On reflection, that does seem like an unassailable claim, but it was Xunzian who provided it. There are many ways to interpret it, though.
From his first post, it seems like Xunzian is putting the emphasis on the causality, because he acknowledges that it plays a role (he mentions that those involved have no fear of death), but emphasizes that that role comes after the fact. So emphasized, he can accept that religion makes matters worse, exacerbates the troubles, but consistently deny causality.
Unfortunately, that could make the debate the kind of language game he was interested in avoiding, because d0rky might emphasize the question differently, and treat the role of religion as proof that they are a cause of the current situation, even if perhaps not the cause of the historical situation.
That’s pretty much what I got out of it. The problems (or causation) are not mutually exclusive to religious beliefs, but the beliefs are used in a motivational way.
That would be the easy way to go, but given the relative difficulty of defending Xunzian’s position, I would like to see D0rkyD00d go up against Xunzian on Xunzian’s terms.
Pav, you called it. Dorky went at it without so much as quoting a dictionary.
I thought his last quote was strange, it acknowledged the role of land, something I thought Dorky would avoid. Maybe he’s trying to keep a moderate position to stay more plausible, but I think he’s exposed himself to some skillful rhetoric. A trap maybe? Xunzian passed on it, anyway.
I’ll give Xunzian the steal, but I think it was a little more of a hoodwink. What’s the practical difference between motivations and justifications in this case? Without religion, the region is peaceful, are we talking about motivation, or just significant responsibility?
Dorky might be more persuasive if he did not pursue the Harris’ line of reasoning. The problem is he really seems to believe it. But hey, I get it. If the Jehovah Witnesses were my paradigm for religion, I would likely despise religion too.
I agree. I couldn’t say what, but I think he definitely had something in mind. Xunzian probably would have countered had he not had the Occam’s razor thing set up.
The difference isn’t practical, but it’s there. I mean, a justification (to me) is just coming up with a reason to do something that you would be doing and want to do anyway whereas a motivation is something that causes you to do something.
It basically just makes Religion a convenient excuse to do what it is they want to do.
That having been said, I’m feeling a little itchy, might have to get myself in another debate soon. Do you disagree with me fundamentally about anything? I asked Xunzian, I actually promised Xunzian a debate after the ILP v. ILO Debates are over provided he could come up with something that we disagree on.
Need to work on that man. I routinely try and impress on people in the religion section that it is better to take a position, stick with it, and see where it takes you. Sometimes it will be wrong, yes. It does run that risk. I’ve been wrong plenty of times. Ucci, a paragon of Christian intransigence, found himself wrong often enough that he switched from Protestantism to Orthodox. That sort of thing happens when you actually have a position to examine and be found wrong on. May as well lay it all out and see where it takes you – agnosticism, on any issue, cannot be proven wrong so it prevents development. Better a sincere position that is open to change.
I have problems with the way Xunzian used the distinction between motivation and justification, too - if a person has a ready-at-hand justification to do something, that fact alone will figure into their motivation for doing it - i don’t think the line is all that clear, particularly in the case of religious violence - sure a person may be inclined to kill anyway, but if they have a religious mandate to do so, then that’s all the more motivation to follow through, in which case religion is still playing a causal role . . .
i hope it’s not out of line for me to say so, it not being my debate - but it was alluded to above . . .
It seems as though D0rky has already written his conclusion. I’ll be following with mine shortly (probably later today) but Dorky wants to post his conclusion and finish up the debate. I don’t see anything wrong with this, so I’ll be creating a blank dummy post so he can reply with his conclusion. That allows for more natural reading order, so the final debate will look like:
Xunzian
Dorky
Xunzian
Dorky
Xunzian
Dorky
As opposed to
Xunzian
Dorky
Xunzian
Dorky
Dorky
Xunzian
Especially since the most memorable parts of any argument are the beginning and end, I feel it would be unfair to Dorky for me to both lead and finish the debate.
So don’t be confused when you see a blank post with my name on it. I’ll edit it for my conclusion later.
If Dorky’s argument of 03/07/2009 is his last, then he has lost the debate. Dorky’s side of the issue was easily winnable. There is no doubt in my mind that religion plays a role in the Middle East’s trouble. But Dorky tried to prove that it is the central or primary role. By trying to prove too much he lost the argument.
Religion ultimately boils down to what is believed by individuals. What is written in the Koran is always subject to the interpretation of a someone. If anyone in the Middle East believes that the Koran teaches them to kill innocent people and acts on that belief, then religion has played a role in the troubles of the Middle East. It’s that simple.
But by trying to prove that Islam is ultimately evil or that religion is ultimately evil or is the root cause of terrorism, etc. Dorky took on too much. He is saying that all the Muslims who don’t believe that the Koran teaches suicide bombing are wrong about Islam. He is saying they are not true Islamists. He, Dorky must know what Islam really means and stands for in contradistinction to their millions of professing Muslims who believe it teaches otherwise.
Dorky’s arguments follow Sam Harris’. Harris is already retreating from the extreme positions that he took in the aftermath of 911 when hysterical religion bashing appeared to be more rational than it does now.
Hey I was drafted after all. I give you points for sincerity. You could have won me over with an argument like I presented above. Instead, you stuck to your true beliefs even though it meant losing my vote. I applaud you sir. =D>
Should be out soon, sorry, life getting in the way. You all know how it is.
