Atheist Fundamentalism

[genkaus]

So, Bill Maher has been on the new quite a bit recently with his "anti-Islam propaganda". Looking through the news articles, I found this bit form Reza Aslan

---

[quote = 'Salon' url = 'http://www.salon.com/2014/10/10/exclusive_reza_aslan_on_bill_mahers_anti_islam_crusade_frank_bigotry/']
What that makes me think of is the argument I’ve seen from Harris and others in that clique which is, more or less, that they have a better handle on what Islam actually mandates — and that the millions and millions of Muslims who would disagree with their interpretation are in reality shirking elements of their faith that make them uncomfortable.

Well, here’s the thing: That statement is indicative of the extreme lack of sophistication that is exhibited by people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher when it comes to religion in general and Islam, specifically.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding among these critics of religion in that they believe, first and foremost, that people get their values, their morals from their scripture, when in reality the exact opposite is true. You bring your morals and your values to the scriptures; you don’t extract them from them. You learn that on day one of the study of religion — day one, that’s the first thing that you learn!

And to a larger extent it indicates a real fallacy in the New Atheist movement, that is part and parcel of the lack of a religious education among these critics of religion, which is that they tend to read the scriptures more literally than any literalist I know. And when confronted by some particularly savage line in the scriptures, their conception forces an understanding [that says], “If you do not follow that little bit of savagery, then you’re not really a Muslim, you’re not really a Christian, you’re not really a Jew.”

You know who else makes that argument? Fundamentalists. And that’s why this notion that what these guys represent is a new kind of fundamentalism, an atheist fundamentalism, is so real. Because that’s precisely what’s being exhibited here in their utter sense of certainty; in their literalist, simplistic, exoteric, absolutist interpretation of religion; in their inability to recognize the diverse ways in which religion is lived rather than what we would refer to as top-down religiosity.[/quote]

---

Tl;dr? Here's the short version.

Atheists often forget the myriad of ways a religion can be followed. NOT extracting your morals from the holy book is the basic lesson of religion - something you learn on your first day.

The idea of following the holy book dogmatically and taking it literally are forms of fundamentalism. Since that is what atheists expect religious people to do, they are proposing another kind of fundamentalism - one that applies to others, not themselves.



On one hand, I agree with his idea of the diverse ways of following religion. But then, we are not the ones making this shit up - Muslim's are the ones loudly proclaiming that the quran tells them how to live, Christians are the ones saying how they get their morals from the bible and so on. Atheists are taking them at their word.

Tbh, if I meet a devoutly religious person who says "I'm religious because [insert some feel good reason like 'culture'], but I don't condone applying or following the outdated values of the religion in past, which means, no, I don't follow the scriptures strictly - just the parts that suit me" - I'd probably shrug and move on. In fact, I believe most of the 'modern atheists' would too. But then, we rarely meet someone who'd say this.


Your views?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I, as a non-believer, am not responsible in any shape or form for the beliefs of people and degree to which they adhere to the rules and guidelines within their holy text.

The issue , as you allude to, is that's it's impossible to determine to what degree someone follows their holy book. Literalists wear their heart on their sleeve, but apologists will often pick and choose, and sometimes adapt their interpretation to the context in hand, whatever it might be.

I'm sorry but whenever someone says 'I'm a Muslim' I automatically take it as given that they espouse everything written in the Quran. Why? Because that's what being a Muslim entails. Would it not be blasphemy to reject part of the word of Allah as interpreted by Mohammed?

Same with the bible. Nowhere does it say 'this story is allegorical', so how on earth are we supposed to know when talking to a theist what part they accept and what part they reject unless it comes up in discussion?

Why some sorts and accepted and others not is another debate entirely, though.

[Esquilax]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding among these critics of religion in that they believe, first and foremost, that people get their values, their morals from their scripture, when in reality the exact opposite is true. You bring your morals and your values to the scriptures; you don’t extract them from them. You learn that on day one of the study of religion — day one, that’s the first thing that you learn!

Funny that he skips over what happens next: you bring your own morals to your religion... which then promptly tells you that your moral judgments are fallible, flawed and inherently inferior where they contradict the religion.

It's very easy to assert that one brings one's own morality to religion, but to ignore the part where that very same religion spends much of its time devaluing independent thought and laying out the many punishments to be inflicted upon the person who follows their own moral judgment instead of the pre-set religious moral judgment is fundamentally dishonest.

And to a larger extent it indicates a real fallacy in the New Atheist movement, that is part and parcel of the lack of a religious education among these critics of religion, which is that they tend to read the scriptures more literally than any literalist I know. And when confronted by some particularly savage line in the scriptures, their conception forces an understanding [that says], “If you do not follow that little bit of savagery, then you’re not really a Muslim, you’re not really a Christian, you’re not really a Jew.”

You know who else makes that argument? Fundamentalists. And that’s why this notion that what these guys represent is a new kind of fundamentalism, an atheist fundamentalism, is so real. Because that’s precisely what’s being exhibited here in their utter sense of certainty; in their literalist, simplistic, exoteric, absolutist interpretation of religion; in their inability to recognize the diverse ways in which religion is lived rather than what we would refer to as top-down religiosity.

Yawn. A strawman. At least for me, the reason I'm more inclined to accept a literal interpretation of a given religious book is because the only thing we can be certain of is the words in the book. We can't ask the author what he meant, and we certainly can't entreat god for clarification, as should be evidenced by the many, many different and conflicting interpretations of religion that exist. The only solid thing that religion can provide is the words written in their holy books, and every divergence from that brings the interpreter further away from the one objective thing within the religion.

