tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7994094587960862707..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Building the case against Ibrahim's position: moral sheepStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48367074584951222812007-12-12T19:01:00.000+00:002007-12-12T19:01:00.000+00:00"In Cod we trust"ha ha ha. lol. :-))"In Cod we trust"<BR/><BR/>ha ha ha. lol. :-))Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64290633407794619222007-12-11T21:04:00.000+00:002007-12-11T21:04:00.000+00:00I am really enjoying this debate and your line of ...I am really enjoying this debate and your line of reasoning.<BR/><BR/>In this line, "...they report that the most dramatic deference between the parents of those who rescued and ...", do you mean, "difference"?Victor Shihhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03074915000996247481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25750427103299777902007-12-11T07:39:00.000+00:002007-12-11T07:39:00.000+00:00@ muslim-apostateWhile I agree with your major vie...@ muslim-apostate<BR/>While I agree with your major views, I will tend to consider different (still neturalistic)explanations for some of Mohammad's revelations. Especially a number of the later revelations apparently came "very handy" to resolve particular practical or normative problems at hand. In my views they came too handy to be explained by more or less random epilectic seizures. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to consider them simly to be M's intentional constructs? <BR/><BR/>Cassanders<BR/>In Cod we trustAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21502327692453999662007-12-11T00:47:00.000+00:002007-12-11T00:47:00.000+00:00One thing that Ibrahim and Stephen both agree is t...One thing that Ibrahim and Stephen both agree is that children are quite malliable and if indoctrinated at the right age with the right message, then they can be inculcated (that is, a certain percentage of them will be indoctrinated to a certain degree).<BR/><BR/>Ibrahim considers this a positive, because Ibrahim without reason, has concluded that Islam is the best ideology on earth, and it should be inculcated onto children, as you can't go wrong with this approach. Stephen considers this a negative, because he is not convinced Islam is the best ideology, and also thinks that each individual must have the right to be free of ideology and arrive at recognition through inquiry.<BR/><BR/>So there are 2 issues here. 1- Is Islam the best thing. 2- Is indoctrination of a good ideology superior to individual critical inquiry?<BR/><BR/>Ibrahim is positive on both counts, while Stephen is negative on both counts. And there may be others that are positive on once count but negative on the other count.<BR/><BR/>My 2 cents is this - as a Muslim apostate, I have obviously strong feelings about issue 1. I cannot disagree with Ibrahim any more, as I have been raised through his system, and I have felt and seen the tragedies with both my eyes. Aside from this empirical observation, I also know that Ibrahim can neither verify god(s) nor falsify god(s). So Islam is based on a meaningless assumption to begin with. And then there is the problem of how can Prophet Mohammed prove that the voices in his head was from Angel Gabriel (also a meaningless concept) and not some inner psychological condition (such as those found in epileptics, which he was).<BR/><BR/>On issue 2 - if there is any truth to the fact that children can be molded into certain predetermined forms (much empirical evidence backs this assertion) - then in a social system, a certain percentage of children will become beholden to a certain ideology - and when they grow up, they will try to inculcate that to other children, just as with Ibrahim Lawson, thinking they are doing a service to mankind. Therefore, this dynamic will have a "fixed point of its own", and will be a stable self-supportive and self-justifying dynamic (a meme).<BR/><BR/>The most likely outcome of such a system will be more than one "fixed points" (memes that are self-justifying and feed on themselves) that will coexist and compete together in a liberal society - but in an authoritarian society one such meme will tend to dominate the rest by force. Isn't this what we see in the realm of ideas in the history of popular thought?<BR/><BR/>So my question to Ibrahim is this - since you can never win the debate on issue #1, then isn't it just too dangerous for society to embark on what you are doing (indoctrinating innocent minds), becuase of the propensity of such minds to propagate due to issue #2?<BR/><BR/>If so, then Ibrahim must come out against issue #2, against the idea that indoctrination is a noble activity. In this case, issue #1 (Is Islam the next best thing after sliced bread) becomes moot, and is relegated to the private sphere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7272832657399912832007-12-10T21:24:00.000+00:002007-12-10T21:24:00.000+00:00Ibrahim says he wants "dialog" and not "debate".Bu...Ibrahim says he wants "dialog" and not "debate".<BR/><BR/>But does not dialog require a level of sincerety from the two parties? Something that debate does not demand?<BR/><BR/>I have found his writings not very sincere. Like when he keeps on extolling the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" and making questionable claims. Like when he claimed the "Universtiy System" (whatever that means) was invented by Islamic scholars in the 7th and 8th centuries.<BR/><BR/>Everytime Ibrahim takes his blood pressure reduction pill, do I go and rub it into the dialog that western enlightenment invented this pill?<BR/><BR/>No, he is not sincere enough to make a dialog happen (whatever "dialog" is supposed to mean).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44655024958305142762007-12-10T18:47:00.000+00:002007-12-10T18:47:00.000+00:00I suggest that most people defer blindly to religi...I suggest that most people defer blindly to religious or secular truths.<BR/>It is surely a forlorn hope that it can be otherwise.<BR/>Life is a struggle. We aren't superhuman.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08023844543481324561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30544774881973911822007-12-10T15:17:00.000+00:002007-12-10T15:17:00.000+00:00Sorry to dominate the comments so far.Under Lawson...Sorry to dominate the comments so far.<BR/><BR/>Under Lawson's "Allah=good" we would have to conclude that as a thought experiment if we substituted Allah for the experimenter in Milgram's study, we would have to praise the subject who completed the experiment for his or her discipline and fortitude.<BR/><BR/>There seems to be no escape from the conclusion that, in the Islamic view, the atrocity of Milgram's experiment is not that the subjects were willing to kill someone by electrocution, but that they did so without proper authority. In much the same way under the Christian view (at least the view that takes the Old Testament as both historical fact and ethical truth) Hitler was not a monster because he killed tens of millions of people in concentration camps, but because he did so without proper authority from Jehovah.<BR/><BR/>The <I>only</I> escape from this conclusion is to assert that Allah (or Jehovah) would never authorize any act contrary to our natural reason and natural moral intuition. But if this assertion were true, it would entail that we can depend on our natural reason to resolve ethical issues — Scripture, revelation and religious authority become subservient to entirely natural, public processes.<BR/><BR/>But this natural reasoning is precisely what Lawson explicitly disclaims. If our ethical beliefs can be justified by natural reason, teaching this reasoning to children cannot even in principle undermine the ethical foundations of any society, and his stated reason for withholding this sort of education from children collapses.<BR/><BR/>There really isn't anything particularly difficult about the ethical foundations of a secular society: We exhort a child to share with another child because he wants the other child to share as well.<BR/><BR/>We do at times insist on standards or behavior that might <I>presently</I> beyond an individual child's immediate grasp, but we also teach these children as quickly as possible the cognitive tools necessary to understand these sophisticated standards. There's never any reason to <I>withhold</I> either the facts or the reasoning necessary to justify, for instance, a painful or needle-scary vaccination.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68197833637750736452007-12-10T13:49:00.000+00:002007-12-10T13:49:00.000+00:00"If we seek to produce truly moral individuals, an..."If we seek to produce truly moral individuals, and not just a moral sheep..."<BR/><BR/>This is the crux of the biscuit. As Lawson has made clear, the Islamic view of the truly moral individual <I>is</I> a moral sheep, entirely dependent on absolute submission to Muhammad's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Allah's authority.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10110321835765991032007-12-10T13:46:00.000+00:002007-12-10T13:46:00.000+00:00"The arbitrary rule of a just and enlightened prin..."The arbitrary rule of a just and enlightened prince is always bad. His virtues are the most dangerous and the surest form of seduction: they lull a people imperceptibly into the habit of loving, respecting, and serving his successor, whoever that successor may be, no matter how wicked or stupid."<BR/><BR/>-- Denis DiderotLarry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com