Moderates and Fanatics.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Moderates and Fanatics. » Moderates and Fanatics.

Moderates and Fanatics.
What is the epistemological difference?

Moderates and Fanatics.

Calcutechnician
Existential Warrior

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2007
Location: Hull
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/09/07 - 12:15 AM: Subject: Moderates and Fanatics.	#1
One Muslim will practice his religion by helping others, by being peaceful and loving, by treating others with respect. Another Muslim will strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up, taking a number of innocent people with him. Is there any epistemological difference between the belief that killing heathens will get you into heaven and the Golden Rule, if they are both taken on faith, given that faith is by definition belief without (communicable) evidence?
My world is in the universe of all worlds.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 313

Posted 05/27/08 - 09:42 AM:	#2
Calcutechnician wrote: Is there any epistemological difference between the belief that killing heathens will get you into heaven and the Golden Rule, if they are both taken on faith, given that faith is by definition belief without (communicable) evidence? There is no real difference, despite the obvious (and irrelevant) utilitarian one; they both rely on one same premises, namely the existence of God (Allah, whatever) and that He has the power to enforce moral commandments. They come to different conclusions because God is an inherently vague notion; you cannot call the bomber irrational because by what reasoning process does one conclude that God will reward him after death? They are equally irrational, they both take facts on belief, and thus there is no epistemic difference between the two.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 05/28/08 - 01:38 PM:	#3
No, there is no real difference. If faith is a valid episteme, it is valid for every belief.
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

Nonblack Raven
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 1239

Posted 05/28/08 - 03:25 PM:	#4
Calcutechnician wrote: One Muslim will practice his religion by helping others, by being peaceful and loving, by treating others with respect. Another Muslim will strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up, taking a number of innocent people with him. Is there any epistemological difference between the belief that killing heathens will get you into heaven and the Golden Rule, if they are both taken on faith, given that faith is by definition belief without (communicable) evidence? This seems a fairly complete misunderstanding of Islam, as well as religious tradition in general. (I also think it is a misunderstanding of faith, but since that is more controversial, I will accept for the purposes of argument that faith is belief without evidence.) To be a Muslim is not to believe anything you believe without evidence, or to say God says whatever you think God says. To be a Muslim is to accept the "There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet", which in turn implies that what one should do needs to be based on the Koran, and perhaps other traditions concerning the saying of the Prophet. As a result, your two imagined Muslim do indeed have a common epistemology and a basis for debate. Both are forced into a discussion of whether their actions and beliefs can be justified in the light of the Koran. You may think this a bad basis for discussion, but once it is accepted, conclusions are not a matter of taste, or utterly arbitrary, or without agreement on epistemological foundations. Neither of your imagined Muslims would agree with your characterization of their epistemology. Belief in Islam might be some kind of belief without evidence, but once that belief is accepted, further conclusions are based on well defined non-arbitrary epistemology. Agreement on epistemological first principles does not, of course, guarantee agreement about conclusions--whether among Muslims or among scientists.
NBR

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 05/28/08 - 06:32 PM:	#5
Calcutechnician wrote: Is there any epistemological difference between the belief that killing heathens will get you into heaven and the Golden Rule, if they are both taken on faith, given that faith is by definition belief without (communicable) evidence? What this overlooks is that reasons that humans give for killing other humans are rationalizations, fictional stories. Theological rationales for killing other humans are wild card fictions. We make up reasons for killing other people. We are evolutionarily predisposed to kill other people. We are predisposed to construe them as "them" and are hair-trigger ready to perceive them as threats to "us" and to eliminate "them" so we can survive. It's not about God, it's about our hair-trigger readiness to use God stories, or political stories, or any threat and fear stories whatsoever to kill other humans. All we've got to do is work up fear that "they" are a threat to us (perhaps they have secret WMD's) and we gotta kill "them." Cheers. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Berkeley's Ghost
Moonlighting Idealist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/29/08 - 08:41 AM:	#6
I think non-black raven may have a point here. Regardless of ones view of faith or of god or religion in general there is a possibility that the moderates and fundamentalist are different epistemologically. If both of the sects claim to be the best representatives of Mohammad and the "word of God" in the Koran then by comparing what they say to those two objectives. One could say that their faith is tethered to the objective through the objective sources of the Koran etc... So, that which better conforms to the objective sources is epistemologically superior to the other.
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.-Miguel de Unamuno Ceiling Cat is watching you post.

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 05/29/08 - 11:05 AM:	#7
Nonblack Raven wrote: This seems a fairly complete misunderstanding of Islam, as well as religious tradition in general. (I also think it is a misunderstanding of faith, but since that is more controversial, I will accept for the purposes of argument that faith is belief without evidence.) To be a Muslim is not to believe anything you believe without evidence, or to say God says whatever you think God says. To be a Muslim is to accept the "There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet", which in turn implies that what one should do needs to be based on the Koran, and perhaps other traditions concerning the saying of the Prophet. As a result, your two imagined Muslim do indeed have a common epistemology and a basis for debate. Both are forced into a discussion of whether their actions and beliefs can be justified in the light of the Koran. You may think this a bad basis for discussion, but once it is accepted, conclusions are not a matter of taste, or utterly arbitrary, or without agreement on epistemological foundations. Neither of your imagined Muslims would agree with your characterization of their epistemology. Belief in Islam might be some kind of belief without evidence, but once that belief is accepted, further conclusions are based on well defined non-arbitrary epistemology. Agreement on epistemological first principles does not, of course, guarantee agreement about conclusions--whether among Muslims or among scientists. The example may have been poorly chosen. The question really was, is faith just as valid for concepts you don't like as for those you do? And the answer is yes, it is worthless in every case.
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

Berkeley's Ghost
Moonlighting Idealist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/30/08 - 08:39 AM:	#8
We all have faith; it is only what we have faith in that changes. It is a part of every thought which passes through the consciousness; it is just as fundamental a part of our existence as rationality. It represents that leap into the darkness of uncertainty which lies at the end of every chain of reasoning we create. The distinction is not that "We have facts and reason, they have myth and faith." No, the only distinction to be made is the quality of the reasoning which backs ones faith. If you have no rational reason to have faith in what you believe then you are just an idiot, but the vast majority of people do have some sort of rational framework on which their faith rests. No philosophy has a monopoly on reason and rationality, just as no philosophy has a monopoly on faith.
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.-Miguel de Unamuno Ceiling Cat is watching you post.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.