Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and "Islamaphobia"

[Riviera de la Mancha]

azulmagia

Riviera de la Mancha

You are wrong to read any religious text literally when the majority of persons in that faith don't do so.

That sentence just made me facepalm.

[azulmagia]

Riviera de la Mancha

azulmagia

Riviera de la Mancha

You are wrong to read any religious text literally when the majority of persons in that faith don't do so.

That sentence just made me facepalm.

First, you outline a process for textual interpretation based on a logical fallacy, and your follow-up is a flippant response.

Keep it up, chief.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

azulmagia

Riviera de la Mancha

azulmagia

Riviera de la Mancha

You are wrong to read any religious text literally when the majority of persons in that faith don't do so.

That sentence just made me facepalm.

First, you outline a process for textual interpretation based on a logical fallacy, and your follow-up is a flippant response.

Keep it up, chief.

Whether you think its a "logical fallacy" (I am pretty sure you don't know what that phrase means by the way) or not, what I outlined is what actually happens in every religion. The text is simply the starting point for determining what any religious body actually believes. You then have to go to the religion's guiding figures, writings by scholars of the religion, and to any contemporary writings by people of the faith and their clerical persons, whether they are priests, rabbis, imams, shamans, etc.

So if you are going to critique a belief (as opposed to just a text), then its generally good to try and ascertain what the actual (i.e. those based in real world actions) are.

[azulmagia]

Riviera de la Mancha

Whether you think its a "logical fallacy" (I am pretty sure you don't know what that phrase means by the way) or not, what I outlined is what actually happens in every religion.

First, I don't "think" it is a logical fallacy, I know it to be a logical fallacy (the argumentum ad populum).

Secondly, who cares if it happens in every religion? That's just the argumentum ad populism squared.

Let's make this even clearer: You're saying that, were the majority of persons in that faith were to suddenly change their position and opt for a literal interpretation, it would suddenly become right to read these texts literally.

Quote:

The text is simply the starting point for determining what any religious body actually believes. You then have to go to the religion's guiding figures, writings by scholars of the religion, and to any contemporary writings by people of the faith and their clerical persons, whether they are priests, rabbis, imams, shamans, etc.

And here you contradict yourself, since these figures, by definition, are not the majority of believers in any faith, and moreover, when these authorities, being privileged arbiters of correct belief, detect deviations from the authorized version of the belief in the laity, they do not succumb to belief that the majority rules, but attempt to correct the majority.

Quote:

So if you are going to critique a belief (as opposed to just a text), then its generally good to try and ascertain what the actual (i.e. those based in real world actions) are.

And I suppose we are to sum up these actions in some mechanistic manner and declare that since the majority of Muslims are not doing x, where x is a bad thing that only fundamentalists do, then the "real" Islam must be the so-called "moderate" variety.

I think it is clear that what is, or is not, the "real" version of a religion cannot be settled by "empirical" examination of majority opinion or what the majority does.

[mnhnrnnyng]

Extremists are extremists and exist everywhere

Most Muslim are not extremists
Similarly, most Christians are not the gay-bashing, book-burning freaks you see in the South

[God Emperor Baldur]

mnhnrnnyng

Extremists are extremists and exist everywhere

Most Muslim are not extremists
Similarly, most Christians are not the gay-bashing, book-burning freaks you see in the South

However the majority of muslims will address the extremists being the problem when they completely ignore the fact that this is a problem with their religion.

[mnhnrnnyng]

God Emperor Baldur

mnhnrnnyng

Extremists are extremists and exist everywhere

Most Muslim are not extremists
Similarly, most Christians are not the gay-bashing, book-burning freaks you see in the South

However the majority of muslims will address the extremists being the problem when they completely ignore the fact that this is a problem with their religion.

This is not part of their religion.
It is extremists morphing religion to fit their extreme views

[God Emperor Baldur]

mnhnrnnyng

God Emperor Baldur

mnhnrnnyng

Extremists are extremists and exist everywhere

Most Muslim are not extremists
Similarly, most Christians are not the gay-bashing, book-burning freaks you see in the South

However the majority of muslims will address the extremists being the problem when they completely ignore the fact that this is a problem with their religion.

This is not part of their religion.
It is extremists morphing religion to fit their extreme views

Yeah it actually is a problem with religion. ISIS is motivated by religion as are about 100% of Islamic extremists. The sad thing is that all of it is done under the name of a fake deity.

[Kaz E Fresh]

SparkyKid3000

Kaz E Fresh

1) ANYONE who says we should profile any group of people for LOOKING a certain way is 100% a racist, here is your racist idol in action:

You're incorrect. "Muslim" is not a race, therefore, profiling Muslims is not racist. When are people going to learn the ******** difference between race and religious affiliation? rolleyes

Can you quit being so ******** stupid? I never said Muslim is a race, but when you add 'looking like' then YES, it is racist. I very clearly added that to my post. Don't ******** quote me asking stupid s**t. LOOKING was capitalized for ******** sake.

