To understand the true dangers of Islamic militancy, we can compare it to another ideology which sought world domination - communism. Both movements pursued irrational goals, but the communists at least pursued theirs in a rational way.
Anytime they had to choose between ideology and their own survival, as in Cuba or Berlin, they backed off and chose survival.
Not so for the Islamic militants. They pursue an irrational ideology irrationally - with no apparent regard for human life, neither their own lives nor the lives of their enemies. The Communists seldom, if ever, produced suicide bombers, while Islamic militancy produces hordes of them, glorifying them and promising them that their dastardly deeds will earn them a glorious afterlife.
This highly pathological aspect of Islamic militancy is what makes it so deadly for mankind.
Jeff then glosses his statement as follows:
As Netanyahu shows, sometimes it will be in the self-interest of some theists to sacrifice their own life while committing evil acts. As Netanyahu says, when the Communists had to choose between ideology and their own survival, they chose survival. In contrast, Islamic terrorists do not have to choose between ideology and survival; they are able to consistently act as suicide bombers in support of their irrational ideology.
Two problems:
i) Jeff is smearing theists when he uses “theist” as a synonym for “Muslim.”
a) “Theist” is a more general term than “Muslim.” Therefore, the title of his post is misleading and defamatory. When he's referring to Muslims, why not consistently use the specific designation?
b) In addition, it’s questionable whether all Muslims are even theists. To my knowledge, you’re considered a Muslim if you’re born to Muslims, and you practice Islam rather than repudiate Islam. But that’s not the same thing as believing in the existence of Allah or the revelatory status of the Koran.
ii) Jeff misstates the point of contrast. Netanyahu didn’t suggest that communists had to choose between ideology and survival whereas Muslims weren’t confronted with that dilemma. Rather, Netanyahu’s point is that both groups have to choose, but they choose different horns of the dilemma. When push comes to shove, Communists opt for survival at the expense of their ideology whereas Muslims opt for ideology at the expense of their survival. Muslims sacrifice their lives for the sake of their ideology whereas communists sacrifice their ideology for the sake of their lives. Both groups must pay a price, but the cost is not the same.
Jeff also says:
Netanyahu made a very interesting comparison of the behavior of atheistic communists vs. the behavior of theistic terrorists. Ever since watching that interview, I have been trying to track down the exact quotation as I think it would be useful in the context of theistic complaints that if there is no God, there is no reason for someone not to behave according to pure self-interest.
This is unclear. Perhaps Jeff was tripped up by his own double negation. To say “if there is no God, there is no reason for someone not to behave according to pure self-interest” is equivalent to saying if there is no God, there is a reason for someone to behave according to pure self-interest. At least in standard English.
Critics of atheism don’t deny that atheists have a reason to behave according to pure self-interest. The conventional criticism is just the opposite: atheists have no reason to act contrary to pure self-interest. No reason to be altruistic.
If it’s a choice between acting in your self-interest and putting yourself at risk for the benefit of another, or others, an atheist has no reason to be heroically self-sacrificial.
That’s also borne out by Jeff’s example of “atheistic communists” (his adjective), who put self-preservation ahead of ideological purity. Communist leaders wouldn’t risk being nuked.
No comments:
Post a Comment