it. And while I don't doubt that Americans are becoming more secular, especially within the last decade, compared with other nations of rivalling industrial development (which are mostly secular) religious organizations in the United States have been disproportionately influential in shaping public policy.
You didn't answer the question, this isn't about me. You called it unfair of him to conclude that Dawkins was implying mental illness when he used the language of mental illness to describe people. I am attempting to discern why you think that's his problem rather than one Dawkins brought on himself.
I don't think the word "delusion" implies mental illness in everyday speech. I don't see why you do, either.
You don't think that "delusional" is a loaded word that implies its referent has mental problems? Ok, that's fair. I don't agree with that in the least, and have no idea what you think delusional means, but if you don't think it means that then I guess I can see where you're coming from.
A lot of your arguments here seem to be semantic, but I'm just going to throw out there that while I hear "delusional" tossed around semi-frequently, I have never seen it used to suggest that someone is actually suffering a psychological delusion (i.e., one they should seek medical attention for). I have heard of this as I'm aware that the term "delusion" exists in psychology, but I've never actually seen it used like that.
Yes, it's a loaded term, much like retarded is, but much in the same way, if someone calls you retarded they don't necessarily mean that your IQ would place you in the mentally retarded camp, and I have never heard someone call someone else "retarded" to imply that they actually suffered from mental retardation as defined by some psychologists.
Retarded is used (informally, as its use in recent years has become considered offensive to people who are actually retarded) as an insult to call someone stupid. Delusional is used even in literature to describe someone who holds a false belief or view of a situation. While you may not agree with this usage, "even in the least," - which wouldn't make sense to me unless you were actually a psychologist trying to keep your terminology clear - this is its more common usage. Otherwise you would almost never see it used. If you don't believe that's the common usage - and I'm aware that the Argumentum ad Wikipedia over here isn't bulletproof - check Wikipedia.
A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).
Or this usage I just got from Google:
If you think the technical difficulties are what is stopping the big companies, you're delusional.
I have no idea what that quote is even talking about, but I don't have to, because it's obvious that the guy's not implying "seek medical attention now," he's implying "you're just plain wrong."
First of all, I think the problem you have with such atheists is semantic. I would call your belief "philosophical," you would call it "religious." We disagree only in the words we use to describe your beliefs—and like most semantic differences it's not something I feel strongly about anyway.
I'm inclined to disagree. The hallmark of religion isn't a belief in God; rather it's a belief system characterized by its social dimension. Nobody goes to the Kantian temple to practice the Categorical Imperative together.
It's either outright ignorance or intellectually lazy to proclaim "all religious people are wrong", knowing that Jainism and Buddhism are called religions by most everyone in everyday speech, and then only say "yeah well I didn't mean them I meant X" when confronted about it. If you mean something less broad, say something less broad. It's downright insulting, otherwise.
This is another semantic thing, but the problem is mostly because of how Buddhism has migrated to the US as both a philosophy and a religion. For example, someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural can choose to follow the Middle Way and think it will improve their life or is a more proper way to act in most circumstances, and when a lot of people say they're Buddhist they don't mean much more than that, even though there's a heck of a lot more to Buddhism. When you start talking about Rebirth - and not being used in a purely metaphorical sense here - that's the religious kind of Buddhism.
The most basic layman's definition includes Buddhism and Jainism as religions, yes, but when atheists are talking about it, they're talking about a belief in the supernatural. If you perceive, say, a certain state of mind to be explainable (and even replicable) by physical chemical interactions, that's not what people mean when they say religious. If you think that that state of mind is "better" than another but still explainable by our current understanding of science, that's a more philosophical belief. If you think that a certain state of mind is unexplainable by science but instead inspired by a divine being, presence, or whatever else, that's more religious.
There is nothing "deceptive" about discussing the Bible (which is what I'm advocating in place of philosophical arguments against God). There is absolutely nothing deceptive about taking the text of the Bible seriously, studying it in its own context and its historical context, and presenting this to a religious person and asking them questions about it.
Just because you don't believe in the truth of the Bible doesn't mean you can't read the Bible and understand the Bible. People on this forum have accused me of "dishonestly" interpreting the Bible so that I can better attack it. That is nonsense—my interpretation of the Bible comes from a plain, honest reading of the text and comparing it to contemporary sources to elucidate meaning. There is a difference between believing the validity of an interpretation of a text and believing the claims of the text itself. (Example: Plato needs to be translated and understood, but you can "understand" Plato without "believing" Plato's claims).
The issue here, again, is that most Christians are simply Biblically illiterate. I believe the Bible is its worst enemy because an honest interpretation of the text reveals a book full of bronze-age morals—morals that most Americans, even Christians, find repugnant.
Honestly (heh), your "honest" reading would be more less misleading if you used the term, "literal," since that's what it seems like you're describing.
I just think it is funny when someone trying to convert someone else to atheism gets all angry because the person treats a scripture allegorically or doesn't put much weight on it.
It doesn't actually make a difference from the perspective of the atheists argument, but they get all frustrated and feel like the person is trying to cheat them of their rightful victory.
Wait, you really don't get why Dawkins talks about that? It's because changing your position mid-debate and claiming that was the position all along is annoying.
That's not the same thing at all. In Shinto's example, it's not the religious person changing her position in that situation so much as it's the non-religious person assuming her position on the given issue. Her first response to his railing on the subject would be that she doesn't believe that particular doctrine is correct, and at this point, it's easy to see that the two were talking past one another.
If the guy instead gets all pissy about it, he really ought to be acknowledging this mistake on his part and asking her for her actual position, so he can tackle that.
c) that its even slightly as damaging as believing a big bloke in the sky will kill you for being born to the wrong people.
But didn't you read the Divine Comedy? The Noble Pagans don't really get punished forever in hell, they just never get to be truly happy! It's sort of like Hell Lite! How could that possibly be unfair?
I just think it is funny when someone trying to convert someone else to atheism gets all angry because the person treats a scripture allegorically or doesn't put much weight on it.
It doesn't actually make a difference from the perspective of the atheists argument, but they get all frustrated and feel like the person is trying to cheat them of their rightful victory.
Wait, you really don't get why Dawkins talks about that? It's because changing your position mid-debate and claiming that was the position all along is annoying.
That's not the same thing at all. In Shinto's example, it's not the religious person changing her position in that situation so much as it's the non-religious person assuming her position on the given issue. Her first response to his railing on the subject would be that she doesn't believe that particular doctrine is correct, and at this point, it's easy to see that the two were talking past one another.
If the guy instead gets all pissy about it, he really ought to be acknowledging this mistake on his part and asking her for her actual position, so he can tackle that.
You're right, I misread his post. Apologies.
Agem on
0
Options
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
I think its perfectly reasonable to label the FSM as an image meant to be taken offensively. I'm fairly certain the "cosmic teapot" and "pink unicorn" existed before it, and they were far less insulting in their nature. Obviously, it was meant as a tool of refutation but that doesn't make it any less demeaning.
