Islamophobia and criticism of Islam

[Dimentio]

One thing which have struck me with most islamophobes, is that they are not really against the religion of Islam. The only thing they usually point out is that Islam is "different" from Christianity, but they are unable to define how and why. Moreover, I have seen islamophobes attacking Assyrian Christians and other non-muslim groups from the Middle East.

My conclusion is that Islamophobia in its present shape is really just a form of racist ideology or tendency which is directed against a group of people overtly due to their perceived race and culture.

What is differenting between criticism of Islam and Islamophobia is that a legitimate criticism would point out against the flaws in the Quran and the teachings of Islam themselves, instead of trying to criticise Islam by criticising muslims.

I have seen a few idiots (most of them tragically on the left) who have claimed that christians (or Americans) are evil because they invaded Iraq.

One problem which the left has today is how to be able to discuss Islam without either touching Islamophobia or starting to praise Islam in a way that they never would praise Christianity ("The religion of peace", "if only we had a black, female, gay muslim president, we would achieve peace", "Islam is a socially concious religion").

The key must be to de-mystify Islam and understand it as a social and cultural tendency, or rather a cluster of tendencies which are helping to shape the identities of people.

[Belisarius]

In Belgium islam is quite a hot topic, since many Morrocans and Turks live here. The rigthist mainstream is quite islamophobic, but when i argue with them i see it is not islam that they fear, but the behaviour of some muslims. that is because quite a lot of immigrants show aggressive behaviour. i already explained them that this is a class difference in stead of a race difference, since these immigrants make up the lower/marginalised part of society (they frequently don't have jobs or diplomas). i think it's a phenomenon of all big cities (even in the middle ages), they are a kind of lumpenproletariat.

also here in belgium there isn't such a large christian base, so there isn't this dualism christianity-islam, about which you were talking. Most people are atheist or just don't care about religion (which is the worst you can do, i think).

[Dimentio]

In Belgium islam is quite a hot topic, since many Morrocans and Turks live here. The rigthist mainstream is quite islamophobic, but when i argue with them i see it is not islam that they fear, but the behaviour of some muslims. that is because quite a lot of immigrants show aggressive behaviour. i already explained them that this is a class difference in stead of a race difference, since these immigrants make up the lower/marginalised part of society (they frequently don't have jobs or diplomas). i think it's a phenomenon of all big cities (even in the middle ages), they are a kind of lumpenproletariat.

also here in belgium there isn't such a large christian base, so there isn't this dualism christianity-islam, about which you were talking. Most people are atheist or just don't care about religion (which is the worst you can do, i think).

While countries like for example Sweden might be majority-agnostic countries, they have still their foundation in a culture ingrained by christianity. For most Swedes, even christian ones, Christianity is more like some sort of cultural umbrella than a belief. Even the former archbishop of the Swedish Lutheran Church (the largest church in Sweden) claimed that he didn't believe that Jesus was God's son, but that he followed Jesus because of Jesus's ideology-

[Belisarius]

here most people are in the category i called "the people who just don't care". we don't even know what our archbishop says about jesus. in most cases because everyone is just interested in living their own lives without actually thinking for themselves, in my case because i place him in a category called "floating idealism" (always talking about the same stuff and ideas that everyone who doesn't really think for himself already has, while using words that don't mean anything or too much, like "love": for example: "god is love and society is built on love" without actually explaining what he means by that)

but i'm diverting a bit from the subject of the discussion. the problem with islam, as with almost every religion, is that it can serve as a tool of liberation as well as of oppression. i don't know much about mohammed, but i'll use the example of Jesus, who is also a muslim prophet. what he practically said was that people should think for themselves and that even the most marginalised people can be liberated, but eventually the Church grew out to be the same opressor it had fought ages before. an interesting read on this topic is: the grand inquisitor - Dostoevsky. as with every liberating system, even communism, it has a potential to become an oppressive system.

[Demogorgon]

Well in Western Europe these days you can't get away with criticising people for racial or ethnic origins, even if you are on the right, so you need a different way of phrasing it. "Opposition to Islam" is the most convenient it seems. Of course those who use this don't know anything about Islam and have no interest in rectifying that so what they really mean is "opposition to Muslims" and when they talk about Muslims they probably don't mean Cat Stevens if you know what I mean.

