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 – yes, lapsed atheism is a thing First, it was clear to me that to attempt to challenge Islamic extremism with facts and logic as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris had done was to fail on purpose. Despite their efforts, most of the Western world today operates under de facto blasphemy laws which are enforced not by religious activists lobbying for censorship but by knife-wielding fanatics and suicide bombers.
The liberalism that the new atheists so enthusiastically espoused, the idea that we should be free to criticise, mock and satirise anything, including religion, only works when the Government is willing to protect you from the consequences. In seeking to liberate us from the tyrannical instincts of dogmatic Christians, the new atheists delivered us into the hands of a different and far more pernicious religious zealotry from which the ordinary citizen has no security at all.
– Konstantin Kisin
|
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.
|
First: the government can’t protect you from a suicide zealot. If the threat is direct action terror, the solution is an armed citizenry. Second: the present lack of a successful cultural movement/meme promulgating a positive rational moral framework for life (e.g., Rand’s lack of understanding of human nature doomed her attempt) is not a proof that such cannot exist. Fourth: have a happy 4th!
Er, it’s not only “new atheists” who espouse it. I suppose the christians who can’t bend over fast enough must be “new christians”.
Kisin is delusional, here:
Mr. Kisin thinks that the forebearance demonstrated by Christianity for its detractors and satirists stems from the government keeping said Christians in line and subservient to the mores of civil society. Not so much; the real deal is that the current ennervated state of Christianity, combined with the newly-traditional apathetic attitude of most Christians towards anyone not espousing their beliefs creates the situation we have where you can produce art mocking Christ and yet fear Muslim reaction to any denigration of their faith.
This is a state of affairs that has nothing to do with government, and all to do with the state of belief in the Christian community. If that changes under pressure, then you’ll see the “good old days” of heretic burnings come back. Government ain’t got squat to do with it. Government can’t protect you from the mob any more than it can protect itself from that mob.
Don’t expect the current state of affairs to last, either. One of two paths will follow; either Islam gets a ton of converts and becomes dominant, or the Christians are going to stop being so damn apathetic and will begin copying the tactics of Islam. I’d exercise some caution, were I a militant atheist or heretic, because it ain’t outside the realm of historical experience that Christians ran some rather nasty pogroms and heretic burnings. Anyone recall the Cathars…? The Huguenots, of France?
Yeah. If I could speak to the recent migrants into France, I would have to urge caution upon them. It ain’t at all outside the realm of possibility that the heretofore pliant French might turn on a dime and begin doing what they’re historically known for, which would be things like the Vendee. I’d also point out that if the French are willing to have done those things to fellow Frenchmen and neighbors, all y’all who’re recent migrants might find that they’re even less inhibited dealing with you…
To me it seems that Kisin goes a long way down the right track, but misses an important milestone towards its end. When faced with Dawkins’s emolience on the Marxian solution of religious belief as an opiate, he (Kisin) does not explicitly recognise that the reason that things cannot be left there is that the contrast between those who are left in a state of dependency on the opiate and those who live their lives cold-turkey is precisely Leo Strauss’s distinction between the masses and the philosphers which is itself an intolerable offence against a moral(ised) norm of egalitarianism.
Is anyone actually a ‘new atheist’ these days?
The above quote from Kisin is debatable.
Stalin and Hitler weren’t motivated to kill millions by religious differences (Hitler seems to have been an agnostic … like yours truly); but they _were_ motivated by philosophical differences.
The plain fact is, neither atheism nor agnosticism offer a moral philosophy. In this sense, Kisin is partially correct: in the absence of a religion (and contra Kisin, not all religions are theistic), we can adopt whatever ethics we like. Or just drift into some sort of naive hedonism — which is still much better than Hitler and Stalin.
(I myself am some sort of moral intuitionist.)
Kisin badly needs to read Locke’s second Treatise of Government. There, he will find a much older articulation of the concept of natural rights — and he will also find that this concept is of obvious biblical inspiration. (There might have been others before Locke.)
Myno:
No, that is not a proof, but there are other proofs.
For instance, there is Hume’s is/ought dichotomy (if understood properly, i.e. NOT the way Paul Marks understands it).
Proceeding chronologically, there is G.E. Moore.
And then there is Popper’s argument for the autonomy of ethics (in chapter 5 of The Open Society).
I would argue that Kisin is entirely wrong in his premises, vis-a-vis Stalin and Hitler not being motivated by religious beliefs.