Not that I have such thin skin that such things send me into fits of tearful weeping. I just don't think I'm out of line by calling people assholes when their intent in using the FSM is solely for mocking purposes.
I can see how you might misunderstand it as simple mockery. But every time I've seen it brought up, it's been to refute the "but you can't prove it's not true" statement. In fact the entire reason it came into existence was to counter ID claims that it was an alternative theory that should be taught alongside evolution.
Maybe people do exist that use FSM not as a debate tactic, but just with mockery in mind. But in my experience these people are far more rare than you seem to think.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
A lot of your arguments here seem to be semantic, but I'm just going to throw out there that while I hear "delusional" tossed around semi-frequently, I have never seen it used to suggest that someone is actually suffering a psychological delusion (i.e., one they should seek medical attention for). I have heard of this as I'm aware that the term "delusion" exists in psychology, but I've never actually seen it used like that.
I suppose many of my arguments here are semantic, but when you're talking to people who use religion to mean "some religions" and all to mean "some", you're going to end up in a semantic argument. Semantics are important, and when people write one thing and then protest that they meant something else, they're rightly going to be told to write what they mean and stop giving words new and special meanings because they want to.
Yes, it's a loaded term, much like retarded is, but much in the same way, if someone calls you retarded they don't necessarily mean that your IQ would place you in the mentally retarded camp, and I have never heard someone call someone else "retarded" to imply that they actually suffered from mental retardation as defined by some psychologists.
Retarded is used (informally, as its use in recent years has become considered offensive to people who are actually retarded) as an insult to call someone stupid. Delusional is used even in literature to describe someone who holds a false belief or view of a situation. While you may not agree with this usage, "even in the least," - which wouldn't make sense to me unless you were actually a psychologist trying to keep your terminology clear - this is its more common usage. Otherwise you would almost never see it used. If you don't believe that's the common usage - and I'm aware that the Argumentum ad Wikipe[dia over here isn't bulletproof - check Wikipedia.
That's nice. The only relevant thing here is that we all agree that there is a psychological meaning to the word "Delusional". We all know it's used like that in psychological circles.
If you want to look back in the thread to when this got started, it was when Qingu objected that it was unfair for someone to gather from Dawkins calling religious people "delusional" that he was calling them mentally ill.
Now, maybe that's not what Dawkins meant to be doing. But given that the word he chose to use has a psychological meaning to it, it's hardly unfair or uncharitable for someone to state that that's the impression they got from Dawkins' statement.
To repeat before someone else jumps down my throat with this goddamn definition nonsense that I'm already perfectly aware of: I am not arguing that Dawkins definitely was or was not calling religious people mentally ill. I merely object to Qingu saying that anyone who thought he was is being unfair, given one of the standard meanings of "delusion".
This is another semantic thing
Jesus, what is your problem with semantics? If I use the word "Jews" to mean child molesters, and state that all Jews should be thrown in jail, I'm going to catch shit because I've assigned an idiosyncratic and non-standard meaning to the word Jews. Semantics are important.
, but the problem is mostly because of how Buddhism has migrated to the US as both a philosophy and a religion.
No, Buddhism is a religion, pure and simple. I get that it would be nice if it wasn't, that athiests would like to make their "all religious people believe In God and are stupid" pronouncements without having to qualify such blanket statements to deal with the niggling details of reality, but tough shit. Religion does not mean "faith in a God". Look at the way Religious Studies academics and cultural anthropologist define religion. Look up Buddhism in a dictionary and count the occurrences of the word "religion". Hell, look at the definition of religion in Wikipedia, if you're so hot on the meanings it gives. "Pervasive societal belief systems with a strong community, social aspect". Describes Chrisitianity. Describes Buddhism. Doesn't describe Utilitarianism.
Just don't give me this "there's really two Buddhisms" crap. It doesn't fly. You can't support it.
The most basic layman's definition includes Buddhism and Jainism as religions, yes, but when atheists are talking about it, they're talking about a belief in the supernatural.
So say that, then. "I believe that people who believe in the supernatural are delusional". It seems to me that the only argument for this hair-splitting, "atheists has a special meaning for religion that doesn't include many things that the majority of the people on this earth would describe as a religion" horsecrap is that you're attached to being able to say "all religious people are delusional" and are too intellectually lazy to actually say what you mean.
If you perceive, say, a certain state of mind to be explainable (and even replicable) by physical chemical interactions, that's not what people mean when they say religious.
Of course not. When people say they're religious, they mean they belong to a group with a shared belief system with whom they partake in certain rituals and practices together. None of which implies a belief in the supernatural, and none of which is conveyed by people describing themselves as philosophical.
I mean, honestly. If I say to someone that I'm going to go practice my philosophy for a few hours by heading down to the local Buddhist priory and meditating in front of a wall, they'd look at me like I had two heads.
Does that make more sense now?
It's not a matter of it making sense. I disagree with your lazy justifications for removing inconvenient religions from being the referent of the word "religion" in order to justify the intellectually lazy habit of characterizing all religious people as having certain traits that aren't in reality universal.
Senjutsu - while I understand 'delusional' to be commonly associated with psychological problems, that's not the first thing I think of when I hear the word 'delusion'.
'delusion' usually refers to people with erroneous beliefs, rather than people who are mentally ill.
I suppose many of my arguments here are semantic, but when you're talking to people who use religion to mean "some religions" and all to mean "some", you're going to end up in a semantic argument. Semantics are important, and when people write one thing and then protest that they meant something else, they're rightly going to be told to write what they mean and stop giving words new and special meanings because they want to.
Um, no. This isn't a case of someone saying something and meaning someone else. It's a case of someone saying something and someone else misinterpreting it. It's like someone saying "I'm going to kick you in the groin" and the other person thinking you're talking about jetties. Apparently you want words to just have one definition, but that's not the way language works, and even if we redefined every word right now to only have one definition it wouldn't stay that way for long. You have to look at context and the way words are most commonly used. Dawkins used the most commonly used definition of "delusional" in a context that implied he was using that definition. It's not his fault if another party misinterprets it.
Again, this may not be how you want language to work, but, well, it's how it works.
That's nice. The only relevant thing here is that we all agree that there is a psychological meaning to the word "Delusional". We all know it's used like that in psychological circles.
If you want to look back in the thread to when this got started, it was when Qingu objected that it was unfair for someone to gather from Dawkins calling religious people "delusional" that he was calling them mentally ill.
Now, maybe that's not what Dawkins meant to be doing. But given that the word he chose to use has a psychological meaning to it, it's hardly unfair or uncharitable for someone to state that that's the impression they got from Dawkins' statement.
To repeat before someone else jumps down my throat with this goddamn definition nonsense that I'm already perfectly aware of: I am not arguing that Dawkins definitely was or was not calling religious people mentally ill. I merely object to Qingu saying that anyone who thought he was is being unfair, given one of the standard meanings of "delusion".
