I haven’t kept up with my Harris/Nawaz posts as much as I’d like. January is usually a busy month for me. But, I got the book now, so I can see how to spell some of these words Nawaz is saying in the audio. Here’s a summary of a couple key pages.
A sensible way forward would be to establish this idea that there is no correct reading of scripture.
If we could popularize the understanding that all conclusions from scripture are but interpretations,…
in Arabic, “This is nothing but your ijtihad”, your interpretation. The historical (Sunni) debate says we can’t close ijtihad because Sunni Muslims have no clergy, anyone can interpret scripture (sufficient study of course).
For extremists who argue their way is right, we can argue it is just one way.
“The only truth is that there is no correct way to interpret scripture.” There is no right answer.
Pluralism will lead to secularism, and to democracy, and to human rights.
“We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach.”
Ijtihad. Good word to know.
I kinda expected a reaction from that last line.
“We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach."
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.Really? You read that? Somewhere? Did you know what it meant? Do you know what you just typed means?
I kinda expected a reaction from that last line. “We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach."That line seems reasonable to me. I mean atheism is the most intellectually pure approach, but we obviously live in a world where intellectual integrity is not everyone's highest priority. Also, as a citizen of the United States, I believe in freedom of religion. As an atheist, I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as religious organizations, and the beliefs and practices that they put forth, do not negatively impact others, I have no problem with them (other than their lack of intellectual integrity, but that's their choice).
I kinda expected a reaction from that last line. “We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach."That line seems reasonable to me. I mean atheism is the most intellectually pure approach, but we obviously live in a world where intellectual integrity is not everyone's highest priority. Also, as a citizen of the United States, I believe in freedom of religion. As an atheist, I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as religious organizations, and the beliefs and practices that they put forth, do not negatively impact others, I have no problem with them (other than their lack of intellectual integrity, but that's their choice). All theistic religions negatively impact people--the ones who believe and the ones who do not. It isn't atheism that is the most intellectually pure approach but non-supernaturalism. An atheist, as unlikely as it is, could believe in other supernatural phenomena than gods. The best approach is skepticism, a rejection of all supernatural phenomena and a requirement for objective evidence for any claim (in other words the scientific method). Anyone who embraces those three things will be an atheist and a rationalist and will have a better life than anyone who believes in any claim not supported by objective evidence.After that, everything is easy.
Loist… “The best approach is skepticism, a rejection of all supernatural phenomena and a requirement for objective evidence for any claim (in other words the scientific method). Anyone who embraces those three things will be an atheist and a rationalist and will have a better life than anyone who believes in any claim not supported by objective evidence. After that, everything is easy." (I haven’t figured out how to do that quote thing yet)
I think Loist, and Laustan, have a good point. In a court of law, the burden of the jury is to apply the admonition “beyond a reasonable doubt". It is my opinion that when “beyond a reasonable doubt" is applied to the analysis of the veracity of any of humanity’s supernatural religions, the truth of that religion cannot come close to meeting that burden. Those religions are obviously born and raised within human imagination. However, in terms of the origin of the universe and the origin and interaction of the basic elements of matter, I do not think that science and rationality has enough knowledge and information at this point to understand just what lies beyond the boundaries of matter. But that does not mean the there is a justification for believing that a supernatural world and beings as described by human imagination actually exists. It means only that there are still questions and unknowns that humanity may or may not eventually understand.
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.Really? You read that? Somewhere? Did you know what it meant? Do you know what you just typed means? The way I understood what I read was that the religious text was the law of the land. So when you went to court you would use the religious text as the law for your case. But there were so many different interpretations of the religious text that the courts had to limit how many interpretations you could use in court for your case. I took it that ijtihad was just an interpretation of the text. If that is not so, then I am in left field and off subject and sorry.
