Islamophobia

Elsewhere a mention of the word “islamophobia” was criticised as being political and not belonging elsewhere in these forums. Thus I bring it here.

Rick responded with a well-measured response as follows:

Not to mention the complicated and often overlooked distinction that Islam (their interpretation) is one of the main reasons terrorists do what they do, but this absolutely does not equate to meaning that everybody who believes in Islam is a terrorist. Labels are easy. Thinking is the hard part. Finding solutions? Damn near impossible… :-(

Wikipedia says:

Islamophobia is defined as “Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims”.

I would add that, for me, the “phobia” bit implies that it is irrational. That is not to say that one cannot see how and why it has arisen, but it is logically irrational in this case, as Rick points out, because “some” is not the same as “all”.

Also the idea of state secularism was mentioned. I have always been non-plussed by the US constitution, modelled on the French Republic constitution at the Declaration of Independence, allowing their currency to bear the motto “In God we trust”. I don’t quite see how that is “secular”.

But there are many other things about the US constitution I don’t follow as well, like the inalienability of the right to bear arms.

Again I see why it arose, but regard it as as irrational as a phobia in present times.

Now I was unable to follow the logic of the complainant’s post, but have started this thread to provide an opportunity to try and get some clarification.

Spot on, Rick & John! Hear, hear!

http://clive.semmens.org.uk/Politics.php?Demons

In the wrong place Rick said:

so “argh Islam!” isn’t a useful response…

Who expects useful responses in a dispute between blinkered belief systems?

and John:

Again I see why it arose, but regard it as as irrational as a phobia in present times.

Irrational as a Muslim fearing a Muslim more than they fear a Christian. (A comment that came from a Muslim I met a few weeks ago)

Now I was unable to follow the logic of the complainant’s post, but have started this thread to provide an opportunity to try and get some clarification.

Just a personal belief¹ but in general you take the statements from a goodly number of people professing to be of the Islamic faith, Christian faith, Jewish faith, atheist faith² plus all the rest, and you fail to find logic in their general pronouncements that “they” (“they” being the others not like “me”) are so wrong they should be insert various punishment actions here before “they” ruin the area, country, world.

¹ While it’s purely personal the view does have a large amount of evidence to support the theory that the “faith” people are frequently a few twigs short of the full bundle. That of course leads us to point 2.
²Right, can anyone provide a decent set of evidence to demonstrate that “atheists” like Dawkins aren’t actually a faith group believing in the absence of something? After all the absence of evidence for is not evidence against, it is merely a failure to find something.
One side believes without incontrovertible evidence that something definitely exists and the other believes as an act of faith that it does not. Neither can provide a solid case.

If Islamophobia is defined as ‘being against people who are muslim’, then I’m 100% against it.
At the same time, I’m quite wary of Islam the religion. I think there are legitimate issues that probably could do with being discussed seriously.

It’s a shame that criticisms of a religion often end up being taken as criticisms of people in that religion.

It’s also a shame that in some cases, the people who do bring up the issues are sometimes genuinely xenophobic or racist, like the BNP for example. Then it’s harder to try to discuss the issues, because then if you try, people start to think ‘are you one of those racists too?’. I think this might be part of what Xavier was referring to in his post.

To be clear, I didn’t mean any offense to anyone with anything I said, and I have nothing against people who are muslim. I judge people by their actions and character, and I’ve known plenty of muslim people who were really good people. I just think there may be a legitimate case for criticising Islam, the religion itself.

Right, can anyone provide a decent set of evidence to demonstrate that “atheists” like Dawkins aren’t actually a faith group believing in the absence of something?

I think you might misunderstand the position of most atheists. It seems to me that most atheists would fit the ‘agnostic atheist’ category. Nobody claims to know for absolute certain that there’s definitely no god.
I’ve seen it explained in this way: consider a ridiculous but impossible to disprove claim, like “there’s a RISC PC in the centre of the moon”. You probably wouldn’t believe this claim, but you can’t go to the centre of the moon to verify it. I don’t think it’d be fair to say that you’re part of a faith group that believes in the absence of the RISC PC in the moon. I don’t mean to be rude by saying this.

I’m quite wary of Islam the religion.

I’m quite wary of most religions, but not of most religious people. I’m very wary of fanatics, whatever religion they claim to adhere to – and there are plenty of them in most religions (even Buddhism, which I used to think was “safe”), but a fairly small minority in all of them.

Plenty of “Christian” fanatics (I put the quotation marks in in deference to the sensitivities of decent Christians); plenty of “Muslim” fanatics (well, if “Christian” fanatics need quotes, so do “Muslim” ones), plenty of “Jewish” fanatics (and it’s not antisemitic to say so), plenty of “Hindu” and “Buddhist” fanatics, too. All of them nasty and dangerous.

I’ve never met a violent Jain.

I like your final para, Patrick. Pastafarianism, anyone? Chocolate teapot in orbit between the orbits of Earth and Mars?

Neither can provide a solid case.

I think this falls into the realm of Russell’s teapot.

Nobody claims to know for absolute certain that there’s definitely no god.

