About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Debunking Creationisms

Religion and Plato's Noble Lie

In the annuls of Western philosophy and politics, the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato ranks among the heavyweights of notable figures that have contributed greatly to modern musings. His work had been cited many times as a source for the inspiration that later led to the free society and the American Republic. It is undeniable that the modern world owes a great deal to Plato in the Ancient Greeks. The very words 'freedom' and 'liberty' have Greek origins. Yet one concept in particular stands out that often gets overlooked in the effort to make sense of current isses. This concept is what Plato called the Noble Lie.

The Noble Lie, according to Plato, is a myth or untruth that is often of a religious or supernatural nature knowingly told by the elites to maintain social harmony. It plays off of human nature that often believes in authority figures, whether it be parents or rulers, and propogates a non-enlightened view of how the world works to the masses. These myths and untruths can keep the people from rising up and questioning the authority of the state by either claiming that the state's powers come from a supernatural force or somehow the cause of their discontent is of a supernatural origin. It has no basis in logic or reason, but because the populace doesn't have the knowledge or capacity to disprove the stories they are assumed on faith. 

The reason this was so important was because in Plato's view, society was highly stratified. The enlightened elites that ruled society from the top down were privy to the concepts of reason and logic while the vast majority of the population had no such luxuries. It would be inefficient and detrimental to the state if they tried to teach every human being in the society the logic behind their rule because not everybody is inclined to understand it and even those that do may not be inclined to believe it. So for the benefit of the rulers and the population, the Noble Lie is used to keep the rulers in power so they can focus on matters of state and the citizens content with the false knowledge that has been fed to them.

Since Plato's time, a lot has changed. Society has become more enlightened and knowledge has become more widespread and available. Yet the Noble Lie persists in the form of modern religion. Plato understood as do many other philosophers that there are two big brokers of power. One is religion and the other is government. While the government is ordained by law, religion is a more complicated force. It is ordained by prophets, myths, and alleged revelations. One notable difference between the two is that religion is often a lot slower to change and adapt with the ongoing shifts in modern society. Whereas government can make new laws, religion often requires a whole new set or revelations or a new set of prophets. In an uneducated populace this wasn't much of a problem in pre-modern times, but now that the populace is more educated the act of adapting for religion becomes much harder. This is why Plato often asserted that the rulers should use the Noble Lie to overtly guide religion into a system that best reflected the needs and goals of the state. Governmet, however, has long since lost control of religion and in a free society religion has taken on a new and more complicated existance.

The Noble Lie that ancient rulers used, albeit overtly or unknowingly, propogates today in the modern Christian Right and the culture wars that surround it. These groups, composed of the religious leaders that now control the message of the Noble Lie, now no longer aid the goal of the state. They challenge it. In Western society a great many of the causes pushed by the Christian Right and other religious organizations is at odds with the notion of freedom and liberty. They stand against homosexuality, pornography, free speech, science, and oftentimes the very reason that philosophers like Plato championed. They have taken the Noble Lie to a whole new level in as such they try to make the Noble Lie the absolute truth even when the evidence is to the contrary. To them, the truth is not dictated by reason. It is dicated by the supernatural forces they so dogmatically believe and anything that is different must somehow be flawed or conspiring against them.

It is a facet of the Noble Lie even Plato never could have foreseen. Thanks to movements like the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation, religion no longer stands as a tool of reason. It stands as an enemy of reason. Those that arrogantly cling to this Noble Lie do so with arrogant pride, at times setting themselves apart from others that believe differently. They boast how they have the truth and others do not. The true irony is that this so called truth is steeped in this concept that is known as the Noble Lie and they will not change their beliefs until all opposition has either capitulated or been rendered obsolete. It is a dangerous precedent, religious leaders asserting authority with such selfish and arrogant pride. It causes them to forget or even reject that fragile notion of humanity that allows them to relate to their fellow man on an equal footing. This concept of all individuals being of the same flaws and limitations is core tenant of the individualism that the Ancient Greeks championed. The Religious Right, especially the Christian Right in America, is going against such notions by parading their beliefs as some sacred knowledge that makes them better than everybody else.