I kinda expected a reaction from that last line. “We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach."That line seems reasonable to me. I mean atheism is the most intellectually pure approach, but we obviously live in a world where intellectual integrity is not everyone's highest priority. Also, as a citizen of the United States, I believe in freedom of religion. As an atheist, I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as religious organizations, and the beliefs and practices that they put forth, do not negatively impact others, I have no problem with them (other than their lack of intellectual integrity, but that's their choice). All theistic religions negatively impact people--the ones who believe and the ones who do not. It isn't atheism that is the most intellectually pure approach but non-supernaturalism. An atheist, as unlikely as it is, could believe in other supernatural phenomena than gods. The best approach is skepticism, a rejection of all supernatural phenomena and a requirement for objective evidence for any claim (in other words the scientific method). Anyone who embraces those three things will be an atheist and a rationalist and will have a better life than anyone who believes in any claim not supported by objective evidence.After that, everything is easy. Agreed. "Non-supernaturalism" would have been a more accurate term for my statement. "Non-supernaturalism is the most intellectually pure approach." I would not say that "skepticism" is, simply because it seems to me that "skepticism" can sometimes become so dogmatic for some, that they tend to reject considering even "non-supernatural" explanations on existing phenomena that are not easily studied by standard existing scientific methodologies. Hence, there can be, I think, a dampening on investigation in areas that may seem "spooky", and therefore a dampening, also, in the development of new scientific methods.
Loist.... “The best approach is skepticism, a rejection of all supernatural phenomena and a requirement for objective evidence for any claim (in other words the scientific method). Anyone who embraces those three things will be an atheist and a rationalist and will have a better life than anyone who believes in any claim not supported by objective evidence. After that, everything is easy." (I haven’t figured out how to do that quote thing yet) I think Loist, and Laustan, have a good point. In a court of law, the burden of the jury is to apply the admonition “beyond a reasonable doubt". It is my opinion that when “beyond a reasonable doubt" is applied to the analysis of the veracity of any of humanity’s supernatural religions, the truth of that religion cannot come close to meeting that burden. Those religions are obviously born and raised within human imagination. However, in terms of the origin of the universe and the origin and interaction of the basic elements of matter, I do not think that science and rationality has enough knowledge and information at this point to understand just what lies beyond the boundaries of matter. But that does not mean the there is a justification for believing that a supernatural world and beings as described by human imagination actually exists. It means only that there are still questions and unknowns that humanity may or may not eventually understand.Questions are not claims. If you have an unanswered question, the proposed answer(s) still need to have objective evidence behind them. (for quoting, just click on the blue "quote" button and the post you are responding to will appear in your response. You can cut it down to the part you are referring to. Just don't remove the beginning and end tags.)
I kinda expected a reaction from that last line. “We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach."That line seems reasonable to me. I mean atheism is the most intellectually pure approach, but we obviously live in a world where intellectual integrity is not everyone's highest priority. Also, as a citizen of the United States, I believe in freedom of religion. As an atheist, I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as religious organizations, and the beliefs and practices that they put forth, do not negatively impact others, I have no problem with them (other than their lack of intellectual integrity, but that's their choice). All theistic religions negatively impact people--the ones who believe and the ones who do not. It isn't atheism that is the most intellectually pure approach but non-supernaturalism. An atheist, as unlikely as it is, could believe in other supernatural phenomena than gods. The best approach is skepticism, a rejection of all supernatural phenomena and a requirement for objective evidence for any claim (in other words the scientific method). Anyone who embraces those three things will be an atheist and a rationalist and will have a better life than anyone who believes in any claim not supported by objective evidence.After that, everything is easy. Agreed. "Non-supernaturalism" would have been a more accurate term for my statement. "Non-supernaturalism is the most intellectually pure approach." I would not say that "skepticism" is, simply because it seems to me that "skepticism" can sometimes become so dogmatic for some, that they tend to reject considering even "non-supernatural" explanations on existing phenomena that are not easily studied by standard existing scientific methodologies. Hence, there can be, I think, a dampening on investigation in areas that may seem "spooky", and therefore a dampening, also, in the development of new scientific methods. How can rejecting all claims without objective evidence be "dogmatic." Either there is objective evidence or there is not. I see no place for dogmatism in that idea. Lois
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.Really? You read that? Somewhere? Did you know what it meant? Do you know what you just typed means? The way I understood what I read was that the religious text was the law of the land. So when you went to court you would use the religious text as the law for your case. But there were so many different interpretations of the religious text that the courts had to limit how many interpretations you could use in court for your case. I took it that ijtihad was just an interpretation of the text. If that is not so, then I am in left field and off subject and sorry. If you would stop making comments from left field so often, I'd be more forgiving.
I would not say that "skepticism" is, simply because it seems to me that "skepticism" can sometimes become so dogmatic for some, that they tend to reject considering even "non-supernatural" explanations on existing phenomena that are not easily studied by standard existing scientific methodologies. Hence, there can be, I think, a dampening on investigation in areas that may seem "spooky", and therefore a dampening, also, in the development of new scientific methods.I think TimB is getting closer to the heart of the matter here. There things we want to understand, like love or awe, that are currently not getting satisfying answers from science. There's no need to point out they "occur in the brain" or "there is no free will", that doesn't forward the conversation unless you are a neuro-scientist.
I kinda expected a reaction from that last line. “We must all focus on those values without worrying about whether atheism is the most intellectually pure approach."That line seems reasonable to me. I mean atheism is the most intellectually pure approach, but we obviously live in a world where intellectual integrity is not everyone's highest priority. Also, as a citizen of the United States, I believe in freedom of religion. As an atheist, I believe in freedom from religion. But as long as religious organizations, and the beliefs and practices that they put forth, do not negatively impact others, I have no problem with them (other than their lack of intellectual integrity, but that's their choice). All theistic religions negatively impact people--the ones who believe and the ones who do not. It isn't atheism that is the most intellectually pure approach but non-supernaturalism. An atheist, as unlikely as it is, could believe in other supernatural phenomena than gods. The best approach is skepticism, a rejection of all supernatural phenomena and a requirement for objective evidence for any claim (in other words the scientific method). Anyone who embraces those three things will be an atheist and a rationalist and will have a better life than anyone who believes in any claim not supported by objective evidence.After that, everything is easy. Agreed. "Non-supernaturalism" would have been a more accurate term for my statement. "Non-supernaturalism is the most intellectually pure approach." I would not say that "skepticism" is, simply because it seems to me that "skepticism" can sometimes become so dogmatic for some, that they tend to reject considering even "non-supernatural" explanations on existing phenomena that are not easily studied by standard existing scientific methodologies. Hence, there can be, I think, a dampening on investigation in areas that may seem "spooky", and therefore a dampening, also, in the development of new scientific methods. How can rejecting all claims without objective evidence be "dogmatic." Either there is objective evidence or there is not. I see no place for dogmatism in that idea. Lois The dogmatic part for some "fundamentalist skeptics", I think can come in to play, when it too strongly discourages the process of even further looking for objective evidence, in certain areas, or in new, but still objective, ways. Certainly, it is not dogmatic to currently and provisionally reject claims that have no objective evidence. But it would be dogmatic, IMO, to hold the position that certain areas of inquiry are, therefore, decided and no search for objective evidence for alternate explanations should be done.
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.Really? You read that? Somewhere? Did you know what it meant? Do you know what you just typed means? The way I understood what I read was that the religious text was the law of the land. So when you went to court you would use the religious text as the law for your case. But there were so many different interpretations of the religious text that the courts had to limit how many interpretations you could use in court for your case. I took it that ijtihad was just an interpretation of the text. If that is not so, then I am in left field and off subject and sorry. If you would stop making comments from left field so often, I'd be more forgiving. I don’t think I was that far off. http://www.britannica.com/topic/ijtihad According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated.
I would not say that "skepticism" is, simply because it seems to me that "skepticism" can sometimes become so dogmatic for some, that they tend to reject considering even "non-supernatural" explanations on existing phenomena that are not easily studied by standard existing scientific methodologies. Hence, there can be, I think, a dampening on investigation in areas that may seem "spooky", and therefore a dampening, also, in the development of new scientific methods.I think TimB is getting closer to the heart of the matter here. There things we want to understand, like love or awe, that are currently not getting satisfying answers from science. There's no need to point out they "occur in the brain" or "there is no free will", that doesn't forward the conversation unless you are a neuro-scientist. Well, for a complete understanding of things involving human behavior, I think, you're going to need neuro-sientists and others of the biological sciences. But it would be nice to, also, have other "objective evidence" based disciplines involved as well. (Maybe Applied Behavior Analysts, for example. Maybe evidence based Social Anthropologists, etc.) But the field of Applied Behavior Analysis, for example, stays away from addressing the questions re: human behavior that occurs within one's skin, precisely because objective evidence is not (yet) easily and readily available to be studied.
