Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Fighting extremism with the opposite extreme


eight bits

Recommended Posts

A recent article in the American news magazine, Time, argues that the "New Atheism" can help to contain Islamism (the political movement, not the religion), provided that New Atheists chill.

http://time.com/4484681/new-atheism-jihad-apocalypse/

The three authors include Peter Boghossian. The name may ring a bell because he's the philosopher whose kinder, gentler approach to confronting believers with non-belief inspired a productive thread last year here in SvS,

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/289178-street-evangelism/?page=1

(Officially, I was the OP, but the impetus for the thread came from davros of skaro.)

What the new article proposes is, in effect, "scaling up" the Newer-than-new Atheists' engagement with believers. Rather than politely discussing matters of opinion with friendly students, the authors wish to reach out to moderate Muslims, in order to make gritty common cause against hard-core Jihadist-Islamists. Apostasy, leaving Islam for  godlessness, would be optional.

Disclosures. I am a Huxleyan, and so I disagree with some things that the linked article espouses. Foundationally, I disagree that

Quote

deep-rooted conflicts between reason and faith

necessarily exist. Otherwise, I'd be an atheist instead of a Huxleyan (assuming you don't simply define reason and faith in some way that they must necessarily conflict. Word-play hardly counts as deep roots.)

I am also a libertarian, and so I heartily agree that

Quote

Enlightenment values like rationalism and tolerance, and the liberties of a free, open ... society

are desirable.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article seems very generous to New Atheism by making out that its main target was radical Islam. Perhaps if it had been more selective in its objective rather than being used as a platform for so many to have a good laugh at all forms of Christianity, its argument might have been more effective. Anyway, if the thrust of this theory is to encourage moderate Muslims to abandon primitive superstition, how is that going to be able to combat extremism? If moderates leave the faith, it'd just weaken moderate forms and all the extremists to consolidate more of a grip, surely.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd try herding cats before embarking on this project.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bubbly

Thank you for the video. When you've had some rest, come on back!

GMT and Habitat

Maybe it's just that the article is short, but it is very light on any specific mechanism by which the project will proceed.

In preparing the OP, I had to find the old thread, and was reminded of Elizabeth, the interviewee in the kick-off vid. What made her interview remarkable was how obvious it was that she had already thought a lot about her beliefs, what and why. She didn't need anybody's helpful hints about doing that.

That could be a problem, if it turns out that lots of Muslims have thought about what they believe, and yes, now that somebody's mentioned it, it does make sense to them.

hetrodoxly

Quote

" the political movement, not the religion" they're the same thing and can't be separated.

It was a face-to-face encounter IRL with a thoughtful and learned Muslim where I learned to be careful of my suffixes, not to say Islamic when I meant Islamist. He seemed to think they could be separated, and made a strong historical case in his favor, and he had some skin in the game, too.

At the very least, it seems to be worth a try to separate them. Whether having a conversation about theology is really the best way to go about it is a different matter, IMO.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

t was a face-to-face encounter IRL with a thoughtful and learned Muslim where I learned to be careful of my suffixes, not to say Islamic when I meant Islamist. He seemed to think they could be separated, and made a strong historical case in his favor, and he had some skin in the game, too.

At the very least, it seems to be worth a try to separate them. Whether having a conversation about theology is really the best way to go about it is a different matter, IMO.

That would be a different religion, the problem is the political manual (Quran) how do you change that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hetrodoxly

Quote

That would be a different religion, the problem is the political manual (Quran) how do you change that?

It's not one religion now. That would be nearly impossible in a group of about a billion people spread throughout the world.

Why would I need to change a book anyway? Books don't read themselves, and books don't do anything to which I object.

For example, Jews have a book, too. Muslims agree that it is a book like theirs, and maintain a guarded silence about how much of their book is a knock-off of the Jewish one (just as Christians overlook how much of the "wisdom of Jesus" issues from the same source). Torah is transmitted under copy-error-correction conditions that Muslims adopt for copying the Koran. Jews also have a functioning modern state. Whether anybody likes that state or not, it does not stone homosexuals or those who gather sticks on Saturday.

Here's an interesting discussion featuring Sam Harris (New Atheist Champion, historically anti-Islamic) and Maajid Nawaz (Muslim anti-Islamist), who wrote a book together. You might consider giving it about 20 minutes of your time (the whole thing runs 70 minutes or so):

https://youtu.be/YTd4-WXw2SM

Nawaz' position, briefly, is that Islam is not a religion of war nor a religion of peace, but whatever kind of religion its adherents make of it. We might add: just like Judaism and Christianity. There's also a discussion within the first 20 minutes about the value of getting the words right when trying to address the real problems here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The French Revolution was the spark to Secular societies in the Christian world.  If the Arab Spring was an initial attempt to revolutionise and change the Arab world, it failed miserably and if anything, it reinforced religious radicalism.  Before Atheists are even allowed to offer an alternative to religious fundamentalism, they need to eradicate the source and the financial support this source supplies.  Considering the source is supported by our Western Govts with an agenda don't expect changes anytime soon.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~

1aquote-woody-war-profits.jpg

~

... in a world of the soulless , there are no souls to lose ...

