Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: September 15, 2017 02:49PM
Bill Maher and Sam Harris are political liberals, well known for criticizing religion, particularly Islam. As pointed out by others, it is not Islamophobia to criticize the doctrine, teachings, practices, scripture or culture of Islam, or any other religion, even if such criticism is severe. Moreover, it is not Islamophobia to express concern about the possible effects of Islam taking root in society and culture, or worse becoming dominant. "Phobia" is an irrational, emotionally based fear, not a concern or even fear that is based upon facts and evidence, reasonably articulated; even if the stated facts and evidence turn out to be wrong. That is why we argue such points.
Maher and Harris have both not only criticized Islam, but criticized the pervasive liberal attitude of intellectual tolerance and support of Islam. For example, Islam is famously discriminatory against women, with sometimes brutal practices suppressing their freedom and imposing ritualistic type abuse. This is in contravention to well-defined liberal values that in other contexts the liberal "establishment" decries forcefully, emotionally, and without the slightest tolerance. Maher and Harris ask why this distinction?
I agree with Maher and Harris on this issue, and will explain what I think (and others think) is behind this seeming inconsistency of liberalism. For the past several decades, American universities, particularly the Humanities, have been swept away by post-Modernist thinking; the idea that there is no objective truth, and that each person's subjective "truth" is as good as any other person's "truth," particularly in matters of religion. This attitude creates the liberal tolerance toward religion and religious ideas that is prevalent in liberalism generally. It is NOT the love of freedom that underlies such inclusiveness, as some have suggested. It is the failure to recognize that some ideas, e.g. some Mormon ideas, are just false, regardless of whether such ideas "work" in some subjective, psychological context. Moreover, that such ideas are not only false but dangerous.
Now, there is a softer form of post-Modern thinking that is prevalent in liberalism, and which regularly surfaces on the Board. This is the view that although there are religious myths, i.e. religious falsehoods, such myths nonetheless have "value" to a believer which value is "objective" in some sense and should be preserved if not encouraged. On this view, Islam may be based upon acknowledged false facts, but the underlying "faith" in such facts is positive for the believer, and in this sense "true" for that person. What you get is the objectification of the subjective! Once you take that position, it is difficult to criticize faith or religion on its own terms; i.e. as a cultural phenomenon that has consequences over and above the fact that some people may find "truth" in it. The "truth" found by the practicing individual somehow makes the religion itself true in some sense. You will notice that such people continually search for and emphasize the "good" while minimizing the negative effects, and resulting abuses, of the religion at large.
Note, that both brands of post-Modernism are anti-science, after the tradition of Paul Feyerabend. Science is too objective on this view, and scientific facts are too restrictive. Humanism becomes the replacement for science in the sense that subjective human needs and aspirations trump arguments based upon appeal to scientific truth.
Comments by posters Human and bona dea, and others, not just in this post, but in general, seem to me to echo this soft post-Modern view, making them, to my mind, too Islam-friendly. I find post-Modernism, in all of its forms, intellectually lazy, and too morally relative. In short, religions, such as Islam and Mormonism, have doctrines, impose beliefs and practices based upon those doctrines, and have metaphysical commitments that not only dictate their own culture, but spill over into culture at large. It is fine with me that some woman somewhere wants to put on her burka and kneel toward Mecca three times a day in prayer. But the underlying doctrines of such practices are false, and should be called out as false; just as the BoM should be called out as false. Moreover, we should not humbly acquiesce that the "spiritual fulfillment" being achieved is somehow divorced from the false beliefs that instantiate it; and is thus neutral in its global effects.
The above said, I certainly understand that the genuine liberal commitment to freedom dictates that religious behavior be tolerated, falsehoods or not. But, we do not have to take such tolerance to the level of assigning objective truth to such practices, directly or indirectly, and then tolerating real abuses that result from such faith. Moreover, as Maher and Harris point out, we need to call out Islam for what it is, as a false religion, and not be shy because our neighbor with the burka is so nice and innocent, and . . . so "spiritual."