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]

When talking about religious PEOPLE, we can judge them, to an extent, by their intellect.

Reza is showing a baffling double-think here. "Religions do not provide values to people. They provide a place for people to place their already held values." This is an argument against religion.

IF God is real, and IF any of the holy texts are inspired by God, THEN we would expect them to be vehicles for the transmission of morality and proper values. We see that IS NOT the case, and we should therefore doubt the veracity of God and God's involvement with any worldly religions.

Reza's discussion on TDS re-enforced the idea that atheism is correct and religions are incorrect, by admitting that religions DO NOT have moral groundings in them.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"When talking about religious PEOPLE, we can judge them, to an extent, by their intellect."

Well, sure, and you can also judge them by their dress senses... but there's still a difference between an aesthetic and a moral judgement. It's good to be clear what kind of judgement you are making of a person and to try to avoid conflating them.

"Reza's discussion on TDS re-enforced the idea that atheism is correct and religions are incorrect, by admitting that religions DO NOT have moral groundings in them."

Which is an odd thing for a religious person to admit but, from my own atheist point of view, it's a bit irrelevant.

I clearly already think that religion is incorrect. The more important question is whether it is morally and politically damaging.

If someone wants me to believe that Islam is something that I should be scared of then I'm going to want a bit more than 'Islamic religious beliefs are untrue'.

[garote]

Okay, I'll come back to this thread, to try and make my points more explicitly, FWIW.

The proposition I made - "if the Bible, Koran, etc is such a hall of mirrors, then why not just walk away from it" - is one that could follow from the claim that religious texts are like a Rorschach test. But I don't think the proposition would be acceptable to the religious, because (as I said) there is "something keeping [people] anchored to it after all"...

To be specific, I think two things keep the religious anchored to their inspirational text:

1. It provides a common reference point for placing people in the "in group" of the religion, or the "out group" of the exploitable pitiful enemy heathens. (Plus, a more ambiguous text casts a wider net, potentially creating a larger and more flexible "in group".)
2. The text is a prop/reference in ceremonial activities that were hammered into their minds when they were impressionable (young, lonely, drug-addled, destitute, etc) and carries an emotional significance with no rational basis.

Neither of these things requires an ambiguous (or blatantly self-contradictory) religious text (even though one of them is assisted by it). But nor do these things require a coherent, or consistent one. And that's a pretty important point: The baggage of contradictions and bad instruction that a religious text can carry is a burden that the religious are compelled to carry for uniquely irrational reasons.

And so, like all rational people, they often struggle with that text, sometimes desperately or repeatedly, as they live day-to-day immersed in the religion. Sometimes the best they can do is grow a scab over the wound in their rationality and just refuse to pick at it - just as plenty of non-religious people have to do, when coming to terms with contradictory things in the "real world" (i.e. outside the pages of a religious text) like meat-eating versus nonviolence, procreating versus overpopulation, assisted suicide, addiction, birth control, keeping pets, etc.

Which leads me to the question I asked (which telemann ignored) -- What's Reza Aslan's real beef with "new atheists"? If they're barking up the wrong tree, why not let them? Why be upset by them?

Why would he (or anyone) be upset that Bill Maher is declaring that Christians who rail against homosexuality "should" also rail against eating shellfish? If the contradictions - indeed, any specific content (according to Aslan) - of the Bible is a matter of taste, then Maher can be quietly ignored, because his words would only be affirming something that the religious apparently already know, aren't affected by, aren't defined by, and don't care about.

But many of the religious are affected by these contradictions. (Not all, but many.) Pointing out the contradictions over and over is like picking at a scab. It's an annoying reminder that religious affinity is, basically, not rational, and is on some level, not suitable for rational discussion and perhaps not even for rational beings.

In other words, Aslan is upset with Maher because what he's doing is a sucker punch, and it actually hurts. In this way he is no different than dozens of other apologists I've heard over the years: He wants Maher to "play fair" (i.e. act like a religious scholar) and stop sucker punching him/his faith/the faithful. But to Maher (and to me, on my more grumpy days) this is the equivalent of an old southern plantation owner inviting guests down from New York and then accusing them of rudeness when they want to talk about slavery.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Which leads me to the question I asked (which telemann ignored) -- What's Reza Aslan's real beef with "new atheists"?"

That they attack religion. What's more, they attack religion not only on purely intellectual grounds but on political and moral grounds too. Why wouldn't he have beef about that? Why wouldn't religious people be upset about criticisms of religion?

What Reza Aslan has been keen to draw attention to in his defences of religion (the ones that I've seen) is the diversity of religious belief and practice. He's happy for the bad beliefs and practices to be condemned provided that the good beliefs and practices are praised and as long as we don't kid ourselves that religion is any one thing.

And he's right.

