5 ms·

My beliefs were definitely influenced by Sam Harris' writing (on religion anyhow, not a fan of his views on statism and torture). You're right that other relig

by theheck 11y ago

My beliefs were definitely influenced by Sam Harris' writing (on religion anyhow, not a fan of his views on statism and torture). You're right that other religions have similarly violent claims (like Christianity), but we generally don't see people going around committing violent acts and using the Bible as justification for them. Here's how I account for the difference -- most Christians no longer deeply believe in the more violent passages in the Bible anymore. For example, what would the average Christian say if you asked that person, "should adulterers be put to death?" [1] The far majority of Christians will say no. You don't see many pastors and priests preaching fire and brimstone anymore. All their parishioners have gone elsewhere (but those verses are still in the Bible!) Nonetheless, Christians certainly had their turn in senselessly murdering people (e.g. the Crusades), and those people rationalized their actions using actual verses in the Bible. However, if you ask the average Muslim, "Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?" A large percentage of them will say yes! [2] Even if it's not a majority of Muslims, the fact that there are double-digit percentages who either "sometimes" or "rarely" say such actions are justified is scary. Now as for the question of WHY do most Christians no longer believe in violence while Muslims do, I don't have a fully formed opinion on that matter, so I'll withhold it. But I still think it's valid to claim that religious texts can and are used as justification for violence. [1] Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." [2] Using the numbering at the bottom of the page, see the table on page 53 --http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...

rtl49 11y ago
I think few would disagree that religious scriptures can be used as a pretense or "justification" for violence, but I believe your comment cited the content of the Quran as the "root cause" of Muslim violence. Given that people are always motivated by their beliefs, isn't the reason that Muslims hold their beliefs the "root cause" of Muslim violence? You seem to argue that the reason is simply that violence is promoted by the Quran. But this begs the question of why they believe the violent parts of the Quran, while other religious groups ignore similar passages in their own holy texts. I think those who disagree with you would claim that many Muslims hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures for historical reasons unrelated to the text itself, Western misadventures in the Near East among them.
- theheck 11y ago
  You make a really good point and have caused me to think about this more deeply! I think to answer the question I need to start by researching why Christians stopped being animated by the violent passages of the Bible, and only subscribe to the (relatively) more benign ones (generally). I think the point I was actually making (albeit inadvertently) is that as long as Muslims believe the full text of the Quran is actually true, they will be motivated to violence (yes it may require some charismatic person to push them, or some sort of social encouragement, but that person or group also generally believes in the text of the Quran). In contrast, someone who subscribes to Jainism could never be animated to commit a violent act rationalized by their religious text, because Jainism is against all forms of violence. TL;DR - The content of the religious text matters, even if other factors are also at play.

by theheck 11y ago

rtl49 11y ago

I think few would disagree that religious scriptures can be used as a pretense or "justification" for violence, but I believe your comment cited the content of the Quran as the "root cause" of Muslim violence. Given that people are always motivated by their beliefs, isn't the reason that Muslims hold their beliefs the "root cause" of Muslim violence? You seem to argue that the reason is simply that violence is promoted by the Quran. But this begs the question of why they believe the violent parts of the Quran, while other religious groups ignore similar passages in their own holy texts. I think those who disagree with you would claim that many Muslims hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures for historical reasons unrelated to the text itself, Western misadventures in the Near East among them.

theheck 11y ago
You make a really good point and have caused me to think about this more deeply! I think to answer the question I need to start by researching why Christians stopped being animated by the violent passages of the Bible, and only subscribe to the (relatively) more benign ones (generally). I think the point I was actually making (albeit inadvertently) is that as long as Muslims believe the full text of the Quran is actually true, they will be motivated to violence (yes it may require some charismatic person to push them, or some sort of social encouragement, but that person or group also generally believes in the text of the Quran). In contrast, someone who subscribes to Jainism could never be animated to commit a violent act rationalized by their religious text, because Jainism is against all forms of violence. TL;DR - The content of the religious text matters, even if other factors are also at play.