What reason do I have to entertain some random guy's personal interpretation of scripture? No input from the writer, no special insight into the true meaning, and no way to demonstrate accuracy over and above any other interpretation... why would I do it?

[genkaus]

I'm sorry but whenever someone says 'I'm a Muslim' I automatically take it as given that they espouse everything written in the Quran. Why? Because that's what being a Muslim entails. Would it not be blasphemy to reject part of the word of Allah as interpreted by Mohammed?

Same with the bible. Nowhere does it say 'this story is allegorical', so how on earth are we supposed to know when talking to a theist what part they accept and what part they reject unless it comes up in discussion?

I think that is the point he is making - since most of the Christians and Muslims don't espouse everything written in the Bible and Quran, you should know that the assumption that "being a Christian or Muslim entails following the scripture" is incorrect. That is why you should not automatically assume that that is what they do.

[Esquilax]

I think that is the point he is making - since most of the Christians and Muslims don't espouse everything written in the Bible and Quran, you should know that the assumption that "being a Christian or Muslim entails following the scripture" is incorrect. That is why you should not automatically assume that that is what they do.

Or, essentially, that cherry pickers should not have to face up to the inconsistency of their position.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm sorry but whenever someone says 'I'm a Muslim' I automatically take it as given that they espouse everything written in the Quran. Why? Because that's what being a Muslim entails. Would it not be blasphemy to reject part of the word of Allah as interpreted by Mohammed?

Same with the bible. Nowhere does it say 'this story is allegorical', so how on earth are we supposed to know when talking to a theist what part they accept and what part they reject unless it comes up in discussion?

I think that is the point he is making - since most of the Christians and Muslims don't espouse everything written in the Bible and Quran, you should know that the assumption that "being a Christian or Muslim entails following the scripture" is incorrect. That is why you should not automatically assume that that is what they do.

I understand but I'm wondering how we can make a reasonable inference otherwise? Surely taking it prima facie that they read their scripture as the word of their deity and follow it to the letter is the only reasonable position until proven otherwise? There are, after all, passages in most holy books about what happens to people to ignore [insert god's] word.

And to a larger extent it indicates a real fallacy in the New Atheist movement, that is part and parcel of the lack of a religious education among these critics of religion, which is that they tend to read the scriptures more literally than any literalist I know. And when confronted by some particularly savage line in the scriptures, their conception forces an understanding [that says], “If you do not follow that little bit of savagery, then you’re not really a Muslim, you’re not really a Christian, you’re not really a Jew.”

Ignoring the fact that it's not atheists saying that, it's their own fucking holy text and/or believers!

[genkaus]

Or, essentially, that cherry pickers should not have to face up to the inconsistency of their position.

Rather, you shouldn't expect them to be consistent with what you deem their position to be.

---

I understand but I'm wondering how we can make a reasonable inference otherwise? Surely taking it prima facie that they read their scripture as the word of their deity and follow it to the letter is the only reasonable position until proven otherwise? There are, after all, passages in most holy books about what happens to people to ignore [insert god's] word.

And to a larger extent it indicates a real fallacy in the New Atheist movement, that is part and parcel of the lack of a religious education among these critics of religion, which is that they tend to read the scriptures more literally than any literalist I know. And when confronted by some particularly savage line in the scriptures, their conception forces an understanding [that says], “If you do not follow that little bit of savagery, then you’re not really a Muslim, you’re not really a Christian, you’re not really a Jew.”

Ignoring the fact that it's not atheists saying that, it's their own fucking holy text and/or believers!

He's saying that the fact that most people don't follow the scripture to the letter is sufficient to make the reasonable inference otherwise. And since they don't follow it to the letter, how the holy books define the religion becomes irrelevant.

[Esquilax]

Or, essentially, that cherry pickers should not have to face up to the inconsistency of their position.

Rather, you shouldn't expect them to be consistent with what you deem their position to be.

If you have information that you believe to be the divine architect of reality, with commandments that are supposed to be the ultimate in moral goodness, all contained within what's supposed to be the backbone of your religious beliefs, and you pick and choose which of those you want to follow, then you are being inconsistent with your position. Either you don't really believe in the moral or factual accuracy of the commandments, or you don't care about the authority of the source. Either way, the potency of your religion is now reduced, by the fact that you've deemed yourself the arbiter of your supposed religious instruction.

Far be it from me to say whether they are or are not a True Whatever, but what I will say is that they aren't comporting themselves in a manner consistent with the claimed origins of the information they accept.

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't it common knowledge that the religious don't exactly toe the line to their own horseshit (not even limited to any holy book) with any regularity? Frankly, I'm relieved that they don't.

[Chad32]

NOT extracting your morals from the holy book is the basic lesson of religion - something you learn on your first day.

Where are the people that say this? I know it happens, because how could it not, but I've met very few people that proudly say they cherry pick, and everyone else should do it too. The book tells you that your level of wisdom is not enough, and is pretty clear that everything in the bible should be followed. Some stories are likely meant as allegory, like when Jesus says cut off the hand and gouge out the eye that sins, but when Yahweh talks about how slavery should be done, and what to do when a man rapes a woman, and how to deal with people who aren't worshiping Yahweh, it's meant to be taken seriously.

Cherry picking happens. We all know this. But I think the cherry pickers who are open and proud about it are in the minority.