Skeptic Project

Then we dont have any useful insights. What we have is a general assertion in which one system (belief in the divine) is dynamic and adjusts to other systems (political, material, economic) and instantly find ourselves saying something thats just not true. This is what happens when anti-religious people want to focus on the aspect of faith without understanding the other facets of institutions of belief. For everyone who does something violent because of their faith, there are people who do something peaceful or beneficial for the same reason- and we are left with no understanding because the underlying system is the same. They are not totally separate, but its a really huge mistake to conflate the variables at work here.

I'm not sure it isn't true just because its too broad for your liking. I can understand your point though, but I don't think I quite agree with it.

Perhaps put a better way, its too general to be meaningful. I actually take social science research very seriously, and I know bad research when I see it. Harris committed bad research in the worst case, and biased research in the best. The explanation that puts faith in the center of terrorist logic is insufficient to account for so many irregularities (why isn't support therefore stable and more uniform? what about the fact that a secular terrorist group has been far more deadly than a religious one?) My own argument is that religion, as a system, is always reinterpreted to fit material conditions and a myriad of other non-symbolic systems, and that al Qaeda represents a very faulty interpretation. Indeed, many muslims will argue as such. Christians do the same. I less concerned with the religious rhetoric as I am in finding the underlying cause of the phenomenon. And religion just isn't it.

I understand the other facets, unfortunately violent acts will eclipse a peaceful act every single time.

For clarification, I didn't mean the other facets of religion, I mean the other facets (or variables) that contribute to terrorist logic. Take, for example, Robert Pape's work which has shown that the really common thread among all terrorist groups (Muslim, Christian, Communist, etc) is that they derive their support from populations who are occupied by an external force. Occupation and exploitation appear to be at the core, not a religious calling.

But to AQ and militant Islamics, they do not. So who's right?

I would say that's a faulty question by virtue of the subject matter at hand. The true aspect is dynamic interpretation, not a true interpretation in and of itself. That's exactly why religious explanations in this instance are so utterly unsatisfying.

Edit: I want to clarify something here. When I originally said "faulty interpretation" I was referring to a use of faith in an exploitive fashion to support violent acts. A non-faulty interpretation would respond, in balance, between two systems (faith and material condition) without having an exploitive relationship. So, I suppose to right response to your question would be everyone who doesn't exploit faith as a way to recruit people to commit murder and stand in stark contrast to what the majority of Muslims interpret their faith as being.

How do you explain Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia then?

The Arabian peninsula was being controlled by the Ottoman empire, which was seen as representing the "impurities" of central focus here. The founder of Wahhabism partnered with the founder of the Saudi regime in an effort to liberate Saudi Arabia from Ottoman control. Foreign intervention would later continue after Saud had the bedouin forces of his coalition eliminated and British interest in the region piqued after World War I and through the modern era.

But some of the Saudi Royals view Wahhabism as a threat.

Notice some, and also notice that it may be because they are viewed as having their own interests at heart, not their peoples. They can pretty quickly be seen as being occupiers. But, again, this is kind of misleading as the Saudi Royal family actually openly support Wahhabism and have even started a police force to enforce adherence to Wahhabism. State and religious relationships are always difficult

I'm not sure they're utterly unsatisfying.

They absolutely are, they dont account for discrepancies within religious movements, across geographic regions, and the exact fluctuations in political environment (why is the Muslim Brotherhood a sponsor of violence in some countries, but not in others?). I'm sorry, but the position reeks of laziness.

No, I'm saying that religion is not a sufficient cause, because it doesn't explain the discrepancies. That's my whole point. The Muslim brotherhood is an Islamic movement everywhere, but its only violent in some places and not in others. Why? You and I are placing Religion into different variable categories, and I just don't see the merit in your approach.

@Kaiser

One of Sam Harris's arguments is that extremists of the three leading religions are the only ones that actually follow their respective scriptures verbatim. Do you believe that when religious groups adhere less to scripture, the less violent and more civilized they become in terms of human rights? This question is in context to the big three religions.

Harris' agenda is to push atheism.

I take issue with you ignoring all of the good work Harris has done to focus on one blog post after spending two pages arguing that one cannot ignore the good work religion does and only focus on the negative.

Just because someone does not come to the same conclusions you do does not make them a dishonest thinker. Check yoself before you wreck yoself.

How many of his books have you read?

Any?

I stand by my previous post.

How many of Harris' books have you read?

So none.

Nah I just want you to read someone's work before you condemn it.

You know, the same thing you expect from others.

I've the The Koran, its shit.

Try again, son.

Nah.

Well at least we've established that you can just as easily condemn without an acceptable level of knowledge as those you criticize for doing so.

Too late. Its been established.

Pwned.