Dawkins certainly seems certain. Again, the teapot.

But that aside, to disbelieve in a masterful creator (or however one might wish to describe their preferred definition of God) is a lot easier than to believe it him/her/it. Why? Because the attributes often cited for such an entity are extremely fantastical and are presented with exactly zero first hand evidence. There are plenty of anecdotes, but even as “friend of a friend” style stories, they sound flimsy. Yet men (not angels, just regular humans) make all sorts of promises regarding eternity and the afterlife and so on. Funny that nobody comes back to say how lovely it is, it’s almost as if the first thing God does is get you to sign an NDA.

There comes a point when logical analysis breaks down, and such frequently given arguments of “but you cannot disprove” are simply rubbish. You, and I mean you cannot disprove the fairies that are hovering around the bottom of my garden and annoying the cat. Conveniently they are invisible to cameras. Therefore they must be true.

Or, to the example of the RiscPC in the moon. There is no such thing. I have not been to the moon to check, but there is an overwhelming amount of basic logic to state that such a thing cannot be – the Moon was formed well before RiscPCs existed, the last lunar visitation was prior to then, mankind has not managed to dig a hole down to the centre, and all of that aside, every fool knows the moon is made of cheese, so the middle is they yummy melty bit like you get in pizza crust. Duh.

Nobody claims to know for absolute certain that there’s definitely no god.

Now that’s where you are wrong. I mentioned Richard Dawkins because he regularly makes the claim to be “a scientist” and “believes that god does not exist because there is no scientific proof of the existence of god”
He completely fails to see that a true scientist would simply note that the theory was unproven since there was no evidence for or against the theory. The true scientist seeks clarification.

I don’t think it’d be fair to say that you’re part of a faith group that believes in the absence of the RISC PC in the moon.

Belief of either side without proof is simply faith. A true scientist would be agnostic since they have not seen proof of either case. In the case of a RISC PC in or on the moon we all have to say that it is unlikely, but not impossible.

Returning to the core item for the thread, both sides display strong xenophobic traits.
In similar vein but only involving “christians” I was frankly both amazed and saddened when I met a catholic fresh across from Ulster a few years ago. His ingrained belief that we “proddies” in the hospital social club were likely to lynch him and his cousin (who worked on the hospital site) simply because they were catholic was a true eye-opener.

You, and I mean you cannot disprove the fairies that are hovering around the bottom of my garden and annoying the cat. Conveniently they are invisible to cameras. Therefore they must be true.

Unlikely, but without proof either way you have to go with the scientific statement that the theory is unproven.

Or, to the example of the RiscPC in the moon. There is no such thing. I have not been to the moon to check, but there is an overwhelming amount of basic logic to state that such a thing cannot is extremely unlikely to be

Small accuracy adjustment made.

Now that’s where you are wrong. I mentioned Richard Dawkins because he regularly makes the claim to be “a scientist” and “believes that god does not exist because there is no scientific proof of the existence of god”
bq. He completely fails to see that a true scientist would simply note that the theory was unproven since there was no evidence for or against the theory. The true scientist seeks clarification.

In this case ‘theory’ is probably the wrong word, ‘hypothesis’ is probably more correct.
I think it’s fair enough to reject a hypothesis that seems highly unlikely. I also think that Richard Dawkins and others like him would readily change their minds if good evidence for the existence of a god became available.

Unlikely, but without proof either way you have to go with the scientific statement that the theory is unproven.

While I would say that is true of many theories in the realm of science, there does come a point where you really have to go with the statement that the theory is bullsh*t.

Or shall we start discussing Greys, vampires, and zombies (using the current pop culture definitions of each)?

Things went badly downhill when monotheism became fashionable. If you have lots of gods then you are more likely to err on the side of caution because your enemy’s gods may have some influence; they may even be your own, under a different name. I like the attitude of the ancient Hittites who welcomed alien deities and boasted that their land was home to a thousand deities. Without science you have to make do with superstition, so it might as well be used in an amicable and constructive way.

The Save button needs reprogramming so that it does not function until previous saves have completed.

Sadly, Hinduism is plagued with as many violent fanatics as any other religion, despite having a plethora of gods.

I also think that Richard Dawkins and others like him would readily change their minds if good evidence for the existence of a god became available.

I suspect the only evidence he would be likely to accept is said deity doing something terminal to him. Anything less and he would be prattling on about stage magicians etc.

While I would say that is true of many theories in the realm of science, there does come a point where you really have to go with the statement that the theory is bullsh*t.

Nah, the extremity of extremely unlikely just needs to be properly defined.
I’m guessing probability wasn’t in the maths lessons you did.

True. Fear of pollution seems to be a common negative thread in many religions. Did you see a series of programmes on TV a few years ago in which the vicar of Firle tried out a few religions, for comparison? Quite brave, really. I asked Geoff Daw, our Rural Dean, what the bishop of Chichester thought of these goings on in his diocese. Oh, nobody has told him about them he said. I got my innoculations against belief at school. A few years ago the chaplain told the congregation that he had just received an email from a boy asking to be excused from attending chapel on the grounds that he had become a satanist. It shows initiative, anyway.

they may even be your own, under a different name.