[Belisarius]

Well in Western Europe these days you can't get away with criticising people for racial or ethnic origins, even if you are on the right, so you need a different way of phrasing it. "Opposition to Islam" is the most convenient it seems. Of course those who use this don't know anything about Islam and have no interest in rectifying that so what they really mean is "opposition to Muslims" and when they talk about Muslims they probably don't mean Cat Stevens if you know what I mean.
that's very true. i remember a slogan of Vlaams Belang, a Flemish nationalistic party:" Where are our savings? In the pockets of Mohammed!" This is just racism, no question about it.

["Red Scum"]

Its not about race, its about the fascist nature of extreme islam and the imperialistic way its pushed on people.

[Sasha]

calling fundamentalist islam fascist & imperialistic show that you have no idea what your talking about (either about islam as fascism as imperialism) your just parotting the rascist islamophobes.

[Belisarius]

psycho is right. ilsamic fundamentalism is rather anti-imperialist, since they have no desire what so ever to rule any other nations. they just want to rule their own countries withour America constntly intervening.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

psycho is right. ilsamic fundamentalism is rather anti-imperialist, since they have no desire what so ever to rule any other nations. they just want to rule their own countries withour America constntly intervening.
Someone should tell Sharia4UK that. Not that I agree with Red Scum's position here, but I don't think we should whitewash Islamic fundamentalism either.

[Belisarius]

Someone should tell Sharia4UK that. Not that I agree with Red Scum's position here, but I don't think we should whitewash Islamic fundamentalism either.
i don't want to praise islamist fundamentalism either, i just think we shouldn't overstate the problem. i think western capitalism is a bigger problem and if that one is solved, i don't think islamic fundamentalism will still have a lot of support. the one is now reinforcing the other: western agression makes muslims angry and vice versa, if one is eliminated, the other will seize the get stronger.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

I think there needs to be a ctritique of islam from a libertarian position, many on the left have a tendency to suppport the religion of islam, rather than showing solidarity with muslims facing racial discrimination. Some people think its islamaphobic or racist to oppose islam...

[newsocialism]

Well, as an atheist, I am against Islam just like any other religion. I don't see Islam as race race, if I am against it, it doesn't make me a racist. Even Egyptian, Arabic atheists hate Islam. So, can they be called 'racists'? I know a lot about the way muslims live and the teachings of islam. I don't know what the word 'islamic-fundamentalism' means; because for a religious muslim, every word in the quran is certain, and that he or she should live according to those doctrines. Therefore; sharia law cannot be described as fundamentalism, because it is a certain islamic doctrine. Many of you may think that religious muslims aren't interested in other countries governance or administration, but islamic doctrine is certain about that, and the quran says that until muslims conquered non-believers and took the control of the land, they should fight with non-believers in the name of their god. Moreover, islamic doctrine is certain about an islamic dominance all over the globe according to teachings of mohammed and the book that he wrote, quran. So, stop talking about, if islamic people only interested in their own society. As a revolutionist, a marxist and a leftist, any totalitarian mechanism cannot be approved. I don't care if people are irreligious; but it doesn't purify the core of their religion, nor does it remove their religion's history.

[cassflower]

There is a distinction to be drawn between mainstream Islam and the small minority of US/UK sponsored jihadist provocateurs. The former is a non-scientific ideology that needs to be patiently argued against. The latter should be exposed.

[Merces]

There is that. Personally I believe the RELIGION of Islam is completely dispecable and void of any human reasoning.

Shh don't let a muslim hear it or he'll declare a jihad on me.

I personally would hope society will one day destroy this and all religions as the 'death of god (allah)' is necessary for human progression.

[Belisarius]

There is that. Personally I believe the RELIGION of Islam is completely dispecable and void of any human reasoning.

Shh don't let a muslim hear it or he'll declare a jihad on me.

I personally would hope society will one day destroy this and all religions as the 'death of god (allah)' is necessary for human progression.
i don't see any logic in this.
first of all, religion isn't dispecable nor irrational. if it were irrational, then i don't see why so many genuises have discussed it throughout our entire history. religion can be a freeing movement, if applied in this way, because it can also be applied oppressively. ( e.g. i think jesus would've made a pretty good communist)

your second sentence is mere idiocy, i won't even discuss it.

your third sentence has some rationality (allthough little). Religion does not equal idolizing gods (in buddhism for example there is no god). when you say that the death of god is necessary for human progression, you should first understand what you are saying. the death of god means (1) destructing a religious idol and (2) leaving complete responsibility to mankind. so what you were saying was actually a tautology, since every death fo a god means human "progress".

