Should Science Speak to Faith?
Loose Ends July 3rd, 2007I read an article in the Scientific American discussing whether science and religion should “live and let live” or “live and let die”. The bits you will most disagree with are conveniently marked “Dawkins”. 
Krauss: “What we need to try to eradicate is not religious belief, or faith, it is ignorance.”
Dawkins: “The fact that I think religion is bad science, whereas you think it is ancillary to science, is bound to bias us in at least slightly different directions.”
Anti Citizen One
July 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I shan’t even bother to read it as I wish to maintain my sanity dose for the day.
In general I do think Dawkins is extremely and horrendously wrong though, (genuine) Religion is not psuedo-science.
And science as we know it is not a dogmatic or a doctrinally ‘true’ mass of knowledge. That knowledge is capable of change as is the means of gaining that knowledge and the application of that knowledge.
Some scientists it seems have lapsed into a smug satisfaction that they are immune to contradiction or error, alas as the lamarckians, the old-fashioned newtonian mechanicists and countless other ‘schools’ of thought have discovered, knowledge, or rather scientific-truth-knowledge is a changeable and not a constant.
Someone once stated to me in conversation that a scientist would upon the discovery/verification of new knowledge adapt their beliefs accordingly and reject their former beliefs.
I responded with the simple correction, ‘should not would’.
As Max Planck once commented the Paradigm Shift that comes along every once in a while in science does not herald a mass or total conversion of belief and practise. It does not entail one side preaching relentlessly till the other submits to the rectitude of the new theories. It only finally occurs he said, when the old school has passed away and died and the new school has taken its place.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
OK I gave in and decided to read it.
Rather like Arthur Dent in prehistoric earth, prior to reading the article, I decided that for a change today I would try madness. By some pleasant coincidence five minutes after choosing to embrace madness I find myself running around the fields laughing hysterically chasing what appears to be a leaping and bounding chesterfield sofa.
I could give a point by point response to both of these scientists, but as that would please their rather closed system of thinking I shall not. And therefore in order to irritate them I shall engage in selective data presentation.
A few things in particular stood out.
- The misnomer ‘irrational belief’. To the believer no belief that they hold is irrational. Therefore as Krauss posits if their belief is ‘dangerous’ ie. it leads to bad or distasteful events then indeed the teacher must seduce them away from such beliefs. Beliefs must therefore be replaced. It is interesting to note that some of the most overt practioners of belief (of whatever sort) are converts. Thus protestant converts to catholicism tend to take a more literalist view of papal infallibity. Christian converts to Islam are more likely to preach their new faith to others. Former Atheists embrace religiousity with a new found fervour that other believers simply do not have. And ‘converts’ to atheism tend to be more openly critical of religion than do those who were never religious in the first place.
- Following on from Irrational Belief, both scientists obviously eager not to kill each other for their differing approaches then descend into a love in and talk of how nasty religion can get and all the evil things that are done, crusades, anti-women, abuse, wars, fundamentalist terrorism.
Krauss states that other than a misguided belief that God is on their side no one would choose to fly a jet into a building.
Wrong!!!!
It is entirely reasonable that someone, anyone can perform an action that could be deemed a human atrocity for absolutely any reason and for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Stalin wasn’t the most religious man in recent history and he achieved heights of murder that would have made other maniacal tyrants envious. So too Mao, Pol Pot and any other number of totalitarians one could choose to name.
The 9/11 hijackers were making a political statement, they held socio-political beliefs that they justified using de-contextualised religious ideals. This is not so far removed from the religious motivation that spurred Newton towards being a natural philosopher or scientist. With one exception, the hijackers caused an atrocity, Newton did not.
The vast majority of street crime that occurs in this country is motivated through greed and/or a narcotic addiction. War alas is not far removed from crime. The Iraq war had little to do with religious ideals (despite Husseins invocatoin of Allah and Dubya and TB’s references to God) and a lot to do with the lust for power and oil and money.
The Northern Ireland conflict for years promoted as an example of a religious war had its origins in a 18th century uprising where the protaganists occupied almost reverse religious positions, the basis of the argument? Land, power, autonomy, economic and legal rights.
The Crusades were similarly a war based on these very human ideals. Every King and every Baron and every Knight who joined the crusade were consolingly told that for killing infidels they would go to heaven, but the small print also said they would get paid in land and baronies and new feudal estates in the Holy Land. A motivation that drove the barons into action far quicker than religious idealism.
And what else can I comment on (much more but I shall leave it for now).
- Dawkins disagrees with belief in belief. Disagrees that moral rectitude superceded truth and most importantly of all has a painfully blinkered intepretational bias of what constitutes ‘truth’.
Alas for Dawkins science cannot inform religion other than to denigrate it. Alas for Dawkins the rules of the language games have thus far evaded him.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Actually there is one more thing
In general I am in agreement with Krauss, and by extension from reading this article it would seem that once you remove the froth from our foaming mouths myself and Dawkins may have some (albeit tiny) common ground.
But I felt a little miffed at one small section of Krauss’s response.
I quote him:
“In my lecture to the Catholic group, for instance, I took guidance from your (Dawkins) latest book and described how scientific principles, including the requirement not to be selective in choosing data, dictate that one cannot pick and choose in one’s fundamentalism. If one believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it says so in the Bible, one has to accept the other things that are said in the Bible, including the allowance to kill your children if they are disobedient or validation of the right to sleep with your father if you need to have a child and there are no other men around, and so forth.”
I am slightly resentful of the idea that this is somehow Dawkin’s idea, or that it is a scientific principle. The idea that one should not selectively pick and choose which elements of the bible/scripture are literal or of greater fundamental significance to the other is not something new. It has been practised by those theologians engaged in biblical commentary for hundreds of years.
I will concede that the 19th century school of hermeneutics which engaged in biblical scholarship did use certain ideas of data selection and did appeal to various scientific methods in its approach. But this was in order to establish its independence as a school of thought as opposed to belonging to an institutional or casuistical one.
For example the hermeneutic interpretation of scripture looked at the text and tried to connect them with independent verifiable facts. I.e. Palestine, Jerusalem, Rome, Pilate, Quirinius etc are named. Places and historical persons that can be verified by maps, texts, historical documents, monumental inscriptions, and so on.
This is as opposed to casuistical intepretation that would say, Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden (to choose a weak example) are mentioned in the bible, I can point one of these places ot you on a map, the other one I could with enough research.
On the matter of homosexuality it has long been understood by independent scholars, and by those who have wished to challenge the casuistical intepretation, that on the few occasions it is mentioned in the Bible, it is never mentioned by God, Jesus, or in anyway directly referenced to being a divine prohibition.
Paul in the New Testament refers to homosexuality along with promiscuity, adultery and behaviour to excess.
In Leviticus and the Old Testament one passage on homosexuality (often taken out of context) comes in a section of scripture concerned with rules of ritual cleanliness. Including rules concerning sex with menstruating women, sex with animals, burial rituals, washing your hands, cleaning your pots properly.
I may be doing Krauss a terrible injustice, as he may also have a working knowledge of Hermeneutics, but it is my theory that actually he was attempting to cross over from one language game to another. And that sets a dangerous precedent.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“The misnomer ‘irrational belief’. To the believer no belief that they hold is irrational.”
I read an interesting piece, I think it was by Michael Shermer, about the mechanism of forming a new belief. We each hold many beliefs ranging from “the switch activates that light” to “there is a God”. Say we have at least 100 beliefs. When we form a new belief, we hardly compare that new belief to all our other current beliefs. One day we might realise a contradiction in our beliefs (I know I do some times). If we have sometimes contradictionary beliefs, can we be said to have at least one irrational belief in the context of our other beliefs? I think so.
And I think I already questioned the rationality of having beliefs that one has forgotten the original basis.
“Krauss states that other than a misguided belief that God is on their side no one would choose to fly a jet into a building.
Wrong!!!!”
The point that Krauss was making is that the 9/11 attacks where suicidal. He is saying it is unlikely an atheist would fly a plane into a building. Of course they are otherwise quite capable of other forms of terrorism, as you pointed out.
“Alas for Dawkins the rules of the language games have thus far evaded him.”
Dawkin’s point is he thinks religion strays into the science word game. If religion makes claims in the physical world, it is in the sense game. And this language game, in my view (and Dawkin’s), isn’t big enough for the two of us, religion and science. Any literal belief of the Bible (such as resurrection), is in the sense language game and science starts getting protective.
To be continued…
AC1
July 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Our perspectives on ‘belief’ are potentially irreconciliable and we have pretty much had this conversation already. Regards belief, I have to maintain the anti-realist position, that belief is all we have, even if that belief is wrong.
If one belief stupifyingly and obviously contradicts another belief. i.e. “I believe there is a God” and “I believe there is no God” then one or the other is not irrational because it contradicts, one or the other simply has to go to maintain a coherent belief system. Both statements are synthetic truth statements, and a synthetic truth may be false or true but it can never be irrational.
Only false-analytical truth statements, or illogical statements can be considered irrational.
Why is it anymore unlikely that an atheist would commit a suicide attack than a theist? This is my objection to his point, there is absoletely no evidence to support his claim that atheists dont do suicide attacks.
Is it the quite mistaken belief that Islam openly promotes suicide attacks? Obviously Krauss has misinterpreted the Quranic texts in that way, in the same way that the Islamist fundamentalists have.
Could it be the belief that the suicide bombers have that they shall attain a paradisical reward, that makes it more likely that they should commit suicide?
What then prevents an atheist for whom there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no reward or punishment, from taking his life in a terrorist attack?
Let me quote another source:
“He repeats the theory that suicide bombs are caused by religious schools: “If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior value of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools.” Evidence? As it happens, the definitive scientific study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, has just been published by Robert Pape, a Chicago professor who has a database containing every known suicide attack since 1980. This shows, as clearly as evidence can, that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers; in fact, it’s not even necessary: the practice was widely used by Marxist guerrillas in Sri Lanka.”
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism
I was hoping you would say that about Dawkins. This is the very crux of the argument. Faith language games at times seem to interfere with Science language games. And vice versa. As neither folow strictly the same rules then neither should be admissible to the other.
But is not Dawkins attacks on Faith a wayward stray into the Faith language game? after all as you said he is ‘tainted’ by confirmation bias the moment he as a science language game player attempts to crossover.
But this argument gets us nowhere.
You pointed out the ressurection story as an example of literalism problems between the games.
In the Christian language game Christ is truly risen has to be taken as a fundamental truth, otherwise you have departed from the language game.
For this to be a truth in the science language game a Christian must then prove that it is indeed possible for a person to rise from the dead, or to prove there is a God (special case argument) or to prove any number of other things. Either way the science language game may admit only two things (i) if you can demonstrate it, it may be true, and (ii) it may be ‘true’ in a symbolic sense.
Clearly the twe language games at this stage are incompatible.
So what to do, blank each other, resort to politically sensitive and correct language?
Say: The man-God Christ archetypal figure metaphorically rose from the dead providing us with a symbol of reawakening….. and so on.
This is what Wittgenstein warns against when he talks of nonsense.
The simple facts are:
A member of the Christian language game has belief in event ‘a’.
A member of the Science language game is thoroughly sceptical of the possibility of event ‘a’.
Neither the Christian language game member, nor the Science language game member can adequately prove or deny to the other the merit of belief or disbelief in event ‘a’.
The question is not solved but dissolved, and any attempt to cross over, either way in the language game is nonsensical.