Both of those idiots substituted political beliefs for religious ones, and then followed them just as fervently in order to attain power. Stalin could just as comfortably and easily cast himself as a religiously-motivated character like any of the other despots that adopted religion as an excuse elsewhere in history. All that Communism was to Stalin was an irrational belief system he could buy into, same as Hitler with his whacky racial and state socialist ideas.
There’s a fundamental similarity between all of these things that you have to be able to make out before you can understand them. When you’re talking to the adherents of the belief system, whenever they stand there and piously mouth the cant, obviously not paying attention to the inherent contradictions? You’ve got a believer, there. It’s a syndrome; a separate thing from the belief system itself. It’s one thing to say “Yeah, I’m Christian/Moslem/Communist…”, and leave it at that. You’re espousing a belief system, one that you’re not necessarily welded to. If you can be presented with evidence that you’ll process and accept, in contrary to your belief system? You’re not a “true believer”, a lockstepped mindless minion. The folks that threw the Cathars into the pyres were such creatures, as were many of Stalin’s Communist apparatchiks. Today’s Islamic fervor is fed by such true believers, and they’re all essentially alike, under the skin.
To say that Stalin and Hitler weren’t religiously motivated is to ignore the common underlying core of “true belief” that motivated them. Either of them could have as easily been another “Great Crusader”, and might well have been such in a different age.
Anyone who has ever tried talking to these lockstep lunatics that “BELIEVE!!!!” in Marxism or any of the other BS will recognize the inherent similarity between them and the supposedly archaic and outdated fervent adherents of religiousity. All that’s really changed is what they’re screaming as they throw their fellow human beings onto the pyres, and what they use as justifications. Stalin blamed the kulaks; his predecessors blamed the Jews, or other supposed apostates.
Key thing? When you find these cretins mindlessly mouthing the words, willing to kill? Get out of their way, and ensure that they are kept far, far away from any political power. They’ll kill you for their beliefs, and if they get at the levers of state, they’ll use that against you. All of you, in the end.
Until the madness runs out, that is. Then, everyone stands around and agrees how awful it all was, during the purge of the Cathars and the Holodomor…
From his post:
Who says there is any meaning or purpose in life (aside from the biologic urge to procreate and spread our genes)? I’m an atheist and I’m perfectly content in not having a meaning or purpose or programming that I am supposed to fulfil. I’m born, I live, I do stuff, I die. My atoms and energy are recycled until they are gobbled up by black holes which eventually evaporate and that’s that. As it is, I’m a philosophical pessimist and think self-awareness is a raw deal, but I’m making the best of it as I can.
I don’t need purpose or meaning, thank you very much.
@Steven R
I don’t need purpose or meaning, thank you very much.
That might be true for you Steven, but it isn’t true for most people, and I think that is the essence of the problem KK is talking about here. Religion seems to fulfill a need in people and in its absence it leaves a hole that is difficult for many people to fill. (BTW the question of whether that religious inclination is nature or nurture is a useful question, and I don’t really know one way or the other.)
So in the absence of some of the things religion provides to people all sorts of mischief can arise, often quite destructive. Often government co-opts this “religious” hole to their own advantage, but even if they don’t people find something to put in there, and that something can be quite scary. There is a conservative argument for sticking with what works, even if it isn’t true.
It comes down the the simple truth that most people don’t believe what they believe for logical reasons, but rather because whatever belief set they have is the one most convenient to the advancement of their lives. I have heard it say (probably by Dawkins) how shocking it is that more than half of Americans think the earth is very young. And it is shocking. But from another perspective it isn’t. From a purely cost/benefit analysis there is a good reason for many people to think that way. Religion offers people a lot — a purpose and meaning, deep social connections, a clear and unambiguous moral structure to live by, comfort for those who have lost loved ones to death, hope for after their own death, prayer — which gives them the ability to “do something” even when they can do nothing, and many other things.
That is a lot of stuff in the pro column. The price of entry is to believe silly things like the earth is 6000 years old. But what is the downside to that? It doesn’t impact your life at all. Perhaps the risk of mockery by strangers, but they are easy to dismiss as “not knowing the truth”.
So from a purely cost benefit analysis, in many situations in the US believing such things is a net positive.
So, I don’t know the answer to KK’s question. Reality sucks and sometimes living in a bit of a delusion can be comforting and useful. I’ll often say I am an atheist, just not an evangelical atheist. Taking away a person’s religious faith is a life trauma of epic proportions, and you’d sure have to have a pretty good reason to do that to someone. In group which is focused on intellectual pursuits and logical honesty like the denizens here, I think it is a different matter, but I think kindness demands caution, and at the very least a slow accommodating pace.
