Reza Aslan, The Daily Show, May 13, 2015

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Reza Aslan is a religious scholar and writer whose works include "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" (2013), "How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror" (2009) and "No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam" (2005). Aslan teaches creative writing at the University of California, Riverside. His writing has been published in The New York Times, Slate, The Daily Beast, The Christian Science Monitor and The Washington Post, and he makes frequent appearances on TV and radio shows as a religious and political analyst.He is the founder of Aslan Media and the co-founder of BoomGen Studios.









Full interview @
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/okco56/may-13--2015---reza-aslan

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing: if people are putting their values into the religious texts, than the religious texts are FUCKING USELESS (for purposes of morality/values)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what Reza Aslan would argue for religious texts; and I don't even think that's his main concern, since his conversation seems to be directed at people like 'new atheists" such as Bill Maher and Sam Harris ( 9/11 liberals who rant against Islam pretty frequently), or the other side of the political spectrum: Sean Hannity / Fox News types who foam at the mouth about Islam.

I think the principle fallacy of not just to the so-called New Atheists*, but I think of a lot of critics of religion, is that they believe that people derive their values, their morals, from their religion. That, as every scholar of religion in the world will tell you, is false.

People don’t derive their values from their religion — they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, [and] Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity.

So it sounds like you’re saying that someone like Bill Maher is taking what is sort of a Rorschach test and treating it like a how-to guide or an instruction set, when that’s not really what it is.

That’s a very nice way of putting it, yeah. I mean, it’s an understandable but almost comically simplistic view of religion, which is, I think, just to get off-topic for a moment, the entire problem with the so-called New Atheist movement is that it gives atheism a bad name. This is not the philosophical atheism of Schopenhauer or Marx or Freud or Feuerbach. This is a sort of unthinking, simplistic religious criticism. It is primarily being fostered by individuals — like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins — who have absolutely no background in the study of religion at all.

Most of my intellectual heroes are atheists, but they were experts in religion, and so they were able to offer critiques of it that came from a place of knowledge, from a sophistication of education, of research. What we’re seeing now instead is a sort of armchair atheism — people who are inundated by what they see on the news or in media, and who then draw these incredibly simplistic generalizations about religion in general based on these examples that they see.

This is the thing — it’s not that you can interpret away problematic parts of a scripture. It’s that the scriptures are inundated with conflicting sentiments about almost every subject. In other words, the same Torah that tells Jews to love their neighbor also tells them to kill every single man, woman, and child who doesn’t worship Yahweh. The same Jesus who told his disciples to give away their cloaks to the needy also told them to sell their cloaks and buy swords. The same Quran that tells believers if you kill a single individual, it’s as though you’ve killed all of humanity, also tells them to slay every idolater wherever you find them.

So, how do you, as an individual, confront that text? It’s so basic, a child can understand: The way that you would give credence or emphasis to one verse as opposed to the other has everything to do with who you are. That’s why they have to sort of constantly go back to this notion of an almost comical lack of sophistication in the conversations that we are having about religion. And to me, there’s a shocking inability to understand what, as I say, a child would understand, which is that religions are neither peaceful nor violent, neither pluralistic nor misogynistic — people are peaceful, violent, pluralistic, or misogynistic, and you bring to your religion what you yourself already believe.

Source: Reza Aslan on What the New Atheists Get Wrong About Islam (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/reza-aslan-on-what-the-new-atheists-get-wrong.html)
-------------------
* new atheists : The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).

[garote]

What is a "9/11 liberal"?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It's a bit of a contrived phrase, but 9/11 liberal means being Liberal on nearly all things, save for their pro-war stance concerning the issue of Islamist terrorism. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens are examples, opposed to 9/11 conservatives such as Ron Silver, Dennis Miller, Rudy Giuliani etc etc etc

[garote]

I'm not familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, or Christopher Hitchens's "pro-war stance".

Sam Harris has made it pretty clear that he's in favor of military intervention against ISIS, the so-called "Islamic State".

But Bill Maher has said multiple times on his show - including as recently as last week I believe - that the US should get the hell out of the middle east and leave Islam to sort out its own problems, because all the military interventions there of the past 40+ years have only been in the service of oil profits, and many religious groups have made the US an enemy as a result of that meddling. How is that "pro-war"?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, or Christopher Hitchens's "pro-war stance".