But!!!! There is an important practical point here, the Faith language game and the Science language game bear ‘family resemblances’ to each other. The rules are not identical, just as chess and draughts are not identical, but there are sufficiently similar overlaps and resemblances in language that makes it impossible, impractical and difficult to completely divorce the two language games from each other.
The simple solution, don’t get so worried about it unless one/other of the adherents of the language game attempt to unduly influence the other. I.e. a religious fundamentalist banning science, or a scientific fundamentalist banning religion.
A nice simple example of where the overlap and family resemblance can satisfactorily occur:- The Medical Doctor who believes in a God. The Physicist who believes in a deist entity.
Such belief, such simple belief does not necessarily or even dangerously compromise their scientific principles and practises.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Just to clarify: the overlap in the Christian/Science language games.
The family resemblance is simple, as a scientist you are aware of the definition of bodily ressurection. The means by which a phenomena such as that may be defined (not proved or demonstrated) will use language that both language games find accessible. This is where the root of the conflict between the language games lies.
If on the other hand we had a conversation between the philosophical and phsycisists definition of the term ‘chaos’ we would then see a shift in the resemblance. The same word is being used but with radically different meanings.
Finally as a weak example a Christian probably could not satisfactorily define to a Muslim the doctrine of the Trinity. The language may be mutually understandable but the concepts and ideology may be completely at odds with the opposite language games use and understanding of the terminology, so much so that it must seem nonsensical.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“This is my objection to his point, there is absoletely no evidence to support his claim that atheists dont do suicide attacks.” You are asking for proof of a negative.
“Obviously Krauss has misinterpreted the Quranic texts in that way, in the same way that the Islamist fundamentalists have.” I can’t see where Krauss mentions Islam. How did he misinterpret the Quran?
“Why is it anymore unlikely that an atheist would commit a suicide attack than a theist?” “What then prevents an atheist for whom there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no reward or punishment, from taking his life in a terrorist attack?”
Because the atheist suicide terrorist does not personally benefit from the act. I notice that Robert Pape argues that there is “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism”. This was called a generalization by Martin Kramer: “Dr. Pape’s thesis is more suited to [Lebanon, Palestine] than the [al-Qaeda], although even those two instances do not entirely conform to his model.” I agree with Robert Pape that there is some “strategic goal” that is also at work.
To say religious belief played no role all suicide attacks is clearly untrue. For example, “this letter handwritten in Arabic in the suitcase of Mohamed Atta” from 9/11:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/network/personal/instructions.html
Regarding the Tamil Tigers, they could be regarded as pseudo religious “…despite their Marxist/separatist claims, inasmuch as they operate like sects (Jim Jones of Guyana fame was also mixing Marxism and religion) and the leaders are God-like figures of absolute political and spiritual authority.” http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20031021.americawar.radu.islamsuicidebombers.html
We also have to distinguish between the motivations of the campaign organizers and the bombers themselves. The bomber does not need a strategic goal but obviously the organizers do.
I am going to write up the Dawkins/language game issue separately – as it is pretty fundamental.
AC1
July 6th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“Because the atheist suicide terrorist does not personally benefit from the act.”
So let me get this straight, an atheist is informing me that the reason a theist suicide bomber is motivated to do so, more so than an atheist would-be suicide bomber is because there is a post-mortal personal benefit to the act.
As Jeremy Bentham once said “Nonsense, Dangerous Nonsense and Nonsense on Stilts!”
Every single act of a suicide bombing is a political and military act nothing more nothing less.
Any religious involvement is provided as a pillar with which to uphold that political statement.
Krauss does not need to mention the Quran or Islam, as most current day discussions on suicide bombers conveniently focuses on the suicide bombers of the Islamist faction, and conveniently ignores most other instances (including non-religious) of suicide bombing.