This arrogance can come at a great cost in terms of human suffering. Religious leaders who push their arrogant social agenda are immune from the guilt and responsibility of those they hurt. The victims include those dying in Africa because of AIDS, which is made much worse by religious leaders opposing the distribution of condoms. Homosexuals throughout the world are also victims as they routinely have their rights denied and their very existence criminalized under the guise of religious zealotry. There are also the non-believers, the religous minorities, and educated scholars that shed light on the ancient myths used to justify such inhumanity. All are targets by those who abuse the concept of the Noble Lie. They are without excuse, denying their own humanity in exchange for the selfish vindication of being elevated above their fellow man.

Now does this mean that all religion and religious organizations are guilty of such atrocities? Of course not. The Noble Lie in the modern context does not denote that all religion is based on an underlying lie from the authorities. Religion propogated in the true name of spirituality, that which does not engage in outright culture wars, is a vital and often inevitable aspect of society. Human beings are often pre-disposed to such beliefs because no human being can know everything so some fil that gap with spirituality. It can be a very good thing and it can drive people to do acts of great charity. 

Even major religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can have these effects by keeping these concepts of god and spirit in the proper context. That context is and always has been the personal beliefs of the individual and the kin around them. What one person believes is theirs and theirs alone. It is only when those individuals and their peers elevate their beliefs above that of their fellow man that they succumb to the arrogant pride that drives them away from their humanity. The people of the Christian Right and many other radical religions throughout the world, including Islamic terrorists, have shunned their brothers and sisters and ignored all guilt and responsibility. They are the true danger to freedom and peace and they will never understand that until they humble themselves before their fellow man. So long as their arrogant pride keeps them from doing so, conflict will continue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fort Hood Fallacies in Wake of Tragedy

A lot can be said about the tragedy at Fort Hood that transpired this past week. A spree killing of such magnitude is always a horrifying ordeal, but this incident has taken on a whole new meaning because of the nature of the affair. It didn't happen in a school or some other public place. It took place in Fort Hood, a military base that housed the men and women of the armed forces. The victims were soldiers, a group of people who have long been venerated in American society. The shooter was also a soldier, but he also happened to be a Muslim and it is this affiliation that has captured everybody's attention.

Spree killings are always a spectacle, especially when there is a tragic element to it. But the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech never had a religious component to their violent acts. They were just disturbed, angry young men who gave into their violent impulses. The shooter in this case, Major Nidal Hasan, fit this profile in many ways. According to the Washington Post, Hasan was a loner like many spree killers tend to be. He had frew friends and odd, off-putting work habits. It is a trait shared by both Columbine and Virginia Tech, loners who show signs of withdrawl and depression. Yet this is not what everybody is latching onto. It's his faith that is getting all the press.

The Post also documented that Hasan was a devout Muslim. He was the son of a Palestinian immigrant and was very disciplined when it came to his faith. He prayed every day and gave generously to those in need. He also wore traditional Muslim attire and gave copies of the Quran to his neighbors. He was also reported to speak highly of suicide bombers, saying their acts were noble for their cause. This has led some to suspect that he was influenced by terrorist literature and used his faith to justify his terrible actions. Some have gone so far as to say he is an agent of Islamic terrorists groups. It would make sense given how he was reportedly harassed by others in the armed forces for his faith.

But all these assertions have one big fallacy. It's called correlation and causality. It is a fallacy the media and many pundits are guilty of in these cases. They look for a cause and whatever seems most logical or appealing to them is immediately labled as connected. Conspiracy theorists do this all the time. So do racist groups like the KKK and ironically enough the same terrorists Hasan was said to be a part of. But what is logical isn't always what is true.

The question remains. Did Hasan commit these violent acts because of or in spite of his religion? Saying his religion played a part in his acts presents the same problems with other spree killers. It was said that the Columbine killers were influenced by violent music and video games. It was said the Virginia Tech killer was influenced by violent literature. It's hard for anyone to believe in coincidences, but they do happen. The problem remains that there is no evidence that any of these things were linked to the person's actions. Studies done into the psychology of spree killers have found only two major similarities. They're all male and they're all depressed loners. Everything else, including their religion, was secondary and negligable.

Could there have been a religious component? Does this mean Islam is a violent religion? That's still debatable. In a strictly objective sense, Islam is about as violent as Christianity and Judism. They all have vengeful gods that justify horrific acts against non-believers. It could be argued that any violent act could be justified with religion. All someone has to say is "God told me to do it" and that's it. It doesn't matter which god it is or what religion it is, the logic is still the same and it is still flawed.

There's no question that these spree killings are horrific acts, but blaming outside forces does not offer any significant answers. People are inevitably responsible for their own actions. Whatever was influencing Hasan, he made the decision to kill those people. He is responsible for what he did, not his religion or his hobbies. There are millions of devout Muslims in this country and one person going on a rampage is not evidence of a trend. The exception does not nor will it ever prove the rule.

Fort Hood Suspect A Devout Muslim, Loner
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Belief vs. Disbelief

Is it harder to believe or not to believe? The intuitive response is to assume that belief is more difficult. It seems logical on the surface. To believe in something in the absence of evidence is a great challenge. It’s easy to assume how hard someone would have to push themselves to accept it. It’s one of the reasons people of strong convictions are so admired on most societies. It seems as though they’re stronger in their ability to accept a premise that some may deem impossible.

But is that really the case? Is believing in something really as hard as people make it out to be? Most modern psychological studies are remarkably consistent. Belief is much easier than non-belief. To blindly accept something, whether it involves religion or politics or government, is far more preferable than to question or to reason.

It starts at a young age. It has been will documented that children in their infancy are highly impressionable. It is their tendency to adopt and accept the wishes of elders and authority figures. In a strictly survival context, it makes sense. If children always questioned authority figures, it would be distracting and dangerous for both the parents the child. By having the child blindly believe, it helps humans be more social and coordinated. That leads to advantageous survival functions that evolution has favored since the days of hunter gatherers.

It isn’t just children’s impressionability that makes belief easier. Even as rational adults, people are subject to peer pressure. A classic example is the Asch Conformity Experiment where three test subjects, one of which was a random volunteer, were asked to decide which line out of three was longer. Two controls voted on one that was obviously shorter, thus pressuring the volunteer to make a decision. Should they conform to what they know is wrong or act on their own? Most would assume a rational person would do what was right, but that was not the case. Nearly 75 percent of participants went with the group, doing what was clearly wrong for the sake of conformity.

The Psychology of Conformity

Religion and government hijack these two deeply held traits. For religion, belief in a supernatural deity is easy. Nobody has to know anything about anything to believe. They don’t have to have any special knowledge or special skills. They don’t have to do anything other than blindly believe and in return they get acceptance from other believers and hope that they will be rewarded when they die, even though there’s no evidence that they do. It’s a cheap, easy way to feel good about one’s self and it is often abused, fostering irrational superstition, bigotry, corruption, greed, and sometimes murder. The hijackers of 9/11 truly believed that their invisible god that they never saw or experienced was real and that this god would grant them 72 virgins in the afterlife for murdering innocent people. It’s an appealing belief and one that is much easier to accept than question when it is preached with the fiery rhetoric of dogmatic clerics.

Psychology of Religious Belief

Every religion is guilty of abusing humanity’s susceptibility to belief. Government is just as bad as religion. They play off that same childhood tendency to believe in one’s parents and authority figures even when what they’re doing is obviously wrong. It came full circle in the build-up to the Iraq war. Everybody was drunk with patriotism, blindly believing in the government’s assertion that Iraq posed a danger. Anybody that questioned this was deemed unpatriotic and cast aside, a clear show of the power of peer pressure.

In every state, democratic and authoritarian, leaders use their status against people. From the communist states of China and Russia to the ancient powers of Rome and Egypt, authority figures have used and abused the capacity to believe. Free societies are supposed to open these figures to questioning, but it is rare that people do so because it is so much easier and so much more convenient to just believe.

Disbelief, it turns out, is much harder. It creates a lot of discomfort in people because rejecting something is often looked down upon. Rejecting the government or rejecting religion just doesn’t seem as noble to people. Some dare to call it heretical. It’s also hard to reject the appeal of some beliefs. For many, it is very nice to believe that there is a just and loving god who will reward those that die after living a righteous life. But no matter how much someone believes in something, that doesn’t make it true. There’s no proof that there’s anything after death. There’s no proof that there’s a god of any kind or that supernatural forces exist. Not believing in them is hard because it means rejecting some mystery from the world.

In many ways, it is those that believe the strongest that are the most dangerous. The religious fanatics and authoritarian bureaucrats are so convinced they will not even consider questioning themselves. It takes a great deal of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. To not question is not only irrational, it is cowardice. From the priests to the kings, they may have the power of influence. But at their very core, they are cowards of the highest degree.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Liberty vs. Collectivism

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

 
It's the same as the previous story. The law is basically telling people they cannot discuss their faith publically even when it is done in a peaceful, non-threatening way. Even as an atheist with many criticisms against religion, I find that nothing short of outrageous.
 