Again, it's not his fault, and it's entirely idiotic to claim otherwise. The meaning of the word was clear in the context it was given, not to mention using the most common definition of the word.
Disclaimer: When I say idiotic, I don't mean that you would have to have an IQ below 25 to claim that. I mean dumb.
Disclaimer: When I say dumb, I don't mean mute, I mean stupid.
Disclaimer: When I say stupid, I don't mean in a state of shock, I mean that from an intellectual perspective it's behavior we could classify as distinctly irrational and unintellectual.
Jesus, what is your problem with semantics? If I use the word "Jews" to mean child molesters, and state that all Jews should be thrown in jail, I'm going to catch shit because I've assigned an idiosyncratic and non-standard meaning to the word Jews. Semantics are important.
A debate about semantics sidesteps the issue you're supposed to be talking about in the first place. Congratulations! This is what has happened.
No, Buddhism is a religion, pure and simple. I get that it would be nice if it wasn't, that athiests would like to make their "all religious people believe In God and are stupid" pronouncements without having to qualify such blanket statements to deal with the niggling details of reality, but tough shit. Religion does not mean "faith in a God". Look at the way Religious Studies academics and cultural anthropologist define religion. Look up Buddhism in a dictionary and count the occurrences of the word "religion". Hell, look at the definition of religion in Wikipedia, if you're so hot on the meanings it gives. "Pervasive societal belief systems with a strong community, social aspect". Describes Chrisitianity. Describes Buddhism. Doesn't describe Utilitarianism.
You want the definition of religion from Wikipedia?
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
...
Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."
You want the definition from a dictionary - the first definition, the primary one?
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Just don't give me this "there's really two Buddhisms" crap. It doesn't fly. You can't support it.
Too bad. There are two Buddhisms. In fact, more than that. But there is a divide between Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion. You might not like it, and you might not support it. But it exists. Buddhist philosophy exists independently of religious Buddhism, especially in the West.
Of course not. When people say they're religious, they mean they belong to a group with a shared belief system with whom they partake in certain rituals and practices together.
Really? So when people in the US say they're "not religious," they actually mean that they belong to no group that they share a belief system with and partake in certain rituals and practices with? No, wait, that's bullshit. It's a broad enough definition to encompass virtually anything as religion, which is not how the term is usually used.
I mean, honestly. If I say to someone that I'm going to go practice my philosophy for a few hours by heading down to the local Buddhist priory and meditating in front of a wall, they'd look at me like I had two heads.
If you think everyone who calls themself Buddhist even does that you'd be wrong.
It's not a matter of it making sense. I disagree with your lazy justifications for removing inconvenient religions from being the referent of the word "religion" in order to justify the intellectually lazy habit of characterizing all religious people as having certain traits that aren't in reality universal.
And I disagree with you ignoring the common definitions of word and your intellectually lazy habit of insisting that everyone throw out words with multiple definitions (unless they're using your definition, of course).
I'm not gonna play 20-questions, so I'm taking us back to where this started.
Why, because you realized that I would respond that living with Sufi Muslims is not representative of the Muslim worldview as a whole in the middle east, in the slightest? (I read your post before you edited it but was on my way out)
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
Do you want go ahead and cite this for me? Like, some polls or something?
On Cat Stevens asking that his music be taken off shelves:
Following his conversion, Yusuf Islam abandoned his career as a pop star. Song and the use of musical instruments is an area of debate in Muslim jurisprudence, considered Harām by some, and is the primary reason he gave for retreating from the pop spotlight. At one point he wrote to the record companies asking that his music no longer be distributed, but his request was denied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_Islam
Sunniforum, the only (English-speaking) Muslim forum I can find on the internet that has posts on a daily basis, conducted an informal poll of its members. Half said they never listen to music. 25% said sometimes. 27 responded total. http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19954&highlight=music
Posters on the same forum linked to several articles written by English-speaking Muslims regarding the sin of music. I am not suggesting that sunniforum is indiciative of the Muslim population as a whole, but at the same time I do not think they are somehow fanatical, extremist or otherwise fringe either, judging from their prominence as the only semi-populated Muslim forum and the fact that the mitigating fact that many of the posters are Westerners.
And regarding non-Muslim literature. I challenge you to find me a Muslim who will defend Salmon Rushdie. Hell, find me a Muslim who is actually willing to come out and say "no, Salmon Rushdie should absolutely not be killed for apostasy." I am having trouble finding any prominent Muslim to make such an unequivocal statement—most fudge their answers with "because he's living in the West," implying that he deserves to die if he lives elsewhere.
You are operating under the assumption that the burden of proof, when discussing Islam, is on the person claiming that the adherents of the religion do not generally believe in the literalness of its sacred scriptures. The only reason you are operating under this assumption is because you live in the West in 2007 where no Christian actually takes the Bible literally. 500 years ago, this would not be the case in Christendom. Christians lived in a theocratic authority structure, which is why Galileo was denounced as a heretic and sentenced to house arrest. You are assuming that Islam has somehow progressed into modernity the same way that Christendom has—that Muslims somehow realize that the Quran is not the ultimate authority on reality in the same way Christians realize the Bible is not. I think the fact that your main experience with Muslims turned out to be with Sufi Muslims—by far the most tolerant, abstract sect of Islam, so much so that they are often condemned as heretics by the other sects—is indiciative of your rather rose-colored attitude towards the religion as a whole.
Ah, Richard Strawman again. How many people here have actually read The God Delusion? You might find Dawkins much more palatable if you actually read him directly instead of getting the often very distorted interpretations people opposed to him spin up.
I have it with me now. The index is okay but not great. If anyone wants me to check a reference, just ask.
Anyway, he clears up the politeness problem at the start...
The word delusion in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about...But for now, I am going to stick with 'delusion' and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English dictionary defines a delusion as a 'False belief or impression'...The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder. The first part captures religious faith perfectly.
The emphasis is mine. He goes on to quote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance, which said: "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." You can be offended by that if you like, I guess.
But given that the word he chose to use has a psychological meaning to it, it's hardly unfair or uncharitable for someone to state that that's the impression they got from Dawkins' statement.
I tend to think it uncharitable to take anyone out of context.
Hmmmm, I sort of disagree with #2. A great example is "Faith of a Heretic" by Walter Kaufmann which is sadly out of print. In any case, it is possible to be an atheist and not have the attitude that non-atheists are obviously stupid. I assure you many, many people much smarter than anyone in this forum, were believers.