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.Really? You read that? Somewhere? Did you know what it meant? Do you know what you just typed means? The way I understood what I read was that the religious text was the law of the land. So when you went to court you would use the religious text as the law for your case. But there were so many different interpretations of the religious text that the courts had to limit how many interpretations you could use in court for your case. I took it that ijtihad was just an interpretation of the text. If that is not so, then I am in left field and off subject and sorry. If you would stop making comments from left field so often, I'd be more forgiving. I don’t think I was that far off. http://www.britannica.com/topic/ijtihad According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated. So, perhaps,"ijtihad" is not, precisely, one's interpretation of "Islam", in general, as Nawaz seems to suggest. It is, more like, interpreting parts of Islamic doctrine in unique ways. If you follow the link for "bid 'ah" you can find that certain interpretations can be deemed as completely unacceptable, if deemed to be contrary to the original doctrine. So, I think, that any interpretation of an Islamic principle that is flatly in contradiction to something clearly stated in the Quran, would absolutely not be allowed.
The scripture is the laws of the land. Going to court was always a problem. Most courts had to limit the number of ijtihad you could use in court. I read where twelve ijtihad’s was the limit you could use in some courts.Really? You read that? Somewhere? Did you know what it meant? Do you know what you just typed means? The way I understood what I read was that the religious text was the law of the land. So when you went to court you would use the religious text as the law for your case. But there were so many different interpretations of the religious text that the courts had to limit how many interpretations you could use in court for your case. I took it that ijtihad was just an interpretation of the text. If that is not so, then I am in left field and off subject and sorry. If you would stop making comments from left field so often, I'd be more forgiving. I don’t think I was that far off. http://www.britannica.com/topic/ijtihad According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated. So, perhaps,"ijtihad" is not, precisely, one's interpretation of "Islam", in general, as Nawaz seems to suggest. It is, more like, interpreting parts of Islamic doctrine in unique ways. If you follow the link for "bid 'ah" you can find that certain interpretations can be deemed as completely unacceptable, if deemed to be contrary to the original doctrine. So, I think, that any interpretation of an Islamic principle that is flatly in contradiction to something clearly stated in the Quran, would absolutely not be allowed. The way I understand the evolution of religious law is that it is only contrary to the original doctrine when a higher authority says it is. Pretty much as any other laws today. Yea, you are right. Who is allowed to interpret the religious laws is the key here. And who gets to say they are contrary to the original doctrine. What history is telling us that in the courts, the jurist got to interpret the laws if the Quran was not clear on a certain law. What the lawyers would do would be to bring in different interpretation for the case on what the Quran meant or the law should be. In other words they were working the jurist (the mujtahids). The courts ended up limiting the number to interpretations the lawyers could use in a case to twelve. Then the courts limited who could be a mujtahid. The Sunnis evolved into a more modern legal system. Whereas the Shiites still use the ijtihad. As far as an Islamic principle that is flatly in contradiction to something clearly stated in the Quran not being allowed. I am not clear on how that works. Muhammad allowed other religions and worships. But today in Saudi Arabia it is illegal to celebrate any non-Muslim feast, or to hold any non-Muslim act of worship. One should consider the human factor too. The bible has what, 613 laws, people have trouble with the Ten Commandments alone. The Quran has over six thousands laws.
According to Britannica’s definition I hit the nail on the head. Britannica doesn’t get into the fact that they had to limit the number of interpretations you could use in court or the history timeline very understandably that this took place in. But it is the same as what I had stated.What nail? You said they counted ijtihads. There's nothing about that in Britannica. It's not that "they didn't get to it", it's that you made that up. So, it's not the same as what you said you at all. The important thing here is that you made it up first, then went looking in encyclopedias for an answer. You hoped to find one that fit your made up thought, but you didn't.