If you want to make moral and political judgements of religion then you have to look at actual religious practices and beliefs, which are completely independent of any disinterested, rational and informed interpretations of religious scripture. The two things are simply separate topics.

There's nothing wrong with discussing these separate topics, but there's not much to be gained from conflating them.

If you want to use your time taking cheap shots at religious inconsistency and hypocrisy then by all means go for it... but don't pretend that it's enough to justify a moral and political critique of religion. It is, at best, a criticism of the rationality and intelligence of religion.

[garote]

I agree with this, except that while religious practices and religious scripture are separate topics, I think it's undeniable that they are connected in an important way. When religious scripture is freighted with moral conundrums, those who practice the religion are compelled to accept or engage with them, and that affects the way they engage with the rest of the world.

If I meet a senator who, for example, votes against legislation concerning global warming because, in his/her opinion the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, where does the critique of practice end and the critique of scripture begin? You could say "that's a matter of personal religious belief on the part of the senator - the problem is the senator, not the scripture".

Yet, if the bible made no mention of the age of the Earth, OR if the religious were not indoctrinated to consider it a source of factual evidence when making decisions (and largely unaware of their own arbitrary Rorschach behavior), this would not be an issue. Training to suspend rational analysis of a work of fiction, and/or claim it is divinely inspired, is a problem, in itself: It is training to resist rationality in religious practice. When you attack the first, you chew at the foundations of the second. ... And from what I can tell, it's those who practice the most abhorrent behaviors in the name of religion who are the most resistant to rational appeal.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"If I meet a senator who, for example, votes against legislation concerning global warming because, in his/her opinion the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, where does the critique of practice end and the critique of scripture begin? "
...
"Yet, if the bible made no mention of the age of the Earth, OR if the religious were not indoctrinated to consider it a source of factual evidence when making decisions (and largely unaware of their own arbitrary Rorschach behavior), this would not be an issue. "

This seems a bit of an odd example to have chosen as the bible does not state the age of the Earth and trying to infer the age of the Earth from the scripture relies on some pretty dodgy assumptions and reasoning.

I appreciate that there is a particularly ill-educated breed of Christianity in American society and that this breed of Christian may often make factual claims that would have been recognised as nonsense by even Medieval theologians, but doesn't that rather illustrate the diversity involved in the interpretation of scripture?

St Aquinas recognised that Genesis must be understood as allegorical (because the alternative reading resulted in bizarre nonsense) and he lived 800 years ago. Both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church recognise that Genesis must be understood as allegorical too.

If you want to make a point about the effect of scripture on religious belief and practice, it's surely best to choose an example where a rational and informed reading of scripture does lead to an erroneous belief or vile practice (of which legitimate examples can be found).

" Training to suspend rational analysis of a work of fiction, and/or claim it is divinely inspired, is a problem, in itself: It is training to resist rationality in religious practice. "

If you want to argue that a poor grasp of reason is a moral or political failing, then you might be leaning towards a relevant point here... but I don't think those are useful to mix together here.

If you want to advocate that greater command of reason should be taught from a young age, then I'm with you. If you want to speculate that this would cause a decline in religious faith then I'm less sure. If you want me to condemn irrationality as immoral, even when it's not linked to immoral deeds, then I just can't agree. There are plenty enough negative and insulting words that can be used to describe people with poor grasp of reason and I don't see the need to borrow any from those used in moral judgement. [I personally prefer to avoid overly hostile attitudes to the ill-educated, irrational or stupid because I don't think it's remotely helpful, but if you want to 'sucker punch' someone over such things then you can do so without conflating your criticisms with moral judgement]

[garote]

There's a lot we agree on here.

" ... but doesn't that rather illustrate the diversity involved in the interpretation of scripture?"

Yes! It does. Rorschach blot, etc.

"If you want me to condemn irrationality as immoral, even when it's not linked to immoral deeds, then I just can't agree."

I am not asking for that. And I'm not arguing that a poor grasp of reason is a moral or political failing - though I suppose I could. I'm more directly focused on religious texts, and how they are used: as a source of inspiration and justification for one's beliefs/actions. What's my problem with that? It trains the religious to conflate interpretation and rational analysis. So your question is, how can I pass moral judgement on an intellectual failing, separate from any action taken as a result of that process?

I like to think of a religious text as the religious person's version of a handgun. Like a handgun, it is a powerful instrument that can be used for good or ill, depending on the morals of the user and how well they are "trained". One could say that religious moderates undergo thorough "safety training" when they are taught by moderate scholars how to interpret the religious text, and they strive to maintain a just and moral society despite the handicap that all kinds of odd things can be interpreted into existence from a different reading of that text.

There is a slogan regarding handguns that goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Reza Aslan is making the same kind of appeal as the slogan, declaring that "religious texts don't prescribe behavior, people do it via the text."