Oh, I apologize, I was unclear. It isn't that it is impossible to articulate atheism without calling people stupid, it's just that it is impossible to articulate an atheist position without in effect challenging theism. There are plenty of intelligent theists- but the fact remains that for the vast majority of people, religion is such a core to their identity that the very existence of doubt is akin to challenging them. Why do you think the "My grandfather was not a monkey!" response to evolution so common...because a threat to religion is a threat to someone's sense of self and place in the world. There is almost no way to keep that from getting emotional. There aren't that many nice ways of saying, "You're wrong!", particularly nice ways that aren't quickly shouted down by all the many offensive arguments against atheism and atheists that inevitable surface.
It's also rather important to point out that Dawkins restricts his attack to personal, supernatural gods, not, say, the God of Einstein. A lot of people who consider themselves "religious" are under the Einstein-God category and have absolutely no reason to be offended by Dawkins. It's only those who believe in a supernatural deity and behave accordingly that get Dawkins all riled up.
I'm not gonna play 20-questions, so I'm taking us back to where this started.
Why, because you realized that I would respond that living with Sufi Muslims is not representative of the Muslim worldview as a whole in the middle east, in the slightest? (I read your post before you edited it but was on my way out)
And like I said, at first, and then I traveled around.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
Do you want go ahead and cite this for me? Like, some polls or something?
On Cat Stevens asking that his music be taken off shelves:
Following his conversion, Yusuf Islam abandoned his career as a pop star. Song and the use of musical instruments is an area of debate in Muslim jurisprudence, considered Harām by some, and is the primary reason he gave for retreating from the pop spotlight. At one point he wrote to the record companies asking that his music no longer be distributed, but his request was denied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_Islam
Sunniforum, the only (English-speaking) Muslim forum I can find on the internet that has posts on a daily basis, conducted an informal poll of its members. Half said they never listen to music. 25% said sometimes. 27 responded total. http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19954&highlight=music
Sorry, should I have said I need a scientific poll? 'cause that's what I need.
And regarding non-Muslim literature. I challenge you to find me a Muslim who will defend Salmon Rushdie. Hell, find me a Muslim who is actually willing to come out and say "no, Salmon Rushdie should absolutely not be killed for apostasy." I am having trouble finding any prominent Muslim to make such an unequivocal statement—most fudge their answers with "because he's living in the West," implying that he deserves to die if he lives elsewhere.
What does this have to do with your claims about non-Islamic books? I'm not gonna back up your claims for you.
There is nothing "deceptive" about discussing the Bible (which is what I'm advocating in place of philosophical arguments against God). There is absolutely nothing deceptive about taking the text of the Bible seriously, studying it in its own context and its historical context, and presenting this to a religious person and asking them questions about it.
Just because you don't believe in the truth of the Bible doesn't mean you can't read the Bible and understand the Bible. People on this forum have accused me of "dishonestly" interpreting the Bible so that I can better attack it. That is nonsense—my interpretation of the Bible comes from a plain, honest reading of the text and comparing it to contemporary sources to elucidate meaning. There is a difference between believing the validity of an interpretation of a text and believing the claims of the text itself. (Example: Plato needs to be translated and understood, but you can "understand" Plato without "believing" Plato's claims).
The issue here, again, is that most Christians are simply Biblically illiterate. I believe the Bible is its worst enemy because an honest interpretation of the text reveals a book full of bronze-age morals—morals that most Americans, even Christians, find repugnant.
Honestly (heh), your "honest" reading would be more less misleading if you used the term, "literal," since that's what it seems like you're describing.
And your "non-literal" reading of the Bible is "dishonest" because you have absolutely no standard, other than your personal whims, to determine which Biblical passages are "non-literal" and which ones are "literal."
Every Christian presumably takes the Resurrection passages literally. They take much of the gospels literally as they desrcribe the historical person of Jesus Christ.
Move back a little to something a little more absurd—by our standards—like the Ten Plagues actually happening, then suddenly a few Christians interpret this particular passage as "metaphorical."
Move back even further to the Tower of Babel story, an even more obvious myth, and suddenly a few more Christians are taking that part of the Bible non-literally as well.
Move back even further to the Adam and Eve story in the garden and suddenly 40% or 50% of Christians (the ones who believe in evolution) interpret that story as non-literal.
And then take something so remarkably stupid even by ancient standards, like Jonah surviving in the belly of a fish for three days, and suddenly a majority of Christians interpret the story as non-literal.
What on earth is the standard for your "literal" and "non-literal" dichotomy here? Could it be the extent to which the passage in question contradicts obvious reality? It's certainly nothing in the text itself, and it's certainly not cultural—as the Hebrews, like the Babylonians, Hindus, ancient Greeks and nearly everyone else living at the time, really believed in great floods that covered the earth and mythological explanations for the origin of language and gods who created humans as their worker-slaves. The people who wrote the Bible really believed this shit happened.
And the only reason you interpret it as "non-literal" today is because you know better now.
As for the morals of the Bible—which is what I have primarily been talking about here—I fail to see how "literally" even applies to legal codes. How the fuck are you supposed to take a legal code non-literally? Does anyone on earth interpret the Code of Hammurabi non-literally?
When I read a passage from an ancient law text that says "Stone anyone who commits adultery" (a law found in both the Old Testament and the Code of Hammurabi,) the question of its literalness does not even spring to my mind. Of course it's literal—what possible use is a metaphorical law to a society?
Once again, the only reason anyone would interpret the Old Testament laws non-literally is because they know better today. They know that such laws are the hallmark of a barbaric, misogynist society, a vestige of another age. And instead of confronting that fact honestly or accepting it as the word of God and obeying, they instead invent out of thin air some "non-literal" context to these legal statements.
I'm sorry if I come across as angry here, but to be frank I do get upset when people insist on interpreting the Bible this way. It just strikes me of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, for all the reasons above and many others as well.
I'm not gonna play 20-questions, so I'm taking us back to where this started.
Why, because you realized that I would respond that living with Sufi Muslims is not representative of the Muslim worldview as a whole in the middle east, in the slightest? (I read your post before you edited it but was on my way out)
And like I said, at first, and then I traveled around.
Traveled around where? For someone who professes to be an authority on all things middle-east and Muslim I'm not particularly impressed with your personal experience so far. What other types of Muslims have you lived with and talked to? Did you ever discuss theological issues with them?
You are the one who propped up your experience in the middle east as some sort of authority you can appeal to in a debate about the middle east. So don't shy away from questions about that authority.
Sorry, should I have said I need a scientific poll? 'cause that's what I need.
What utter nonsense. Of course there are no worldwide scientific polls for such a narrow theological Islamic issue like "is music haram." Do you seriously believe that we can draw no general conclusions about the thoughts of Muslims if there is not a scientific poll to back those conclusions up? Or that the lack of a scientific poll in any way invalidates the rather tame conclusion (i.e. Some Muslims are opposed to music) I've drawn based on the evidence I presented?
What does this have to do with your claims about non-Islamic books? I'm not gonna back up your claims for you.