~

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlackRedDevil

Quote

The French Revolution was the spark to Secular societies in the Christian world.

It is true that the French have crafted a distinctive brand of secularism all their own. There are, however, older and less bloody examples of state-sponsored secularism.

One that is especially encouraging for the prospect of an Islam without Islamism is Roger Williams. He founded what became the American state of Rhode Island in the Seventeenth Century.

Massachusetts was at that point a Christian Jihadist rogue state. Williams, a clergyman, set up a "Galt's Gulch" on the border of Massachusetts (and a very lovely piece of land he chose for it, too), which became a place of refuge for religious outlaws - and a prosperous polity.

What is distinctive and encouraging for us is that Williams believed that it was a Christian's duty to extend freedom of conscience and expression to all others. As a matter of practical politics, the later (and fan of the French Revolution) Jefferson's secularist arguments eclipsed Williams' in American debates about religious liberty. The ironic appeal to religious grounds for religious tolerance is largely unknown to most living Americans, except Rhode Islanders.

Their constitution addresses religious liberty with a blend of  the famous Virginia statute Jefferson authored and a recollection of their own history. Rhode Island is unusual in that it did NOT adopt a new constitution when it gained independence. This text is from the mid-19th Century, not a product of the Enlightenment in progress, but a backward look on a triumphant Enlightenment already in practice.

Article I, Section 3:

Quote

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person’s religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person’s conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person’s opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any  person.

There is nothing in that quote box which conflicts with Islam as such. By the time that was written, Massachusetts had just a few years earlier finally ended its policy of mandatory tax-supported religion. If Williams could prevail over the whack-jobs who ran Massachusetts, we can do business with moderate Muslims. Liberty can win.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/riconstitution/Pages/Constfull.aspx

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks eb. I have to check out that Sam discussion vid when I have time.

Simply put I see religion not unlike drug abuse. One is taboo to do, and the other is taboo to question. One is chemical induced, while the other is thought released. Both are transformative, but religion is seen as socially positive. 

The article states: "The movement offered a heretofore unwelcomed perspective: That every religion has negative consequences, and that even religious moderates contribute to the problem because, by affirming that faith is a legitimate reason to hold beliefs, they enable religious extremists."

To me this is like saying that having alcohol legal it's contributing to Heroin use in a subset of society. It's true for people prone to addiction biologically, and enviroment is also a contributor. 

Educating children about drugs has it's effectiveness, but some will go on to abuse them. The thing is I do not see a gateway drug, but the individual is the gateway. One person can wait on that drink, or do without, meanwhile another has to have it.

These Atheists are trying to reason to a part of the Brain that suppresses reason selectively for a reward. Nothing wrong with using reason, but few will come out of it, but importantly it will help shield those not in it.

Who here has ever gotten sickly drunk? Who did it again, but between longer time spans? Now you know full well what your limit is, and 9 out of 10 times keep under it. A nice buzz from a tastey brew is all you really need at the right moments of course. Now think back at the times you went over your limit. Notice how things came into play that made what you knew perfectly well take a hike? People can do this mind trick sober.

I say these New Atheists should make a documentary film. Something both entertaining, and informative to inoculate people from the disease while offering a transformative message that's positive.

dmz58.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

davros

Quote

From the Time aricle, quoted by davros:

That every religion has negative consequences, and that even religious moderates contribute to the problem because, by affirming that faith is a legitimate reason to hold beliefs, they enable religious extremists.

That 's a slippery argument by the authors (I did say up front that there are things in the article with which I disagree).

For one thing, "faith" seems to me less of a reason to hold a belief than the very act of holding a belief itself, a belief of a characteristic kind, with a particular level of confidence and despite a shortage of supporting evidence or valid argument.

For example, our friends the Anglicans mention in their burial service, "The sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." That's more than just believing in it, and it's not just any belief, but a belief with a hefty hope-so component. But it isn't a reason for believing anything, and the only thing it enables is a gathering of mourners at gravesites.

The argument also fails at the extremists' end IMO. I doubt that Islamic State cares all that much about what moderate Muslims think about IS. It doesn't exactly show a lot of respect for them when it takes over their towns.