[Kaz E Fresh]

Roy Cura

Islam is a religion, not a race.

But anyways. Yeah, I agree. Many people (and I don’t mean to pick on leftists, but they are often guilty of this) like to assert that criticism = bigotry. This is a sign of extremism. Be wary of anyone who dodges criticism by branding the people asking questions as bigots.

Well, I do agree that religion is not a race but because Harris added anyone who looks a certain type of way--I do brand it racist. Only because when you think of someone that LOOKS Islamic, the general population is going to think of a person in traditional Arabic garments with wrap on their heads. [I know I already clarified this in my last reply, but you did assert your opinion kindly so I would rather respond kindly to you.]

I agree with asking questions, I agree with people who do question Islam but when you add a very racist context to it and make statements that aren't helpful at all, i.e. "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas" then you're really not here for to educate yourself. You're not here to educate anyone. You are here to indoctrinate.

[Kaz E Fresh]

nitznitz

Plata Plomo y Sangre

but a fundamentalist Jew is just as dangerous as a fundamentalist Muslim or Christian.

I tipped you for your post in general. Can you quote this so I can tip you for this phrase alone as well?

I'm actually very curious about your experiences with Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, if you don't mind sharing a story or two.

[Roy Cura]

Kaz E Fresh

Roy Cura

Islam is a religion, not a race.

But anyways. Yeah, I agree. Many people (and I don’t mean to pick on leftists, but they are often guilty of this) like to assert that criticism = bigotry. This is a sign of extremism. Be wary of anyone who dodges criticism by branding the people asking questions as bigots.

Well, I do agree that religion is not a race but because Harris added anyone who looks a certain type of way--I do brand it racist. Only because when you think of someone that LOOKS Islamic, the general population is going to think of a person in traditional Arabic garments with wrap on their heads. [I know I already clarified this in my last reply, but you did assert your opinion kindly so I would rather respond kindly to you.]

I agree with asking questions, I agree with people who do question Islam but when you add a very racist context to it and make statements that aren't helpful at all, i.e. "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas" then you're really not here for to educate yourself. You're not here to educate anyone. You are here to indoctrinate.

I’ve known many Muslims in my short life. I’m in an engineering school in the US, where at least a third of the students in our engineering programs are from the Middle East. You really can’t judge a Muslim by how they dress. Or by how they act. All the Muslims I know are really nice people. I know them on a first-name basis, and I have meals with them almost every day.

But, consider the types of people out there today who might want to commit acts of terror the US. Is it really racist to suspect the young to middle-aged guy coming out of Lebanon is more likely to be a terrorist than J.K. Rowling or somebody?

Also, when those types of questions are ignored, it usually just adds fuel to their fire. I know it’s a huge ******** burden to answer every dumb question (it would be like me, being a physicist, having to answer “WHY IS ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION VALID", before presenting some idea on micro-continuum-mechanics). But... in the long run, you can’t just laugh everything off. Everything must be answered.

[SparkyKid3000]

Kaz E Fresh

SparkyKid3000

Kaz E Fresh

1) ANYONE who says we should profile any group of people for LOOKING a certain way is 100% a racist, here is your racist idol in action:

You're incorrect. "Muslim" is not a race, therefore, profiling Muslims is not racist. When are people going to learn the ******** difference between race and religious affiliation? rolleyes

Can you quit being so ******** stupid? I never said Muslim is a race, but when you add 'looking like' then YES, it is racist. I very clearly added that to my post. Don't ******** quote me asking stupid s**t. LOOKING was capitalized for ******** sake.

I can't quit being stupid if I never started. wink You're still incorrect. As you put it, adding "looking like" does not necessarily make the profiling racist either. I could profile based on clothing, height, weight, etc. and none of those point directly to race. Also, this is a public forum. If you don't like people correcting your ignorant mistakes, don't post here. No one here gives a ******** about how pissed off you are.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

azulmagia

Riviera de la Mancha

Whether you think its a "logical fallacy" (I am pretty sure you don't know what that phrase means by the way) or not, what I outlined is what actually happens in every religion.

First, I don't "think" it is a logical fallacy, I know it to be a logical fallacy (the argumentum ad populum).

Secondly, who cares if it happens in every religion? That's just the argumentum ad populism squared.

Let's make this even clearer: You're saying that, were the majority of persons in that faith were to suddenly change their position and opt for a literal interpretation, it would suddenly become right to read these texts literally.

Quote:

The text is simply the starting point for determining what any religious body actually believes. You then have to go to the religion's guiding figures, writings by scholars of the religion, and to any contemporary writings by people of the faith and their clerical persons, whether they are priests, rabbis, imams, shamans, etc.

