Writing that last post on free will took hours and hours, for I had to read the damn paper (and it’s COMPLICATED) about six times, and then distill it into one sentence. I don’t want to repeat that any time soon.
The upshot is that I’m way too exhausted to brain any more today, so let me just call your attention to Jeff Tayler’s Sunday Secular Sermon in Salon, called “They’re all just this deluded and deranged: anti-intellectual religious wing nuts run the GOP.” Most of it is about how both Obama and the Republicans not only refuse to impute the actions of terrorist Islamist organizations to the doctrines of Islam, but have no credible solution to the problem of religiously-based violence. Tayler’s point, which is probably right, is that we won’t solve the problem until somebody—be they Western antitheists or liberal Muslims—deals with the fact that Islamic faith can sometimes inspire Islamic terrorism. Bombing ISIS out of existence won’t help, for the theology will remain, and, given ISIS’s potent media savvy (see below), will continue to produce recruits.
But first the Quote of the Week, from Tayler’s piece (I’m referring to Paine’s words):
Thomas Paine said, “The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.” He was right. I would, though, rephrase and update his statement: Those who, despite the torrents of evidence flowing forth from biology, physics and the other natural sciences, persist in believing the preposterous postulates of Abrahamic religions stand in urgent need of an intervention consisting of one treatment: forthright free speech from rationalists about their cherished delusions.
Tayler evinces some pessimism:
Okay. Now for some reasoned analysis. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius offers the most plausible prediction concerning a military approach to ISIS: Victory will take decades and involve overcoming so many hurdles that it’s almost too depressing to contemplate. Worse, he cautioned that “The debate about how best to fight this enemy hasn’t even begun.” In other words, arms alone won’t suffice.
Definitely watch the superb video embedded in Ignatius’ essay. [JAC: do watch it: it’s quite short.] In it, the Post’s Greg Miller informs us that “The number of fighters and recruits who are still traveling to Syria, who are still joining the Islamic State has not tapered off . . . . The organization’s reach, if anything, is expanding” – and this due largely to its devilishly persuasive “propaganda.” But neither Miller nor others shown state the obvious: ISIS propaganda succeeds mostly because it concurs with calls for jihad and martyrdom indubitably spelled out in the Quran. And the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom are not going anywhere, whether ISIS is blown to smithereens in Syria and Iraq or not.
Given that no one is likely to take scissors to the Quran anytime soon, we seem to confront a hopeless situation. The overarching problem is, yes, religion, and the determination of almost everyone in power to accord it respect. But posit a mass outbreak of atheism in the Middle East, and what would happen to ISIS? To the Sunni-Shia schism?
Tayler’s answer is that yes, “religion can be cured with rationalist free speech”, and I partly agree with him. But I don’t think rationalist free speech is sufficient. For, as Marx famously noted, religion springs from conditions of oppression, deprivation, and inequality, making it necessary for people to importune a Sky Father since they get no help from their society. To cure the world completely of religion, you need to see faith as one symptom of debilitating social conditions, and then to eliminate those conditions. Yes, rationalist speech will help, but we need more than that—by far. ISIS has not shown itself susceptible to rationalist free speech, and even vociferous liberal Muslims like Maajid Nawaz don’t appear to have even the smallest effect on radical Islamists.
“To cure the world completely of religion, you need to see faith as one symptom of debilitating social conditions, and then to eliminate those conditions.”
Right on, Jerry! Seems to me most people on this discussion blame _only_ Islam. While it is definitely a crucial factor, it is not the only one. And just bombing it out of existence … will not bomb it out of existence. As you point out.
It is a distinctly messy problem to solve.
Sub
I am somewhat optimistic about ISIS. As an organization that supports and conducts terrorist activities, ISIS will continue to be a problem for the West. However, they have made a classic mistake in the unequal struggle between insurgency and organized state power: They’ve chosen to be a state themselves. This means that as a state they are vulnerable both to traditional strategies (like cutting off their ability to export oil), and to expectations from their subjects about law, order, and social services.