I thought that the same is true for Jehovah/God/Allah as they are all variants of the Abrahamic faiths. Even within one ‘faith’ there are multiple sects or flavours who all hate each other, or at least gang up together against some of the smaller, weedier ones. I’ve got no problem with someone having a genuine self-obtained faith, but I’m fully against the indoctrination that goes on, whether it’s religion, race, nationality or sports team.

Richard Dawkins and others like him would readily change their minds if good evidence for the existence of a god became available.

All things in existence are subject to the conditions of existence which involve arising, enduring, declining, etc., having some sort of materiality, etc.. ‘God(s)’ is/are not subject to these conditions (by definition, I think) and therefore, there can never be /any/ evidence (in the sense that would be acceptable to a scientist) for his/her/their existence. In fact (by definition, I think) such entities (if we can call them that) cannot EXIST. They are therefore, not proper subjects for scientific investigation. However, one might like to consider what the factual attributes of a quality -
like love, or goodness, for example possess, and therefore, how “real” they are. Maybe language is inadequate here?

All things in existence are subject to the conditions of existence which involve arising, enduring, declining, etc., having some sort of materiality, etc.

That’s one theory the rest of what you said is based on that first bit being the one truth and since there is at least one other theory for the existence and duration of the universe you aren’t stating fact you’re flipping a coin on being right or wrong.
Many moons ago I asked a professor a question about something he’d just made use of in an equation.
After filling numerous blackboard spaces with equation upon equation and fill out explanation he pointed out that the final result was approximately the same as the term he had originally used and that was “near enough for normal use” i.e. it was a (not very)rough guess. You’re basing things on what one group of people have guessed.

God(s)’ is/are not subject to these conditions (by definition, I think)

Again just a guess, Some would conjecture that perhaps gods are what we make them – just as good a guess.

They are therefore, not proper subjects for scientific investigation.

Everything is the proper subject of investigation with scientific rigor. Whether such investigation will produce any useful result would only be known afterward.
Please note that what many people claim to be scientific endeavour is merely their normal method wrapped in a pretty skin. Some people investigate, some set out to prove that they are right (or someone else is wrong).
The scientific method is to observe, theorise and observe to see if the repeatable events fit the theory. Dawkins theorises, then states because he hasn’t observed anything disproving his theory that it is fact when it’s actually just inconclusive.

Steve, would you say it would be reasonable for someone to say ‘it can’t be proved or disproved either way, but I personally don’t believe in a god becsuse it seems very unlikely’? Also, do you believe in a god yourself? I’m just asking out of interest and to understand your position.

Steve, would you say it would be reasonable for someone to say ‘it can’t be proved or disproved either way, but I personally don’t believe in a god becsuse it seems very unlikely’?

That’s summed up as “agnostic”

Also, do you believe in a god yourself? I’m just asking out of interest and to understand your position.

I actually follow the same line as my father and state that such things are a matter for the individual.
People can take that as belief or non-belief, with each individual forming their own personal and private opinion of me.

Belief <> Knowledge. There is no problem for a scientist to say “I believe that aliens exists”, even with no facts to prove it, or not even a theory. The problem with religions is not to believe, but when someone say “what I believe is the truth”.

Once this point understood, you can explain why some ‘top’ scientists are strong believers. They are so closed to unexplained things that they have sometimes a very strong faith. But they (normally) know that faith is not facts.

Deists must not be ignored too. Religions use stories a bit naive from a modern point of view. People with high level of education tend to see all of this as fairy tales. But there are other individual ways to believe in god.

Sorry for the bad level of English. I’m better with technical subjects :)

I have never understood what belief is. If someone asks me whether I believe in Santa Claus, or in anything else, I am at a loss how to answer, because neither yes nor no is a truthful answer. We are all in the process of finding out about ourselves and the rest of the world, but the conclusions that I have reached are temporary, mostly unsatisfactory, and not the business of anyone but myself. My beliefs, if any, vary with the contents of my stomach. Perhaps I should say that I have not understood what people mean by belief , and often, I believe , that they do not either.

Oh dear!
Why does the server keep putting my drivel up twice ? Is it key-bounce?

That’s summed up as “agnostic”

On that basis, I am agnostic about absolutely everything. On the particular question of the existence or otherwise of God (or gods), where on the agnostic scale from reckoning it as extremely probable to thinking it extremely unlikely I’d place myself, that depends on how God is defined. I’ve rarely heard any definition of God that I can even make head or tail of, which doesn’t help.

such things are a matter for the individual

As long as belief doesn’t have bad practical consequences, I’m 100% in agreement with that. But see http://clive.semmens.org.uk/Opinion.php?Religion

All things in existence are subject to the conditions of existence which involve arising, enduring, declining, etc., having some sort of materiality, etc.

That’s one theory

There’s nothing theoretical in there: it follows from the definitions of exist, existence, and science. What is existence? What do we mean when we say that something exists? And science – what is it and what is its domain?