He is saying lack of forbearance demonstrated by Muslims for their detractors and satirists stem from the government not keeping said Muslims in line and subservient to the mores of civil society. That is the ‘de facto blasphemy law’ he is referring to.
Perry, the “government”, as ever, is mute in the face of these things. They either took part in, or ignored the activities of the Klan here in the US, and they signally ignored or supported those things I’d term similar in the UK, like the unconscionable “White Feather” movement during WWI.
Government is the laziest entity on the face of the Earth; if they can get by with doing nothing, then they’ll do nothing. If Christians were up in arms assassinating and bombing, I guarantee you that they’d get the same or better consideration than the Muslims. Because they’re well-mannered, they aren’t respected.
That worm will likely be changing here, thanks to the inert tacit approval that the “powers that be” display for Islam. The people running the government have signally failed to actually learn anything from all those history courses they sat through in their carefully curated university courses, and they won’t see what is coming until it is battering down their doors.
Martin: I am not a “new atheist,” whatever that is. I’ve been an atheist since the 1950s, before any of that group had published anything.
It seems to me that there are at least four varieties of unbelief: weak agnosticism, or “I don’t know whether there is a God or not”; strong agnosticism, or “it’s not possible to know whether there is a God or not”; weak atheism, or “our current knowledge does not show that there is a God”; and strong atheism, or “it is not possible that there is a God.” Dawkins et al. seem to be weak atheists, from what I’ve seen of their writings. I’m a strong atheist and find their positions unsatisfactory.
Yes, it is NOT Muslims who, in general, prevent serious criticism of Islam in the West – it is the Western establishment (government and corporate) who do so.
For example, “Central Office” did not care about 80 people (eighty people) being deliberately crushed to death by the driver of a lorry in Nice (France) – but they took great exception to a Facebook post of mine where I mentioned the event and why the driver did what he did. And NO, I did not use any rude language or anything like that.
It is not rude language that the Western establishment object to – what they object to is any real criticism of Muhammed, his life or his teachings. Including criticism that in no way denies that Muhammed was a military and political leader of genius – which he was.
The Western establishment do not even seem to know that Muslims do NOT hold that Muhammed was God (he is held to have been a mortal man) – and the Western establishment also seem to think that Muhammed was a “person of colour” and so criticism of him is somehow “racist” – when all the sources agree that Muhammed was a pale man (indeed he said some unfortunate things about persons of colour).
There are also bizarre contradictions in the Western establishment – for example it is obsessed with promoting homosexual acts (not just allowing them, and I AGREE that they should be legal, but actively promoting them, including to children), but it is also obsessed with preventing any real criticism of Islamic teachings – in spite of these teachings, this Islamic jurisprudence, holding that homosexual acts are crimes. “Kill the one who does it, and kill the one to which it is done” as Muhammed is said to have put it – the reliability of this hadith can be disputed, but all the Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence are agreed that homosexual acts are crimes. Yet the Western establishment does not denounce this position – instead it denounces people who point it out (“cover up everything”, “pretend there are no contradictions in our “Woke” position” being the mantra of the Western establishment).
A society with an establishment like this is unlikely to survive – and, it could be argued, does not deserve to survive.
And, it must be stressed, that this is the Western establishment – NOT Muslims.
Even Konstantin Kisin uses the term “Islamic extremism” – what is the word “extremism” for? Is there great doubt about the basic facts of the life (the deeds – what he did) and teachings of Muhammed? Surely one either agrees or disagrees with what he did and what he taught – and Muhammed had a word for people who claimed to be Muslims yet did not agree with his deeds and his teachings, he called them “hypocrites” and held that they should be punished.
As for France….
It is interesting how the left have turned on a country that has, at least in recent decades (not in the 19th century – when France had a much more limited government, no Poor Law Tax, no Income Tax, and so on), been held up a model of Progressive policy.
For example, Mr Owen Jones has denounced France for not following “multi culturalism” – for trying to ignore differences of race and religion. The moral bankruptcy of the left is complete – the left used to hold that such differences should be ignored, now they denounce France for trying to ignore them.
Indeed France, or rather the French government, went further – in defiance of Freedom of Speech (but then the “liberty” in “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” was NOT meant seriously during the French Revolution – as anyone who voiced a dissenting opinion soon found out) the French government tried to suppress any opinion that a growing non French population in France might be a problem “they are French – because they are born in France” was the only permitted opinion – in short the French government made expressing the opinions of Charles De Gaulle (who held a very different view) a “crime”.