“Tayler’s answer is that yes, “religion can be cured with rationalist free speech”, and I partly agree with him. But I don’t think rationalist free speech is sufficient. For, as Marx famously noted, religion springs from conditions of oppression, deprivation, and inequality, making it necessary for people to importune a Sky Father since they get no help from their society. To cure the world completely of religion, you need to see faith as one symptom of debilitating social conditions, and then to eliminate those conditions.”
But as we strive to make the world a more rational and peaceful place, we must not forget that replacing one religion with another (eg. Marxism/communism) is not the answer…
How did my communist family get it so wrong? Because politics was their religion
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/22/communist-family-politics-religion
Well, just so. Two places communism held sway big-time were Russia and China. They succeeded in almost eliminating religion, but they payed a price for replacing it with demigods. Cuba, on the other hand, from what I remember, did not oppress the church to the same extent, but was satisfied with removing all it’s political power.
Religion, like mortality, is not a problem to be solved but a condition to be endured. One avoids it as best as one can.
That’s just my shitty opinion, expressed from my remote farm.
Strange – well, not very – that most people have leapt on the same phrases for comment. And I definitely picked my quote before reading the oommnets!
The problem with actually attempting to address the root causes like this is that anyone promoting such a policy will be open to charges of “treating the enemy with kid gloves,” or “rewarding shockingly bad behaviour,” as well as “resigning to decades of spending when this [holds up soap powder box labelled “TrumPalin Patent Nostrum (Contains Refined Snake Oil and Vitriol)“]. In most political systems, this will be like cutting your head off and handing it to your opponents on a platter. With a pair of soccer boots.
The absolute disaster of the post-WW2 “Marshall Plan” for the reconstruction of Europe between 1945 and about 1958 should be compared to the glowing success of the “wham bang thank you ma’m, get in get out stop fucking about” efficiency of the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq (and being lined up for Libya and Syria) in more recent years. The economic and religious basket cases of Central Europe compared to the paragons of social order and resilience of the more recent interventions can be counted by the absolute flood of refugees from Europe to Syria.
Has anyone got a spare sarcasm dial? This one seems stuck on “11”.
I will tend to take a different view on some of this one and this is primarily on the Ignatius piece. The statement that the defeat of ISIS will take many years and all the other hand wringing being done by some is a little much. How much of this is just David Ignatius’s take on this or how much outside expertise he is getting on the military aspects, I don’t know.
Estimates of numbers of ISIS in Syria are around 30 to 35 thousand. Quite a lot is being done now to degrade ISIS and they are certainly being pushed back in Iraq. At this time the U.S. is attempting to get agreement with the other parties on how to operate in Syria. They may or may not get this agreement done. If the U.S. decides it need to go into Syria and remove ISIS they could certainly do it and faster than you think. I am not saying this will be done, but it could be. All I am attempting to say is that if we determine this is necessary and we are going to do it, it will happen fairly quickly.
The quote about modern religion and the asylum in Jerusalem has been widely attributed to both Thomas Paine and Havelock Ellis (1859-1939). (Of course, Ellis could have been quoting Paine but he does not appear to be.)
But the Ellis attributors include a lead-in quote “Had there been a Lunatic Asylum in the suburbs of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ would infallibly have been shut up in it at the outset of his public career. That interview with Satan on a pinnacle of the Temple would alone have damned him, and everything that happened after could have confirmed the diagnosis.”
The quote sounds far more in character for Ellis than for Paine. TP was a deist who thought along lines similar to Thomas Jefferson that the Biblical testimony to Jesus was wholly unreliable and unverifiable, but was sort of OK with (some of) J of N’s moral teachings. Ellis was a pioneering psychologist, and the asylum reference would come more naturally to him.
The quote is attributed to Ellis by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations. Unfortunately FFRF says it is in his book “Impressions and Comments” and it is definitely NOT there!!!
Personally I think the “religious complexion of the modern world” lies heavily with the morbid masochism of Saint Augustine, the heavy-handed authoritarianism of the Emperor Constantine, the poor living conditions of the Middle Ages, and a host of other causes.
Ok, it’s in Ellis’ “Impressions and Comments” Series 3. I was looking in the wrong edition. Definitely by Ellis with no allusion to Paine.
Those 72 Virgins are a big inducement if all you see of Women is a black Sack.