What does Muslims' near-universal hatred for an author who dared—dared—to say something mildly offensive to the hegemony of Islam have to do with Muslims' limited desire for non-Islamic books? Are you joking? Perhaps you'd need a scientific poll? Or perhaps you'd need testimony from someone who spent time in the middle east, and therefore would know.
Sorry, should I have said I need a scientific poll? 'cause that's what I need.
What utter nonsense. Of course there are no worldwide scientific polls for such a narrow theological Islamic issue like "is music haram." Do you seriously believe that we can draw no general conclusions about the thoughts of Muslims if there is not a scientific poll to back those conclusions up? Or that the lack of a scientific poll in any way invalidates the rather tame conclusion (i.e. Some Muslims are opposed to music) I've drawn based on the evidence I presented?
Alright, I'll cite 6Arab's forum, where 100% of the users approve of music listening. Do you have a problem with that?
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
The oil wealth is matched by social backwardness, and the only other region of the world with an income level lower than ours is sub-Saharan Africa. Productivity is decreasing, scientific research is virtually nonexistent, the region is suffering a brain drain, and illiteracy afflicts half of Arab women. The report was only diplo-matic concerning implicit criticisms of extremist Islamist movements as a cause of the culture of backwardness and absence of fertile ground for democ-racy. Interestingly, the report found that the total number of books translated into Arabic yearly is no more than 330, or one-fifth of those translated in a small country like Greece.
Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change.
Sorry, should I have said I need a scientific poll? 'cause that's what I need.
What utter nonsense. Of course there are no worldwide scientific polls for such a narrow theological Islamic issue like "is music haram." Do you seriously believe that we can draw no general conclusions about the thoughts of Muslims if there is not a scientific poll to back those conclusions up? Or that the lack of a scientific poll in any way invalidates the rather tame conclusion (i.e. Some Muslims are opposed to music) I've drawn based on the evidence I presented?
Alright, I'll cite 6Arab's forum, where 100% of the users approve of music listening. Do you have a problem with that?
I can't read Arabic but it certainly seems to me that this is an Arab Music forum. Can you explain how this forum represents a better cross-section of Muslim opinion on the question of "is music haram" than sunniforum?
Sorry, should I have said I need a scientific poll? 'cause that's what I need.
What utter nonsense. Of course there are no worldwide scientific polls for such a narrow theological Islamic issue like "is music haram." Do you seriously believe that we can draw no general conclusions about the thoughts of Muslims if there is not a scientific poll to back those conclusions up? Or that the lack of a scientific poll in any way invalidates the rather tame conclusion (i.e. Some Muslims are opposed to music) I've drawn based on the evidence I presented?
Alright, I'll cite 6Arab's forum, where 100% of the users approve of music listening. Do you have a problem with that?
I can't read Arabic but it certainly seems to me that this is an Arab Music forum. Can you explain how this forum represents a better cross-section of Muslim opinion on the question of "is music haram" than sunniforum?
I am not suggesting that sunniforum is indiciative of the Muslim population as a whole, but at the same time I do not think they are somehow fanatical, extremist or otherwise fringe either, judging from their prominence as the only semi-populated Muslim forum and the fact that the mitigating fact that many of the posters are Westerners.
We can talk about the extent to which sunniforum is indicative of Muslim thought as a whole some more, if you'd like. I am certainly not claiming it's indicative of Shia opinion on the subject, although Sunnis form a sizeable majority in the middle east and if only a fraction of them shared the views of Sunniforum as a whole, that would be a tremendous limiting factor on the music and book and movie industries. Is there something here you disagree with, Elkamil?
I am not suggesting that sunniforum is indiciative of the Muslim population as a whole, but at the same time I do not think they are somehow fanatical, extremist or otherwise fringe either, judging from their prominence as the only semi-populated Muslim forum and the fact that the mitigating fact that many of the posters are Westerners.
We can talk about the extent to which sunniforum is indicative of Muslim thought as a whole some more, if you'd like. I am certainly not claiming it's indicative of Shia opinion on the subject, although Sunnis form a sizeable majority in the middle east and if only a fraction of them shared the views of Sunniforum as a whole, that would be a tremendous limiting factor on the music and book and movie industries. Is there something here you disagree with, Elkamil?
Well, they have many views on many different things, and I don't feel like reading through their crap forum. I just see any real opposition to music in the middle east, and if you say there is, then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some real evidence for that.
I am not suggesting that sunniforum is indiciative of the Muslim population as a whole, but at the same time I do not think they are somehow fanatical, extremist or otherwise fringe either, judging from their prominence as the only semi-populated Muslim forum and the fact that the mitigating fact that many of the posters are Westerners.
We can talk about the extent to which sunniforum is indicative of Muslim thought as a whole some more, if you'd like. I am certainly not claiming it's indicative of Shia opinion on the subject, although Sunnis form a sizeable majority in the middle east and if only a fraction of them shared the views of Sunniforum as a whole, that would be a tremendous limiting factor on the music and book and movie industries. Is there something here you disagree with, Elkamil?
Well, they have many views on many different things, and I don't feel like reading through their crap forum. I just see any real opposition to music in the middle east, and if you say there is, then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some real evidence for that.
And you're ignoring the evidence and conclusions I've presented thus far ... why, exactly? Because the only thing you accept as "evidence" are scientific polls?
Are you going to discuss what I've presented or are you just going to call me ignorant again?
Are you going to discuss what I've presented or are you just going to call me ignorant again?
Forums are anecdotes, not evidence.
And yet you saw fit to derive and shoot down generalized conclusions about the middle east from your anecdotal personal experience living with a fringe group of Muslims. So clearly you believe that anecdotal evidence can be used to derive some conclusions about groups.
The question is, how do we derive conclusions from anecdotal evidence?
I gave my reasons. You refuse to interact with them. And when asked, you failed to give your reasons about your anecdotal evidence. You are being a hypocrite.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
The oil wealth is matched by social backwardness, and the only other region of the world with an income level lower than ours is sub-Saharan Africa. Productivity is decreasing, scientific research is virtually nonexistent, the region is suffering a brain drain, and illiteracy afflicts half of Arab women. The report was only diplo-matic concerning implicit criticisms of extremist Islamist movements as a cause of the culture of backwardness and absence of fertile ground for democ-racy. Interestingly, the report found that the total number of books translated into Arabic yearly is no more than 330, or one-fifth of those translated in a small country like Greece.
Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change.
This could only be relevant if you really think that the Islamic world doesn't produce its own literature and music at all, and relies entirely on the west for its entertainment. Something of a goddamn stupid assertion, there.
How many books are translated from, say, Farsi to english every year? How many chinese novels, how many polish ones? The answer is relatively few, because its not like we're starving for material.
Are you going to discuss what I've presented or are you just going to call me ignorant again?
Forums are anecdotes, not evidence.
And yet you saw fit to derive and shoot down generalized conclusions about the middle east from your anecdotal personal experience living with a fringe group of Muslims. So clearly you believe that anecdotal evidence can be used to derive some conclusions about groups.