And yet, the slogan is flawed: The gun clearly helps in the killing, and the convenience of the gun can influence the decision to kill in the first place. I think the same is true for a religious text: There is danger in the convenience of justifying one's actions with it.

In other words, when religious moderates justify their morally upstanding actions by interpreting scripture, they establish and reinforce the practice of justifying anything by interpreting scripture, including anything and everything endorsed by religious extremists. They enshrine that practice - perhaps even literally - and I believe that is quite irresponsible of them.

Just to be clear, I am in no way arguing for something like a ban on any religious text, as some people can (pretty strongly) argue for a ban on handguns. That would be completely counter to my desire to encourage rational thinking, and is one place where this metaphor breaks down. What I am endorsing, is the eradication of an attitude: The attitude that the religious text is divinely inspired, and as such, a selective interpretation of it can be elevated to the status of moral justification, sharing equal status with - or outranking - scientific facts or arguments from ethics.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"There is a slogan regarding handguns that goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Reza Aslan is making the same kind of appeal as the slogan, declaring that "religious texts don't prescribe behavior, people do it via the text."

And yet, the slogan is flawed: The gun clearly helps in the killing, and the convenience of the gun can influence the decision to kill in the first place. I think the same is true for a religious text: There is danger in the convenience of justifying one's actions with it."

Of course, plenty of things can help with killing; if I stab someone with a kitchen knife then the kitchen knife has clearly facilitated my choice to commit murder. A debate on gun control will then start to talk about the differences between a kitchen knife (not designed as a weapon and possessed of many different moral uses) and a firearm (designed to kill and of comparatively smaller usefulness). I'm not sure that religious scripture folds neatly into that kind of discussion.

"In other words, when religious moderates justify their morally upstanding actions by interpreting scripture, they establish and reinforce the practice of justifying anything by interpreting scripture, including anything and everything endorsed by religious extremists. They enshrine that practice - perhaps even literally - and I believe that is quite irresponsible of them."

I think this is quite a stretch. If religious moderates have any influence on extremists, then I think it's a positive one.

If you want to look at the social factors that breeds extremism, then I don't think that the influence of religious moderates are a significant factor. I'm not even convinced that religion is a key factor either. Here in the UK, extremism amongst young people seems to be more about feelings of alienation and marginalisation amongst young Muslims.

Another example would be 'religious' extremism in Northern Ireland. Although those extremists groups were loosely tied to religion, it seems hard to believe that religion really had a lot to do with it. The factors that caused the rise and eventual settling of extremism in Northern Ireland had little to do with changes in religious belief, practice or the interpretation of scripture.

"What I am endorsing, is the eradication of an attitude: The attitude that the religious text is divinely inspired, and as such, a selective interpretation of it can be elevated to the status of moral justification, sharing equal status with - or outranking - scientific facts or arguments from ethics."

Fortunately, plenty of religious people would agree with you there.

My Religious Studies teacher at college, himself a Baptist (if I remember correctly...) was quite happy to say that scripture is only of the primary sources of Christian theology, with the other two big influences being personal revelation and reason. Whilst I appreciate that trends in Christian thought over in the US may be different, my experience of British Christians is that few would think that you could get 'all the answers' to morality, life and the universe through just sitting down and reading the bible.

[garote]

I think religious scripture folds into that part of the metaphor as well. If we exchanged a religious text that for one that didn't attribute numerous contradictory statements to god, or one that didn't claim to quote god at all, we might be exchanging the metaphorical gun for a metaphorical knife. :D But it's definitely a flawed metaphor, like most metaphors.

I think this is quite a stretch. If religious moderates have any influence on extremists, then I think it's a positive one.

I would be very interested to hear your argument for why a large group of religious moderates, relative to an equally large group of nonreligious people, is a positive influence to extremists.

Here in the UK, extremism amongst young people seems to be more about feelings of alienation and marginalisation amongst young Muslims.

Young Muslims you say? Who is alienating and marginalizing them, and why? The UK is 60% Christian - almost entirely Christian "moderates", I assume. Is that helping matters or hurting them, do you suppose? Or perhaps that's too on-the-nose. Perhaps the point is that it's marginalization and alienation by way of being poor and uneducated? Well, I don't intend to blame religious irrationality for everything. Just for greasing the path to legitimacy for otherwise hard-to-swallow movements.

Another example would be 'religious' extremism in Northern Ireland. Although those extremists groups were loosely tied to religion, it seems hard to believe that religion really had a lot to do with it. The factors that caused the rise and eventual settling of extremism in Northern Ireland had little to do with changes in religious belief, practice or the interpretation of scripture.

Then why do you bring it up? Or, more interestingly, why do you suppose the extremist groups bothered to align themselves with a religion?

"... few would think that you could get 'all the answers' to morality, life and the universe through just sitting down and reading the bible."

Did I say anyone was finding 'all the answers' in a religious text? No. Reza Aslan already made enough of an argument against that, in the posted interview.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"I would be very interested to hear your argument for why a large group of religious moderates, relative to an equally large group of nonreligious people, is a positive influence to extremists."

The issue is peer influence.

For example; Democrats and Republicans do not tend to exert much peer influence on each other. If anything, the two groups often push away from each other. However, groups within those parties do often exert an influence on each other.

Similarly, no amount of secular atheists like myself are likely to influence the way that various Islamic communities evolve over time. What you need is moderates that exist not only within the same religion but within the same community.

For example, notice how American Christianity evolved in a somewhat alarming and bizarre direction once the religious radicals who sailed off to the Americas were separated from the more settled and 'mainstream' versions of the faith back in Europe (I don't want to white-wash Christianity in Europe, but I think it fair to say that the reason why American Christianity tends to be so much worse is because it was founded out of the radical parts of European Christianity).

"Young Muslims you say? Who is alienating and marginalizing them, and why? The UK is 60% Christian - almost entirely Christian "moderates", I assume. Is that helping matters or hurting them, do you suppose? Or perhaps that's too on-the-nose. Perhaps the point is that it's marginalization and alienation by way of being poor and uneducated? Well, I don't intend to blame religious irrationality for everything. Just for greasing the path to legitimacy for otherwise hard-to-swallow movements."

Anti-Islam sentiment and Islamic extremism are pretty symbiotic; each reinforces the other.

The more xenophobic, racist and Islamophobic Britain gets, the more Islamic extremism it will breed. The more Islamic extremism found in Britain, the more people will acquire xenophobic, racist and Islamophobic sentiment.

"Then why do you bring it up? Or, more interestingly, why do you suppose the extremist groups bothered to align themselves with a religion?"

The British are predominately Protestant. The Irish are predominately Catholic. The IRA did not choose to align themselves with Catholicism but inherited it via an accident of history. It's not as if Catholicism is more obviously aligned with Irish nationalism or Protestantism is more aligned with Unionism.

In fact, religious identities in such situations (and even outside) are often surprisingly independent of religious belief but more a statement of cultural identity. It's surprising just how many Church of England attendees are seemingly completely disinterested in the quesiton of whether there's actually a God and that is seemingly true of many Irish Catholics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdolFXcNAH4) too. I wish I could find it, but there's a quite amusing bit by the comedian Shappi Khorsandi about young boys in England who are very devout in that they want to check that you're the same religion as them before they try to finger you behind the bikesheds... sometimes 'Muslim', 'Hindu' and 'Christian' are just cultural identities, not religious identities.

When people form 'us and them' groupings then they can latch onto surprisingly irrelevant beliefs, values and policies. In the case of separatism/unionism in Northern Ireland, it's religion. In the case of Southampton and Portsmouth, it's football ('soccer'). In the case of the American left-wing, the attitude towards 'state rights' / 'secession' is completely reverse of the association between left-wing politics and 'devolution' / 'independence' found in the UK. Sometimes, the 'sacred cows' of a community are formed by historical accident rather than any rational justification (http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/).

So, basically, the answer to your question 'no reason that's very relevant to this conversation'.

[garote]

[I personally prefer to avoid overly hostile attitudes to the ill-educated, irrational or stupid because I don't think it's remotely helpful, ...

I don't think it's helpful either. But I'm not targeting the ill-educated or stupid here, just the selectively irrational. Just people who use statements like "the Bible says (blah)" as evidence for how humans are intended by god to behave. And I know Bill Maher is quite happy to lump these groups together, and call all Christians "morons" - or worse - from time to time, and I'm certainly not endorsing that.

But any time anyone comes at him with "the Bible says...", and he responds with some other example of what "the Bible says", I'm glad for it.

... but if you want to 'sucker punch' someone over such things then you can do so without conflating your criticisms with moral judgement]

To reference the handgun analogy again: My next-door-neighbor owns a handgun. I don't need to wait for him to shoot somebody, to question his desire to bring a handgun into the area, do I? Bill Maher feels the same about people who construct and justify their morality by selective interpretation of a religious text: It is questionable in itself, not just because of how it may compel them to act, but because of the methodology it endorses.

I share some of his sentiment, even though I've managed to avoid most situations where I would be compelled to argue the way he does. Most of my arguments happened either in high school, or college, or at Christmas parties with my extended family. When meeting strangers, if the conversation veers off into god territory, I usually just recuse myself. Better to connect in some other way. The most recent problem I had was a few years ago, when attending an unfamiliar church in Maryland with my sister and her husband and kids. I kept my mouth shut, out of a desire to avoid embarrassing them.