[Dimentio]

I think that Merces is a christian. God must be killed, then resurrected in order to remove the sin of Eden. :lol:

[DeadSocietyPoet]

I'm an atheist and, to be fair, I have nothing at all against people's individual convictions, I'm not a fan of fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim, jewish, whatever. If you're so tuned into an abstract idea that you'd be willing to kill for it, I think it's time to reevaluate your position. Above all things I believe in, libertarianism, socialism, whatever, I'm a human being and I believe all humans should try real hard not to kill one another.

[bots]

i don't see any logic in this.
first of all, religion isn't dispecable nor irrational. if it were irrational, then i don't see why so many genuises have discussed it throughout our entire history. religion can be a freeing movement, if applied in this way, because it can also be applied oppressively. ( e.g. i think jesus would've made a pretty good communist)

Please explain how believing in angels/gods/karma/etc isn't irrational.

I have a problem with Islam because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. There's no real tradition of secular government in the Islamic world because the Quran is deemed the last word of Allah and so can not be debated.

[Belisarius]

Please explain how believing in angels/gods/karma/etc isn't irrational.

I have a problem with Islam because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. There's no real tradition of secular government in the Islamic world because the Quran is deemed the last word of Allah and so can not be debated.
people still believe in gods and idols, only they have other names now, like Obama, Michael Jackson or even Stalin. Idolatry is a pretty common thing in humanity. Karma is actually a pretty logical thing (the basic thesis is that everything you do has an effect), only a mythology has developped around it.

the reason why muslim societies are still theocratic is that the west has kept it like that through imperialism. in the west the bourgeoisie revolted against nobility and the clergy, which resulted in secular governments. but in the middle east this evolution was impossible due to the fact that western bourgeoisie controlled these countries through imperialism. secular beliefs didn't revolt against religious belief, like in the west, because imperialism stopped this evolution.

[bots]

people still believe in gods and idols, only they have other names now, like Obama, Michael Jackson or even Stalin.

Believing Michael Jackson was a good singer or that Stalin was a good leader aren't necessarily irrational. Believing that Michael Jackson can answer your prayers or Stalin can open the gates of heaven for you after death are irrational.


Karma is actually a pretty logical thing (the basic thesis is that everything you do has an effect), only a mythology has developped around it.

It's the mythology that surrounds it that makes it karma. Otherwise you could just call it "cause and effect".


the reason why muslim societies are still theocratic is that the west has kept it like that through imperialism. in the west the bourgeoisie revolted against nobility and the clergy, which resulted in secular governments. but in the middle east this evolution was impossible due to the fact that western bourgeoisie controlled these countries through imperialism. secular beliefs didn't revolt against religious belief, like in the west, because imperialism stopped this evolution.

You can't blame everything on the West. I'm sure Western capitalists would much prefer a secular, capitalist Iran. The reason Iran is not a secular, capitalist nation is not due to Western aggression but due to Islamic oppression.

[Dimentio]

There are only one Islamic theocracy today, Belisarius, which is Iran. Not even Saudi Arabia's a theocracy. Most muslim countries are authoritarian oligarchies ruled by bourgeois-bureaucratic establishments.

[Belisarius]

prayer is essential as a ritual of religion. rituals are just normal in human life. we communists calling each other "comrades" is also a ritual. Believing in heaven isn't that illogical since niether this nor its contradiction can be proven. you can't know for sure there isn't a heaven (not that i really believe in one, but you never know).

indeed it is just cause and effect (but on an ontological level in stead of pure logic). but indian philosophy hasn't had that much contact with western philosophy. and if there was conact it were most of the time the greeks or arabs getting ideas from the indians and not vica versa.

it is not like there are some capitalist leaders choosing the faith of all countries. as a capitalist tendency the west (as the centre of capitalism) exploited the rest of the world. in the middle east religion was already very prominent, but when capitalism alienated them from their former state of being, like some kind of shock therapy in capitalism. the people reacted to this shock by sharpening their former views (which were religious), so extremism is a reaction against capitalist exploitation. of course then, capitalists would like a capitalist Iran, but their actions prevented this from happening. (of course, i don't support muslim extremism, since, as you said, it is oppressive)

[Belisarius]

There are only one Islamic theocracy today, Belisarius, which is Iran. Not even Saudi Arabia's a theocracy. Most muslim countries are authoritarian oligarchies ruled by bourgeois-bureaucratic establishments.
sorry, i used the wrong words. i meant muslim societies, not politics, tend to be very religious or fundamentalist, not theocratic.

[bots]

prayer is essential as a ritual of religion. rituals are just normal in human life. we communists calling each other "comrades" is also a ritual. Believing in heaven isn't that illogical since niether this nor its contradiction can be proven. you can't know for sure there isn't a heaven (not that i really believe in one, but you never know).

I think you're misunderstanding me when I'm talking about irrational behavior. Irrational doesn't necessarily mean silly. Irrational simply means not rational. Calling somebody comrade is not irrational. Praying to an entity whose existence can not (or has not) been rationally proven is irrational. Believing in something (heaven) that has not been proven is irrational.



it is not like there are some capitalist leaders choosing the faith of all countries. as a capitalist tendency the west (as the centre of capitalism) exploited the rest of the world. in the middle east religion was already very prominent, but when capitalism alienated them from their former state of being, like some kind of shock therapy in capitalism. the people reacted to this shock by sharpening their former views (which were religious), so extremism is a reaction against capitalist exploitation. of course then, capitalists would like a capitalist Iran, but their actions prevented this from happening. (of course, i don't support muslim extremism, since, as you said, it is oppressive)

Islam in general is oppressive. It doesn't have to be "extreme" or "fundamentalist". The very foundations of the religion are oppressive. Extremism is not just a reaction to capitalist exploitation. Extremism is a reaction by irrational belief systems to any form of change. The argument that capitalism promotes Islam through "shock" simply promotes my argument that Islam is an irrational, anti-democratic worldview.

[Dimentio]

The reason why islamism is so popular today is that the Arab socialist, Ba'athist or Nationalist regimes in the Arab world has not resulted in anything except in the establishment of several authoritarian oligarchic national states which do not benefit anyone except a tiny elite on the top.

[Belisarius]

I think you're misunderstanding me when I'm talking about irrational behavior. Irrational doesn't necessarily mean silly. Irrational simply means not rational. Calling somebody comrade is not irrational. Praying to an entity whose existence can not (or has not) been rationally proven is irrational. Believing in something (heaven) that has not been proven is irrational.

Islam in general is oppressive. It doesn't have to be "extreme" or "fundamentalist". The very foundations of the religion are oppressive. Extremism is not just a reaction to capitalist exploitation. Extremism is a reaction by irrational belief systems to any form of change. The argument that capitalism promotes Islam through "shock" simply promotes my argument that Islam is an irrational, anti-democratic worldview.
that god or heaven don't exist, isn't proven either. it is actually the definition of belief. if you believe something, then you don't know for sure (otherwise it would be knowledge). everything takes in some sense believe, because even thinking that i'm talking to you supposes that i believe in an external world (which can't be proven) and in the fact that there is really someone (and not something, like a computer or robot) answering me.

i don't know enough about islam itself apart from fundamentalism or muslim practice i see in my neighbourhood, so i can't say for sure whether islam is basically oppressive. but what i do know is that most religions tend to be quite peacefull. it's only when they're starting to take their books too literally that things are messed up.

[Y-Love]

that god or heaven don't exist, isn't proven either. it is actually the definition of belief. if you believe something, then you don't know for sure (otherwise it would be knowledge). everything takes in some sense believe, because even thinking that i'm talking to you supposes that i believe in an external world (which can't be proven) and in the fact that there is really someone (and not something, like a computer or robot) answering me.

i don't know enough about islam itself apart from fundamentalism or muslim practice i see in my neighbourhood, so i can't say for sure whether islam is basically oppressive. but what i do know is that most religions tend to be quite peacefull. it's only when they're starting to take their books too literally that things are messed up.

a) I'm glad that you brought that up, that if we're talking "leaps of faith", atheists and agnostics make them all the time. I've heard atheist people speak of "science" abstractly almost like religious people speak of the Creator, like "science" will figure out "where life came from" and "science" will "explain" X, Y, and Z. This is also faith -- in university researchers, people, professors, etc. And like you pointed out, negative assertions are also leaps of faith.

b) There is nothing wrong with Islam or the Qur'an or any other holy book. Books don't kill people, people kill people and that's the problem. The Qur'an says many things about people coming together across nations, "all who believe in...the Last Day" (i.e., non-Muslims) having access to an Afterlife, etc., and nowhere are things like murder-suicide praised as far as I know.