Ok, I withdraw my anecdotal evidence that consisted of living in 3 different countries in the middle east, and visiting others. They're based in nonsense, and are worth nothing. Now backup your claims.
There are other areas of "modernity" that would be extremely limited by devout Islam. The book and music publishing industry immediately spring to mind—many devout Muslims believe that listening to music is a sin (Cat Stevens, upon converting to Islam, called for the record company to destroy all of his music—he has since softened his stance). I doubt many Muslims would support publishing any books that don't support the Quran or the principles set forth in the Quran.
I just think that the focus of so-called "modern" societies is completely different than the focus of Islamic societies. In modern societies, industries exist to provide pleasure and interest to consumers; books are written and movies are made for entertainment and to provoke discussion and interesting questions. I don't think many Westerners realize how alien such a society looks to Muslims, who believe society should exist for the propogation and worship of Islam and nothing else.
I don't think you're very familiar with the entertainment and books that are present in most Arab or Islamic countries. Like, at all.
Care to enlighten me?
Everything you've said is, at best, exaggerated to the point of satire? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you been to some bookstores, and did some channel surfing on middle eastern channels?
The oil wealth is matched by social backwardness, and the only other region of the world with an income level lower than ours is sub-Saharan Africa. Productivity is decreasing, scientific research is virtually nonexistent, the region is suffering a brain drain, and illiteracy afflicts half of Arab women. The report was only diplo-matic concerning implicit criticisms of extremist Islamist movements as a cause of the culture of backwardness and absence of fertile ground for democ-racy. Interestingly, the report found that the total number of books translated into Arabic yearly is no more than 330, or one-fifth of those translated in a small country like Greece.
Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change.
This could only be relevant if you really think that the Islamic world doesn't produce its own literature and music at all, and relies entirely on the west for its entertainment. Something of a goddamn stupid assertion, there.
How many books are translated from, say, Farsi to english every year? How many chinese novels, how many polish ones? The answer is relatively few, because its not like we're starving for material.
The Spanish don't produce their own literature and music at all?
Posts
It's either outright ignorance or intellectually lazy to proclaim "all religious people are wrong", knowing that Jainism and Buddhism are called religions by most everyone in everyday speech, and then only say "yeah well I didn't mean them I meant X" when confronted about it. If you mean something less broad, say something less broad. It's downright insulting, otherwise.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
For probability, a probabilistic argument over the existence of God also requires assumptions. In terms of Bayesian Inference, this comes in the form of the prior probability. If you futz with the prior probability, you can prove God exists (which Bayes himself did) or that he doesn't exist, but it is all dependent upon the absolute validity of your prior. A strong agnositic position doesn't make an argument for any particular prior probability, including as the noninformative prior probability of all outcomes (or particular instances of God) having equal likelihood. Instead it says you are stuck with assumptions in the prior, so you can't say absolutely either way about the existence of God.
In terms of the types of atheist argument going on here, I don't have a problem with the type of atheist which argues along the line of "I see no reason to believe in God, where's the evidence?", as generally their prior assumptions of their senses and mind constructing a not completely skewed representation of reality are implicit. I don't have a problem with naturalistic assumptions as long as it is kept in mind that they are still assumptions, because such assumptions tend to be useful in day to day life and the pursuit of science.
However, I do take issue with a lot of the "evangelical" atheists, who treat everyone else as a bunch of simpletons when quite often they are ignorant about the nature of logic also. Those that proport an absolute nonexistence of God are especially naive, because they don't think they are making assumptions when they are making shitloads of them. It is like some sort of faux sanctimony, and it really irritates me. I'm not saying that people in this thread fit into that category, but I have definately seen it, as religious people can have more logically sound positions than they do.
I think its perfectly reasonable to label the FSM as an image meant to be taken offensively. I'm fairly certain the "cosmic teapot" and "pink unicorn" existed before it, and they were far less insulting in their nature. Obviously, it was meant as a tool of refutation but that doesn't make it any less demeaning.
Not that I have such thin skin that such things send me into fits of tearful weeping. I just don't think I'm out of line by calling people assholes when their intent in using the FSM is solely for mocking purposes.
Do you want go ahead and cite this for me? Like, some polls or something?
Indeed he has at least once, in an interview on British television, though I can't recall the name of the show. I don't think he means to be psychologizing when he uses such words; I think he just means them pejoratively, in which case he's just being rude rather than (once again) sticking his nose into a field of expertise he knows nothing about.
Sort of. As I said just above, I think he is just being pejorative rather than completely serious, so what I really want him to do is just quit being a jerk in the way he presents his ideas. If he did that, my problems with his work would be purely rational.
He's really quite explicit in that interview. He compares believing in Jesus to believing that you're Napoleon Bonaparte. But again, I think he's taking pejorative rhetoric to one step beyond "stupid" rather than actually saying that theists are literally insane. I hope.
Certainly not; I feel the same way about your belief. The arrogance and condescension stem entirely from style, attitude, and word choice. But if you are going to dumb down the word "delusion" to merely mean "falsehood" rather than its usual psychological connotations, then you shouldn't even use the word at all. If (and I suppose that is a big "if) we are all truly interested in finding out the truth of a particular matter, we shouldn't need to resort to hateful, polemical rhetoric. Anyone who does can rightfully be labelled a "fundamentalist," and in my opinion Richard Dawkins does that.
And, though, I'd love to continue this discussion, today is Holy Saturday and tomorrow is Easter, so I probably won't have to time post anymore in this thread.
Because while the right of speech exists the responsibility of civility tends to be lacking.
Actually, the Christian revival in the United States began several decades before Bush II (particularly since 1972, following Roe v. Wade), so no, I wouldn't say it. And while I don't doubt that Americans are becoming more secular, especially within the last decade, compared with other nations of rivalling industrial development (which are mostly secular) religious organizations in the United States have been disproportionately influential in shaping public policy.
Yes, it's a loaded term, much like retarded is, but much in the same way, if someone calls you retarded they don't necessarily mean that your IQ would place you in the mentally retarded camp, and I have never heard someone call someone else "retarded" to imply that they actually suffered from mental retardation as defined by some psychologists.
Retarded is used (informally, as its use in recent years has become considered offensive to people who are actually retarded) as an insult to call someone stupid. Delusional is used even in literature to describe someone who holds a false belief or view of a situation. While you may not agree with this usage, "even in the least," - which wouldn't make sense to me unless you were actually a psychologist trying to keep your terminology clear - this is its more common usage. Otherwise you would almost never see it used. If you don't believe that's the common usage - and I'm aware that the Argumentum ad Wikipedia over here isn't bulletproof - check Wikipedia.
Or this usage I just got from Google:
I have no idea what that quote is even talking about, but I don't have to, because it's obvious that the guy's not implying "seek medical attention now," he's implying "you're just plain wrong."
