So, my question was specific--what in the Islamic faith is wrong?
It specifically depends on whom you are asking. Ask a Muslim, they will reply, “Nothing”. Ask a Christian, they will say, “Muslims view Jesus as a prophet, not the son of God.” Ask an atheist, they will – or may – reply, “Everything.”
What I was trying to say is that usually, one selects a faith because that faith is, to them, most right, rather than selecting a faith as a default because another faith is more wrong. As a non-Muslim, what do you believe is wrong with Islam?
I'm asking anyone who is reading who is not currently a Muslim, why they are not. As for myself, I see Islam the same as Christianity, and all other religions. I think this quote from Richard Dawkins says it best "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Your second question relates to an individual’s faith. Some people hold their beliefs because it is what they grew up with, and have never had it challenged, or challenged it themselves. For those who have tested their belief, or had it tested, and retain it, it is usually a combination of a) the examples set by other followers, as you suggested b) the thoughts of other followers, either spoken aloud or written down
You seem to have the idea that choosing a religion because of the examples or words of it followers is a valid reason. I say it is not. It is similar to following a religion because of reward/punishment. Imagine a person thinking "This religion doesn't make sense to me, but since all my friends are in it, I think I'll join the bandwagon."
Two quick points on this – I used the word “combination”, as ideally, a view should be held because it DOES make sense to them, through writings and testimonies of others, in addition to the examples set by those sharing that view.
And secondly, those examples of others should not be peer pressure or conformity, but living testaments. If someone says, “I’m an avid Scientologist, and look at my life – it’s falling apart!”, you may begin to question whether the governing standards of that life are really worth paying attention to. Conversely, if someone says that they are an Orthodox Jew, and their family life seems loving, stable and supportive, you may become curious as to why. The “what’s your secret?” and “I’ll have what she’s having” impulses.
This seems to be a utilitarian argument for religion. Are you suggesting that no matter what the belief, if the outcome is good (an enriched life), the belief is a worthy one?
Incidentally, just apply these philosophies to yourself for a moment, to see if I am talking nonsense or not. Whatever your own view may be, did you first receive it, and now currently maintain it, through theory alone, or following others alone, or a combination of the two? And whenever you encounter something new, do you accept testimony alone before you get involved, or do you like to see examples as well?
I came to my current thinking through "theorizing" I guess you can call it, lying awake at night when I was younger trying to make sense out of the world. I came to the conclusion that if people are forced to gamble for their salvation (thanks ratcharmer for the apt phrase) then a god wasn't worth worshiping. I had these thoughts on my own because through other experiences I had learned that if you find something important it might be safer to keep it to yourself. Being that it is my whole family is religious, I was afraid that I might be ostracized or punished in some way. As I grew I learned more critical thinking and became more independent to the point where I felt safe expressing my views and also in confirming them against reality. I find it amazing that I once thought there was a god and I wonder how I can help people come to the same realization.
As far as new encounters, I do a quick cost/benefit analysis before deciding on whether testimony or more is needed. If someone says, "hey, this ice cream tastes great", then I consider what is the worst that can happen--I could have a bad taste in my mouth. So I don't need a study done before I give it a try. However, if someone says ,"hey, this ice cream allows me to float off of skyscrapers", well then I would need considerable proof--scientific studies, video evidence, etc.
I think some people may feel trapped and don't explore other options because of this risk.
Be careful. This looks like a gross generalisation. Oh, I don’t doubt there are people who feel trapped by their views, and fear risk. In fact, I would dare to venture my own sweeping statement, to say that most humans do fear, to one degree or the other, the unknown.
But I would recommend specific examples in this kind of thinking. If you know someone, or multiple someones, whom your statement applies to (and know them, not just know of them), talk about them, and your experiences with them. It will give your views a lot more weight.
I guess my own example as stated above applies somewhat. Luckily, I was young, had the time to think about it, was able to hold a conversation with myself, and did not rely on debating others to figure it all out. When the internet came about, (what a wonderful invention!), I was then able to confirm my understanding. There was vast volumes of data I can read through and hear all about different views and learn basically anything that anybody in the world was willing to put out there. I still have this enormous fascination with the internet, to the point where some may claim addiction. I am pretty much a recluse when it comes to anything else.
I have tried to have this and other debates with my mother, but she tries desperately to avoid it and can not explain why she believes what she does. I am not a parent myself, but I could imagine that if one were to teach their children in a religion (worldview and morals included), and then come to the realization it was all wrong, and that they had set their children back and made judgments on their children based on wrong morals--that would be psychologically impossible. I think for someone in my mother's position, it is too late. There is a fear or basic instinct to not change.
I could be living in the Matrix, or dreaming all of reality, but regardless there are rules by which this reality is governed and I don't expect the Earth to stop spinning or for giant mutant ants to start reaking havoc. If you allow for a god to be causing footsteps next to you, why do you not allow for gremlins to be hacking the electrical grid or fairies causing deer to run in front of your car? Or do you also believe in those things, as well? I sincerely do not see a difference between the two.
Again, be very careful, my friend. You have inadvertently strayed into even more dangerous territory. The spiritual encounters of people are often some of their most intimate memories, held close to their hearts, and even if you do believe they are poppycock, you should be very diplomatic about your assessment of them, or risk mortally insulting them.
And do you really, really not see the difference between a deity causing an unseen sound, and the interference of gremlins and faeries? Without subscribing to any view, I can already see a very big difference between them. One is a possible circumstance relating to a number of different faiths, believed in cumulatively by the majority of the world’s inhabitants, the other two are clear inventions of folk tales and children’s stories. I am not saying the God explanation is true, but I am saying that compared to the others, it is far more likely to be true.
I only add this caution, and I do so with respect, because it is a brief moment where patronisation has entered what is otherwise a clear and enlightened discussion.
I can understand what you are saying here, but I could also turn that statement around on you. If you see a difference between them, then you have already discounted gremlins and faeries. There are people to this day (and you can find their testimony all over the web) that do believe in faeries. There was a time when that was a wide spread belief. There was once a time when slavery was justified by the majority of people. If you say that belief in faeries is not as likely to be true as a deity are you not insulting those who believe in faeries?
I am trying to be as honest as I can in this conversation and I am trying to find out why people believe the things they do. I am not trying to make anybody pissed off or feel inferior. When you ask if I really, really do not see the difference, I am saying that I do not. If you say that a majority of the world believing in something lends some creedence to the belief, I have to say you are wrong. Look at the history of the world, and you will see countless ideas that were held by the majority of people at the time as being right and that we now know are wrong. If there is something more to that argument, then I am not recognizing it, so please point it out for me.
In this conversation you are seeing why I hold the view that I do, or at least I hope you are. If something doesn't make sense logically to me, I will say so. You can't say some parts of the conversation are immune to logic or discussion, because then we are no longer examining ideas, but just two TVs turned on and pointed at each other. If your intention is to minimize venom or offensiveness, then great. What I get offended at is when someone asserts something as true without rationality behind it--that is the textbook definition of bigotry. Since we are all still here conversing, that means we are all open to learning from each other. So when I say something that looks like my intent is to belittle or incite--why I am actually saying it is because that is how I understand it to be.
Gracie: I'd go with you but...
Jack: I know, there's a problem with your face.
Guest Posts
Have been about 33% against FGs so far. Maybe that's too strong?