It's not people taking the Qur'an too literally that's problematic, it's people taking PEOPLE too literally that's the problem, IMO. The Qur'an isn't oppressive, people are oppressive -- and when you have someone in a position of huge power like that, he can use any book he wants to back up any action he wants.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

that god or heaven don't exist, isn't proven either.
The same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus and leprechauns.

[Belisarius]

The same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus and leprechauns.
i know:rolleyes:. if someone wants to take a leap of faith to believe in santa claus, i'll let him. it would be a pitty to explain to children that santa claus doesn't exist, wouldn't it?

[Y-Love]

:laugh:

[bots]

a) I'm glad that you brought that up, that if we're talking "leaps of faith", atheists and agnostics make them all the time. I've heard atheist people speak of "science" abstractly almost like religious people speak of the Creator, like "science" will figure out "where life came from" and "science" will "explain" X, Y, and Z. This is also faith -- in university researchers, people, professors, etc. And like you pointed out, negative assertions are also leaps of faith.

The difference is that science doesn't make unfounded claims of omnipotence. If science doesn't know something it says so. Religion does not. Check out the cool flow chart I attached. It's so rad.



b) There is nothing wrong with Islam or the Qur'an or any other holy book. Books don't kill people, people kill people and that's the problem. The Qur'an says many things about people coming together across nations, "all who believe in...the Last Day" (i.e., non-Muslims) having access to an Afterlife, etc., and nowhere are things like murder-suicide praised as far as I know.

Well I guess that depends on whether or not you think promoting killing people is wrong. The Quran certainly does promote the destruction of nonbelievers, as does the Talmud and the Bible. So you probably shouldn't be surprised when people who follow a belief system that belittles logic and reason start killing themselves and other people because a book tells them to.

[cska]

Why is it that even on RevLeft you see so many posts calling Islam an oppressive and undemocratic religion that causes people to be killed? Sure, Islam might be like that, but the first finger should be pointed at Christianity. Ever heard of the crusades? Or the holocaust against the North American indigenous population?

Personally, I think that people use religion as an excuse to cause harm more than anything else. Good things as well as bad things have been done in the name of religion. My complaint about religions is not that religous fundamentalists try to kill each other. They would find some other excuse to do that anyway. To some extent I think religion is wrong because, well it is nonsense. But if people want to believe in a pink unicorn, they can go ahead. The big problem with religion is that it causes people to become mindless robots who just follow authority. That is why Atheism is better, because it encourages people to think for themselves.

[Robocommie]

The big problem with religion is that it causes people to become mindless robots who just follow authority. That is why Atheism is better, because it encourages people to think for themselves.

Those two sentences aren't necessarily true. In fact oftentimes in religion the burden is put on the individual to make their own choices, since, as in Christianity or Islam, the whole point is that you've been given free will, to sin or not. And I don't see what about atheism would make it harder to succumb to groupthink.

[cska]

Those two sentences aren't necessarily true. In fact oftentimes in religion the burden is put on the individual to make their own choices, since, as in Christianity or Islam, the whole point is that you've been given free will, to sin or not. And I don't see what about atheism would make it harder to succumb to groupthink.

Let's see. They give you a holy book that has been handed down by the supreme God and you should abide by it. Sure, people might have to interpret it for themselves, but they still don't come up with their own moral values. If you get people to believe in ridiculous statements, e.g. their is a pink unicorn up their that controls everything, then those people are obviously going to become bad at thinking for themselves. I understand that many agnostics tend to be somewhat amoral. However, that does not apply to atheists, who take a conscious stand against the existence of God. On the whole, scientists usually have to convince people about something, rather expecting the people to take it as fact just cause the scientists say it is fact.

[Robocommie]

Let's see. They give you a holy book that has been handed down by the supreme God and you should abide by it. Sure, people might have to interpret it for themselves, but they still don't come up with their own moral values. If you get people to believe in ridiculous statements, e.g. their is a pink unicorn up their that controls everything, then those people are obviously going to become bad at thinking for themselves. I understand that many agnostics tend to be somewhat amoral. However, that does not apply to atheists, who take a conscious stand against the existence of God. On the whole, scientists usually have to convince people about something, rather expecting the people to take it as fact just cause the scientists say it is fact.