Very good of you to agree with some of Robert Papes ideas. I just wonder how one can justify discussion about a suicide bomber having some strategic goal? I should imagine the strategic politico-militant element of a suicide bombing is the fundamental and central element of it.
A suicide bomber who intends neither to harm others nor to excessively (if at all) damage anybodies property is in fact just a suicidal person.
A suicide bomber though, in reality, has the strategic aim of mass homicide combined with the terrifying image that they are willing to give their lives for this cause.
And to seperate the strategic intentions of the terrorist coordinators with their religiously inspired suicidal puppets is a particularly lame element. Unless you involve brainwashing the coordinator cannot direct terrorist operations without volunteer operatives. And a volunteer operative is less likely to volunteer unless they are aware of every aspect of their act, aims and intentions.
Martin Kramer may call it a generalisation as much as he likes, but I would expect nothing less from a Pro-Zionist Islamaphobe Neo-Conservative who vociferously backed the war in Iraq, who promoted bill HR 3077 which is an affront to academic independence and intellectual freedom and finally who attacks at every oppurtunity all and any open and frank discussions of the middle-east problem that attribute even a fraction of blame at the door of the western powers.
Regards Mohammed Atta, I have certainly not suggested that religious motivations have not played a part in suicide bombings. I do say:
a) religious motifs are mis-used as symbolic pillars and justifications for their political and military ends*
and
b) suicide attacks are military actions and politically motivated actions, religion and a lack of religion are background motives.
*as you remember Blair and Bush both referred to the role of God in their decision making processes and as justifiers and judges of their actions. This certainly can not be said to be true of the numerous others who supported their wars and who facilitated them.
You wish to regard the Marxist Tamil Tigers as pseudo-religious. Well hey why not lets call atheism a faith then, it seems you want to have it both ways.
Richard Dawkins and Krauss have both presented Suicide Bombings as though they were the symptoms of religious society. They use, even worse, they disgustingly abuse, the truth (that suicide bombings are political and military actions) as a stick with which to beat all adherents of faith.
Terrorism as you agreed can be committed by anybody who is motivated to do so, whether of faith or no faith.
Suicide bombing is the comparatively recently new weapon of choice for international terrorists who are searching for ever more effective ways to commit atrocities outside of the view of the intelligence community and without the funds to attain and operate highly destructive military hardware. It is also the act of desperation, as I noted a highly symbolic gesture of the commitment that these terrorist organisations have towards fulfilling their political goals.
A little example, the ‘Army of Islam’ the palestinian terror group who abducted Alan Johnston the BBC journalist, were a particularly secular crime syndicate in the Gaza strip. Any religious imagery and symbols used by them were used very much as flags of convenience.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Talking of trying to have it both ways, I often wonder under which guise is Richard Dawkins talking when he makes his frequent crossovers in the language game?
For example, on suicide bombing, what qualifications does this eminent evolutionary biologist have to discuss religious, political and social matters as though he were an authority and not (as it would seem he should be) merely a concerned citizen?
July 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Furthermore
A (religious) suicide bomber justifies their actions by resorting to political, military and social aims. They console themselves and the aspect of their personal sacrifice for the cause with recourse to notions of ‘martyrdom’ and appeals to their religion and their God.
In this case religion is secondary and personal to the primary and impersonal political-social-military ends they wish to achieve through the suicide bombing.
July 6th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Kramer you stated described Pape’s research as relevent perhaps in the Palestine/Israel case but as less so in the age of Al-Qaeda.
Kramer of course as a neocon chooses to subscribe to a very narrow minded interpretation of the Al-Qaeda phenomenon.
Pape states clearly in his research that Al-Qaeda needs a fundamental redefining in western eyes…
“Al-Qaeda is less a transnational network of like-minded ideologues . . . than a cross-national military alliance of national liberation movements working together against what they see as a common imperial threat” (104).
July 6th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I was a bit worried by the Tamil Tiger reference to pseudo-religion.
