Just came at this passage in Scott Atran's 'Talking with the enemy':Islam and religious ideology per se aren’t the principal causes of suicide bombing and terror in today’s world—at least no more than are soccer, friendship, or faith for a better future. What is the cause of the current global wave of terrorism, then? Nothing so abstract or broad as any of these things, but bits of all of them, embedded and acting together in the peculiar sorts of small-and large-scale social networks that are emerging in this time in history.Mind: this is a result of his field research. His comment on the 'new atheists':I certainly don’t criticize the Four Horsemen and other scientifically minded new atheists for wanting to rid the world of dogmatically held beliefs that are vapid, barbarous, anachronistic, and wrong. I object to their manner of combat, which is often shrill, scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naive, and counterproductive for goals we share.He speaks for himself, not any atheists I know. If he is an atheist he is a particularly self-hating one. But I suspect he's not an atheist at all. Just a rabble rouser who doesn't know what atheism is and wants only to denigrate actual atheists. He's more of an enemy to atheists than empty-headed theists are. Bold by me. And:The scientific ignorance and tomfoolery of many of the new atheists with regard to religion, and history, makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist². Footnote 29: This doesn’t apply to Dan Dennett, who treats the science of religion in a serious way.
He speaks for himself, not any atheists I know. If he is an atheist he is a particularly self-hating one. But I suspect he's not an atheist at all. Just a rabble rouser who doesn't know what atheism is and wants only to denigrate actual atheists. He's more of an enemy to atheists than empty-headed theists are.Seldom I read such an unbased and silly remark in a forum that is dedicated to scientific inquiry and reasoned debate.You make sweeping statements without knowing what, or who, in this case, you are talking about. Scott Atran] in Wikipedia.
Scott Atran (born 1952) is an American and French anthropologist who is a Director of Research in Anthropology at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University in England, Presidential Scholar at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, and also holds offices at the University of Michigan. He has studied and written about terrorism, violence and religion, and has done fieldwork with terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists, as well as political leaders. Atran was born in New York City in 1952 and he received his PhD in anthropology from Columbia University. While a student he became assistant to anthropologist Margaret Mead at the American Museum of Natural History. In 1974 he originated a debate at the Abbaye de Royaumont in France on the nature of universals in human thought and society, with the participation of linguist Noam Chomsky, psychologist Jean Piaget, anthropologists Gregory Bateson and Claude Lévi-Strauss, and biologists François Jacob and Jacques Monod, which Harvard's Harold Gardner and others consider a milestone in the development of cognitive science. Atran has experimented on the ways scientists and ordinary people categorize and reason about nature, on the cognitive and evolutionary psychology of religion. His work has been widely published internationally in the popular press, and in scientific journals in a variety of disciplines. He has briefed members of the U.S. Congress and the National Security Council staff at the White House on the The Devoted Actor versus the Rational Actor in Managing World Conflict, on the Comparative Anatomy and Evolution of Global Network Terrorism, and on Pathways to and from Violent Extremism. He was an early critic of U.S. intervention in Iraq and of deepening involvement in Afghanistan.And as special gift, also for TimB one citation from it:
Atran is quoted as summarizing his work thus: "When you look at young people like the ones who grew up to blow up trains in Madrid in 2004, carried out the slaughter on the London underground in 2005, hoped to blast airliners out of the sky en route to the United States in 2006 and 2009, and journeyed far to die killing infidels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia; when you look at whom they idolize, how they organize, what bonds them and what drives them; then you see that what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world that they will never live to enjoy.... Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: ...fraternal, fast-breaking, thrilling, glorious, and cool."Oh, I forgot: Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods]
Atran is quoted as summarizing his work thus: “When you look at young people like the ones who grew up to blow up trains in Madrid in 2004, carried out the slaughter on the London underground in 2005, hoped to blast airliners out of the sky en route to the United States in 2006 and 2009, and journeyed far to die killing infidels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia; when you look at whom they idolize, how they organize, what bonds them and what drives them; then you see that what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world that they will never live to enjoy…. Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: ...fraternal, fast-breaking, thrilling, glorious, and cool."
