I would argue that actually some peopple got the idea to do horrible things by reading the philosopher's of the enlightenment.
Those names got abused too, for example nietzsche in the nazi era. And the british and others partially defended their slavery by thinking that they are enlightened while a lot of the rest of the world are barbarians.
Many of the european thinkers had a very eurocentric point of view.
Kant for example thought that american natives are genuinely incapable of reason and thus usual human rights shouldnt apply to them.
Yeah I understand what you mean, but I think the difference there is the person consuming philosophical ideas doesn't need to buy into the source's infallibility. You can read Kant and take it for what it is, but there's no such thing as any sort of inerrancy in what is written. And while it might be a eurocentric point of view, that sort of distinction isn't readily made for scripture by believers.
Yeah I understand what you mean, but I think the difference there is the person consuming philosophical ideas doesn't need to buy into the source's infallibility. You can read Kant and take it for what it is, but there's no such thing as any sort of inerrancy in what is written. And while it might be a eurocentric point of view, that sort of distinction isn't readily made for scripture by believers.
That's true. However, i think it is really rare that a believer thinks god tells him something that he ACTUALLY does not want to do.
I mean, if you believe in god and he tells you to not eat certain meat, to pray and so on, that's fine by most people.
It's nothing they think much about on a moral viewpoint and they all can get their excuses of why it makes sense.
But if a peaceful guy reads a command of god to kill certain people, he will almost always deny that it is meant like that. He will say the verse only applies to wartimes, or it is a metaphor, or anything like that.
Similarly, someone who actually wants to kill people will find excuses for it at some point.
I have never seen a believer who actually did things he found morally wrong just because god says so (at least not on the long run).
They were all either thinking what they do is good or in denial about what some verse says.
That can still lead to horrible things (for example when you think exorcism is the right thing to do and accidently kill someone), but i really would not think that holy wars were caused by religion.
All islamic and christian religiously fueled wars can be traced back to very mundane reasons for it.
Similarly, countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia may sometimes take about holy wars and bla bla bla, but for all its anti semitic tendencies, iran would never attack israel because they know the reality of what would happen very well. Suddenly, there is not the delusion of 'well allah will help us win' like in those nice fairy tales about mohammed.
I think religious people mostly do what they would do without religion, just that they delude themselves into thinking god is on their side with it (at least when it comes to actual decisions, life style of course can be heavily influenced by religion).
A lot of the science at least in christian regions was archieved by trying to prove the greatness of god, trying to erect more impressive cathedrals and art in his glory or trying to refute arguments against him.
I still really do not see that as a triumph of reason.
You can't define reason or rationality as "not believing in god." In fact, pre-late 19th century, it could easily be argued to be unreasonable not to believe in a god as most people had thought this for centuries and there was no solid proof to the contrary to sway you. Only very recently do we have enough technology to say there probably isn't a god as religions have conceived it.
Rationality stems almost directly from logic. For something to be logical, or I feel reasonable inserts here just as easily, what you say only has to make sense with conclusions following from premises. Facts or truth (big T or little) have little baring on this. And how is it less impressive to discover physical truths about our world while looking for God or ascribing them to it? This is at best your opinion.
Similarly, the time of scinetific advancements in the islamic world were mostly made in times in which the enforcement of islamic rules was less strict.
We also may not forget that a lot of advance stems from war, which both christianity and islam did inspire.
I still dont think the inventions made for war can be called a triumph of reason.
Once again, reason doesn't (and I might even argue can't) mean "only physical sciences." This is not an effective atheist argument in my opinion.
Also, Islam was huge at the time of the Muslim world's monumental scientific and mathematical achievements. Sharia law existed and societies had similar class structures. Science, philosophy, and intellectual thought were allowed to flourish under Islamic empires (as in many parts of Europe and East Asia) until WWI with no more hindrance to rational debate and experimentation than anywhere else in the world. World War I was when war broke out in the Middle East and North Africa and never stopped. War and occupation are responsible for the more brutal societies we see in parts of West Asia.