It is interesting to note that Charles De Gaulle and Winston Churchill were the most famous ANTI Nazis – but today the opinions of these two men would be called “Nazi” and they would be persecuted.
When actually asked most of the people concerned (concerned in the recent unfortunate events), born in France, say they are “Algerians” or just “Muslims” (who can be from many lands in their ancestry) – rather than primarily French. But the French government never arrested them for saying this about themselves – only other people for saying it about them. And the left, who were so happy to chant “French out of Algeria” (the Progressive chant of some 60 years ago) – in spite of the French people concerned being born in Algeria and their families being there for generations, would demand the prosecution of anyone who dared say “Algerians out of France”.
It must be stressed that the main factor is no longer “immigration” it is natural increase (the difference in fertility rates) – but discussing this is, basically, unlawful in France, in spite of the old French saying “demography is destiny”.
Charles De Gaulle was in office in France till 1969 – but it is not just his opinion on ethnic matters (that it was possible for someone not of French “blood” to become French – but only if that person made a great personal effort to immerse themselves in French history and culture) that would be criminal today, essentially all his opinions would be persecuted.
His view on national independence – on making sure that the European Economic Community did NOT become a “European Union” as it is today, his opinions on such things as abortion and homosexual acts (ironically his opinions were, at least in part, closer to that of Islam than to the modern West), even his opinion on monetary policy (the need for a link to gold).
William:
Not sure that this is the correct distinction: surely, someone who does not know something of such import, would be keen to find out. The only reason people do not try to find out, must be that somehow it is not possible to find out — at least for now.
But surely, if all what someone can say about the matter is that currently there is no evidence for God, then this someone is not an atheist but an agnostic. And in fact Dawkins did say at least once that he is agnostic, in the sense that he believes that there is a very small but nonzero probability that God exists; though how he could calculate such a probability is not clear to me.
As for strong atheism: it is a metaphysical position, neither verifiable nor falsifiable, and i make it a principle to avoid metaphysics when possible. (Agnosticism is an epistemological position.)
That does not mean, however, that i do not take a position on specific religious beliefs.
My view is that “God” does not tell us much about reality, meaning it is not a good explanatory theory. Does that make me an atheist? Agnostic? Dunno.
Jesus never said that atheists should be punished – Jesus was never an Earthly ruler (he was never “in charge” – “my Kingdom is not of this world”) so he did not have to lay out what the detailed law was on X,Y,Z.
But Muhammed was rather clear on the matter – as he was clear on many matters, being a political leader (a ruler) and a law-giver (or law deliver). Islam is not “just” a religion – it is a system of law, that must not be forgotten. And the laws of Islam may-not-be-changed – this is because Muhammed clearly stated that he was not making things up himself, he was delivering the law of God, which no man (or group) could change.
Snorri: Well, no, I disagree.
If a theory’s assertions are self-contradictory, then that theory might be described as “neither verifiable nor falsifiable,” because any observation whatever is compatible with a logically contradictory theory. But to assert such a theory’s truth is to “assert” nothing. Any claim it makes as to the existence of any entity can be rejected out of hand.
I will stipulate that it’s a metaphysical position to say that reality must be logical. In fact it’s an aspect of hylomorphism, Aristotle’s principle of the necessary unity of matter and form, with logic as the form of reality. But on this, I think that Aristotle was right and Hume was wrong. If Hume wishes to consider logical as no more than the tautological manipulation of symbol strings, he can do so, but the price is that those symbol strings, including his own philosophy, can tell us nothing about reality, and can be disregarded.
(In his history of economic analysis, Joseph Schumpeter wrote that in one sense, the Thomist who believes in a rationally provable God and the atheist who believes in a rationally disprovable one are more akin to each other than either is to the agnostic who believes we cannot know such things, or cannot be certain about them—whether the agnostic goes on to accept God on pure faith, or to refrain from doing so.)
While Jesus was not an Earthly ruler, he supported the Torah, and the commandments were against homosexuality. (Leviticus 18, verse 22. Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination.)
@Snorri Godhi
But surely, if all what someone can say about the matter is that currently there is no evidence for God, then this someone is not an atheist but an agnostic.
There is currently no evidence that Saturn’s moon, Titan, has a branch of Walmart, does that mean we should be agnostic on the matter or expend energy on finding out if it is true? In the realm of very, very, …, very unlikely (for some large number of “very”s) one eventually moves from the skeptic to the pedant to the ridiculous to the absurd. And when we get to that point we instead just say “not true”.
It is in this hyper-skeptical, pedantic way that Dawkins (and famously Bertrand Russell before him) called themselves agnostics. Though they both avoid doing so in public, preferring the term atheist, lest people say “Aha!! so there is a chance there is a God, and that Jesus died for your sins!”. Perhaps yes, in the same way there is a chance that the movie “Thor” is a documentary and not entertainment.
should we also be agnostic about Odin, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva or Na-maka-o-Kaha’i?
Certainly not about Odin: He exists; and so do Thor, Frey, and other Asgardians.
As for the others, i am agnostic.
Ah, but in this case we can in fact estimate a probability, you see…
(Although nobody would waste time computing an exact probability.)
Besides, the answer is of no practical interest.
Perry:
That is an important point in (at least) 2 ways.
First, assuming that we are talking about a “generic” God (for instance, a programmer in whose computer simulation we live): that does not tell anything about the universe, or about the afterlife, if any. But if it is fleshed out to become eg Judaism or Christianity or Islam, then it can become an explanatory theory of sorts.
Second, assuming that it is fleshed out: such an explanatory theory can become an obstacle to inquiry. An astronomer cannot assume that the motions of the planets are controlled by God. A biologist cannot assume creationism. A neuroscientist cannot assume an immaterial soul — at least, not at the present state of knowledge.
Related to my reply to Perry, a further reply to Fraser:
That there is a God, does not imply the whole of Christianity. In particular, it does not imply that Jesus was more than human.
Apologies for going on, but i might as well address William’s reply, too. He too makes good points.
I should have clarified that i referred to theories that are neither self-contradictory nor analytic (whose negation is self-contradictory).
But in fact, a self-contradictory theory is both verifiable and falsifiable, because it predicts everything and its opposite 🙂
I don’t think so — but i will stipulate that the following are metaphysical propositions that i accept as safe one-way bets:
* One cannot arrive at false conclusions from true premises using logic.
* Reality must be assumed to exist and be computable.
PS: but i agree with Schumpeter.
To follow up on Snorti’s point, as a professor once told me, “you can’t put God in an equation”.
@William H. Stoddard
I will stipulate that it’s a metaphysical position to say that reality must be logical.
Is it? I wonder if this is a question of causation. Is reality governed by logic, or is logic defined to correspond with what we see in reality — to some level of approximation, anyway? Do the laws of physics govern the universe, or does the universe do whatever the hell it wants and we try to model that with our math formulae? I’m not sure the answer to either, but I don’t think it is self evidently an assumption that “reality must be logical”, it could be that logic is a model of what reality does. But I certainly could be wrong, and I also certainly accept that this is very OT.
@Snorri Godhi
That there is a God, does not imply the whole of Christianity. In particular, it does not imply that Jesus was more than human.
Right but that is part of the point I was making, whenever an atheist like Dawkins gives an inch like “to be pedantic I’m an agnostic” his religion advocating interlocutor takes not a mile but a light year: “Aha, see that proves Jesus died for our sins and that the world was created 6000 years ago.”
And FWIW, if you think that finding that there is a branch of Walmart on a moon of Saturn is of no practical interest, I think I’d disagree. On the contrary, it would be a humanity shaking event. Do they import cheap goods from Tethys? Perhaps they get their “blue light specials” from Neptune? If I’m a Walmart Plus member do I get free delivery to Earth?
Fraser:
I feel that you are overstating this risk.
I was told by priests and nuns, in a provincial Southern Italian town, that there is no proof of the existence of God, only circumstantial evidence.
Are there many Americans more backwards than that? I doubt it. A few, but not many.
The one thing you can rely on with the left is their constant and consistent use of straw-man attacks. They elocute their theories based on ridiculous positions they ascribe to their opponents, and rarely, if ever, actually check to see what those might be.
Most of them are morons, who were “got to first” by actual thinkers on the left, and who’ve never had the capacity to argue through their own cases. They rely on arguments they’ve taken from better minds, generally not understanding them in the least, and demonstrating an incredible faculty for “not getting the details right”.
At least, such has been my experience. You see it demonstrated on this site quite consistently.
Myno, right at the top of this thread, writes: “the present lack of a successful cultural movement/meme promulgating a positive rational moral framework for life (e.g., Rand’s lack of understanding of human nature doomed her attempt) is not a proof that such cannot exist.”
Up to a point about Rand. What is it about her “lack of understanding” do you mean, Myno? Often, when someone makes this point, it is to argue that she was blind to issues such as evolutionary psychology and the fact that humans are, I sometimes see it written, “pack animals”. The problem with these criticisms is that firstly, Rand did not write specifically about evo-psych, so guessing what she would have thought is as about as fruitless as imagining her stance on Brazilian ju-jitsu. Second, much of her framing of human nature goes back to Aristotle, with man as a “rational animal”. The Aristotelian tradition doesn’t reject the idea that humans are prey to emotions, or need to live and get on with others in society, or want the approval and support of others (although with caveats). Rather, it is that the distinctive bit of being human is the rational part, the part that says that human consciousness is of a very specific sort, and all kinds of things flow from that, including the need for ethics, and so on. (After all, we are discussing such things right now, on a blog, and showing our reason.)
Rand’s ethics may not, in the opinion of some people, be enough of a base for a non-religious society, but they go a long way, provided they are tempered with a sort of Edmund Burke-type caution and a tincture of modern pyschological insight.
I think Rand is interesting & of considerable value. The problem I have is not with her focus on objectivity but rather her lack of focus on the conjectural nature of understanding. But then I’m a Pancritical Rationalist, so I would think that, or at least that’s my best theory 😛
That is what predisposes her followers to dogmatism. Chris Tame & I once had this discussion & his exasperation with ex cathedra Peikoffian orthodoxy was profound.
Morality is a series of moral theories or greater or less explanatory power.
You can generally tell a lot about a person based on their chosen ideology. If they’re sympathetic to socialism and communism? They’re usually frightened little people who want to be taken care of by mommy and daddy. If they’re the sort of people who’re enthused about Rand, then the stereotype is usually safely made that they’re basically selfish people who want to do whatever the hell they want, without constraint or consequence.
I’ve never met anyone who espoused Rand’s ideas that I wanted anything at all to do with. They’re mostly unreliable and annoying people, untrustworthy, and out for number one above all. Which, I speculate, is why big-L Libertarian politics fails so hard.
I’d probably be described as a libertarian anarchist with pragmatic tendencies, in that I’d rather that the rest of the world just left me the hell alone in all ways. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t good enough for a lot of folks…
Kirk, in my limited experience some Rand admirers are obnoxious and a good number are absolutely fine people: productive, grounded, considerate and friendly.
Much of the issue stems from Rand’s own fierce personality in the way she argued. But she had the excuse of having seen Russian communism up close. And she called most of the big issues accurately. Her comments on the disaster of state education and the environmentalist movement were prophetic.
The primary reason for the difference in attitude towards unbelievers between Christianity and Islam is simply that Christianity is several centuries older. All religions have a lifespan (few people worship Zeus or the rest of the Mount Olympus crew in modern times) therefore Christianity is closer to the end of its natural lifespan as a major influence in human affairs.
If you think Christianity is more tolerant than Islam, you’re not comparing like with like, because of this age difference. It would be more appropriate to compare the Islam of today with the Christianity of several centuries ago: the Christianity of the Inquisition, witch-burning, heresy trials, priest-holes hidden in the structure of country houses, and the interdenominational strife summed up by Lady Whiteadder’s immortal line in an episode of Blackadder that “Cold is God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics.”
A further difference is that Islam has little in the way of doctrinal authority. We are constantly told that the ISIS/Daesh or Al-Qaeda version of Islam is ‘wrong’ or a ‘misinterpretation’, but how can this be, when there is no central authority within the faith with the power to determine what is a correct doctrine and make it stick with the faithful. Individual imams may make differing interpretations but have influence only over their own followers.
In Catholicism, for instance, the buck stops with the Pope. If he says a particular doctrinal point is correct or incorrect, then that’s that. There is no ‘buck stops here’ authority within Islam, therefore any interpretation is valid by the standards of the person doing the interpreting, be they a gentle Sufi mystic or a mad Salafist throat-slitter. That is not a formula for a happy and tolerant future anywhere where Islam holds sway, particularly as one controversial annotated edition of the Koran (ISBN 9780995584921 – withdrawn by most of the major online booksellers due to its co-author being one T Robinson) makes the point that, when the verses of the Koran are re-arranged in chronological order, all the parts that apologists point to as evidence of Islam being peaceful are in fact cancelled and over-ridden (‘abrogated’) by later, more incendiary passages.