NO EXCUSES.
OK. Here ya go:
My conclusion is up. Good job, Dorky. It was a fun debate.
I hope we can continue the discussion after the debate is over and the judging is finished. I am wondering if I should start a new thread in the religion forums for it, though, because Iâd prefer the opportunity for higher traffic and more input.
Yeah, Iâd love to continue the discussion. I know Cyrene would like that too. Heâs already told me Iâm wrong I imagine most people are on his (your) side too.
I think Xunzian is the clear winner of the debate, though he overextends himself the same way Dorky did, just in the opposite direction by removing religion entirely from the list of causal factors, attempting to argue that itâs entirely immaterial . . . Even as Xun portrays it, thereâs still plenty of room for religion to serve a causal role - but on a point-by point basis, he takes the trophy.
i must say, i really prefer formal debates like this one where both sides are arguing what they actually believe as opposed to the ILO-ILP style debates with arbitrary topics.
I agree the materialist stance is not without difficulties and inconsistencies. But that is generally how models operate â they work for a while but upon close enough scrutiny, they break down. However, I do think the materialist model is substantially better than the model proposed by the religion hypothesis. I think that the graph shown on page 13 of this powerpoint presentation offers a good model for the situation. Religious extremism is a factor, but youâll note it is a derived factor as opposed to a causative agent. An indicator, if you will. Naturally, I wasnât going to even cede that within the debate (though I came close in the closing argument) but I wanted to argue an extreme interpretation to show that religion doesnât need to even be factored in to have a coherent model of the situation in the ME.
Dorkyâ
Conflating religion and nationalism and religion and land issues didnât help your case as far as I am concerned. Once these elements are merged how can we evaluate the relative contribution of religion to the problem? The purpose of analysis is to isolate factors not mix them. How do we know that Islam is no more than a big loud toothless handless passenger on a Middle Eastern Bus driven by someone else?
Xunxian â You almost had me believing that religion is neutral in the whole middle eastern deal. The powerpoint presentation is the coup de grace in your case against the role of religion in the Middle Eastern conflict.
AllâAs far as continuing the discussion, I could get on board if we focus on trying to define what religion is. Unless we can do that we will never agree about religionâs part to the human condition.
Well, donât let the ppt or the quip I made above influence your voting. That was outside of the debate.
As for defining what religion is . . . ask twelve anthropologists, get twelve answers. Ask twelve theologians, get twelve different answers. Ask twelve philosophers, get twelve answer. That leaves us with just 36 different, oftentimes mutually exclusive, definitions
Personally, I think that the âduck-testâ is the best method for determining what is-and-is-not a religion. It is crude, and there is bound to be some quibbling, but most people would group things like Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, Judaism, Wicca/New-Age, Scientology, and classical paganisms of various stripes as âreligionsâ whereas things like capitalism, communism, republicanism, nihilism, existentialism, pauperism, heroism, botulism, epicureanism, nazism, conspiracy-theory-ism, mohism, legalism, aristoteleanism, and so on as ânot religionâ despite the fact that elements are shared between the groups and in some cases, it seems like one group might be a better fit but for a variety of classical reasons we put it in the other area. There are some grey areas, like Voodoo, but those are the exception and not the rule.
In terms of how religion relates to other concepts, it is a pre-modern concept and is heavily rooted in all sorts of cultural narratives in a manner that canât be extracted very easily. I think Dorky was entirely correct to point that out. I still donât think it is causative in those cases, but it does play a role.
Take land, the tribal gods are always closely interconnected with the land. It gets a little more complicated in monotheism, since there is only one god and it occupies the position of both supreme god as well as tribal god, but that doesnât mean that the land doesnât get imbued with sacred relevance in some way or another. This Church, that place where so-and-so-spoke, that mountain where the truth was revealed, that rock where a new, pure civilization was founded, that hill where a moral city was built, that castle where a book was translated, and so on. And that is without going into things like saints and wise-men who occupy roles similar to local gods (indeed, a lot of saints seem to be Christianized local gods).
Likewise with politics. The concept of having the political will embodied in the people has had relatively few expressions in history. And many of those have had other religious justifications as well. Things like âGod bless the USAâ have many parallels in many, many countries â even supposedly secular ones. So rulers do tend to rely on religious principles to justify their actions.
In terms of defining religionâs role, the best I can do is one by way of metaphor: it is the meter of a culture. The rhyming scheme varies and the words that are spoken . . . those are completely unique. But the meter provides an enduring similarity as well as a ritual space to operate in.
Iâm having serious truble judging this oneâŚ
Xun was a pro⌠and if I were to judge on form rather than content I would peg Xun as the winner⌠but I wonât judge on form⌠Iâll be judgeing on content. And from what I can tell the debaters were putting down their beliefs and not just fancy rhetoric, so i donât believe i was expected to judge on form, in the first place, but rather the strength of the arguments, the reasons for why these beliefs are held (or ought to be held).
I think Dorky had good insight into the religion of islam, which I am personally very familar with, and that he would have done well to go into more detail about what a belief in islam entails. Many of the arguments he puts forward i found that I could easily have put forward myself⌠yet at the same time I found myself agreeing with nearly everything Xunzian was saying as well⌠How can this be?
I actually find myself capable of being in nearly perfect agreement with both debaters⌠so how to judge? it seems either I utterly missed the point, or that something was overlooked in this debate.
I think i would have liked to have the term âreligionâ defined more clearly⌠it seems to me that the âreligionâ that xunzian was claiming has no role, was not the âreligionâ that Dorky was blaming. Dorky is absolutely right when he says that islam is âmore than a religion. It is a geopolitical project, a system of government, and a political ideology.â
Islam differs from nearly all other religions in that it contains not only lessons in morality, insight into the spiritual and perspective on the passing world we live in⌠it offers a lifestyle and a system of government through which we will obtain peace and well being⌠in detail. and because of this, what you will find, in most muslims, is that their religion merges with their culture, national, as well as personal indentity to such a degree that they themselves cannot distinguish them from eachother⌠So how could we hope to? Do we even need to?
For me this is an especially difficult debate to judge if I am to judge it on content⌠I would have liked to see it go on a bit longer and a tad less formal, so as to flush out more. But alas this is what I have⌠and Iâve got some thinking to do⌠Iâll re-read the arguments a few more times⌠and try to make a callâŚ
but let me tell ya⌠there were times were I wanted to pitch in so bad⌠I would love to have a thread where this debate was continued and where I were allowed to contribute my own thoughts.
Hi Mad Man,
I agree completely with your analysis. I feel there were a lot of points I forgot to make (of course after the fact), and so the discussion will continue in a thread when the judging is done in the religion forums.
Iâll make it with an opening post as my fourth argument in the series.
I agree completely, and have already said as much above. What I think would be helpful is if we could lay bare out definitions of religion and the assumptions those defintions are based on. That we will agree is probably not a realistic goal as Xunxian pointed out. But if we each were to clearly define what we mean by religion I think it would be clear how our conlcusions about issues like religions role in the Middle East flow from our assumptions.
Personally I think religion is based on something like an instinct that is manifest in consciousness as an intuition of unity in diversity that evokes a sense of basic trust. So according to my view, the social manifestations of religion are based on shared intuition. Once you get to the group level you have all the ordinary dynamics of group behavior in play including need for approval, hierarchy, socal exchange, reciprocal altruism, conflict etc. So at the social level it may be impossible to conclusively sort out the relative contribution of the original âspiritualâ impulse from the rest of the mix.
You want me to post a judgment now?
Sure. The formal part of the debate is over. Though I donât think the actually topic will ever fully exhaust itself
Finally I have come to a decision.
Although I thought Dorky did a great job, his efforts fell short in comparison to Xunzianâs utter thoroughness. and even though I thought Xunzian stretched some of his arguments rather thin, I must admit that he made a much more solid case for his views at the end of the day.
I thought it was a very interresting topic and a joy to read this debate thanks to the thoughtfulness of the debaters⌠and by no means easy to judge⌠however I must declare Xunzian the winner with my vote.