I see the source was the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Another bastion of neocon political research.
Have read the article as well, and yet another example of well informed pro-CIA propaganda.
I do agree with the need for balance especially when I am unwilling at times to present it. But please AC-1 it doesnt do your Nietzschean post-modern anarcho-liberal credentials any good to reference neocon puppeteers like Kramer and Radu. What next Melanie Philips and Richard Littlejohn?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I am getting a bit battle weary, so this post is a bit terse I am afraid. Perhaps focus on areas we might actually agree on? Areas you ignore, we can just agree to disagree?
“Every single act of a suicide bombing is a political and military act nothing more nothing less.”
“suicide attacks are military actions and politically motivated actions, religion and a lack of religion are background motives.”
This is something we don’t agree on. If it says in a holy book, “kill unbelievers” and a religious leader encourages followers to follow through with the act (admittedly for the leader’s strategic benifit), then the holy book is at least partly to blame.
“Any religious involvement is provided as a pillar with which to uphold that political statement.”
I think we are discussing if religion is a necessary or significant (or other) pillar for suicide bombings. You admit it is a “pillar with which to uphold” their other beliefs at least.
“Krauss does not need to mention the Quran or Islam, as most current day discussions on suicide bombers conveniently focuses on the suicide bombers of the Islamist faction”
You are implying people involved in “discussions” do misinterpret the Quran but please me more specific (rather than accuse poor old Krauss who did not mention the Quran). Before you react, I admit this point is slightly picky, but I can’t start to discuss your argument unless we all understand we are on the same wavelength.
“And to seperate the strategic intentions of the terrorist coordinators with their religiously inspired suicidal puppets is a particularly lame element.”
I owe you one insult lol.
Since I was the one that made the distinction, can I take that personally? Thanks
“Unless you involve brainwashing the coordinator cannot direct terrorist operations without volunteer operatives.”
I think that brainwashing or radicalisation might be involved. This is supported by suicide bombers rarely decide and perform the attack as an individual without outside support. They need a group of people to train, encourage and indocrinate them.
“And a volunteer operative is less likely to volunteer unless they are aware of every aspect of their act, aims and intentions.”
If you brainwash or radicalize someone, they don’t need to volenteer in the rational way you are suggesting.
“Martin Kramer may call it a generalisation as much as he likes, but I would expect nothing less from a Pro-Zionist Islamaphobe Neo-Conservative…”
Ad hominem circumstantial… not that important. Ignore?
“You wish to regard the Marxist Tamil Tigers as pseudo-religious. Well hey why not lets call atheism a faith then, it seems you want to have it both ways.”
Don’t call atheism a faith unless you back it up with an argument. You know that will just annoy me! Why do it?
As I said in another thread, atheism does not give guidance on right and wrong, so can’t be used as jusification for terrorism. Of course, it can’t take credit for much either. “As the strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in God” Wikipedia.
“They use, even worse, they disgustingly abuse, the truth (that suicide bombings are political and military actions) as a stick with which to beat all adherents of faith.”
You seem to imply that is their only disagreement with religion. You are overemphasising that part of their argument. If you manage to refute this part of their argument, you still have to address the rest (well admittedly you did start another thread on this).
“It is also the act of desperation, as I noted a highly symbolic gesture of the commitment that these terrorist organisations have towards fulfilling their political goals.”
I think the “act of desperation” is a myth of our leaders political spin and trying to keep people thinking we are winning the war on terror. Suicide bombings do not necessarily mark a group who are despairing, or on the brink of defeat.
“Any religious imagery and symbols used by [the Army of Islam] were used very much as flags of convenience.”
Quote or reference?
“Richard Dawkins talking when he makes his frequent crossovers in the language game?”
Dawkins thinks claims to the physical world are in the same language game (I think).
“For example, on suicide bombing, what qualifications does this eminent evolutionary biologist have to discuss religious, political and social matters as though he were an authority and not (as it would seem he should be) merely a concerned citizen?”