I don't think it's strange that people get "hung up" on the heinous things done in the name of religion. The average enlightened individual isn't going to find an excuse to rape, murder or commit genocide by reading Voltaire, Spinoza, or Thomas Paine. You can't say the same thing about the most devout and what sort of ideas they tend to consume. Not all "ways of thinking" are created equally.
It's strange because this type of logic is never ascribed so viciously to any genre of thought or institutions as in religious ones. Like, people don't usually claim those supporting Liberalism (with a big L) as a philosophical and economic system with the millions upon millions of deaths institutions aligned with it have committed and wars fought in its name is the direct cause of suffering. Like, the bad stuff is fair game for criticism, but I don't see how that's a complete argument against religion or even specific religions like Christianity or Islam. (Not that I'm necessarily pointing a finger at you or anything.)
And what do we mean about 'enlightened?' I'm assuming Enlightenment values. Even those values which the upper classes and governments of most European countries adopted a couple hundred years ago gave room for genocide, slavery, and colonization for a very long time. We also had two World Wars break out and the last century was literally the bloodiest in human history. And many MANY of the conflicts were over Enlightenment ideas like democracy, civil rights, capitalism, socialism, etc.
My point isn't to say Enlightenment values caused those wars in and of themselves, but the script can be flipped like that on just about any highly influential (especially on a global scale) ideology. People who want to "rape, murder, or commit genocide" will literally use any ideas that they have at their disposal.
That can still lead to horrible things (for example when you think exorcism is the right thing to do and accidently kill someone), but i really would not think that holy wars were caused by religion.
I didn't really specify the crusades or anything. Genocide occurs and is condoned in the Bible itself. Whether any of it really happened or not is a different topic.
Similarly, countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia may sometimes take about holy wars and bla bla bla, but for all its anti semitic tendencies, iran would never attack israel because they know the reality of what would happen very well. Suddenly, there is not the delusion of 'well allah will help us win' like in those nice fairy tales about mohammed.
This is a problem with theocracy. It's not really the same as the study of what scripture says as it factors in politics as well. Of course words aren't always followed through on, and the root of antisemitism is known. But even so, it's something that is still perpetuated by people with opposing viewpoints.
I think religious people mostly do what they would do without religion, just that they delude themselves into thinking god is on their side with it (at least when it comes to actual decisions, life style of course can be heavily influenced by religion).
So then what you're saying is religion attracts those who are already predisposed to such things? I mean, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but...
I don't disagree necessarily, but even with this notion, it can still be said that there is something about religion itself that lends itself towards these kinds of things. It can bring out the worst of what human beings are capable of.
You can't define reason or rationality as "not believing in god." In fact, pre-late 19th century, it could easily be argued to be unreasonable not to believe in a god as most people had thought this for centuries and there was no solid proof to the contrary to sway you. Only very recently do we have enough technology to say there probably isn't a god as religions have conceived it.
Rationality stems almost directly from logic. For something to be logical, or I feel reasonable inserts here just as easily, what you say only has to make sense with conclusions following from premises. Facts or truth (big T or little) have little baring on this. And how is it less impressive to discover physical truths about our world while looking for God or ascribing them to it? This is at best your opinion.
I did not define rationality like that.
I define rationality as having a concrete and coherent foundation for your actions and concrete and coherent reason for your assumptions about truth.
That was never true for any religion.
It was more of a 'well, i don't know, might as well make something up'.
It is not unreasonable to believe in god. However, it is very unreasonable to assume that this god has written a book for you with arbitrary rules and then decided to never show himself again. It is unreasonable to believe an allmighty god puts a big emphasis on the need to worship him or cares a lot about what people do with their junk. This is unreasonable because there is no basis to believe that and it is very specific and therefore unprobable.
Descarte, for example, wa sa rational believer. A good chunk of the enlightenment was shaped by his ideas, even if he still employed his idea of the christian god for his idea of what to see as real and what to doubt.
But it's not like the usual believer employs god only to avoid constructivism like descartes did.
It is everything but rational to think of any modern religion as definitely true.