This is another semantic thing, but the problem is mostly because of how Buddhism has migrated to the US as both a philosophy and a religion. For example, someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural can choose to follow the Middle Way and think it will improve their life or is a more proper way to act in most circumstances, and when a lot of people say they're Buddhist they don't mean much more than that, even though there's a heck of a lot more to Buddhism. When you start talking about Rebirth - and not being used in a purely metaphorical sense here - that's the religious kind of Buddhism.
The most basic layman's definition includes Buddhism and Jainism as religions, yes, but when atheists are talking about it, they're talking about a belief in the supernatural. If you perceive, say, a certain state of mind to be explainable (and even replicable) by physical chemical interactions, that's not what people mean when they say religious. If you think that that state of mind is "better" than another but still explainable by our current understanding of science, that's a more philosophical belief. If you think that a certain state of mind is unexplainable by science but instead inspired by a divine being, presence, or whatever else, that's more religious.
Does that make more sense now?
That's not the same thing at all. In Shinto's example, it's not the religious person changing her position in that situation so much as it's the non-religious person assuming her position on the given issue. Her first response to his railing on the subject would be that she doesn't believe that particular doctrine is correct, and at this point, it's easy to see that the two were talking past one another.
If the guy instead gets all pissy about it, he really ought to be acknowledging this mistake on his part and asking her for her actual position, so he can tackle that.
But didn't you read the Divine Comedy? The Noble Pagans don't really get punished forever in hell, they just never get to be truly happy! It's sort of like Hell Lite! How could that possibly be unfair?
EDIT:
You're right, I misread his post. Apologies.
I blame Quesada.
I can see how you might misunderstand it as simple mockery. But every time I've seen it brought up, it's been to refute the "but you can't prove it's not true" statement. In fact the entire reason it came into existence was to counter ID claims that it was an alternative theory that should be taught alongside evolution.
Maybe people do exist that use FSM not as a debate tactic, but just with mockery in mind. But in my experience these people are far more rare than you seem to think.
If you want to look back in the thread to when this got started, it was when Qingu objected that it was unfair for someone to gather from Dawkins calling religious people "delusional" that he was calling them mentally ill.
Now, maybe that's not what Dawkins meant to be doing. But given that the word he chose to use has a psychological meaning to it, it's hardly unfair or uncharitable for someone to state that that's the impression they got from Dawkins' statement.
To repeat before someone else jumps down my throat with this goddamn definition nonsense that I'm already perfectly aware of: I am not arguing that Dawkins definitely was or was not calling religious people mentally ill. I merely object to Qingu saying that anyone who thought he was is being unfair, given one of the standard meanings of "delusion".
Jesus, what is your problem with semantics? If I use the word "Jews" to mean child molesters, and state that all Jews should be thrown in jail, I'm going to catch shit because I've assigned an idiosyncratic and non-standard meaning to the word Jews. Semantics are important.
No, Buddhism is a religion, pure and simple. I get that it would be nice if it wasn't, that athiests would like to make their "all religious people believe In God and are stupid" pronouncements without having to qualify such blanket statements to deal with the niggling details of reality, but tough shit. Religion does not mean "faith in a God". Look at the way Religious Studies academics and cultural anthropologist define religion. Look up Buddhism in a dictionary and count the occurrences of the word "religion". Hell, look at the definition of religion in Wikipedia, if you're so hot on the meanings it gives. "Pervasive societal belief systems with a strong community, social aspect". Describes Chrisitianity. Describes Buddhism. Doesn't describe Utilitarianism.
Just don't give me this "there's really two Buddhisms" crap. It doesn't fly. You can't support it.
So say that, then. "I believe that people who believe in the supernatural are delusional". It seems to me that the only argument for this hair-splitting, "atheists has a special meaning for religion that doesn't include many things that the majority of the people on this earth would describe as a religion" horsecrap is that you're attached to being able to say "all religious people are delusional" and are too intellectually lazy to actually say what you mean.
Of course not. When people say they're religious, they mean they belong to a group with a shared belief system with whom they partake in certain rituals and practices together. None of which implies a belief in the supernatural, and none of which is conveyed by people describing themselves as philosophical.
I mean, honestly. If I say to someone that I'm going to go practice my philosophy for a few hours by heading down to the local Buddhist priory and meditating in front of a wall, they'd look at me like I had two heads.
It's not a matter of it making sense. I disagree with your lazy justifications for removing inconvenient religions from being the referent of the word "religion" in order to justify the intellectually lazy habit of characterizing all religious people as having certain traits that aren't in reality universal.
'delusion' usually refers to people with erroneous beliefs, rather than people who are mentally ill.
ne?
Again, this may not be how you want language to work, but, well, it's how it works. Again, it's not his fault, and it's entirely idiotic to claim otherwise. The meaning of the word was clear in the context it was given, not to mention using the most common definition of the word.
Disclaimer: When I say idiotic, I don't mean that you would have to have an IQ below 25 to claim that. I mean dumb.
Disclaimer: When I say dumb, I don't mean mute, I mean stupid.
Disclaimer: When I say stupid, I don't mean in a state of shock, I mean that from an intellectual perspective it's behavior we could classify as distinctly irrational and unintellectual.
A debate about semantics sidesteps the issue you're supposed to be talking about in the first place. Congratulations! This is what has happened.
You want the definition of religion from Wikipedia? You want the definition from a dictionary - the first definition, the primary one? Too bad. There are two Buddhisms. In fact, more than that. But there is a divide between Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion. You might not like it, and you might not support it. But it exists. Buddhist philosophy exists independently of religious Buddhism, especially in the West.
Really? So when people in the US say they're "not religious," they actually mean that they belong to no group that they share a belief system with and partake in certain rituals and practices with? No, wait, that's bullshit. It's a broad enough definition to encompass virtually anything as religion, which is not how the term is usually used. The term religion implies that, yes. If you think everyone who calls themself Buddhist even does that you'd be wrong. And I disagree with you ignoring the common definitions of word and your intellectually lazy habit of insisting that everyone throw out words with multiple definitions (unless they're using your definition, of course).
I guess we're at an impasse.
Hooray for semantics debates.
On Cat Stevens asking that his music be taken off shelves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_Islam
Sunniforum, the only (English-speaking) Muslim forum I can find on the internet that has posts on a daily basis, conducted an informal poll of its members. Half said they never listen to music. 25% said sometimes. 27 responded total.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19954&highlight=music
Posters on the same forum linked to several articles written by English-speaking Muslims regarding the sin of music. I am not suggesting that sunniforum is indiciative of the Muslim population as a whole, but at the same time I do not think they are somehow fanatical, extremist or otherwise fringe either, judging from their prominence as the only semi-populated Muslim forum and the fact that the mitigating fact that many of the posters are Westerners.