The issue at hand is not about church and state as some left-wing politicians may see it. The issue is freedom of expression. It's been a developing trend since the turn of the century. Conservatives and progressives alike seek policy that favors or dissuades certain groups of people over the others. It's classic collectivism, trying to mold society by regulating (or sometimes dictating) how people can gather and express themselves. But the core elements of a free society do not reflect collectivism. They reflect individual rights.
 
Freedom of expression cannot be masked by the church/state issue. The freedom to expression one's self and beliefs is a fundemental right that extends to religion. Any person of faith be they Christian, Muslim, or New Age has a right to stand in a public or private square and express their religion in any way they see fit so long as it is peaceful and does not infringe on the rights of others. This means things like praying in a park, preaching on a street corner, or discussing spiritual matters with others in an open place is every bit as protected as political speech. This extends to public schools as well. In a free society, there is no public institution where free citizens have to leave their rights at the door in order to serve some politically correct agenda. If people wish to discuss religion in a school, a public park, or even a court house they should not be dissuaded from doing so.
 
The constitution is clear. The government is not to prohibit the free expression of religion or endorse any one faith over the other. That means the government cannot grant special privlidges to certain faiths people happen to like. It also can't give public money to someone and have them use it to carry out their own religious activities. So if the people in the article were doing what they did using government resources, then that would be an issue. But it wasn't. These were people just freely discussing their beliefs. To deny them that is to pervert the spirit of separation of church and state and stand against the principles of religous liberty and freedom of expression.
 
I am proud to be an atheist. I feel it is wrong whenever the government uses its powers to further religious agendas as it has often done with the Christian Right. But I am never in favor of policies that would prohibit people from freely expressing their religion. As long as it's peaceful, they have every right to their faith as I do to my non-faith. Collective idealists stand against this under the veil of political correctness. If they can harass one religous group, they can harass them all. And that completley goes against the spirit of a free and just society.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islam: Peace or Violence?

In wake of the September 11th attacks, many questions have arisen about the religion of Islam. It's no secret that every hijacker was young devout Muslim. It has lead many to ask whether or not Islam is a religion of peace or violence. There is a long answer and a short answer to this question. The short answer, put in simplest terms: it is both.
 
It's no secret even to moderates. There are many instance of intolerance, cruelty, and injustice in Islam. Just as there are in many religions, there are parts of it that many would deem immoral and prejudice by modern standards. In the Quran, Islam's holy book, there are passages such as:
 
Allah loveth not the disbelievers--3:32
 
They who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of hell.--5:11
 
When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them ... hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell.--8:15-16
 
Beyond the Quran, the religion of Islam does have violent and intolerant traditions. In the early days of the faith Islam was spread by the sword. Armies from Saudi Arabia fought and conqured vast territory from India to Africa and to parts of southern Europe. Islam would not have been possible were it not for war. The Prophet Muhammad did indeed rally his followers to battle in reconquering Mecca. And some of those war-like traditions have continued to the modern age.
 
But regardless of these aspects, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-biding citizens. The radical wing of Islam, which gets far more media attention than the moderates, highlight only those who take it to the extreme. Yet it often seems like extremeism in Islam is mroe prevalant than it is in other religions. There are few Christian, Jewish, or Buddist suicide bombers in the news. And there many countries of conflict are classified as Islamic countries. But is the religion the source?
 
The long answer is more complicated. Radical Islam in its current incarnation was not prevalant until the 20th century. It's no coincidence that the areas where radical Islam has emerged are also areas that have been heavily impovered and have a history of authoritarian rule. Africa, Iraq, and Iran, all of which are historical hotbeds of radicalism, are largely products of the colonization period. The modern boundaries of many countries were not determined by the people living there, they were more or less dictated by the dominant European powers. On top of that, unfavorable trade policies helped spread poverty through large segments of the population. And poverty, more than any other force, helps the cause of radicals.
 
It happened in Russia in the early 20th century. The impoverished masses turned towards the communists to save them. The same thing happened in the Middle East. Western powers dominated and devastated many communities so they turned to religion to save them. Even after the colonists left, the effects remained and continued to propogate as authoritarian regimes came and went, subjecting people to more poverty and making them more prone to radicalism.
 