Finally, I reject the authors' idea of necessary conflict between reason and religious belief as such (see the OP). It simply doesn't follow that moderates holding their beliefs for reasons satisfactory to them "enables" anybody else to commit atrocities which are impermissible for any reason.

As to the drug analogy (you really should start a thread about that, lol), I'm a libertarian. If people want to take drugs or drink, then that's none of my business. People can make it my business, driving drunk, for instance. Punish somebody for driving drunk? Fine with me. Prevent an adult from drinking by force? Not fine with me.

Religion follows suit for me. Praising Allah by shooting up a night club? Not fine. Pray to Allah, fast during the daytime for a month every year, visit Mecca and run around a stone cube ...? None of that is any of my business.

I never reach the question of why moderate Muslims do what they do, as if they must somehow convince me that they're justified in their beliefs and behavioral choices. If that's what they want to do, the peaceful stuff, then they don't need my permission or approval.

Edited by eight bits
q-box hell
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stop at Islam? All religion is harmful, why not tackle all of it? I think that the more people realize that nonbelief is an option, the level of belief will gradually decline.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe something that might add that distance of delineation between the fanatic and fantastic ...

~

 

Quote

 

If there is a God, then anything is permitted

Slavoj Zizek ABC Religion and Ethics 17 Apr 2012

***

Although the statement "If there is no God, everything is permitted" is widely attributed to Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Sartre was the first to do so in his Being and Nothingness), he simply never said it.

The closest one gets to this infamous aphorism are a hand-full of apoproximations, like Dmitri's claim from his debate with Rakitin (as he reports it to Alyosha):

"'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?'"

But the very fact that this misattribution has persisted for decades demonstrates that, even if factually incorrect, it nonetheless hits a nerve in our ideological edifice. No wonder conservatives like to evoke it whenever there are scandals among the atheist-hedonist elite: from millions killed in gulags to animal sex and gay marriages, this is where we end up if we deny transcendental authority as an absolute limit to all human endeavours.

 

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am seeing some disparity in the article that I cannot resolve from my own experiences, and as many know, I do spend a bit of my free time following these new atheists. 

This part:

New Atheism may have inched into the Islamic world, but it has not found deep roots. And its current approach isn’t well-suited to further penetrate Muslim societies. The condescending speech of New Atheists—calling religious people delusional, for example—is not an effective cross-cultural strategy for generating change.

Seems rather foreign. I do not see New Atheists bothering with the general Islamic world, they do not bother any other religious group either, they approach what is deemed to be the authorities of such religions and debate them. And in an even format, Dawkins receives as good as he gets, I have seen it when he interviewed Ted Haggard, George Pell and Yousef al-Khattab, they have red faced blasted Dawkins, and IMHO, unfounded at that. They do not the general people in the street or the societies themselves, he is going to the authorities within these movements in every situation possible. He does not speak to anyone and everyone, he does not have the time for that, the accusation is just not possible, I am a huge supporter of his, and if I want to actually speak to him, the membership cost will restrict that want. He is a busy man, and has better issues to deal with than holding people's hands. New Atheists do not stand on street corners protesting, or just to make someone life hell, like Westboro of Islam might. New Atheists go to the source and find where the information is coming from. Without addressing the flow of irrationality, it will only continue to replenish. And dead set, that seems pretty darn sensible. 

What I do agree with is this:

The way ahead requires being able to speak honestly about religion, and New Atheism has been the most effective cultural effort to broker this conversation. Its endeavors going forward, however, must recognize the humanity in religion while maintaining a candid dialogue about deep-rooted conflicts between reason and faith. A matured New Atheism is needed more today than ever before to offer a unique alternative to irreconcilable conflicts of faith, some of which wish to end the world.

What New Atheism has done is put faith into perspective, and many have taken deep offence to that. I do not see how New Atheism is not accommodating the above. It invites open dialogue, it invites those to verify their beliefs. That some are not verified is where I feel the real issue lies, people want to be right no matter what, but it is not up to us, the evidence tells that story. And that is where the conflict will always be. The conclusions that the paths take us to. One is evidence based, one is made up, and putting that order into perspective means one will always be left over. Nobody wants to be the bad fruit nobody buys so conflict will continue to ensue despite the evidence for ego. Real tolerance would be people being accountable for themselves and submitting right of way to real world evidence. Fact. That it seems, is too much to ask of religion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3ye

Thanks for that link.

It really cannot be that an empty threat (you will be invisibly punished unless you comply with these rules...) could hold society together. Those who believe in the empty threat would immediately and permanently be exploited by those who don't believe it.

I am also skeptical that an empty endorsement (God wants those outsiders punished... whatever the specifics are in any given time and place) makes much difference, either. I think people do what they want, to the extent that they can. Some of what people can and want to do is magnificent, and some of it is horrific.