This description is not really consistent with the reality of how religious people make decisions, dude. And furthermore, if you accept that believing in God is a ridiculous thing, and compare it to a fantastical belief in a pink unicorn in the sky, then of course religious people are going to look stupid and easily misled. But that is a loaded, prejudicial description on your part. If only because of the immense weight of thousands of years of cultural momentum and cultural practice, belief in God is more legitimate than just being told there's a pink unicorn in a sky and then just believing it. We have many comrades on this forum who believe in God, and they are rational people, capable of making decisions for themselves.

Frankly, I think you're creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. There are many religious people who value science, there are many scientists who are religious. It's not one, or the other. And also, let's be totally honest here, there's nothing completely pure and objective about scienTISTS, just because science itself deals with laws and provable hypotheses. If you've ever studied the scientific justifications for social darwinism, and the anthropological racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, you should understand that scientists can be just as irrational and chauvinistic as any religious person.

What's more, you said religious people do not come up with their own moral values. Well, really, who the hell does? Moral values don't come from science. Do you believe hurting other people is wrong because science tells you it is wrong? No, because that is a value statement. Much of ethics comes from social standards, it is communally instilled in us.

I hope you don't take offense at this, but I feel you're basing your argument more on personal prejudice than on objective reality. Have you perhaps had many negative experiences with Christians, or people from other religions?

[Belisarius]

Let's see. They give you a holy book that has been handed down by the supreme God and you should abide by it. Sure, people might have to interpret it for themselves, but they still don't come up with their own moral values. If you get people to believe in ridiculous statements, e.g. their is a pink unicorn up their that controls everything, then those people are obviously going to become bad at thinking for themselves. I understand that many agnostics tend to be somewhat amoral. However, that does not apply to atheists, who take a conscious stand against the existence of God. On the whole, scientists usually have to convince people about something, rather expecting the people to take it as fact just cause the scientists say it is fact.

the dichotomies religion-science and choice-obedience are not complementary. like robecommie said not all scientists followed their own choices. a great example is a speech of hitler where he discusses that judaism is a virus in medical terms. of course he's talking nonsense, but still many people, even the greatest minds believed him.

on the other hand there have been deeply religious people who followed nothing but their own choice. Sören Kierkegaard is a good example. he explained that many christians are just a herd, like you explained, but that the core of christianity is freedom and responsibility for that freedom. the essence of christian life, according to him, was anxiety. a terrible feeling in front of the immense freedom offered by free choice. the "remedy" is passion. if one gets oneself passionately into something, one has to take a leap of faith. that is one has to agree with some stuff, which we can't know for certain (like the existence of god), but which we believe nontheless.

science requires in Kierkegaards view as much a leap of faith as christianity, since one has to assume that for example the phenomenal reality is real and not just an illusion.

[Robocommie]

science requires in Kierkegaards view as much a leap of faith as christianity, since one has to assume that for example the phenomenal reality is real and not just an illusion.

Now this is interesting to me, as I'm a bit of a fan of Rene Descartes. Do you know if there's ever been a response from more empirical philosophers to the skepticism of observed phenomena?

[Belisarius]

Now this is interesting to me, as I'm a bit of a fan of Rene Descartes. Do you know if there's ever been a response from more empirical philosophers to the skepticism of observed phenomena?
Not really on topic, but interesting nontheless:
the most famous is of course GE Moore's sentence:"Here is a hand, here is another hand. there are at least two external objects in the world. therefore an external world exists." this one is a bit simplistic of course, since the existence of the hand is actually the question.

the one i found the most interesting is Edmund Husserl. he wanted to reconcile idealism and empiricism through a cartesian skepticism. he ruled out reality and the ego in order to show the only thinh of which we know it exists: consciousness. he called this phenomenology. he used apodictic reasoning (only using knowledge wich is really obvious, like "being conscious is always being conscious of something"). in this way he made an entire system of consciousness in which he explained our views about reality and the ego without presupposing their existence.

i wouldn't propose reading one of his own books because they're really long (the logical investigations is over a 1000 pages long). i found Dermot Moran - introduction to phenomenology very enriching (allthough only the part on Husserl, the other chapters on e.g. Heidegger or Sartre are terrible)

[cska]

This description is not really consistent with the reality of how religious people make decisions, dude. And furthermore, if you accept that believing in God is a ridiculous thing, and compare it to a fantastical belief in a pink unicorn in the sky, then of course religious people are going to look stupid and easily misled. But that is a loaded, prejudicial description on your part. If only because of the immense weight of thousands of years of cultural momentum and cultural practice, belief in God is more legitimate than just being told there's a pink unicorn in a sky and then just believing it. We have many comrades on this forum who believe in God, and they are rational people, capable of making decisions for themselves.