This is also apparent in Muslim communities in Western Europe, where a large proportion of Islamic communities live below the poverty line and are easily swayed by radicals. That is why Europe deals with more extreme Muslims. In the United States, Muslims are much more affluent and endure far less poverty than in other countries. Compared to other minorities like Hispanics and African Americans, Muslims are one of the most successful immigrant groups. There are still extremists, but they do not have the willing populace that communities in Europe have.
 
The United States became a target by becoming what the European colonial powers were in cenuries past. By supporting tyrannical regimes like the Shah of Iran and the royal family in Saudi Arabia, radicals have a lot to work with in propogating hate and intolerance. It's easy to push the more violent aspects of a religion when the people see themselves as victims. And nothing fosters more religious radicalism than victimhood.
 
Throughout history, there have been many religions considered violent. The common denominator for all of them usually include poverty, tyranny, and war-like culture. Muslims will find just as many justifications for violence as Christians or Jewish faiths if the conditions are right. It's easy to quote mine the Bible and the Quran. But in this context religion is not an instigator of violence, it is a reinforcing factor. It does not cause the problem, but it sure doesn't help it and it can make it worse.
 
Religion is a sensitive and personal issue. There's a lot people can do affect it. But when confronted with basic questions such as whether or not a religion like Islam is one of peace or violence, it is important to consider all sides. Human beings and even cultures of all kinds are capable of reprehensible behavior. Religion can either hurt or help. When it comes to violence, it can do both.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islam, Peace, and Violence

In a previous post I discussed the various instances of cruelty, violence, and intolerance listed in the bible. I wanted to show how some of the morals and ethics of the bible are not compatible with the standards of a free society. But in the spirit of equality, I feel it is worth pointing out that Islam has the same inconsistencies and they are much more visible. Since the attacks on 9/11 there has been a lot of debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace or violence. Some conservatives claim it is a religion that preaches violence and fuels intolerance. Liberals say it's more about economics and geopolitics. But the truth is they are both right. Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a religion of peace and violence. Now it's worth saying that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful. The terrorist minorities are a very small subset of radicals that just happen to get more news coverage. But these minorities, which are present in other religions, are spurred on by the many instances of violence and cruelty preached in their sacred texts.

It is debatable how many instances of cruelty there are in the Quran, but there are plenty to list. Here is just a few notables (paraphrased for convenience with citations so you can see for yourself):
  1. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
  2. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
  3. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
  4. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90
  5. "Guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped."
    There will come a day when Allah will refuse all prayers and help no one. 2:48
  6. Allah brags about drowning the Egyptian army. 2:50
  7. "Whosoever hath done evil and his sin surroundeth him; such are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:81
  8. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
  9. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
  10. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
  11. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
  12. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119
  13. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126
  14. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162
  15. Allah is severe punishment! 2:165-6
  16. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167
  17. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174
  18. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175
  19. "Fight in the way of Allah." 2:190, 2:244
  20. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178
  21. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
  22. "Guard us from the doom of Fire." 2:201
  23. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
  24. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
  25. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217
  26. Those who marry unbelievers will burn in the Fire. 2:221
  27. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257
  28. "Those who swallow usury ... are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:275
  29. Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4
  30. Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10
  31. Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12
  32. "Guard us from the punishment of Fire." 3:16
  33. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19
  34. Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21
  35. "They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24
  36. Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77
  37. All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85
  38. Apostates will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:86-88
And these are just the first chapters of the Quran. There are 114 in all and there is cruelty and violence littered throughout. So if any muslim wants to justify an act of terrorism, they have more than enough citations in their book. And that's a dangerous tool because it suspends real world morality for a supernatural mission. It dehumanizes other people who many not believe the same way and makes them much easier to kill. Because if Allah commands it, all is well. And it doesn't stop with violence. There are even more instances of intolerance. Here are just a few (cited and paraphrased):

  1. "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray."
    Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6-7
  2. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
  3. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
  4. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18
  5. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
  6. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90
  7. Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61
  8. Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66
  9. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
  10. Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88
  11. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89
  12. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
  13. Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98
  14. Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99
  15. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
  16. Don't question anything Muhammed says or choose disbelief over faith. 2:108
  17. "But those who keep their duty to Allah will be above them [non-muslims] on the Day of Resurrection." 2:212
  18. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
  19. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119
  20. Disbelievers are losers. 2:121
  21. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126
  22. "Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?"
    Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130
  23. Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159
  24. Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161
  25. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162
  26. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167
  27. Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171
  28. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174
  29. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175
  30. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178
  31. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
  32. Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193
  33. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
  34. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
  35. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217
  36. Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221
  37. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254
  38. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257
  39. Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264
  40. "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286
Overall, according to Skeptic's Annotated Quran there are an estimated 526 instances of intolerance in the Quran and roughly 520 instances of cruelty and violence (see full list here). A large part of the Quran is dedicated to assaulting non-believers and dehumanizing them to the point where it creates a very cruel 'us vs them' worldview. It is in essance a reflection of the group dynamics of religion. It creates a circle of believers who believe in their heart of hearts that they are right, they are god's chosen, and everybody else is wrong. It creates great solidarity and can rally people to do unspeakable acts of violence and hatred. And it is hard to counter them because they are justified with supernatural forces.

