We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Andrew Sullivan:
It strikes me that people with a secure sense of their own faith are often the least liable to get upset by parodies or comedies about it. Religions may deal in divine truths, but they are run by human beings. And the combination is often funny. True believers know that; and don’t care when they’re made fun of. Insecure believers – and they often need fundamentalism to keep their own souls untroubled by doubt – are the touchiest.
I am writing this in the wee island of Malta, a country which has one of the largest church attendances per head of any country in the world, from what I understand. (The Maltese have churches with the same frequency as golf courses in Florida). And yet the good-natured folk of this island strike me as taking pretty much the sort of robust attitude to their faith as Sully mentions. (Why are you blogging and not on the beach, Ed?)
And interestingly, his point applies just as forcefully to other, non-religious beliefs too. Humour can be a weapon but it is also a shield.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
That’s NOT funny!
Very good observation by Sully. It’s the same in every strand of life. Insecure people are the touchiest. And he’s correct to apply it to religions.
I hope you’re enjoying Malta, Jonathan and will write about it when you get back. I was contemplating living there before it joined the EU, and they threw up too many difficulties for foreigners wanting to buy property. It’s so tiny, they wanted to keep their real estate for the Maltese. Otherwise, I would have moved there.
This remiinds me of a light-hearted conversation I was having with a colleague celebrated for his high octane cerebral performance about MAD magazine’s movie satires. A third party present was horrified by our frivolity. She didn’t mind about me since I had no great reputation as an intellectual heavyweight but Charlie was another matter. I can’t believe quoth she that Charles reads MAD magazine. What would happen if that got around?
There in a nutshell is the inflexiblity of the you gotta be one thing or another crowd and why they can never admit that they are wrong about anything.
Yeah, why ARE you blogging instead of being at the beach?
How do you know he’s not blogging from the beach?
And do your remembrance to Faith, Hope and Charity 😉
Oh, and to Ohio too of course!
Is Muhammad himself the reason why Muslims have such a peculiar sense of humor?
Instead of being able to argue that Muhammad was a Messenger of God because he was all good, Muslims have no choice but to argue that exactly because Muhammad is the Messenger of God, he must have been all good. God would never choose just some dubious bloke hanging out in Mecca to deliver his final and perfect Message to mankind.
I guess that is why the historic person of Muhammad is a taboo in Islam. You cannot doubt the messenger and continue to trust his message.
People are not allowed to doubt or make fun of Muhammad because if they did, Muslims would start having second thoughts about him being the messenger of God
Ogden Nash once wrote an affectionate couplet:
How odd
Of God
To choose
The Jews.
But don’t you think it is really strange that Allah chose to dictate an entire book to an illiterate? He had to remember it all and re-dictate it to a scribe. Allah could have gone straight to the chase.
If you want to see religious fervour that rivals that of the islamists loonies, start a conversation on Intelligent Design with a Darwinist. It is loads of fun.
Julie Burchill said something similar a while back.
She being an ardent pro old Soviet union and very anti Islamist, you’d think she’d be an agnostic at the very least– but no It’s sticks and stones with her now.
You either believe or you don’t . No tariffs are incurred.
I wish I was there with you Johnathan. It would be warm, ney hot! It was in the 70’s last year when I was there in Feb.
The rest of us are freezing to death and losing at rugby!
Cheers to you and your lady (and your ladies relations- V important!)
Is it any wonder the Muslims are so touchy? Imagine if your prophet was among other things an illiterate thieving, pedophile and murderer.
Careful what you wish for
or Euan may be along in a moment!
In fairness, I’m not so convinced the quote is correct. From my experience, it’s comes across very much as an overgeneralization.
Most of those I’ve known who were what could be described as “secure” in their faith did so by screening themselves from information that would question it. They have the blythe, empty smile of the uncomplicated believer. Others are so convinced of its correctness that any criticism simply “bounces off” them.
The people I’ve seen who tend not to get so upset about parodies and such are those who take a very light hearted, easy going approach to their faith. They’re not so much secure in it as unconcerned.
I’ve found a stronger correlation between “secureness” and fundamentalism in general. In many ways, I think it’s more a personality thing than something that can be related to the security of one’s belief. Falwell and OBL are equally certain of their correctness, both secure in their correctness and righteousness. It’s differing personalities which means they both draw a line at different extremes.
“Darwinists” don’t blow up children or skyscrapers. And in convseration, they don’t talk about doing such things. And I somehow doubt anything they’ve said comes anywhere even close to what comes out of the mouths of even “moderate” Islamists. So in your rush to insult them, at least be fair (if accuracy is asking too much).
Let’s at least try and keep the perspective we accuse the left of not having, ok?
It’s this sort of silly statement that gets you perceived and not very, um… secure.
People always make the most noise about that which they have the most doubt. You really don’t hear too many people screaming about the sun coming up tomorrow.