And regarding non-Muslim literature. I challenge you to find me a Muslim who will defend Salmon Rushdie. Hell, find me a Muslim who is actually willing to come out and say "no, Salmon Rushdie should absolutely not be killed for apostasy." I am having trouble finding any prominent Muslim to make such an unequivocal statement—most fudge their answers with "because he's living in the West," implying that he deserves to die if he lives elsewhere.
You are operating under the assumption that the burden of proof, when discussing Islam, is on the person claiming that the adherents of the religion do not generally believe in the literalness of its sacred scriptures. The only reason you are operating under this assumption is because you live in the West in 2007 where no Christian actually takes the Bible literally. 500 years ago, this would not be the case in Christendom. Christians lived in a theocratic authority structure, which is why Galileo was denounced as a heretic and sentenced to house arrest. You are assuming that Islam has somehow progressed into modernity the same way that Christendom has—that Muslims somehow realize that the Quran is not the ultimate authority on reality in the same way Christians realize the Bible is not. I think the fact that your main experience with Muslims turned out to be with Sufi Muslims—by far the most tolerant, abstract sect of Islam, so much so that they are often condemned as heretics by the other sects—is indiciative of your rather rose-colored attitude towards the religion as a whole.
I'm going to use Top Gear goes to the US as my evidence here.
I have it with me now. The index is okay but not great. If anyone wants me to check a reference, just ask.
Anyway, he clears up the politeness problem at the start...
As for calling all religious people mentally ill, Dawkins defends his use of the title...
The emphasis is mine. He goes on to quote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance, which said: "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." You can be offended by that if you like, I guess.
I tend to think it uncharitable to take anyone out of context.
Oh, I apologize, I was unclear. It isn't that it is impossible to articulate atheism without calling people stupid, it's just that it is impossible to articulate an atheist position without in effect challenging theism. There are plenty of intelligent theists- but the fact remains that for the vast majority of people, religion is such a core to their identity that the very existence of doubt is akin to challenging them. Why do you think the "My grandfather was not a monkey!" response to evolution so common...because a threat to religion is a threat to someone's sense of self and place in the world. There is almost no way to keep that from getting emotional. There aren't that many nice ways of saying, "You're wrong!", particularly nice ways that aren't quickly shouted down by all the many offensive arguments against atheism and atheists that inevitable surface.
It's also rather important to point out that Dawkins restricts his attack to personal, supernatural gods, not, say, the God of Einstein. A lot of people who consider themselves "religious" are under the Einstein-God category and have absolutely no reason to be offended by Dawkins. It's only those who believe in a supernatural deity and behave accordingly that get Dawkins all riled up.
Sorry, should I have said I need a scientific poll? 'cause that's what I need.
What does this have to do with your claims about non-Islamic books? I'm not gonna back up your claims for you.
I haven't said a goddamn thing about Dawkins in this thread. Learn to read.
Every Christian presumably takes the Resurrection passages literally. They take much of the gospels literally as they desrcribe the historical person of Jesus Christ.
Move back a little to something a little more absurd—by our standards—like the Ten Plagues actually happening, then suddenly a few Christians interpret this particular passage as "metaphorical."
Move back even further to the Tower of Babel story, an even more obvious myth, and suddenly a few more Christians are taking that part of the Bible non-literally as well.
Move back even further to the Adam and Eve story in the garden and suddenly 40% or 50% of Christians (the ones who believe in evolution) interpret that story as non-literal.
And then take something so remarkably stupid even by ancient standards, like Jonah surviving in the belly of a fish for three days, and suddenly a majority of Christians interpret the story as non-literal.
What on earth is the standard for your "literal" and "non-literal" dichotomy here? Could it be the extent to which the passage in question contradicts obvious reality? It's certainly nothing in the text itself, and it's certainly not cultural—as the Hebrews, like the Babylonians, Hindus, ancient Greeks and nearly everyone else living at the time, really believed in great floods that covered the earth and mythological explanations for the origin of language and gods who created humans as their worker-slaves. The people who wrote the Bible really believed this shit happened.
And the only reason you interpret it as "non-literal" today is because you know better now.
As for the morals of the Bible—which is what I have primarily been talking about here—I fail to see how "literally" even applies to legal codes. How the fuck are you supposed to take a legal code non-literally? Does anyone on earth interpret the Code of Hammurabi non-literally?
When I read a passage from an ancient law text that says "Stone anyone who commits adultery" (a law found in both the Old Testament and the Code of Hammurabi,) the question of its literalness does not even spring to my mind. Of course it's literal—what possible use is a metaphorical law to a society?
Once again, the only reason anyone would interpret the Old Testament laws non-literally is because they know better today. They know that such laws are the hallmark of a barbaric, misogynist society, a vestige of another age. And instead of confronting that fact honestly or accepting it as the word of God and obeying, they instead invent out of thin air some "non-literal" context to these legal statements.
I'm sorry if I come across as angry here, but to be frank I do get upset when people insist on interpreting the Bible this way. It just strikes me of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, for all the reasons above and many others as well.
Yeah, confused you with someone else. Editing in a moment...
You are the one who propped up your experience in the middle east as some sort of authority you can appeal to in a debate about the middle east. So don't shy away from questions about that authority.
What utter nonsense. Of course there are no worldwide scientific polls for such a narrow theological Islamic issue like "is music haram." Do you seriously believe that we can draw no general conclusions about the thoughts of Muslims if there is not a scientific poll to back those conclusions up? Or that the lack of a scientific poll in any way invalidates the rather tame conclusion (i.e. Some Muslims are opposed to music) I've drawn based on the evidence I presented?
What does Muslims' near-universal hatred for an author who dared—dared—to say something mildly offensive to the hegemony of Islam have to do with Muslims' limited desire for non-Islamic books? Are you joking? Perhaps you'd need a scientific poll? Or perhaps you'd need testimony from someone who spent time in the middle east, and therefore would know.
This is just something I read somewhere:
Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. The report noted that Arab rulers stay in office all their lives and create dynasties that inherit power, and the peoples are unable to institute change.
Look, here is a website dedicated to liberal Islam:
http://www.liberalislam.net/
I guess that means that a lot of Muslims worldwide are liberal!
What makes sunniforum representative? That you say it is?
Well, they have many views on many different things, and I don't feel like reading through their crap forum. I just see any real opposition to music in the middle east, and if you say there is, then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some real evidence for that.
Are you going to discuss what I've presented or are you just going to call me ignorant again?
Forums are anecdotes, not evidence.
The question is, how do we derive conclusions from anecdotal evidence?
I gave my reasons. You refuse to interact with them. And when asked, you failed to give your reasons about your anecdotal evidence. You are being a hypocrite.
This could only be relevant if you really think that the Islamic world doesn't produce its own literature and music at all, and relies entirely on the west for its entertainment. Something of a goddamn stupid assertion, there.
How many books are translated from, say, Farsi to english every year? How many chinese novels, how many polish ones? The answer is relatively few, because its not like we're starving for material.