So is Islam a religion of violence? To some extent yes. It incites the same violence as Christianity and Judaism, but the difference with Islam is the media highlights it much more often. And it is worth stating that these holy texts are still believed to be the inerrant word of god. If anybody takes that to its logical extreme then they will find many justifications for murder, violence, and hatred. And that has no place in a free society

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Belief isn't Truth

In the never-ending search for truth its easy for people with no expertise in certain matters to fall prey to oversimplified, overzealous beliefs. They are spurred on the the age-old addage that seeing is believing and believing is seeing. While that may be true on some levels, many fail to understand that to believe in something isn't the same as knowing it. In the realm of emperical reasoning beliefs and eyewitness testimony are among the least relyable means of proving any claim. Only evidence can prove a claim, but many dogmatic believers shun the idea of providing anything tangible to prove their beliefs. They go so far as to claim they don't just believe it, they know it. This is where religion runs into problems.

In every debate I've had with religious believers, they all make the same claim. They say that their beliefs are the turth and to reject their beliefs is to reject the truth. Many take it a step further and claim that their beliefs are not beliefs at all and that they are "revealed truths" from some supernatural entity or spirit. They'll claim the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bagahavita is truth revealed by divinity. But there's no evidence of that they're true. There is nothing tangible they can provide to prove that any of these texts or messages came from any divine source. That is why faith is necessary. But that is where it ends. Faith and belief do not equal truth. They are just beliefs.

It is among the most frustrating parts of being an atheist. I do not believe in the mythological claims of religion for the same reason I do not believe in fairies, unicorns, or elves. Many religious people will scoff at the notion of their existance as well, and yet using the same faulty reasoning they claim their brand of supernatural dogma is right and true. And every time I try and point this out to them they thumb their nose at me, claiming I am shunning their diety by rejecting the revealed truth (which is really just boils down to personal belief). But I am not shunning just their diety. I'm just rejecting every supernatural diety on a purely reasonable stance. If there is no evidence then there is no proof.

Some will counter that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense.' And this is true to some extent. Many things may be possible that we can never prove, but it's necessary to seperate that which is possible from that which is probable.  Is it probable that there are other forms of life outside our planet? Taking into account what we know about life, physics, and the cosmos then yes. It is probable, even though we don't have any evidence of it yet. It does fit into our understanding of the natural world that we can measure and observe. So is it probable that there is some all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural sky god lurking in some spiritual realm watching over and observing our every move and judging us for everything we do? The answer is simply no. There is nothing outside the realm of baseless speculation that such a being could exist. It is by the very nature of the supernatrual to be unprovable and untestable. That is why faith is required, otherwise nobody would believe it.

Then there are those who equate believing in something equats to values. Many religous social conservatives call themselves 'value voters,' but this is another faulty assumption. Just believing in something doesn't make any one person more righteous than anyone else. If you believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, that's fine. But it doesn't make you any more upstanding than an atheist, muslim, or hindu. It is a grossly self-centered, narcisistic view to think that a single set of beliefs are the right set of beliefs while all others are either wrong. Yet this is the view of many religons (and I'm not just referring to Christianity). It creates a dangerous precedent by claiming their side is right and the other side is wrong. So that gives them permission to demonize, persecute, and sometimes even harm those who believe differently. And there are no values in such despicable self-righteousness.

In a free society people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe in all the stories of the Bible and you can believe that crystals have special healing properties. But the line is drawn when those beliefs are imposed on others or endorsed by the state. Beliefs are not knowledge and they never will be. You can believe in something all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Having faith and believing in something greater than yourself is a noble thing, but it's necessary to keep things in perspective and understand that it is a belief and not the truth.

The following is link to an interesting video I found on youtube that also explains this concept in a much better way than I ever could.

Beliving isn't Knowing
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »