Gabriella,
No it isn't. Second, of course it isn't dogma. Your dogma is certainty doesn't work. People can be dogmatic but as Islam has no geographical location with a person in a position of central authority to compel anyone to do anything, generalising by saying Islam is a dogmatic belief is an assertion that can be easily dismissed.
Oh dear. Are you seriously suggesting that, in Islam, “Allah”, Mohammed being “a prophet”, the various miracle stories etc aren’t held to be true dogmatically – ie, certainly, with no possibility of doubt etc – by most of its adherents?
And while we’re at it, why would the absence of “a person in a position of central authority to compel anyone to do anything” even be necessary for dogmatism when your entire educational experience consisted of rocking backward and forward in a Madrasa chanting the Quran?
Oh, and while we’re at
that…if you think there’s no-one to do the compelling you really haven’t been paying attention. Who for example do you think it is that have the job of carrying out fatwas, having a quiet word with apostates etc?
On the other hand, the other two examples you gave had central figures who had their secret police forces to compel people to do what they said or they would be killed. Stalinism in Russia had Stalin, Nazism in Germany had Hitler.
And the thugs who behead adulterers in football stadia, nail people to boards in public squares, throw gays off tall building etc would be who exactly? Girls Guides? The local branch of Mensa?
And you seem to have evaded the other outputs of non-religious laws I mentioned that resulted in far more deaths than 9/11 such as Hiroshima or the non-UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq. Why do you think you evaded them?
The only “evading” here is your own (why for example have you just ignored the question about why no-one ever committed an atrocity while reciting Spinoza or Russell?) but in any case I dealt with that when I explained that a
tu quoque (“OK, my stuff may be bad but other stuff is too”) is itself an evasion, and besides the toll for, say, a Hiroshima may be bigger than that for 9/11 but it’s not for religion as a whole.
So we don't have a problem with uncertainty. Great.
Well I don’t. Just out of interest though, what method do you use to calculate your uncertainty about the existence at all of “Allah”, whether Mohammed was “a prophet” at all etc?
I did not ignore it - I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make, other than that it doesn't make sense to you, which I think is fine that it doesn't make sense to you. So I answered what I thought you were asking. I don't think you asking me why again and again and me giving you my take on it is going to result in it ever making sense to you, but we can keep going with this if you want.
No you didn’t. Your position seems to be that the “holy” text may contain inerrant truths, but they have to be “interpreted”. I merely ask first why they’re written so vaguely, imprecisely, ambiguously if a divine author wanted anyone to know what the meant, and second what method you would use ever to eliminate the problem that whatever interpretation you have today wouldn’t be thrown over by a new one tomorrow.
And if you don’t have a method to do that, why even bother with thinking that it’s divinely authored as you’re necessarily on a fool’s errand if you want ever to know for sure what this “God” meant by it?
So my answer is The Quran is in poetry form. Poetry was popular in the region back then and people were impressed with poetry that rhymed, had rhythm and a message and sounded appealing when recited in Arabic. Poetry is not known for being a work of detailed instructions but it does impress people if it's good poetry and appeals to them. So the Quran is not presented to Muslims as the sole guidance for interpretation, we also have supposed reports of the thoughts and actions of people regarded as prophets.
I defer to no man in my affection for poetry. Again though, if a god wanted his rules to be known why do it in verse rather than just say, “here are the rules”? That is, if as you say “Poetry is not known for being a work of detailed instructions” why would a didactic god care more about “impressing” people with his rhyming skills than he would about getting his rules over?
Why don't you suggest a method that you think will work without creating ambiguity and I will give you my opinion on it.
Been a while since you suggested a shifting of the burden of proof. I’m not the one claiming a god, let alone a morally inerrant one, let alone one who wanted people to know what he thought, let alone one who thought the best way to do that would be in some “impressive” versifying. I merely suggest that he went about things in a pretty crap way – why not at least give people a fighting chance by just writing down a list of dos and don’ts?
The UN and various legislatures have tried creating laws without ambiguity and yet there are so many court cases because people think there is ambiguity in the text and there of course also so many law breakers. I have first-hand experience of volumes of dry tax legislation full of opportunities for loopholes and when they try and close one loophole they just create an opportunity to find another loophole.
Are you suggesting that this god of yours was no more capable a legal draughtsman than the UN legislators? And even if you are, why then would he even have bothered if he thought he wasn’t bright enough to come up with clearer rules but wanted to set out the vague ones instead?
Your analogy does not work because polio and typhoid have 2 distinct causes and it is possible to eliminate the cause.
Whoosh! The analogy works because it’s just about the nature of the
tu quoque fallacy. “Distinct causes” etc are irrelevant for the purposes of the analogy.
Whereas you have failed in your attempt to show that religion is the unique cause of a problem…
That’s called a straw man argument. Where exactly do you think that I said that “religion is the unique cause of a problem”? As you know, what I actually said was pretty much the opposite of that when I identified the problem as dogma in general, of which religion is a prime example but by no means a unique one.
…that can be eliminated, as the same people who look for definitive answers will just find it in politics or nationalism or morals if religion didn't exist. So you would have all the same problems, just from a slightly different type of text or concept or idea.
You’re missing it still – deliberately perhaps? Yes, I do think societies that cease to privilege “faith” over just guessing will “eliminate” some bad outcomes, but I would say the same about faith in any other dogma too.
In some places - yes. In other places it is politics.
North Korea for example. Not the kind of certainty/faith bedfellow I’d want for a religious belief I subscribed to, but each to her own I guess.
I don't know what you mean by how would this accountability work? Are you expecting me to come up with a methodology? As far as I know there isn't a text book and formulae. I'm ok with saying I don't know how it would work and that it's not my problem to determine the methodology.
It’s simple enough. So far as I can tell, you seem to think that there will be some sort of
post mortem reckoning coming your way. I merely ask in principle how you think that would work when little old you had decided while still here that the Quran was wrong about something and so you'd acted instead according to your conscience.
And the question you ignored was about whether you thought the 9/11 hijackers just happened to be a bunch of psychopaths, or were they rather pious men who thought the day of reckoning would go swimmingly for them because, regardless of their ordinary humanity, they’d acted as they thought their god wanted them to for which action they’d favourably be held “accountable”?
Again, personally I'm fine with saying I don't know whether I made the right decisions but believing that I will eventually be held accountable by an inerrant god for my intentions and actions.
See above. Can you really not see that that “belief” if held to be dogmatically true is potentially disastrous when those who interpret the rules differently to the way you do act on their interpetations?
Another assertion - I'll just dismiss it until you add some detail and evidence.
So when the cockpit recorders picked them up shouting “Allahu Akbar” that was what – co-incidence maybe?
No, what that "something" happens to be is not a secondary issue and your generalisation is the problem. With or without a God there will be some people who are sure they are right, running around killing each other in the name of whatever cause they choose - they would just frame their cause in non-religious terms.
Yes there will be, but that’s not the point. Of course the outcomes are secondary for this purpose – what we’re talking about here is what happens when you think certainly, dogmatically that there is a god who's written some inerrant rules and that “faith” is a guaranteed way to know what they are, then you’ve thrown out even the possibility of being reasoned out of that position.
And once you’ve got
there, you can then populate your actions with whatever bits of the book take your fancy. Kill adulterers? Yeah, why not? Spread the Caliphate by whatever means necessary? Knock yourself out etc and depressingly etc.
