In "The Big Questions" armchair economist Steven Landsburg makes the bold claim that nearly all people who claim to be religious do not believe the most basic tenets of their faith. Based on his other writings, Landsburg seems to hold the "Axiom of Revealed Preference", an economic principle that states that people's actions are a perfect logical expression of their actual values. (The axiom is controversial among economists.)
I was thinking about this in connection with Sam Harris's inquiries into "moderate Islam". Harris seems to be leaning toward the conclusion that there are no moderate Muslims, since the majority of Muslims will profess doctrines that logically entail the atrocities of radical Islam. But I wonder if another explanation might hold: moderate Muslims do exist, however they are simply not good Muslims.
Landsburg makes a similar point, noting that out of a billion Muslims, a vanishingly small remnant is willing to respond to violations of Muslim taboos with violence. There is a simple and overlooked answer to the puzzlement that follows an act of violent terrorism. People fly airplanes into buildings because they believe what they plainly say they believe. The real puzzle is that this is relatively rare.
I am not Islamic scholar enough to say what the religious duties of true Muslims are, but I am familiar with Roman Catholicism in the United States. The overwhelming majority of Catholics say that they believe that abortion is murder, and that this belief is an inevitable consequence of their Christian faith. But what would be the expected effect of 78 million people truly believing that continual systematic mass-murder is being committed? Bumper stickers and angry letters to the editor? Occasionally, when some nut-job will kill a doctor or bomb a clinic, they are immediately renounced by the mainstream, and given the "radical" label. To me, someone like Eric Rudolph is the rare -- very rare -- example of someone who actually believes what 25% of Americans claim to believe.
Here's the claim in my own words: Religious moderates are moderate precisely to the extent that they are not religious. I wonder what others think of this.
I was thinking about this in connection with Sam Harris's inquiries into "moderate Islam". Harris seems to be leaning toward the conclusion that there are no moderate Muslims, since the majority of Muslims will profess doctrines that logically entail the atrocities of radical Islam. But I wonder if another explanation might hold: moderate Muslims do exist, however they are simply not good Muslims.
Landsburg makes a similar point, noting that out of a billion Muslims, a vanishingly small remnant is willing to respond to violations of Muslim taboos with violence. There is a simple and overlooked answer to the puzzlement that follows an act of violent terrorism. People fly airplanes into buildings because they believe what they plainly say they believe. The real puzzle is that this is relatively rare.
I am not Islamic scholar enough to say what the religious duties of true Muslims are, but I am familiar with Roman Catholicism in the United States. The overwhelming majority of Catholics say that they believe that abortion is murder, and that this belief is an inevitable consequence of their Christian faith. But what would be the expected effect of 78 million people truly believing that continual systematic mass-murder is being committed? Bumper stickers and angry letters to the editor? Occasionally, when some nut-job will kill a doctor or bomb a clinic, they are immediately renounced by the mainstream, and given the "radical" label. To me, someone like Eric Rudolph is the rare -- very rare -- example of someone who actually believes what 25% of Americans claim to believe.
Here's the claim in my own words: Religious moderates are moderate precisely to the extent that they are not religious. I wonder what others think of this.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=267380&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire