Why I think being a Muslim is rational.

[NUMBERICA]

Are they white, delight-some and enticing?

Btw its Houri: its virgin in the way they are pure, dont use the restroom, dont pms etc.

I wouldn't have expected any sexism to rear it's ugly head here. Unusual.

 

[babe]

I guess you're as familiar with Carlin as I am. A great religious philosopher was George. My favorite phrase of his is "those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music." If he'd realized how poignant that actually was, he probably never would have said it. But it can be applied in a lot of ways, not the least of which is following a religion or spirituality when others don't understand or think you're crazy.

I'm not actually opposed to religious communities and religious practice. The problem is that there just isn't one that really fits for me. There's no church of process theology, just some academics spread around in various universities. As I said in my conversation with TBS, I've been especially interested in Buddhism lately -- the more I learn, the more I like it. But I still wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, nor would I be comfortable worshipping with Buddhists.

Probably the closest for me would be unitarian universalist services, where they invite people to bring things in from a lot of other traditions. My brother used to go to some UU services with his ex-girlfriend. Not actually sure if there are UU meetings around where I live. I bet there probably are. But living on-campus at CLU is pretty much enough for me.

BTW, while I'm thinking about Buddhism, I really recommend this book. It's by John Cobb, who's a Christian theologian and process thinker. It's about his encounters and conversations with Buddhists and Buddhism... kind of taking the lessons he's learned and applying them back to Christianity. Great for someone like me who's more familiar with Christianity and less so with Buddhism.

(Sorry, I'm an academic, I can't stop myself from recommending books...)

I'd like to know more about this Claremont Lincoln University. I'm driving by some freeway signs once in a while when I'm on I-10 or 210, just Claremont I think. In LA.

Well, I really don't care too much how young and devoted TBS is, it's just good to be able to put together some reasons for believing. I probably don't really care which comes first, the reasons or the believing, either. And it's good to be able to talk through it in a civil manner, too.

Not being able to do any of these can signal some problems, and can cause a lot of wars.

Fact is, having reasons is an admission of the human need to improve upon ourselves, at least in the later stages of development where we start to encounter second thoughts, and need better reasons. . . . .

Actually, in going through some of the material in here, I'm realizing there are a lot more common elements in our beliefs than I ever imagined before.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I'd like to know more about this Claremont Lincoln University. I'm driving by some freeway signs once in a while when I'm on I-10 or 210, just Claremont I think. In LA.

Well, I really don't care too much how young and devoted TBS is, it's just good to be able to put together some reasons for believing. I probably don't really care which comes first, the reasons or the believing, either. And it's good to be able to talk through it in a civil manner, too.

Not being able to do any of these can signal some problems, and can cause a lot of wars.

Fact is, having reasons is an admission of the human need to improve upon ourselves, at least in the later stages of development where we start to encounter second thoughts, and need better reasons. . . . .

Actually, in going through some of the material in here, I'm realizing there are a lot more common elements in our beliefs than I ever imagined before.

As far as CLU goes... it's been interesting. It's very new. It only technically began existing this year. I had to apply for Claremont School of Theology (CST), but then when I got in, I got to choose whether I'd be affiliated with CST or CLU -- the latter being a multireligious university, and the former more like a traditional Christian seminary. But for now, CLU and CST are both in the same physical place, happening in the whole incestuous Claremont colleges area (Pomona, Claremont Graduate University, Scripps, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, Pitzer, etc.). They're all very near each other, and typically it's not too difficult to take a class in one of the neighboring universities and count it toward your degree (particularly in the case of CST, CGU, and CLU, which sometimes feel like the exact same thing).

And because it is so new, a lot of it really isn't where we'd like it to be yet. We're still in the process of forming official relationships with other churches and universities, and then bringing in faculty to teach courses on those faiths and such. Obviously Christianity is a big presence already. I know we have agreements in place now with Muslims and Jains. But there's still not as many course offerings in diverse religious areas as I'd like to see.

Anyway, he's a good 7-minute news bit on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0J1Orh-hFQ

It's weird watching the video, because I know so many of these people personally now. The guy in the purple robe on the left at 35 seconds is Dr. Faber, my advisor, with whom I've taken three classes. The dean, Philip Clayton, is a process guy... I've read a few of his books. The bald guy talking at 2:45 is a fellow student I've hung around with him a bit (I exposed him to some anime). The black woman at 3:55 is Dr. Coleman, another process scholar who taught a Whitehead class last semester.

The video does sensationalize the criticism part a bit, though. Outside of this report, I haven't really heard any. Also, at the end, the guys says that they're "talking about enrolling Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus." That makes it sound like their admission criteria is more limited than it actually is. I know at least one Buddhist student here already... she even does the whole shaved head and red robes thing, hard to miss her. And heck, they admitted me, and I didn't pretend to be anything other than an agnostic process thinker.

Anyway, there is also, of course, the official website's "about" page:

https://www.claremontlincoln.org/about/

 

[babe]

Thank you.

I listened through a few times, and looked at the site. Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll come take a look. The bald guy sorta looks like my cousin who was raised Methodist. Frank or Joe I'm not sure which. . . . Well, they looked the same, and it's been a while. But he was a Physicist at Stanford.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

As far as CLU goes... it's been interesting. It's very new. It only technically began existing this year. I had to apply for Claremont School of Theology (CST), but then when I got in, I got to choose whether I'd be affiliated with CST or CLU -- the latter being a multireligious university, and the former more like a traditional Christian seminary. But for now, CLU and CST are both in the same physical place, happening in the whole incestuous Claremont colleges area (Pomona, Claremont Graduate University, Scripps, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, Pitzer, etc.). They're all very near each other, and typically it's not too difficult to take a class in one of the neighboring universities and count it toward your degree (particularly in the case of CST, CGU, and CLU, which sometimes feel like the exact same thing).

And because it is so new, a lot of it really isn't where we'd like it to be yet. We're still in the process of forming official relationships with other churches and universities, and then bringing in faculty to teach courses on those faiths and such. Obviously Christianity is a big presence already. I know we have agreements in place now with Muslims and Jains. But there's still not as many course offerings in diverse religious areas as I'd like to see.

Anyway, he's a good 7-minute news bit on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0J1Orh-hFQ

It's weird watching the video, because I know so many of these people personally now. The guy in the purple robe on the left at 35 seconds is Dr. Faber, my advisor, with whom I've taken three classes. The dean, Philip Clayton, is a process guy... I've read a few of his books. The bald guy talking at 2:45 is a fellow student I've hung around with him a bit (I exposed him to some anime). The black woman at 3:55 is Dr. Coleman, another process scholar who taught a Whitehead class last semester.

The video does sensationalize the criticism part a bit, though. Outside of this report, I haven't really heard any. Also, at the end, the guys says that they're "talking about enrolling Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus." That makes it sound like their admission criteria is more limited than it actually is. I know at least one Buddhist student here already... she even does the whole shaved head and red robes thing, hard to miss her. And heck, they admitted me, and I didn't pretend to be anything other than an agnostic process thinker.

Anyway, there is also, of course, the official website's "about" page:

https://www.claremontlincoln.org/about/

Gotta be the Muslim who says "I actually hope there is conflict"

 

[AtheistPreacher]

Gotta be the Muslim who says "I actually hope there is conflict"

Haha, yeah, well, she does have a point and I agree with it. Pretending we don't have any real differences and "trying to out-nice one another" generally doesn't get us anywhere as far as actually understanding one another.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

While religion itself is full of irrational beliefs (e.g., angel with a flaming sword, riding a horse into the sky, dead people coming back to life, I mean, really???), religious adherence itself is highly rational. It fills a variety of deep-seated human needs, including providing clarity and hope to believers in an otherwise chaotic and uncertain world.

Islam, in my opinion, is no less rational, and its beliefs no less irrational, than Christianity.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

while religion itself is full of irrational beliefs (e.g., angel with a flaming sword, riding a horse into the sky, dead people coming back to life, i mean, really???), religious adherence itself is highly rational. It fills a variety of deep-seated human needs, including providing clarity and hope to believers in an otherwise chaotic and uncertain world.

Islam, in my opinion, is no less rational, and its beliefs no less irrational, than christianity.

qft.

 

[Siro]

While religion itself is full of irrational beliefs (e.g., angel with a flaming sword, riding a horse into the sky, dead people coming back to life, I mean, really???), religious adherence itself is highly rational. It fills a variety of deep-seated human needs, including providing clarity and hope to believers in an otherwise chaotic and uncertain world.

Islam, in my opinion, is no less rational, and its beliefs no less irrational, than Christianity.

I think that's a typical abuse of the concept of "human nature" which people use to explain whatever people do. However, the claim offers no true explanation. If we are to accept something as part of "human nature" then it must apply to all healthy humans. You cannot be indoctrinated into feeling hunger, neither can you leave sleeping behind. I do not have religious faith. Neither do 10s (possibly 100s) of millions of people world wide. I am perfectly happy with my life. And I'm pretty sure that I'm a human.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I think that's a typical abuse of the concept of "human nature" which people use to explain whatever people do. However, the claim offers no true explanation. If we are to accept something as part of "human nature" then it must apply to all healthy humans. You cannot be indoctrinated into feeling hunger, neither can you leave sleeping behind. I do not have religious faith. Neither do 10s (possibly 100s) of millions of people world wide. I am perfectly happy with my life. And I'm pretty sure that I'm a human.

"To be human is to be inhabited by existential faith... Scientists and secularists do not simply live 'above faith.' Each contemporary scientist draws an elements of faith into his or her craft, even when it is tied to closely specified regimes of evidence. It might be the faith that the world conforms in the last instance to laws articulable in principle by human beings." -William Connolly, Pluralism (2005)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think that's a typical abuse of the concept of "human nature" which people use to explain whatever people do. However, the claim offers no true explanation. If we are to accept something as part of "human nature" then it must apply to all healthy humans. You cannot be indoctrinated into feeling hunger, neither can you leave sleeping behind. I do not have religious faith. Neither do 10s (possibly 100s) of millions of people world wide. I am perfectly happy with my life. And I'm pretty sure that I'm a human.

I do not agree. People are indoctrinated into particular belief systems, not into 'belief' per se. The basic human need is not for a particular religious dogma but for comfort, clarity, understanding, knowledge, etc. People who don't fill these needs with religion (and not everyone does) fill them in other ways. Religion is just one method, albeit a very prominent method, of meeting these basic human needs.

Still, if religion, or belief in Gods, or whatever we call it, didn't serve some very fundamental, basic human need, I'm hard pressed to account for its pervasive occurrence in every culture and in every epoch of human history.

 

[Siro]

"To be human is to be inhabited by existential faith... Scientists and secularists do not simply live 'above faith.' Each contemporary scientist draws an elements of faith into his or her craft, even when it is tied to closely specified regimes of evidence. It might be the faith that the world conforms in the last instance to laws articulable in principle by human beings." -William Connolly, Pluralism (2005)

That is broad enough a definition to be completely useless. I've had many discussions that included "so don't you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?". Obviously human cognition is strongly based on future planning, which cannot possibly be totally divorced from "faith". But one word can express more than one idea, as is the case here. I do not have faith that sun will rise tomorrow. I know why it rises every morning, and my experience confirms the theory. I expect it to rise tomorrow due to the understood mechanism and humanities shared experience that extends back as far as the written record. That is a completely different concept from religious faith, which means accepting something regardless of evidence for or against it.

 

[Siro]

I do not agree. People are indoctrinated into particular belief systems, not into 'belief' per se. The basic human need is not for a particular religious dogma but for comfort, clarity, understanding, knowledge, etc. People who don't fill these needs with religion (and not everyone does) fill them in other ways. Religion is just one method, albeit a very prominent method, of meeting these basic human needs.

Still, if religion, or belief in Gods, or whatever we call it, didn't serve some very fundamental, basic human need, I'm hard pressed to account for its pervasive occurrence in every culture and in every epoch of human history.

That's a bit simplistic. Dominance of men over women have been just as common as religious belief. Yet, it has practically disappeared in some cultures, and on its way out in many others. Humans need explanations. Science is very hard and takes time and effort. Religion is easy. All you need is someone who claims access to privileged information from a source of higher knowledge. While people probably do need comfort and understand and everything else, those attributes are broad and can be said to relate to many other endeavors. What matter is that religion is irrational, and any benefits it might provide can be attained elsewhere much more productively.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

That is broad enough a definition to be completely useless. I've had many discussions that included "so don't you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?". Obviously human cognition is strongly based on future planning, which cannot possibly be totally divorced from "faith". But one word can express more than one idea, as is the case here. I do not have faith that sun will rise tomorrow. I know why it rises every morning, and my experience confirms the theory. I expect it to rise tomorrow due to the understood mechanism and humanities shared experience that extends back as far as the written record. That is a completely different concept from religious faith, which means accepting something regardless of evidence for or against it.

Maybe on your definition of religion, it requires believing something without evidence, but not on mine. Religious beliefs still require as much evidence as it is possible to have for them. On the other hand, there are some things which simply can't be proven empirically one way or another.

Along these lines, I'd be interested to hear what you think of this.

 

[Siro]

Maybe on your definition of religion, it requires believing something without evidence, but not on mine. Religious beliefs still require as much evidence as it is possible to have for them. On the other hand, there are some things which simply can't be proven empirically one way or another.

Along these lines, I'd be interested to hear what you think of this.

I'm at work, so it'll take me some time to formulate a response.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

I'm at work, so it'll take me some time to formulate a response.

Cool, thanks.

 

[Siro]

You know, I've already responded to this a little bit, but some other thoughts occurred to me.

My identical twin brother is an atheist, and his primary criticism is the one you make here: I've adopted a worldview that I find comforting. And I won't deny that there is some element of Pascal's wager in it -- not in the sense of heavenly reward, but simply in the sense of believing today in the meaningfulness of my actions for the future. After all, we can never really be sure either way.

But the unwritten assumption in this criticism is that there is an atheistic worldview that is more likely to be true than the theistic position I've outlined. I'm not so sure that's the case. Atheists in this day and age usually take their position as the default one, and demand some sort of demonstration of God's existence. But I don't believe that God's existence can ever be proved empirically, anyway. Why? Because I very strongly believe that God's existence is either necessary or impossible; it is not a contingent matter. In other words, if God exists, then it is because the universe could not have been any other way; likewise, if God does not exist, then it is because the universe could not have been any other way. What I can't accept is the idea of a God who might have existed or might not have... that kind of being, to me, can't really be God. God must be a basic fact about existence... or a basic fallacy about existence. And if this is true, if God's modality must be as a basic reality which is compatible with all other actual and possible realities, it follows that no empirical arguments can demonstrate either that God exists or that he does not exist. Since, that is, God is the necessarily existent who is therefore tolerant of all empirical realities, his existence can be neither verified nor falsified empirically.

The best that can be done, then, is some sort of rationalistic argument for or against God -- a metaphysical system which attempts to make sense of the universe from top to bottom. The idea of doing metaphysics is passe nowadays, probably because we are more aware than ever of how much we don't know. But any scientific theory rests on the shoulders of a metaphysics -- a comprehensive view of how the universe works -- whether that metaphysics is stated or not. We don't get to ignore the need for metaphysical speculation simply because of the liklihood that we will get very much of it wrong... because it isn't any less wrong when it's unstated. It's just disguised better.

And there are certain basic realities -- such as the emergence of complex organisms -- which science doesn't explain particularly well. Certain theistic theories have a more credible ring to them than any scientific theories I know of.

Allow me now to share some extended passages from Alfred North Whitehead's little book, The Function of Reason. It's only 90 pages long and was originally given as a lecture, though I can't remeber at the moment where and when he gave it. In any case (any emphasis is in orginal):

Your definition of god is too vague to be discussed in any meaningful way. Like many sophisticated people who try to justify their beliefs, any argument can be made unfalsifiable if we make it vague enough. If you do not define what exactly your idea of god means, then there is nothing to discuss. The fact is that the ocean of possibilities is too vast to pretend that the issue is confined to a godless universe versus one with a god. Maybe the universe is one of infinite others, with different characteristics and attributes. Maybe reality is a simulation like The Matrix. There is a book called Iron Sunrise that posits that humans created god in their distant future, who in turn created the universe in its distant past. The position of theists is not of equal validity to that of atheists. A godless naturalistic universe is indeed the default position. We know so much about nature. SO MUCH. We have accumulated an astounding amount of data on life and the universe. And all of it is naturalistic and can be explained perfectly well without the intervention of whatever god is. A few gaps remain where the believers can still fit their god, but that is all what their god is; the god of the gaps. Despite of its sophisticated modern incarnation. But I'll get to that in a bit.

-----------------------------------------------------

I will start with a preliminary definition of the function of Reason, a definition to be illustrated, distorted, and enlarged, as this discussion proceeds.

The function of Reason is to promote the art of life.

In the interpretation of this definition, I must at once join issue with the evolutionist fallacy suggested by the phrase "the survival of the fittest." The fallacy does not consist in believing that in the struggle for existence the fittest to survive eliminate the less fit. The fact is obvious and stares us in the face. The fallacy is the belief that fitness for survival is identical with the best exemplification of the Art of Life.

In fact life itself is comparatively deficient in survival value. The art of persistence is to be dead. Only inorganic things persist for great lengths of time. A rock survives for eight hundred million years; whereas the limit for a tree is about a thousand years, for a man or an elephant about fifty or one hundred years, for a dog about twelve years, for an insect about one year. The problem set by the doctrine of evolution is to explain how complex organisms with such deficient survival power ever evolved. They certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them. It may be possible to explain "the origin of species" by the doctrine of the struggle for existence among such organisms. But certainly this struggle throws no light whatever upon the emergence of such a general type of complex organism, with faint survival power. This problem is not to be solved by any dogma, which is the product of mere abstract thought elaborating its notions of the fitness of things. The solution requires that thought pay full attention to the empirical evidence, and to the whole of that evidence.

...

There is another factor in evolution which is not in the least explained by the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Why has the trend of evolution been upwards? The fact that organic species have been produced from inorganic distributions of matter, and the fact that in the lapse of time organic species of higher and higher types have evolved are not in the least explained by any doctrine of adaptation to the environment, or of struggle.

In fact the upward trend has been accompanied by a growth of the converse relation. Animals have progressively undertaken the task of adapting the environment to themselves. They have built nests, and social dwelling-places of great complexity; beavers have cut down trees and dammed rivers; insects have elaborated a high community life with a variety of reactions upon the environment.

Even the more intimate actions of animals are activities modifying the environment. The simplest living things let their food swim into them. The higher animals chase their food, catch it, and masticate it. In so acting, they are transforming the environment for their own purposes. Some animals dig for their food, others stalk their prey. Of course all these operations are meant by the common doctrine of adaptation to the environment. But they are very inadequately expressed by that statement; and the real facts easily drop out of sight under cover of that statement. The higher forms of life are actively engaged in modifying their environment. In the case of mankind this active attack on the environment is the most prominent fact in his existence.

I now state the thesis that the explanation of this active attack on the environment is a three-fold urge: (i) to live, (ii) to live well, (iii) to live better. In fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire an increase in satisfaction. It is at this point of our argument that we have to recur to the function of Reason, namely the promotion of the art of life. The primary function of Reason is the direction of the attack on the environment.

This conclusion amounts to the thesis that Reason is a factor in experience which directs and criticizes the urge towards the attainment of an end realized in imagination but not in fact.

-----------------------------------------------------

How old is this article? Survival of the fittest is a colloquial concept that people push on evolutionary theory. I do not recall the term in 'On the Origin of Species', and I know that modern biologists reject it. I will ignore the proposition that inanimate objects are more fit than living ones since it is irrelevant, but I'll address the modern understanding of evolution.

Evolution is driven by whichever gene gets an advantage in replication. This has nothing to do with the fitness of the individual, or even the species. The result does tend to be a species more adapted to its environment, but that is simply because all failures are weeded out over the incredible lengths of time involved. Evolution in fact very often hurts a species, or causes it to go extinct.

Take this situation:

A species of bird migrate to a chain of islands around the start of the spring to mate and reproduce. The ideal time for migration happens to be around the first week of April. That time is ideal as it presents the best combination of weather, lack of predators, and availability of food. Now let's say a mutation occurs that compels an individual to migrate a week early. The mutation shifts the migration time to a less ideal date. But the advantages of such shift are obvious. The bird will have the Island for itself for a few days. It will establish the best mating position, and acquire a lot of food easily (those outweigh the slight disadvantage in weather or predator presence).

Consequently, the gene will find its way to more and more offspring, until the ideal-time nesters are no longer "fit". This cycle can continue until the whole species goes extinct.

The same goes for increasing complexity. It is true that evolution typically results in more and more complex organisms (because of complicated biochemical reasons that I won't get into), but that is not always the case. Not by a long shot. Nature is full of creatures that were once more complex, but managed to drop genes. That is actually common when a species start depending on another for a certain function, like alligators and the birds that clean their teeth.

I do not really see the point of the argument. It seems like the empty metaphysical philosophy that Nietzsche often complained about. Evolution is a fact that cannot be disputed by any reasonable person. To assign some divine significance to the pattern seems a bit desperate.

But you see, this is the problem with the god of the gaps. The role of this god gets smaller and smaller as our understanding progresses, but his imagined significance increases! Back in the day, god/s did everything. They blew the wind, cried the rain, and created people out of mud. Yet they were very human-like in characteristics. Now, god/s provided the essence for... abiogensis and the jump from unicellular to multicellular life? And yet, those gods are now a mysterious incomprehensible essence that infuses everything with divinity, or some similar nonsense.

The fact is, you are making QUITE the claim. You're making a claim far bigger than evolution, relativity, or any other scientific idea. You're saying that the physical universe have a supernatural overlay that guides its nature. You, or at least many believers, claim not only is this mysterious power real, but that it is relevant to the way we conduct our existence on this tiny pebble! Astounding!

 

[TroutBum]

I hate smart people.

 

[squareinthecircle]

I hate smart people.

Is that why you cut?

 

[Siro]

Come on AP, say something. I made a big pot of coffee and I'm in the mood for a debate!