Comments

  • Islam: More Violent?
    It's more complicated than that. If you're interested, I found Muhammad Qasim Zaman to be an excellent entrance to the topic. Modern Islamic Thought in a Radical Age, and The Ulama in Contemporary Islam were both great.

    And a book that broadened my puny horizons was Religions of the Silk Road by Foltz.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    The problem of induction isn't supposed to make you stop your car in the middle of the highway because you don't know why you believe the road up ahead is going to be there when you move forward.

    It's part of a philosophical conversation. It's an "Oh Shit!" moment between British Empiricism and Kant. I actually don't quite understand the significance anybody finds in Kant sans that oh-shit experience.
  • Islam: More Violent?
    And this is why good intentions aren't enough to make one an expert. The point tom is about to make regarding Sunnis is correct.
  • The Shoutbox
    Anybody read City of God? Is there an awesome guide book or commentary?
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    If we can't rely on logic and our knowledge because something might be different five minutes from now, then doesn't that place a major emphasis on our observations - in order to acquire that new knowledge? I mean if we already possessed all knowledge, then what use would our senses have?Harry Hindu

    You could base your faith in contiguity on observation if you have a functioning crystal ball.
  • Islam: More Violent?
    I don't understand what you're saying here. Most Muslims are moderate people, just like the rest of us. Perhaps you mean that there aren't prominent Muslims who are widely quoted as being moderate. Well, I live in a town in the north of England, and here and across the north from Liverpool to Manchester and Leeds and up to Newcastle, there are atheists, Christians, Muslims and all sorts mostly living quiet lives.mcdoodle

    Pipes' insight is not an indictment of the behavior of the average Muslim. It's the observation that there is no religious apparatus behind a so-called moderate Islamic viewpoint. That apparatus is like a baby trying to be born.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    I don't mean to be pedantic or picky, but I'm not sure what 'contiguity' is supposed to mean in this context. Do you mean 'connection between', 'continuity from' or something else?John

    You put a cup of tea to your lips. You drink it with full confidence that the tea won't change into gasoline on its way down your throat. You're willing to stake your life on contiguity. The question is: why? With this question, British Empiricism bites the dust. Rationalism does as well.

    But, to repeat again, I do think we have practical rational justification to believe such a thing and that it is not merely a matter of irrational habit, as Hume claims.John

    If temporal and spacial extension are apriori knowledge about objects, could we relate that in some way to this confidence?
  • Islam: More Violent?
    I really don't like Daniel Pipes, but I think he has a point when he says there's medieval Islam and there's Islamism. Moderate Islam is mostly a resident of the imagination.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    I was just talking to John about a snake. I was trying to head toward the notion that just as the self must contain undisclosed elements, the world must also. Aesthetic imperative? Somehow we drifted over to wondering what the basis of a certain kind of confidence is.

    There was also the issue of the transcendent viewpoint (from which one asks questions about life as if it's a painting.)

    I'm a little baffled that you don't seem to know what the problem of induction is.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    But is there some "logical" reason to doubt that the past acts as a constraint on future events such that repetition becomes so likely that it approaches the status we grant "a causal law"?apokrisis
    I don't know. Is there?

    There is a suppressed premise in you argument - that causation is a matter of direct control rather than indirect limitation. But a pragmatist need only presume that the past weighs heavy on the freedoms of the present and so future outcomes can become reasonably assured.apokrisis

    I didn't present an argument.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    Or maybe Bayes?Brainglitch

    Would that give us confidence or just be an expression of our confidence?
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    Embracing this assumption is a fine, upstanding thing to do. All the cool kids do it. That was never in question.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    Again, there's wisdom in pragmatism, assuming contiguity past to future.
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    The logic is that past experience is the best (in fact the only) guide that is backed up by any systematic reasoning that is consistent with our overall experience.John

    Past experience is an excellent guide, assuming contiguity past to future. But the challenge was to support this assumption.
  • Islam: More Violent?
    I'd say, "First Amendment, mf."

    I'm just trying to tell you: your characterization of Jesus as a fire and brimstone preacher isn't in the NT. That came later. As for the OT, he (is supposed to have) said that the Law and the prophets can be derived from two rules, one of which is: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." He said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

    It's pervasively a pacifist message. Vengeance belongs to God, not us. That means a Christian hawk will be at odds with the scriptural Christian message. Likewise, a Muslim who preaches pacifism will be have to deal in some way with the actions of the founder of Islam.

    But if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam?
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    The problem of induction zeroes in on our faith in contiguity past to future. Even if we knew that X has always been true until now, that knowledge would not logically support the conclusion that X will be true five minutes from now.

    Logic is not the basis of this faith. Obviously it isn't observation. So what is the basis of it?
  • Can humans get outside their conceptual schemas?
    But I do think the conclusion is certainly supported by inductive and abductive logic, and that they are not merely matters of habit, as Hume claimed.John

    How would the argument go?
  • Islam: More Violent?
    I would simply have us seek comparable depth of understanding concerning major religions before we decide to judge one of them as the worst religion of all.VagabondSpectre

    Christianity is easy for me because I grew up with it. I decided to try to understand Islam better and I ended up reading several books (just trying to piece things together.) I guess I'd say that if you want to defend Muslims from racists, misrepresenting Islam isn't the best way to do that. If the racist in question is Christian, you can just invite him or her to actually be a Christian.