They are.9/11 liberals in varying degrees. They don't all have the same views on every subject. (Hitchens and Maher on Iraq is a case in point) And if you aren't aware of Hitchens' pro-war stance (you being unaware of this really surprises me honestly), then I don't know what to tell you except to Google some of this shit on your own..

Bill Maher has described himself as a 9/11 liberal and I told you earlier the term is a bit of a contrived phrase, "pro-war stance concerning the issue of Islamist terrorism" Bill Maher has been quite pro-Israeli in regards to terrorist attacks on Gaza, etc.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"9/11 conservative."

Is that someone for whom 9/11 was the gateway drug to conservatism?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

[garote]

This is a more elaborate restatement of the red herring he delivers in the panels above.

Tell me, why does he have a problem with people attacking religious texts for supposed contradictions, out of an obvious desire to get people to abandon the religious text, or at least abandon it as a source of inspiration or guidance?

He, himself, is stepping beyond that argument, by making the claim that the argument isn't even necessary because people inevitably "find only what they look for". The conclusion either way is the same: The religious text is an irrelevance. As irrelevant as the particular pattern on the Rorschach blot. One could (and people do) find just as much depth in the works of Shakespeare.

So tell me: What's his real beef with "new atheists"?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And this is a more elaborate restatement of your wharrgarbl below.

Tell me, why does he have a problem

I don't think he has a "problem."

So tell me: What's his real beef with "new atheists"?

Didn't you read it? And this seems to really bother you.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Well you couldn't even summarize his statements in a coherent way, so ....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Oh you removed your flounce and came back?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You're really not supposed to delete comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It totally fucks up what otherwise would be dialogue.

[garote]

Got tired of feeding the troll. :/

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Will you delete this comment if I reply to it?

[garote]

Would you like me to?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Like I said before, it screws up the conversation. I find it ironic you accused him of trolling now.

[garote]

You mean hypocritical? :D

[oslo.livejournal.com]

And this is a more elaborate restatement of your wharrgarbl below.

I don't think you've contributed anything to this conversation, apart from an excerpt from Aslan, that even attempts to engage Garote's comments respectfully. Your behavior here has been embarrassingly immature.

I would construe Garote's point this way: if Aslan takes an issue with the "New Atheists" for their unsophisticated take on religion, what, then, do we say of all of the "unthinking, simplistic" takes on Christianity, Islam, etc., which predominate in public religious discourse? Because isn't that what Maher, et al.'s really criticizing? They aren't pointing at centuries of theological work and thought and trying to dismiss it as irrational gobbledy-gook. They're pointing at the contemporary phenomenon of public religion, which is awash with lots of very unsophisticated, uneducated, and unintelligent religious people purporting to defend their beliefs by pointing to texts. If Aslan can say that the "New Atheists" give "atheism" a "bad name" because they don't really engage the subject, then how can he criticize the "New Atheists" for similarly saying that violent or bigoted Christians and Muslims give their religions a bad name?

Aslan's argument amounts to a tu quoque. He's trying to discredit "New Atheists" for engaging in exactly the kind of behavior the New Atheists are accusing the religious of doing. Except that he's also trying to cover for the religious, by saying that modern problems don't have anything to do with religion as such, so instead it's really a matter of character and personal values, etc. Which isn't an apology he allows for the "New Atheists," is it?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'm glad Reza is willing to let the cat out of the bag:

Religion does not give values.

However, when you take a religious text **and believe that it is true** it is supposed to be a giver of values.

However, since we realize it DOES NOT DO THAT, we should go ahead and doubt the veracity of the text, and the underlying ideas behind it.

His argument is an argument AGAINST religion and he doesn't even realize it.


If your intellectual heroes are atheists and you are a Muslim, you're doing it wrong. Sorry Reza.

Nice guy and all, but not terribly sharp

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"if people are putting their values into the religious texts, than the religious texts are FUCKING USELESS (for purposes of morality/values)"

It is a surprising thing for a religious person to fully concede, but there's a fair amount of truth in it.

However, the big distinction (for my purposes as an atheist) is between:

• Purely intellectual judgements of the logical validity and truthfulness of religious faith
• Moral and political judgements of the impact of religious practice

That scripture has a tenuous link with religious practice means is something well worth raising as a criticism in regards to the first issue, but also means that a lot of moral and political attacks on religion via scripture are wrong-footed.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Your last statement, is all he was trying to do, particularly with both Fox News type conservatives and liberal atheists.