Again⌠I would like to thank Xun and Dorky for their efforts.
Thank you guys for a wonderful debate. =D>
P.S. canât wait to see it continued
Wrong. I donât have to prove it has a causative role. The causative role could be economic or social circumstance. Whatâs more dangerous, a spark, or the resulting explosion once the gasoline has been ignited? I donât care what the initial catalyst is. Maybe being poor pushes one towards fundamentalist beliefs, but itâs what those beliefs cause people to do that Iâm concerned with, and I still havenât seen an argument that links anything but belief to such specific actions.
What a dumb fucking thing to say. This might shock you, but some people have never had a religion, and still agree itâs the problem. Some peoplesâ paradigm is moderate Christianity, and still agree itâs the problem. I donât have a vendetta against religion because of my upbringing. Iâm not trying to convert moderate Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or even Muslims to atheism. Believe what you want, as long as you donât shove it down my, or anybody elseâs, throat.
ProfoundâŚthank you for a short and vague summation of my argument. Thatâs exactly the problem. If the Koran and Hadith were filled with nothing but peace and loving versus, and yet followers of Islam still committed atrocities, I would have no problem attributing it to social or economic factors, and absolutely nothing to do with religious belief. The fact that it has verses open to be interpreted in violent, sick, and twisted ways, IS the problem. And itâs not people misinterpreting them, they are clearly and explicitly violent.
First of all, Iâm not trying to prove that religion is ultimately evil. Secondly, Iâm not proving that religion is the root cause of terrorism. Stop the linear thinking and straw men. There are many possible causes of terrorism.
It is possible for morality to progress despite religious belief, which has clearly been demonstrated even with Christianity in the United States. People realized equal treatment of women was right, even if thatâs not what it says in the Bible. People realized slavery is wrong, despite what it says in the Bible. But unfortunately, moralityâs progress is STILL hindered by religious belief, i.e. discrimination against homosexuals. I do have faith, however, that mankindâs morality will once again overcome the âmoralityâ religion provides.
Fundamentalist Christians would claim moderate Christians arenât true Christians, and in some ways, theyâre right. People can feel free to distort the message of the Koran to fit into a modern society. I think more distortion has to happen in Islam than in Christianity.
Easily winnable? Excuse me? Not according to the impossible standards you set. Youâre basically saying that I lost the argument because you have a fundamental disagreement with my opening premise, which obviously means no argument I laid out had any relevance to your decision. It was decided before it started. Unless youâd like to clarify or change your statement.
I must have missed that argument. Maybe itâs because you never made one. Iâm disappointed in you Felix. You started by putting on a cheerleading outfit with Xunzianâs name plastered across the back. You followed up by blaming my religious past for my beliefs, as well as pigeon-holing me as a clone of Sam Harris because I agree with some of his arguments. You make the asinine assumption that all of my arguments were cut and pasted from a Sam Harris book, which you either havenât read, or didnât understand. You havenât laid out one counter-argument. Not one. Iâve combed over your posts in the vain hope that I was wrong, and that you mightâve exerted the slightest effort to lay out a counter-argument to anything Iâd said, but alas I came up short.
Let me get this straight: Youâre saying we need to isolate religion and land issues into two separate categories, without any justification for doing so, after I clearly stated they are so inextricably linked, itâs impossible. What justification do I have to say they are inextricably linked, you may ask? Oh, I donât know, maybe itâs the hundreds of verses in the Islamic religionâs holy texts that explicitly talk about and couple land issues and religious belief. Pray, do tell how YOU would isolate religious belief from land issues, and why. As an afterthought, this isnât a science experiment where you can isolate variables. Maybe thatâs why weâve made more progress in science than in society and politics IMO.
And for the record, this has absolutely nothing to do with which side youâre taking or your decision about who won the argument. I personally agree that Xunzian won the debate (although that has nothing to do with the truth value of his position). What I donât appreciate is that you didnât bother to put up any counter-argument, and you didnât address any of my points. Instead, you decided to restate bits and pieces of my argument, mixed in with backhanded comments about Sam Harris and my religious upbringing, and said I was wrong without even an inkling as to reasons why.