Ad hominem.
“I see the source was the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Another bastion of neocon political research.”
Ad hominem circumstantial
“But please AC-1 it doesnt do your Nietzschean post-modern anarcho-liberal credentials any good to reference neocon puppeteers”
I like you appeal to my point of view. I would love to hear what Nietzsche would have made on today’s world.
AC1
July 12th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“Every single act of a suicide bombing is a political and military act nothing more nothing less.”
You are right we do disagree fundamentally on this. You mention a holy book and an injunction to kill. Lets take the Quran 2.191 as an example (it talks of slaying). You will find many interpretations of this surah. The fundamentalist politically motivated one which says Allah says kill unbelievers and the scholarly one that contextualises the quote with the history. This text matches the period of the ‘revelation’ occuring at the time of ‘Hijrah’ the transmigration of the early muslim community from Mecca to Medina. Prior to Hijrah the command had been not to defend themselves, for the journey and the defence of Medina against those arabic tribes known as the Quraish who were hostile to Mohammed the command changed they should defend themselves. This Quranic quote often used ‘against’ Islam is taken out of the context of the story of the Hijrah and the Battle of Badr. Read in context it becomes suprisingly less hostile.
Out of interest then, if a book is so fundamentally dangerous, why dont we ban it or burn it? Or do you agree with me that it is the interpretation of the texts in a book that kills people, if so then is this not the influence of political, and military thinking?
July 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“Any religious involvement is provided as a pillar with which to uphold that political statement.”
I am saying that religion can be used to justify political doctrines (rightly or wrongly).
“If you brainwash or radicalize someone, they don’t need to volenteer in the rational way you are suggesting.”
We actually are closer to agreement here. My idea (not clear though) is that suicide bombers are indeed radicalised and probably brainwashed, but radicalisation involves a voluntary assent, it may well be that this is all it requires to leave the brain susceptible then to brainwashing. Thus initially rational volunteering (including support for suicide bombings) becomes less rational through brainwashing.
“Don’t call atheism a faith unless you back it up with an argument. You know that will just annoy me! Why do it?”
besides it is a small annoyance to me the ease with which an undesirable atheist movement can be discarded by denouncing it as psuedo-religious. Shall stop there as the nature of faith and belief are a different discussion.
Precisely because it annoys you
I agree in general atheism does not give guidance on right and wrong. But individual atheists can do, and in the case of state-sponsored atheism or institutional atheism, the right/wrong interpretation of an individual will often be the result of an individuals prejudice. i.e. Stalin and the cult of stalinism.
“act of desperation” I am closer to agreeing with you on this than you may realise. I perhaps wrongly emphasised the act of desperation. But then again perhaps the myth of the act of desperation is intentionally generated as a strategic element of the act, by those committing the act, not necessarily by those on the recieving end.
Here is a link with a brief outline of the politics and history of the Army of Islam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/01/wjohnston301.xml
The phrase ‘powerful criminal clan… recently adopted militant jihadism’ is central to my claims.
Also the political analysis: ‘pursuing a vendetta against Hamas’.
Dawkins and the language games: a radical language games theorist such as myself proposes that Dawkins occupies his own unique language game.
I also think that claims to knowledge about the physical world belong to a variety of language games, but accept that claims to scientific knowledge that is testable by verification/falsifiability criteria amongst others is the specific realm of the science language game.
So for example Intelligent Design should be clearly labelled as not being a part of the science language game, and where it attempts to do so it should be rebuffed as psuedo-science.
“ad-hominem” so easy when its neo-cons you are quoting. Especially when I have a sneaking supsicion that you don’t really believe what they are saying but you have quoted them in order to get a rise out of me.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
“In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is “not the smallest evidence” that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It’s an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda — the elimination of religion. This doesn’t fit with Dawkins’ highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.”
A.McGrath
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=2