James,
Maybe not blowing up buildings ….. yet….. but the hallmarks of mindless faith, superiority born of ignorance and shallow thinking are all there ready for exploitation by an OBL type with a PhD.
Richard Dawkins; “anyone who doesn’t believe in Evolution is evil” … umm, just replace Evolution with Islam.
Professors hounded, threatened, punished for stating the obvious; that Evolution and Creation are in the end, both faith based belief systems.
So many specific cases, so little space. Maybe not blowing up buildings and killing children, but the wimpy Western equivalent; slander, employment jeopordised and punishment for those who try to pursue facts to where ever they may lead.
As a scientist, I deal with facts. The challenge of science is to understand where fact ends and theory begins, and where theory ends and faith begins. (Big Bang theory anyone?) However Darwinists can be a dangerous lot in that supposed learned men, with Wahabbist zeal, have turned a scientific theory into a religion.
Muslims have no choice but to argue that exactly because Muhammad is the Messenger of God, he must have been all good. God would never choose just some dubious bloke hanging out in Mecca to deliver his final and perfect Message to mankind.
Remember, it was Muhammad who said that God said that God chose him to be the prophet.
I agree with James. I don’t think the quote is accurate, its simply what the politically correct West would like to believe.
In many cases it may be true that doubters become extremists, but its also true that people with an unquestioningly strong belief will fight to the death for the religion without any doubts at all, they really believe they are following Gods will and they are going to heaven.
Verity, RAB: thanks for your kind words. Actually, Malta is still v. desirable as a place to live despite the EU membership, which has yet to really exert a baleful influence. I would not be on the beach now, since the Med. has not really warmed up yet and it is pretty windy.
I’ll blog something longer about Malta and developments here in a day or so. One of the big issues here right now are illegals streaming over from North Africa. It is a major political flashpoint right now.
Verity, I would still give the idea of living in Malta a whirl. The locals are great.
Verity: Forgotten, maybe, is A.P.Herbert’s(?) riposte to Nash’s gem……………
“Oh no it’s not;
He knows what’s what.”
As a scientist, I deal with facts. The challenge of science is to understand where fact ends and theory begins, and where theory ends and faith begins. (Big Bang theory anyone?) However Darwinists can be a dangerous lot in that supposed learned men, with Wahabbist zeal, have turned a scientific theory into a religion.
I am jolly glad to hear you deal with facts. If that is so, then Intelligent Design would probably not last very long as a credible idea, then. Darwinian ideas are testable, which is why it is unfair to accuse it of being a religion. That is a silly debating tactic.
Dawkins can be pretty rude to the ID crowd, but then he probably smells ID for what it is.
… Darwinian ideas are testable ….
Oh really? What ones? Read any interview with one of the evolution illuminati and see how artfully they dodge the question of how the first organised, self replicating single cell organism came about. This is one of many cases where evolution rests on faith.
Evolution made emminent sense in the 19th century when the spectacular complexity of the simplest biologic structures or processes could not be perceived. The learning and advances in the last century have put evolution on a shaky foundation. Darwin himself in “Origins of Species” states in effect that future advances in science could prove his theory incorrect.
In the Middle Ages, the evil Catholic Church funded most scientific research in the belief that all knowledge had been made accessable to man if he were to seek it. At that time it was “settled science” that the sun revolved around the earth. Therefore it was considered that Da Vinci had ripped them off when he used their funds to make the preposterous claim that earth orbited the sun. The same is true today, evolution has long been considered settled science. How ever it has not been able to keep up with the rapid learning in science. As such, it has now become a religion to those who have made careers and won awards as it’s advocates. So what of ID? It is interesting because it provides an avenue to get past the scientific limitations of evolution. The fact that some people want to ascribe the intelligent agent as their particular God or gods is of no interest to me.
So in the end, Dr. Dawkins is like so many scientists of the past who for either good or suspect reasons, clung to what he had devoted his career to. And like those who proceded, cannot discern fact from theory from faith.
With respect to O. Nash for this mangling:
Failyah
Of Allah
To pick
The sick
permanent expat: oh, that’s great! Funny! Thanks!
“It strikes me that people with a secure sense of their faith are often the least liable to get upset by parodies or comedies about it” … Andrew Sullivan
… watcher in the dark… Tag! Your it!
“And like those who proceded, cannot discern fact from theory from faith.”
Frankly, stating that faith is the next logical “step” (for lack of a better word this early in the morning), after theory is just wrong.
For me it would be – fact, theory,.. unknown or untested. (with perhaps “hypothesis” thrown in there after theory for good measure…
Faith isn’t a level of scientific inquiry as I understand it.
Tell your master that this is the only territory that I will give him. There lies the land which he may have for his own – provided only that he fills it with the bodies of his Janissaries.
— Jean Parisot de la Valette, Grand Master of the Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta, referring to the ditch in front of the fortifications of Birgu. 30 June 1565
Good thing for the West that someone on Malta
got all rigid and inflexible about religion 450 years ago…