Suffice it to say Iâm extremely disappointed.
Now, on to Xunzian. Look for a thread coming soon in the religion forums.
I look forward to the thread This has been fun, no hard feelings I hope. I had to twist some pretty hard sophistry to keep my position afloat by the end. Speaking of which, I wouldnât be so hard on Felix. I was actually afraid that my position was going to alienate him. He is religious, after all, so presumably he thinks that religion plays a role in history. Me saying it doesnât was bound to go up against that grain.
Dorky
My remarks have obviously become the object of your ire. I aplogize for the casual off-the-cuff character of my comments.
The contest was to decide the issue âReligion plays a causative role in the current troubles in the Middle Eastâ My understanding of the dynamics of religion today is that persons and group take a variety of positions on a spectrum with in the major religions today. So for example within Christianity the spectrum runs from the radically fundamentalist right to the radically liberal left. On the right there have been persons who believe that murder of abortion performing physicians is justified. When they believed that some actually carried out such murders. In those cases, religion played a causative role.
The same could be said for those individuals and groups who interpret the Koran as justifying murder suicde and carry out such acts or incite others to do so. But to indict Chrisitanity or Islam because some interpret it that way and act on their interpretation is a mistake, and that is what I perceived you were attempting to do. I see the role of religion as secondary to other factors not primary. You seemed to me to be trying to make the case that it was the primary cause.
Sorry for the extreme delay in posting this judgment. I was a little confused by the way the two debaters decided to argue things.
Xunzian argued expertly that for all pragmatic purposes religion is not a cause of trouble in the middle east, because believing that it is doesnât suggest any feasible solutions to those who would like to fix that trouble. The truth is what works, said Xunzian, and blaming foreign wars on religion isnât working. Other paradigms, such as the financial interpretation of Petraeus, have been much more successful. However, the problem is that this point only addresses the topic using a pragmatic definition of truth, which is definitely not the only possible definition nor the most common. This approach doesnât rule out religion as a cause, it just points out that religion is probably the least important one. Xunzian failed to disprove the topic, and in fact I think at one point he acknowledged that it was possible.
Dorkyd00d did a good job supporting his view that religion caused the middle eastern strife, but overextended. Like Xunzian, he also didnât seem interested in the given topic, and decided to prove not only that religion is a cause of problems in the middle east, but that it is the one and only most important overarching cause. In this realm, he did poorly, as weighing importance to humans is an area much more open to Xunzianâs pragmatism than the safe realm of truth and falsehood in which Dorky should have stayed. Dorky proved his topic, but most folks would hardly notice, so much was he being pummeled on the issue of importance that he strayed into.
As far as arguing his position on the given topic, Iâd give Dorkyd00d the victory. On the higher level of convincing me that he holds the correct position, topic be damned, Xunzian wins.
Sorry for being late. I really suck.
Hello, Michael.
What this is about, as far as i can understand it, is as Carleas correctly points out, a debate over what role religion plays in the events taking place in the Middle east today.
The problem concerns with identifying aspects of groups, and how they think of other groups in that region. Are groups identified on basis of religion? Or are they, on other basis, such as where do they belong/versus where they think they belong; are other groups impeding a rightful occupation of lands, which belong to them?
Is the anger and aggression developed there a product of these disputations , the origin of which could be traced to confusion surrounding how to point to an actual cause of the troubles?
In addition, this blog has almost a seven year history, and much has changed since then. Identifying causes, referring to movements, individual outlooks on these topics may have changed, at the very least by what some wit has called the desert politics of the Middle East . There, affiliations, regional interpenetrations, make things a lot more ambiguous and difficult to pin point.
Here politics changes viewpoints of what really goes on, more profoundly, than the actual movements taking shape., at the very least, and politics will ultimately change the very movements themselves , at the most.
I hope i gave You at least a bird eyed look at what this debate is all about.