In terms of the phrase turned round-and-round in the article, anything can be made permitted, and anything can be made forbidden. People do this; whether or not God exists doesn't matter. Why do people do this? For the same reason a dog licks his lower belly: because he can.

Cynical coot I am.


Podo

Quote

Why stop at Islam? All religion is harmful, why not tackle all of it? I think that the more people realize that nonbelief is an option, the level of belief will gradually decline.

Well, if that's your goal, then go for it.

But the advice of the article is not to start at Islam, which is an expression of allied personal opinions about matters of opinion, but rather start at Islamism, a violent political and paramilitary international movement.

The reasons are pragmatic; if some Islamists have their way, they will end the world. In contrast, if ordinary Muslims have their way, they will pray to Allah and visit Mecca someday. We can all live with that. We really can.


psyche

That there is a necessary conflict betwen all pious religious opinions and reason is a construct confected by those who hold different religious opinions.

Reverse engineering Sam Harris' apparent epiphany, it seems to have dawned on him that the wise saying, "ideas have consequences," entails targeting those specific ideas whose consequences you most wish to avoid. Thus, struggle against killing infidels, ignore abstaining from pork.

The authors of the OP article do not quite put aside bad intellectual habits. "We are right about piety, you know." No, actually I don't know. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that everybody who opposes flying airplanes into buildings look past their differences in order to make common cause to stop those who would fly into buildings.

Pass the bacon, please. Whoever doesn't want some leaves more for me. This can work.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/09/2016 at 5:13 PM, bubblykiss said:

Just gonna leave this here because I got no place to put it before I go to sleep ta'nite

 

 

Yeah. Thank god for Henry the navigator, hey? :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

Well, if that's your goal, then go for it.

But the advice of the article is not to start at Islam, which is an expression of allied personal opinions about matters of opinion, but rather start at Islamism, a violent political and paramilitary international movement.

The reasons are pragmatic; if some Islamists have their way, they will end the world. In contrast, if ordinary Muslims have their way, they will pray to Allah and visit Mecca someday. We can all live with that. We really can.

We can live with that, sure, but we shouldn't have to. I'm not advocating forced conversions or removal of freedom of belief. Instead, I'm advocating an increased dialogue between atheists and the religious. I think, for a lot of theists, they were raised so deep down the faith-dug rabbithole that they don't even realize that nonbelief is an option. By giving that option to people, without fear of the persecution that they will feel in so much of the world, I think it is inevitable that nonbelief will increase, and snowball its way to supremacy. I don't think this is relegated to Islam, I think we should tackle all religions, as anyone who willingly sets reason aside in favour of faith is in need of a reality check.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr W

Thanks for dropping by. I liked bubbly's vid, too.


Podo

Quote

We can live with that, sure, but we shouldn't have to.

That depends on who's "we" that shouldn't "have to." Not me. I don't care whether or not somebody else believes in a god, or which one, or whether they pray, etc. I'm not "putting up" with any of that - it's none of my business.

Quote

By giving that option to people, without fear of the persecution that they will feel in so much of the world, ...

I agree that persecution should be discouraged, but persecution inhibits only expression, as serious as that is, not belief formation. Persecution or no, when enough people form consonant opinions, they will express them.

In other words, people already have "that option;" it's not yours to give them, nor the imams' (priests', ministers', rabbis', ...) to withhold from them.

It is easy to see disagreement with one's own opinion as some kind of cognitive deficit, or lack of opportunity, or whatever. Sometimes, though, it's just that some other people think you're worng and that they're right. Hard to believe, but sometimes true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religions are basically an idea and to kill an idea, you need to come up with a better one. Something that will catch the minds eye, burrowing deep into the subconscious where it will take root and grow. Even bad ideas do this.

Sometimes all it take is just a bit of doubt to kill an idea. :gun:

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2016 at 0:04 PM, XenoFish said:

Is any religion worth dying for?

None.  Not even the Church of Bigfoot or the Jedi Order.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2016 at 5:52 PM, Podo said:

All religion is harmful...

Disagree.  No religion in itself is harmful.  I know many people that are very religious and are the kindest, caring and non-violent people I've ever known (my own grandmother is a paragon of virtue and kindness--but I'm noticing it's the older generations that have the majority of the kindest religious people).  It's the people involved make it so, not the words.  Words are just that, and they can be combated with education and common sense.  Religion is fine only as a hobby these days.  When it becomes a political entity, the people involved will use it for terrible ends.

But, at this time, relevant to this thread, it's only the islamists that are flying aircraft into skyscrapers, stoning women that get raped, beheading people on youtube, and setting fire to prisoners of war.  Let's deal with them, first, then move on to lesser evils.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.