Rationality has to do with logic, but we also have to think about our premises here (usually in logic, you set which premises are true and which not, you cannot do taht in reality).
It is coherent to say 'well my religion is definitely true and i will build a coherent world view with it', but it is not rational, because you setting this religion as true has no real reason behind it except that you like it to be true.
If you have a s premise: 'Well, i think it is morally right to help other humans' then you have a good reason for your actions. You do not make assumptions about things you cannot possibly know, but you judge after your horizon of consciousness which is the only view you can judge by.
If you then make an invention which helps other people, you were guided by reason.
Even if you think 'the only thing i know is that i exist, thus i want to maximize my pleasure, thus i make an invention just for money', you are led by reason.
If you say 'i think god wants me to do that' then you are not led by reaosn because you make an assumption without a reason.
Once again, reason doesn't (and I might even argue can't) mean "only physical sciences." This is not an effective atheist argument in my opinion.
Also, Islam was huge at the time of the Muslim world's monumental scientific and mathematical achievements. Sharia law existed and societies had similar class structures. Science, philosophy, and intellectual thought were allowed to flourish under Islamic empires (as in many parts of Europe and East Asia) until WWI with no more hindrance to rational debate and experimentation than anywhere else in the world. World War I was when war broke out in the Middle East and North Africa and never stopped. War and occupation are responsible for the more brutal societies we see in parts of West Asia.
Islam was huge, but not strict. A lot of the scientific efforts of the islamic world were even set back or destroyed when the islamic world got stricter again.
Islam didnt just start recently to be more strict and extreme. This is a developement which is older than colonialization.
Science in the islamic world began to decline between the 14th and 16th century. There were destroyed observatories, there were threatened scientists (or artists) and the societies made a shift for a stricter and more authoritarian islam.
Scharia law, btw, is one thing, how strictly it gets enforced is another, we see that even in islamic societies today.
Thus, it can be said that while science flourished at some point in the islamic world, that was despite and not because of islam.
I didn't really specify the crusades or anything. Genocide occurs and is condoned in the Bible itself. Whether any of it really happened or not is a different topic.
So then what you're saying is religion attracts those who are already predisposed to such things? I mean, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but...
I don't disagree necessarily, but even with this notion, it can still be said that there is something about religion itself that lends itself towards these kinds of things. It can bring out the worst of what human beings are capable of.
YES! I am actually exactly saying that.
There is always also a ethnical component (an arab is more likely to become a muslim extremist than a christian extremist) but people who have lost their way tend to go for the extreme, and religions are something which can be lived very extremely.
We also see that with other ideologies.
People who dont see a meaning in their life tend to like to fight the 'good fight'.
And i agree that they would not necessarily take up that fight without religion (or the respective ideology).
It is interesting how many people committing islamic terrorist acts were criminals before who were not religious in the least (drinking, smoking pot, fucking arround, so on).
They had another way of channeling their violence, but it seeme dlike dschihadism suited that even better and they could feel needed (while that is not really true for when they steal or beat up people).
A terrorist is definitely more dangerous than a bankrobber, that much is true.
But before the bankrobber becomes a terrorist, someone has to bend the religion in ways for him to become that way.
What the IS does goes against several explicit things stated in the Quran and Sunnah, but it is not like these guys matter.
However, i admit, yes, the inherent antimisetism, hate on infidels and the idea of the fight for a caliphate, that all stems from islam and is, even for nonterrorists, deeply rooted in islamic societies and communities.
It's strange because this type of logic is never ascribed so viciously to any genre of thought or institutions as in religious ones. Like, people don't usually claim those supporting Liberalism (with a big L) as a philosophical and economic system with the millions upon millions of deaths institutions aligned with it have committed and wars fought in its name is the direct cause of suffering. Like, the bad stuff is fair game for criticism, but I don't see how that's a complete argument against religion or even specific religions like Christianity or Islam. (Not that I'm necessarily pointing a finger at you or anything.)
I mean, I'm of the opinion that belief in the God of Abraham is nearly totalitarian in nature in the first place. That on it's own is enough of a criticism for me to reject it, even without listing the horrific things done in his name. It isn't really a matter of something being misconstrued or misinterpreted when the body of the religion itself condones some of the most illiberal actions imaginable.
I'm not really sure what constitutes a complete argument against religion or any other belief system for that matter. What else could there be besides the doctrine itself and what is done by it's followers (good and bad)?
And what do we mean about 'enlightened?' I'm assuming Enlightenment values. Even those values which the upper classes and governments of most European countries adopted a couple hundred years ago gave room for genocide, slavery, and colonization for a very long time. We also had two World Wars break out and the last century was literally the bloodiest in human history. And many MANY of the conflicts were over Enlightenment ideas like democracy, civil rights, capitalism, socialism, etc.
My point isn't to say Enlightenment values caused those wars in and of themselves, but the script can be flipped like that on just about any highly influential (especially on a global scale) ideology. People who want to "rape, murder, or commit genocide" will literally use any ideas that they have at their disposal.
Perhaps, but that's still a criticism that's allowed to exist in a liberal society. The nature of religious doctrine specifically says that criticism isn't welcome in the first place. Sure, many modern and moderate believers might reject this sort of thing, but I'm of the opinion that they're allowed to do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.
YES! I am actually exactly saying that.
There is always also a ethnical component (an arab is more likely to become a muslim extremist than a christian extremist) but people who have lost their way tend to go for the extreme, and religions are something which can be lived very extremely.
We also see that with other ideologies.
People who dont see a meaning in their life tend to like to fight the 'good fight'.
It is interesting how many people committing islamic terrorist acts were criminals before who were not religious in the least (drinking, smoking pot, fucking arround, so on).
I don't see as much of a problem with religions or believing in God as much as I do the lunatics who go batshit crazy with their beliefs, from Muslims to Hindus to Christians.
I don't see as much of a problem with religions or believing in God as much as I do the lunatics who go batshit crazy with their beliefs, from Muslims to Hindus to Christians.
Why compartmentalize it like that? I often see people separating the two simply as a way to bargain with themselves over their belief. Unless you're advocating Deism or something.
And if it's simply a matter of taking the good and leaving out the bad, this is something secular society already aims to do. For instance, religious belief isn't required of you to be considered moral or decent.
Oh i didnt make myself clear: I called them nonreligious because they fucked arround, smoked pot and drank.
They were criminals because they stole, robbed banks, randomly bea tup people or raped, so, i hope by ANY standards :P
It complies with the idea of the caliphate and islamic dominance, and strict social rules of course (in which, oh what are the odds, the islamic fighter are the ones who get to fuck everybody without any repercussions and have the absolute power).
But even suicide attacks are against teaching of islam directly.
Then why do you think they employ this method? Because it's low-cost? unexpected? difficult to defend against? Or because of what the Quran says about the afterlife and martyrdom?
Then why do you think they employ this method? Because it's low-cost? unexpected? difficult to defend against? Or because of what the Quran says about the afterlife and martyrdom?
Mostly because it is making the best use out of unskilled 'soldiers' who cannot even aim.
Of course they tell the guys who have the bomb belt on that they go to heaven tho
But it ain't true after the islamic teachings actually. If they read the quran and Sunnah carefully they'd be too afraid of eternal hell (the the quran is pretty graphic on that regard with all his molten steel into your body holes) to suicide bomb.
But yes, the idea of martyrdom itself of course has roots in the islamic teachings. And rather than in christianity, this is less a martyrdom of suffering for your god but of dying in fight for your god. However, the Quran is usually consistent in teaching not to kill innocents or civilists. He might enslave those and call that a good deed, but killing them is a big no no.
The same as suicide is in any circumstances.
However, the Quran is usually consistent in teaching not to kill innocents or civilists. He might enslave those and call that a good deed, but killing them is a big no no.
Why compartmentalize it like that? I often see people separating the two simply as a way to bargain with themselves over their belief. Unless you're advocating Deism or something.
And if it's simply a matter of taking the good and leaving out the bad, this is something secular society already aims to do. For instance, religious belief isn't required of you to be considered moral or decent.
Religions and belief in deities don't necessarily go hand in hand (I think I said this wrong?). One can spurn religion but still believe in a higher power, although I don't think one can be religious without believing in a higher power.
I'm not leaving out the bad, I"m just saying that religion/believing in God isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Those who really are religious or believe in God use it to empower themselves and/or be moral and good. Though, it does scare me that a lot of people are moralistic because of a book or a fictional power.
Mostly because it is making the best use out of unskilled 'soldiers' who cannot even aim.
Of course they tell the guys who have the bomb belt on that they go to heaven tho
But it ain't true after the islamic teachings actually. If they read the quran and Sunnah carefully they'd be too afraid of eternal hell (the the quran is pretty graphic on that regard with all his molten steel into your body holes) to suicide bomb.
But yes, the idea of martyrdom itself of course has roots in the islamic teachings. And rather than in christianity, this is less a martyrdom of suffering for your god but of dying in fight for your god. However, the Quran is usually consistent in teaching not to kill innocents or civilists. He might enslave those and call that a good deed, but killing them is a big no no.
The same as suicide is in any circumstances.
In Islam, scholars are really important figures, and also the heaviour of muhammed is.
The Sunnah consists out of stories about muhammed and his fellowship (while it is often disputed which of the stories are true and which are not).
Yet, in almost all Hadith which are found credible, muhammed has forbidden to harm any bystander sin war, may it be children, women, old people, monks or traders. Anyone who does not actively fight was usually spared in war times.
Islam also has no war without a declaration of war. For example, someone living in the US has to either accept the rules of the US (as long as he can follow them without directly going against islam) or has to leave that place.
He may never betray the country of his home, he has to leave it and then declare war if he thinks he must in order so serve allah.
I mean, of course you can choose ignore or emphasize anything in a book which is big enough.
But after, as i said, every standard of how to interpret islam, what they do is forbidden.
That said, naturally, crusades went against any standard of what jesus said either, but in this case, i would still say that i objectively is against what islam teaches what those guys from the IS do (even if, that said, muhammed was definitely not as merciful as a person as the islamic fairytales like to paint him. exspecially when it comes to slave women).
Religions and belief in deities don't necessarily go hand in hand (I think I said this wrong?). One can spurn religion but still believe in a higher power, although I don't think one can be religious without believing in a higher power.
I'm not leaving out the bad, I"m just saying that religion/believing in God isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Those who really are religious or believe in God use it to empower themselves and/or be moral and good. Though, it does scare me that a lot of people are moralistic because of a book or a fictional power.
you're defending Islam as if you're a Muslim. Hmm.
Nah , definitely not a muslim here.
I am also not defending islam. islam is a hoax like the rest.
But you see it is a very shizophreniac religion.
Mohammed contradicted himself and changed his stance several times throughout is 'career'.
Neither putting emphasis on the violent phases nor the peaceful phases gives one the whole picture.
Islam expanded through war and nothing else, so it is deifnitely not a religion of peace.
However, it has also to be said that by what is said in the quran or in hadith, killing innocents was never, at no point, something that was officially allowed in islam (even if, naturally, it happened).
A lot of insane bullshit is justifyiable with the quran, but suicide bombings aint.
My point is that you're one of the very few non-Muslims who actually don't criticize Islam. And aren't non-Muslims also saying Mohammed was a pedophile? I don't know if that's true, though.
Is there any religious text that's not fucked up? I mean, the Bible is just as bad, if not worse. Though from my limited knowledge, Hindu text isn't messed up, not by that much anyway. I could be wrong though.
I did not define rationality like that.
I define rationality as having a concrete and coherent foundation for your actions and concrete and coherent reason for your assumptions about truth.
That was never true for any religion.
It was more of a 'well, i don't know, might as well make something up'.
These are straw-man arguments (including the rest of the post I didn't directly quote. You say religion is one thing yet anyone can think of hundreds of exceptions. Religion is not "hey let's make shit up." This is an anti-intellectual simplification. You just defined as having a coherent foundation for your actions then claim foundations others use that are contrary to yours (religion, believing in a god, etc.) are just people making shit up.
There is no significant difference between how religious world views form and how other non-religious world views form. Seriously, where is the ideology that isn't mostly an interpretation of material surroundings?
Islam was huge, but not strict. A lot of the scientific efforts of the islamic world were even set back or destroyed when the islamic world got stricter again.
Islam didnt just start recently to be more strict and extreme. This is a developement which is older than colonialization.
Uhh, sure people used Islam to be brutal or what have you, but fundamentalist Islam as we know it today is a very recent phenomenon. Scholars upon scholars have written about it. And also, Islam still is not some monolithic ideology or religion. Over a billion people practice it across the globe. Islam is probably the most diverse religion to ever exist regardless of the weird and disturbing Islamaphoic tendencies spreading rapidly throughout the world. To say otherwise is just simply wrong and there is no evidence to back it up.
Science in the islamic world began to decline between the 14th and 16th century. There were destroyed observatories, there were threatened scientists (or artists) and the societies made a shift for a stricter and more authoritarian islam.
Scharia law, btw, is one thing, how strictly it gets enforced is another, we see that even in islamic societies today.
Thus, it can be said that while science flourished at some point in the islamic world, that was despite and not because of islam.
Remember what happened during the 14th century in Palestine and Syria? The fucking Crusades were rolling in and had been for a century. Correlation is not causation. Sharia law, like all religious ideas, is NOT one thing. Seriously, just randomly pick Islamic scholars and leaders throughout the years; they say wildly different things while reading the same texts. People don't even read the Ten Commandments and get the same thing from them.
I mean, I'm of the opinion that belief in the God of Abraham is nearly totalitarian in nature in the first place. That on it's own is enough of a criticism for me to reject it, even without listing the horrific things done in his name. It isn't really a matter of something being misconstrued or misinterpreted when the body of the religion itself condones some of the most illiberal actions imaginable.
Sure you can make this argument but others make completely different ones and act on them. The same totalitarian god and scriptures inspired some of the world's greatest revolutionaries, egalitarians, and liberation ideologies. However contradictory this seems, the reality stands. It is entirely up to interpretation, that's the true power of ideas (which I know is not something new I'm throwing at you). Religious texts (specifically the Bible since that's the best known on our side of the globe) are outlandishly vague in most accounts. In the places where they are specific, scholars have understood them as more cultural history than anything. Yes, this rejects the idea that god wrote these books, but this has been the understanding for a millennium, only within the last couple hundred years has this change in academic realms.
I'm not really sure what constitutes a complete argument against religion or any other belief system for that matter. What else could there be besides the doctrine itself and what is done by it's followers (good and bad)?
Ok, I was pretty vague with that. But my point is, the doctrine itself is NOT MONOLITHIC. You can't just read religious texts and go "ok this is what they have believed since it began and still believe this." That is not how history played out. People have and still do interpret wildly different things from the same words. Each sect of followers acted very differently and must be judged differently. A complete argument in my opinion considers these possibilities because otherwise you end up straw-manning people. Some Christians read "Man shall not lay with a man as a man" to be anti-homosexuality others see it as a specific command for a specific time and place, etc. Absolutes regarding the beliefs of others just don't work.
Perhaps, but that's still a criticism that's allowed to exist in a liberal society. The nature of religious doctrine specifically says that criticism isn't welcome in the first place. Sure, many modern and moderate believers might reject this sort of thing, but I'm of the opinion that they're allowed to do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.
Like, no, though. Religious doctrine allows for whatever people want just like any philosophical tradition ever or social theory. To say people interpreting religion differently than you perceive it is "in spite" of their beliefs is weird honestly. I see this a lot from Atheists (assuming you are one here but either way I see Atheists make this argument). The "I know how this doctrine should be interpreted even though others who actually believe in it are saying differently" argument. People didn't just magically start being religious and egalitarian; both sides of the coin (authoritarian and egalitarian religion) have existed since day one in all major religions.
All capitalists are murderers. Capitalism is a system set up to oppress and exploit, and anyone who manages to produce good in capitalist controlled societies does so in spite of their surrounding not because of it.
The argument doesn't sound great (whether we agree with it or not) put in this way. There is no reason to accept the conclusion based on the evidence. I dunno, I just think it's a bad way of understanding a major human phenomenon that doesn't advance society or discourse in any interesting way. *shrug*
Real talk: I think all supernatural claims by religions are false; but that says absolutely nothing about the philosophical teachings nor do I believe there is any convincing evidence that being religious makes you less rational or accepting of new evidence just like having a strong believe in anything doesn't prevent you from expanding your world view.
I would not subscribe that . Hinduism is one cause for the caste system in india.
And the fights between Hindus and Muslims are both partially religiously fueled.
Their scriptures don't really bother with nonbelievers like the monotheist religions do, but the religion still is as harmful or harmless as any other.
Personally, i think every dogmatic belief about 'how things should be' is harmful if it is a foundation of a society, no matter whether those are religiously fueled or not (for example patriarchical ideas or social darwinism or communism and so on and so on).
And every religion, even buddhism, can inspire hate and shunning of others (as example, burma)
Emphasis on the word 'one' and Hindhuism advocates caste based discrimination in the same way that Islam advocates violence, it is just a matter of who runs the narative, sadly the narrative that Hindhuism advocates discrimination has not been quashed and is still used, however by those who were historically discriminated, it is good to see that recently my countymen have risen and started to question these narratives, but it needs to go further.
And frankly, look with the example that you have given of Burma, and I would like to even cite the example of Sri Lanka, where Buddhists did practice injustice on the Tamils there, it proves my assertion that it is just a matter of which narrative you subscribe to, just because some people endorse in violence, does not make Buddhism violent, similarly just because some people use the Quran as justification for violence, or certain texts in Hindhuism as justification for discrimination does not make it so.
And finally caste system is found even in Tibetan Buddhist, Indian Christian, Indian Muslims, Sikhs, and nearly every community in South Asia, it is a social phenomenon, treating it as a religious phenomenon, is only going to help those involved in excessive proselytization.
These are straw-man arguments (including the rest of the post I didn't directly quote. You say religion is one thing yet anyone can think of hundreds of exceptions. Religion is not "hey let's make shit up." This is an anti-intellectual simplification. You just defined as having a coherent foundation for your actions then claim foundations others use that are contrary to yours (religion, believing in a god, etc.) are just people making shit up.
There is no significant difference between how religious world views form and how other non-religious world views form. Seriously, where is the ideology that isn't mostly an interpretation of material surroundings?
Oh it definitely is. Or where can i find a religion which did not just make shit up?
And an interpretation of the serroundings is fine, however, religion is none.
If i say i cannot know whether anything i see is true and thus choose to take some assumptions which enable me to get through my day to day life, like the assumption that other humans exist and that reality is at least roughly congruent to what i sense, then this is fine and rational.
If i say 'there is definitely a god and he will judge everyone, and i will live my whole life following his word even if there is no proof for him, not even evidence, and a lot of things point into another direction' then this is not rational.
And this is what someone does when he says 'yes, my religion is correct'.
Every religion has a more likely chance to rather make a potential god more angry than pleased with you, thus it can hardly be rational to follow one without at least evidence satisfying scientific doubt (since we cannot satisfy the total doubt on our senses).
Uhh, sure people used Islam to be brutal or what have you, but fundamentalist Islam as we know it today is a very recent phenomenon. Scholars upon scholars have written about it. And also, Islam still is not some monolithic ideology or religion. Over a billion people practice it across the globe. Islam is probably the most diverse religion to ever exist regardless of the weird and disturbing Islamaphoic tendencies spreading rapidly throughout the world. To say otherwise is just simply wrong and there is no evidence to back it up.
There is evidence for the islamic world to take a turn for more strictness in the timeframe i mentioned, which hindered scientific advancement.
Fundamentalist islam is not a recent phenomenon, if anything, terrorist islam is a recent phenomenon.
