3 ms·

With no disrespect to the other three, Dennett always struck me as the most serious and intellectually modest of the Four Horsemen. He mostly stuck to his own l

With no disrespect to the other three, Dennett always struck me as the most serious and intellectually modest of the Four Horsemen. He mostly stuck to his own lane of academic expertise, and used the proper caveats when venturing out of it. He didn't lean on rhetorical flourish, strawman his opponents, or overstate his case. The other three are a lot of fun, but maybe there's something to be said for boring. He spoke at my college once, and came off as nuanced and considerate. I think I disagree with him about consciousness, but I'm not informed enough to know for sure. What's clear is that he was a constructive part of the conversation in his field.

JoeJonathan 3y ago
[flagged]
- naasking 3y ago
  I'm always confused by these Islamophobia charges. Christianity has similar backwards and violent rhetoric. Before the Reformation, non-Christians were right to fear Christians. Has Islam had a similar reformation of its violent precepts?
  - JoeJonathan 3y ago
    Was everything hunky dory after the reformation? Protestant missionaries cleared the ground for British and Dutch colonialism. There’s no one Islam, so it depends on which Muslims you’re talking to.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > There’s no one Islam, so it depends on which Muslims you’re talking to. There was no one Christianity either, but the question is, was it rational at the time to be cautious of any Christians if you didn't know their affiliations or religious zeal? It seems to me that charges of Islamaphobia are a convenience afforded only to those safe in developed countries far from the realities of life in Muslim theocracies. You are correct the Reformation was not an end to violence, it was the start of the process of eliminating systematic violence at the behest of religious ideology. It's an ongoing process in all such religions, but it's not Islamaphobic to note that Islam is far behind the curve on this. I think Harris would agree that we shouldn't judge individuals based solely on their religious affiliation (and hence, don't stoke fear of Muslims), but to ignore the realities of Muslim theocracies is naive.

JoeJonathan 3y ago

[flagged]

naasking 3y ago
I'm always confused by these Islamophobia charges. Christianity has similar backwards and violent rhetoric. Before the Reformation, non-Christians were right to fear Christians. Has Islam had a similar reformation of its violent precepts?
- JoeJonathan 3y ago
  Was everything hunky dory after the reformation? Protestant missionaries cleared the ground for British and Dutch colonialism. There’s no one Islam, so it depends on which Muslims you’re talking to.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > There’s no one Islam, so it depends on which Muslims you’re talking to. There was no one Christianity either, but the question is, was it rational at the time to be cautious of any Christians if you didn't know their affiliations or religious zeal? It seems to me that charges of Islamaphobia are a convenience afforded only to those safe in developed countries far from the realities of life in Muslim theocracies. You are correct the Reformation was not an end to violence, it was the start of the process of eliminating systematic violence at the behest of religious ideology. It's an ongoing process in all such religions, but it's not Islamaphobic to note that Islam is far behind the curve on this. I think Harris would agree that we shouldn't judge individuals based solely on their religious affiliation (and hence, don't stoke fear of Muslims), but to ignore the realities of Muslim theocracies is naive.