And here you contradict yourself, since these figures, by definition, are not the majority of believers in any faith, and moreover, when these authorities, being privileged arbiters of correct belief, detect deviations from the authorized version of the belief in the laity, they do not succumb to belief that the majority rules, but attempt to correct the majority.

Quote:

So if you are going to critique a belief (as opposed to just a text), then its generally good to try and ascertain what the actual (i.e. those based in real world actions) are.

And I suppose we are to sum up these actions in some mechanistic manner and declare that since the majority of Muslims are not doing x, where x is a bad thing that only fundamentalists do, then the "real" Islam must be the so-called "moderate" variety.

I think it is clear that what is, or is not, the "real" version of a religion cannot be settled by "empirical" examination of majority opinion or what the majority does.

Ah, so the issue then is that you don't know how to actually characterize an argument. That would have been my second guess.

The reason it matters a great deal when it occurs in every religion is that it supports how common the process is.

And to clarify, your explanation is not my position. Perhaps bullets would make it easier:
- When you criticize someone's beliefs, you need to look at what they actually believe.

- A strict interpretation of a text looks only to the words of a text.

- The belief of a faith collectively is seldom if ever exclusively contained in its religious texts.

- A religion's beliefs are those which the majority of its adherents actually believe.

- Therefore, if you are going to criticize someone's religious beliefs, then you will almost never find them exclusively contained in their religious texts. If a majority of adherents do not adhere to a strict interpretation, then it is not their majority belief.

My position has nothing to do with whether or not any reading is right or wrong. It only concerns itself with arguing the proper way to assess and critique a religious belief.

There is also nothing contradictory to looking to figures within a religion if they are qualified to speak on behalf of the majority.

The sort of mechanical assessment you speak of is what Mr. Harris in the video seems to do. I have just not bothered to criticize the validity of them because I have no idea what he is referencing and, even assuming his information is accurate, his figures largely support my argument. Mr. Harris seems to argue that the problematic beliefs are actually rather small (a 1 in 5 ratio).

[azulmagia]

Riviera de la Mancha

- When you criticize someone's beliefs, you need to look at what they actually believe.

Perhaps a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

Quote:

- A strict interpretation of a text looks only to the words of a text.

That's a tautology. And it's not clear why you are raising it.

Quote:

- The belief of a faith collectively is seldom if ever exclusively contained in its religious texts.

Even if true, the written texts are commonly considered to be canonical and thus take precedence over the remainder of the content. This is certainly the case with the Quran - the direct revelation from God himself, according to Islam.

Quote:

- A religion's beliefs are those which the majority of its adherents actually believe.

That's a circular definition or criterion.

Quote:

- Therefore, if you are going to criticize someone's religious beliefs, then you will almost never find them exclusively contained in their religious texts.

Again, this is irrelevant. The point of these texts is to say where the buck stops with respect to what you can believe or not. Canonical texts are supposed to be authoritative. That is why they are in the canon, and not other texts.

Quote:

If a majority of adherents do not adhere to a strict interpretation, then it is not their majority belief.

That is true (because it's another tautology), but religions, pretty much by definition, are not democracies. They are based on a claim of authoritative, supernatural revelation.

Quote:

My position has nothing to do with whether or not any reading is right or wrong. It only concerns itself with arguing the proper way to assess and critique a religious belief.

The proper way to assess and critique a religious belief is how you assess and critique any belief soever, unless you are proposing special rules for religion.

And, I must again point out you explicitly said, "You are wrong to read any religious text literally when the majority of persons in that faith don't do so."

Quote:

There is also nothing contradictory to looking to figures within a religion if they are qualified to speak on behalf of the majority.

You're confusing "qualified to speak on behalf of the majority" with other kinds of qualification. The Pope, for example, certainly has no such qualification, since he is not elected by the majority of Catholics by secret ballot, but by a self-perpetuating oligarchy itself chosen by the previous holders of the office. That the majority of Catholics accept the result of this undemocratic procedure is to put the cart before the horse. The Pope is qualified to speak on behalf of the faith. That, incidentally, means the totality of Catholics, not just the majority, but the minority, too. It also means the Pope is "in the right" even if the majority of Catholics disagree with him on an issue.

Quote:

The sort of mechanical assessment you speak of is what Mr. Harris in the video seems to do. I have just not bothered to criticize the validity of them because I have no idea what he is referencing and, even assuming his information is accurate, his figures largely support my argument. Mr. Harris seems to argue that the problematic beliefs are actually rather small (a 1 in 5 ratio).

That is not true at all, since Harris is not giving moderate religion a pass at all. Harris' position is that ALL religion is problematic.

And if you have no idea of what Harris references, maybe you shouldn't comment on what he says.