I have seen some reports and read a book about this matter, but in lack of a better source at hand:
_______
According to many historians, science in the Muslim civilization flourished during the Middle Ages, but began declining at some time around the 14th[43] to 16th[24] centuries. At least some scholars blame this on the "rise of a clerical faction which froze this same science and withered its progress."[44] Examples of conflicts with prevailing interpretations of Islam and science - or at least the fruits of science - thereafter include the demolition of Taqi al-Din's great Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din in Galata, "comparable in its technical equipment and its specialist personnel with that of his celebrated contemporary, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe." But while Brahe's observatory "opened the way to a vast new development of astronomical science," Taqi al-Din's was demolished by a squad of Janissaries, "by order of the sultan, on the recommendation of the Chief Mufti," sometime after 1577 AD.[44][45]"
_______
After that timeframe, the islamic scientific advancements decline very quickly. This has nothing to do with the europeans, this can be traced back people who held religious authority.
And even if you say you find the sources insufficient: Well, why did the scientific advance suddenly decline then?
After that, the islamic world got similar to the prior christian world in regards to its stance to science.
And it still did not recover yet to a big extent.
Remember what happened during the 14th century in Palestine and Syria? The fucking Crusades were rolling in and had been for a century. Correlation is not causation. Sharia law, like all religious ideas, is NOT one thing. Seriously, just randomly pick Islamic scholars and leaders throughout the years; they say wildly different things while reading the same texts. People don't even read the Ten Commandments and get the same thing from them.
The crusades started as early as in the 11th century and didnt hinder any scientific advancements.
The crusades in the 14th century were a counter initiative against th eexpansions of the ottoman empire.
You can hardly claim that only because of these crusades which were focussed mainly on the hussites (non muslims) and the ottomans (and didnt get farther than belgrade against them) scientific developement in the islamic world was hindered forever.
The aggressions from the islamic world against the christian world similarly didnt hinder its scientific developement, and those were not less severe.
In any case, there were no crusaers in the 14th century in palestina and syria.
14th century was the time in which the ottoman's conquered palestine.
The crusaers were not a force in that region by at least a hundred years.
Actually, the time of the crusades overlapped with a big chunk of the time in which the islamic science flourished most.
Emphasis on the word 'one' and Hindhuism advocates caste based discrimination in the same way that Islam advocates violence, it is just a matter of who runs the narative, sadly the narrative that Hindhuism advocates discrimination has not been quashed and is still used, however by those who were historically discriminated, it is good to see that recently my countymen have risen and started to question these narratives, but it needs to go further.
And frankly, look with the example that you have given of Burma, and I would like to even cite the example of Sri Lanka, where Buddhists did practice injustice on the Tamils there, it proves my assertion that it is just a matter of which narrative you subscribe to, just because some people endorse in violence, does not make Buddhism violent, similarly just because some people use the Quran as justification for violence, or certain texts in Hindhuism as justification for discrimination does not make it so.
And finally caste system is found even in Tibetan Buddhist, Indian Christian, Indian Muslims, Sikhs, and nearly every community in South Asia, it is a social phenomenon, treating it as a religious phenomenon, is only going to help those involved in excessive proselytization.
I would make a distinction here tho. Hinduism does not support caste based violence, but it supports the caste system, so the notion of people having a certain place in the world.
And while it is true that other religious groups from the region adopted that system and it is also true that you can find cases of people from lower castes holding or gathering positions of power and respect in hindu scriptures, i find this idea inherently harmful.
Likewise, a muslim can be the most loving, caring husband on the planet and live his life just to make his wife happy, but i still find it inherently harmful that quran teaches that the wife should obey the husband in certain aspects of their marriage.
Or generally that a christian thinks it is fine that every none christian will go to hell and suffer for ever.
BUt don't get me wrong, i agree that the social narrative is far more important than the religious texts.
I will also freely admit that i do not know much about all the different indian social groups (because honestly, there are quite a lot of them).
From the news coverage i got, there are many protests in terms of social fairness, women's issues and lately regarding the caste system.
But with modi in government, it feels difficult to hope for a big social change.