Atran does make a valid point here, and I don't understand why Harris doesn't see it. It's as if Harris has a particular mindset and verges on confirmation bias. I've read his and Atran's books BTW (the latest In Gods We Trust) and find his conclusions compelling. His contention that terrorists are in effect sociopaths, is sustained by another author Adam Lankford in his book The Myth of a martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers.... Lankford comes to the same conclusion i.e. That they are NOT essentially driven by religious fanaticism but fit the pattern of a typical socially isolated individual with delusions of grandeur.
http://cj.ua.edu/faculty_and_staff/faculty/lankford/
Cap't Jack
Thanks for pointing at Lankford, Thevillageatheist.
Found the blurb of his book ‘The Myth of a martyrdom’:
For decades, experts have told us that suicide bombers are the psychological equivalent of Navy SEALs—men and women so fully committed to their cause or faith that they cease to fear death. In The Myth of Martyrdom, Adam Lankford challenges this narrow view, arguing that terrorists are driven to suicide for the same reasons any civilian might be: depression, anxiety, marital strife, or professional failure. He takes readers on a journey through the minds of suicide bombers, airplane hijackers, ‘lone wolf’ terrorists, and rampage shooters, via their suicide notes, love letters, diary entries, and martyrdom videos. The result is an astonishing account of rage and shame that will transform the way we think of terrorism forever. Lankford convincingly demonstrates that only by understanding the psychological crises that precipitate these acts can we ever hope to stop them.Before somebody says again he is a 'rabble rouser':
Adam Lankford is a criminal justice professor at The University of Alabama. From 2003 to 2008, he helped coordinate Senior Executive Anti-Terrorism Forums for high-ranking foreign military and security personnel in conjunction with the U.S. State Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance program. Education: Ph.D. - Justice, Law & Society, American University, 2008 M.S.- Justice, Law & Society, American University, 2007 B.A.- English, Haverford College, 2002
Not only was I impressed by his credentials but his research is backed by scientifically derived conclusions and not just anecdotes and wishful thinking. He pretty much backs up Atran’s contentions that it takes more than religion to motivate killers, otherwise every devout Muslim would be a mad bomber. Also, besides the psychological and physiological reasons, the economy of these politically weakened countries makes their area a hotbed of dissent, disenfranchisement, seething anger at foreign intervention and disproportionate and unstable class system. That helps to make the Middle East a cauldron boiling over with potential martyrs.
Cap’t Jack
Not only was I impressed by his credentials but his research is backed by scientifically derived conclusions and not just anecdotes and wishful thinking. He pretty much backs up Atran's contentions that it takes more than religion to motivate killers, otherwise every devout Muslim would be a mad bomber. Also, besides the psychological and physiological reasons, the economy of these politically weakened countries makes their area a hotbed of dissent, disenfranchisement, seething anger at foreign intervention and disproportionate and unstable class system(*). That helps to make the Middle East a cauldron boiling over with potential martyrs. Cap't Jack(* devoid of hope for improvement) Sounds like what I'm talking about.
Sounds like what I’m talking about.Taken altogether, yes. One could say that religion was a catalyst, but that's only one of the factors IMO. You just can't cull out one motivation and disregard the rest which is what Harris seems to be doing. Cap't Jack
As a scientist, I have to say I care more about the implications for suppression of criticism generally in these kinds of acts than about the debates over which religion is the least tolerant of criticism. I criticize people's ideas and claims all the time, and doing so is an inherent and necessary part of the process of scientific evaluation of claims about the natural world. While I get mostly angry emails and occasional threats of litigation, rather than death threats and actual violence, I think intolerance of criticism is a continuum. The reaction of Muslim fundamentalists to these cartoons is only different in degree, not in kind, from the reaction of Christians to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Tweet on Christmas (discussed HERE]) the reaction of the NRA to criticism of its gun rights positions, or the reaction of anti-vaccine activists to rebuttal of their nonsensical claims about autism. Je Suis Charlie]Just to clarify, reaction to criticism is normal and a healthy part of debate. It is a threat to a healthy society though when the reaction is one with the intent if silencing criticism rather than meeting it with alternative ideas and arguments. We've tried that and one result was 9/11. Another was the Paris murders. If you lie down with dogs (or rats) you wake up with fleas--or most likely worse.
This is a valid point, I think. And I do not advocate an eye for an eye. But I do advocate recognizing obvious realities, e.g., Islamic doctrine is currently, a salient factor, in inspiring some individuals, and in some cases, large groups of people, to engage in deadly violent and anti-humanistic behaviors.And what about our American doctrines? So long as we remain blind to our own violence and anti-humanistic behaviors toward third world peoples - and how our policies created this hopeless situation were blind rage and violence is nurtured and seen as the only outlet left to these royally screwed over peoples this cycle will just keep intensifying. That's the only point I'm trying to make. That is a good point. The US, as well as other countries have and continue to do some pretty bad things at times. It doesn't negate my contention that Islam is interpreted and used in motivating and justifying murder and a host of other anti-humanistic actions. I don't get why this statement is even controversial. It is obvious. Another thing, Bill Maher just said that 100's of millions of Muslims applauded the action on Charlie. He is now, in the public forum, labeled a bigot and a racist. I think he was imprudent in making that statement unless he has data to back it up. But is he automatically a bigot and a racist? The claim may be false but it may not be. Of 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, it would only take less than 15% to be 200 million. I doubt that there are 200 million Muslims who would actively engage in such an act, but are there 200 million who would approve of it? Maybe.
... And as special gift, also for TimB one citation from it:Thanks for the present, GdB. It's always nice to know that you are thinking of me. Re: Your use of Atran, to, seemingly, claim that the doctrines of Islam, as taken on by violent jihadis, has nothing to do with their actions coming to fruition, is insufficient, and, IMO, obviously erroneous. Atran's claim, if it is that a sense of bonding, fraternity, aggrandizement in their peer groups is often a necessary condition, is quite credible. But it doesn't follow that Islamic doctrine, was NOT, also, a necessary factor. Altran's contention that most, of the violent acts, are predominately motivated in these Muslims, by their having "a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world...". What do you think supplies the ready made narrative and framework for this "thrilling cause". Hmmmm... Could it be......................... Islamic Doctrine?Atran is quoted as summarizing his work thus: "When you look at young people like the ones who grew up to blow up trains in Madrid in 2004, carried out the slaughter on the London underground in 2005, hoped to blast airliners out of the sky en route to the United States in 2006 and 2009, and journeyed far to die killing infidels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia; when you look at whom they idolize, how they organize, what bonds them and what drives them; then you see that what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world that they will never live to enjoy.... Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: ...fraternal, fast-breaking, thrilling, glorious, and cool."
What are the other motivations we are disregarding? LoisSounds like what I’m talking about.Taken altogether, yes. One could say that religion was a catalyst, but that's only one of the factors IMO. You just can't cull out one motivation and disregard the rest which is what Harris seems to be doing. Cap't Jack
This is a valid point, I think. And I do not advocate an eye for an eye. But I do advocate recognizing obvious realities, e.g., Islamic doctrine is currently, a salient factor, in inspiring some individuals, and in some cases, large groups of people, to engage in deadly violent and anti-humanistic behaviors.And what about our American doctrines? So long as we remain blind to our own violence and anti-humanistic behaviors toward third world peoples - and how our policies created this hopeless situation were blind rage and violence is nurtured and seen as the only outlet left to these royally screwed over peoples this cycle will just keep intensifying. That's the only point I'm trying to make. That is a good point. The US, as well as other countries have and continue to do some pretty bad things at times. It doesn't negate my contention that Islam is interpreted and used in motivating and justifying murder and a host of other anti-humanistic actions. I don't get why this statement is even controversial. It is obvious. Another thing, Bill Maher just said that 100's of millions of Muslims applauded the action on Charlie. He is now, in the public forum, labeled a bigot and a racist. I think he was imprudent in making that statement unless he has data to back it up. But is he automatically a bigot and a racist? The claim may be false but it may not be. Of 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, it would only take less than 15% to be 200 million. I doubt that there are 200 million Muslims who would actively engage in such an act, but are there 200 million who would approve of it? Maybe. There are certainly 200 million--and a lot more than that--who would not speak out against it and therefore implicily approve of it. Lois
As a scientist, I have to say I care more about the implications for suppression of criticism generally in these kinds of acts than about the debates over which religion is the least tolerant of criticism. I criticize people's ideas and claims all the time, and doing so is an inherent and necessary part of the process of scientific evaluation of claims about the natural world. While I get mostly angry emails and occasional threats of litigation, rather than death threats and actual violence, I think intolerance of criticism is a continuum. The reaction of Muslim fundamentalists to these cartoons is only different in degree, not in kind, from the reaction of Christians to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Tweet on Christmas (discussed HERE]) the reaction of the NRA to criticism of its gun rights positions, or the reaction of anti-vaccine activists to rebuttal of their nonsensical claims about autism. Je Suis Charlie]Just to clarify, reaction to criticism is normal and a healthy part of debate. It is a threat to a healthy society though when the reaction is one with the intent if silencing criticism rather than meeting it with alternative ideas and arguments. Yes, we're listening. Lois
Thanks for pointing at Lankford, Thevillageatheist. Found the blurb of his book 'The Myth of a martyrdom':Since when can't an academic be a rabble rouser?For decades, experts have told us that suicide bombers are the psychological equivalent of Navy SEALs—men and women so fully committed to their cause or faith that they cease to fear death. In The Myth of Martyrdom, Adam Lankford challenges this narrow view, arguing that terrorists are driven to suicide for the same reasons any civilian might be: depression, anxiety, marital strife, or professional failure. He takes readers on a journey through the minds of suicide bombers, airplane hijackers, ‘lone wolf’ terrorists, and rampage shooters, via their suicide notes, love letters, diary entries, and martyrdom videos. The result is an astonishing account of rage and shame that will transform the way we think of terrorism forever. Lankford convincingly demonstrates that only by understanding the psychological crises that precipitate these acts can we ever hope to stop them.Before somebody says again he is a 'rabble rouser':Adam Lankford is a criminal justice professor at The University of Alabama. From 2003 to 2008, he helped coordinate Senior Executive Anti-Terrorism Forums for high-ranking foreign military and security personnel in conjunction with the U.S. State Department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance program. Education: Ph.D. - Justice, Law & Society, American University, 2008 M.S.- Justice, Law & Society, American University, 2007 B.A.- English, Haverford College, 2002
What are the other motivations we are disregarding?See post # 44. Cap't Jack
"Not only was I impressed by his credentials but his research is backed by scientifically derived conclusions and not just anecdotes and wishful thinking. He pretty much backs up Atran’s contentions that it takes more than religion to motivate killers, otherwise every devout Muslim would be a mad bomber. Also, besides the psychological and physiological reasons, the economy of these politically weakened countries makes their area a hotbed of dissent, disenfranchisement, seething anger at foreign intervention and disproportionate and unstable class system. That helps to make the Middle East a cauldron boiling over with potential martyrs." So it takes more than religion. Are we safer for having overlooked that? It just adds fuel to the fire. We're worse off than ever. Should we be relieved that it's not just religion? LoisWhat are the other motivations we are disregarding?See post # 44. Cap't Jack
So t takes more than religion. Are we safer for having overlooked that? It just adds fuel to the fire. We’re worse off than ever. Should we be relieved that it’s not just religion?yes. Cap't Jack
We don't live in a perfect world. There are places where it would be unwise to walk around at night, but we typically don't accept that as a society. Look at the violent crime rates in most major US cities over the past 25 years or so and you'll see a dramatic reduction nearly across the board. Did that just happen on its own? Of course not, there were changes in various policies, education and outreach programs, etc. My point is that those in authority recognized that there's a problem and took actions. Is it perfect yet? Will it ever be perfect? That's besides the point, continuous improvement is the key. How can the Muslim community ever expect improvement if they won't even acknowledge some ownership of the problem? Martyrdom is a huge problem that is not being dealt with. Think about the families of those who committed some of the terrible crimes recently in the US: Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma City, etc. Are these families PROUD of what their relative(s) did? No way! That isn't the case with a Muslim martyr. Families of martyrs are held in high regard and often will receive money, food, and assistance from their community. Plus, they believe that the path to Paradise is now guaranteed for them because of what the martyr did. That is the attitude that the Muslim community needs to drive out. Their authorities are not doing their job by allowing this part of their culture to still thrive.You are mixing up two different things, two times. First: In the first paragraph you use 'authorities' as 'our authorities' and in the second you use the authorities of Muslim countries. I think it is important that we should choose the correct way to cope with Islam in general, and with Islamic terrorism. Being provocative just for the fun of it does not seem a good strategy to me. Oppressing everything that is Islam also seems a bad idea to me. Second: You throw Islamic terrorism in the West and (civil) war areas on one heap. It might be true that some parents, e.g. in Palestina are proud (but I doubt it are many. What parents say in the open might not be the same what they say in private. Read Atran.). But I don't think you will find many proud parents for Islamic terrorists in the West. One other thing to consider: Palestinians in the middle East are oppressed. What they do must be seen as resistance against the occupant. You don't need Islam for that. Were attacks of the Dutch resistance against the Nazi occupation Christian terrorism? Same in the civil war in Iraq: there are many other motivations behind it than just Islam.
What do you think supplies the ready made narrative and framework for this "thrilling cause". Hmmmm... Could it be......................... Islamic Doctrine?Yes, of course. But it also could be anger of being discriminated, of feeling that their people are oppressed in their own countries since the time of colonialism, etc etc. Islam is the easiest label. And as said, in other times they might have yelled 'Long live the proletariat!'. So, no, Islam might not be a necessary factor at all, just a factor of the form, not of the doing the deed in itself. Read the science about terrorism (so not Harris, who once considered that it might be necessary to use atomic bombs against the Islamic world). PS Stumbled over this article]:
...they all managed to leave some important context out of the discussion that is crucial to understanding the hatred and violence consuming so many in the Arab world: a century of imperialism. Since the discovery of its oil 100 years ago, the Middle East has been subjected to constant interference from one superpower or another, from the British creation of Iraq to the U.S. arming the Mujahideen to the bombing campaigns of the two Bush presidencies. Harris acknowledges this history, but apparently regards it as not all that consequential, blaming the existence of Islamic violence almost entirely on the Quran. It’s remarkable that someone as intelligent and knowledgeable about the brain as [Harris] is would deny the role steady exposure to imperial violence has in fermenting extremism.
While I understand there are many causes for becoming a terrorist, I fail to understand how the death of other humans can be considered heroic, by any but the most primitive societies. But even that can be historically explained.
What I have not heard is mention of those who send these misguided “volunteers” to commit these evil acts.
Bin Laden was a well educated millionaire. His closest advisor was also well educated and a MD.
IMO, these are the true criminals, and no matter what their grievance is, to send even boys to their death by promising an ultimate reward, or death (if they refuse) is no better than organized crime syndicate and it seems that Islamic fundamentalism is the organizational vehicle for gaining ultimate power.
Europe went through this during the Dark Ages, against the iron hand of the Inquisition of the Catholic (Christian) church, to which even entire kingdoms had to submit. This is happening today with trying to establish an Islamic world Caliphate, where any mullah can declare a fatwah against another human being, just for speaking his mind.
I am sorry, but when it comes to murdering innocent people on order of the “leaders”, who claim to act in the name of Islam, I can not find a single excuse. It is pure evil, and unless EVERY government condemnes and prosecutes these leaders, the threat remains. It must be the Islamic leadership itself which should issue fatwahs on the real criminals, not on authors of a critical book or a cartoon.