Sure, because of the weight of thousands of years of cultural momentum and practice, belief in God is justified, as is belief that capitalism is the ideal economic system. We should still try to discourage belief in either.


Frankly, I think you're creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. There are many religious people who value science, there are many scientists who are religious. It's not one, or the other. And also, let's be totally honest here, there's nothing completely pure and objective about scienTISTS, just because science itself deals with laws and provable hypotheses. If you've ever studied the scientific justifications for social darwinism, and the anthropological racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, you should understand that scientists can be just as irrational and chauvinistic as any religious person.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the U.S., the scientists who came up with justifications for social darwinism and anthropological racism were precisely those who identified themselves as Christians. Still, I grant you that many atheist "scientists" aren't objective either. They do many wrong and prejudiced things. Nevertheless, on the whole, atheists are more likely to think independently than Christians.


What's more, you said religious people do not come up with their own moral values. Well, really, who the hell does? Moral values don't come from science. Do you believe hurting other people is wrong because science tells you it is wrong? No, because that is a value statement. Much of ethics comes from social standards, it is communally instilled in us.

Exactly. Much of ethics come from social standards, and every independently thinking person contributes to those standards. By instead giving control of ethics to a religious authority, you are allowing a small minority to come up with the ethical and moral values for most of society.


I hope you don't take offense at this, but I feel you're basing your argument more on personal prejudice than on objective reality. Have you perhaps had many negative experiences with Christians, or people from other religions?
Certainly not. I consider religious people to be more compassionate than most secular people, with the exception of atheists. Sure, I have come across religious bigots. However, most of the Christians I meet (The other religions just aren't that common in America) are good people, but unfortunately are unable to think for themselves on many social and scientific issues. My complaint is about the religion itself, not its adherents.

the dichotomies religion-science and choice-obedience are not complementary. like robecommie said not all scientists followed their own choices. a great example is a speech of hitler where he discusses that judaism is a virus in medical terms. of course he's talking nonsense, but still many people, even the greatest minds believed him.

on the other hand there have been deeply religious people who followed nothing but their own choice. Sören Kierkegaard is a good example. he explained that many christians are just a herd, like you explained, but that the core of christianity is freedom and responsibility for that freedom. the essence of christian life, according to him, was anxiety. a terrible feeling in front of the immense freedom offered by free choice. the "remedy" is passion. if one gets oneself passionately into something, one has to take a leap of faith. that is one has to agree with some stuff, which we can't know for certain (like the existence of god), but which we believe nontheless.

science requires in Kierkegaards view as much a leap of faith as christianity, since one has to assume that for example the phenomenal reality is real and not just an illusion.
Could you back up the statement that "many people, even the greatest minds, believed [Hitler]"? Additionally, the leap of faith argument is false, as science is merely about using the only thing we have to make base our perception of reality on: what our senses show us. If you take the viewpoint that what we are seeing is an illusion, then you that will not tell you anything about what to do in life, as you still have no clue what the reality behind the illusion is.

[Belisarius]

Could you back up the statement that "many people, even the greatest minds, believed [Hitler]"? Additionally, the leap of faith argument is false, as science is merely about using the only thing we have to make base our perception of reality on: what our senses show us. If you take the viewpoint that what we are seeing is an illusion, then you that will not tell you anything about what to do in life, as you still have no clue what the reality behind the illusion is.
Heidegger was probably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, but he was a national-socialist nontheless. here is a list of scientists and intellectuals associated with nazism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues

we come to the dualism of idealism VS empiricism. you could argue that perception is indeed the best possible information, but you can as easily argue that deductive reasoning through logic is the best information. the problem with the first is that no empirical knowledge is abolsute, since it requires an infinity of perception to be absolutely sure about something (e.g. all swans are white, until you see a black swan).

[Dimentio]

The belief in ideologies like national socialism, fascism or islamism is not associated with lower intelligence, but rather in a perceived alienation from the world on behalf of the intellectual who is professing a belief in such thought systems. Reactionaries (and now I'm not talking about those reactionaries who are in power today but those reactionaries the modern reactionaries initially overthrew and marginalised) generally feel a need to have some kind of caste society where they could control the behaviour of those inferior to them.

That is why both national socialism and islamism are so much about the sexual control over females and young people or the reduction of the individual to a part of the goal.