November 19, 2007
The Gods who built their houses on sand...
On a discussion on Samizdata and David Thompson's blog ("Explaining Why") the importance of the freedom to blaspheme (especially for non-believers) veered into some interesting discussion, vis-a-vie the intersection on religion, faith and reason. One particularly insightful comment, I thought was this:
The two "offences" most likely to be followed by violent disturbance are 1. Any "disrespect" shown the Koran 2. Any "disrespect" shown to Muhammad.
I found the Guantanamo "Koran abuse" issue totally surreal. Torture people if you must, but don't soil the holy Koran. What strange priorities.
I think that, lurking behind this indignation, is a fear that they're standing on shaky ground. For instance, Islam claims that the Koran is a perfectly preserved verbatim transcription of a speech act - in Arabic - by God. This is massively more than Jews and Christians claim for the Old and New Testaments. You only have to ask a few obvious questions to realize it's impossible this claim is correct.
There's much more in the comments at Thompson's site, but this bit in particular highlights an important point: the troubled relationship that so-called "revealed" religion has always had with reason.
It wasn't for nothing that one religious figure once uttered:
But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.
That quote is from Martin Luther, Protestant hero.
And so it was, time and time again, that religion rapidly transformed into an oppressive, intolerant force, mainly in attempt to stamp out any discovery that might contradict religious dogma. Why? It's simple. If you have a book that is believed to be the inerrant word of God it only takes one, single falsehood and the whole thing comes tumbling down in a mess.
The Church didn't arrest Galileo because he was wrong (indeed, many of the more educated bishops probably knew he was right, particularly since much of the groundwork for the science of astronomy had been conducted by clergy), but because Copernican theory posed a threat to religious dogma and they feared one drop was enough to start the deluge.
Ironically, however, religions that do survive such things, tend to end up stronger. Simply put, its followers learn to argue forcefully, with conviction, and, above all, logically. A religion that is never seriously challenged in its own sphere, a religion that is never questioned, ridiculed, nor probed for its logical flaws...such a religion will never "grow up".
Which is why cults, such as the Branch Davidians, the Exclusive Brethren, Heaven's Gate Scientology, react so vociferously to outside influence, apostasy, or attacks on dogma.
So it is with Islam. Up until recently, in every country Islam existed, it was the predominant force. Protected by law against blasphemy. Apostasy was forbidden. There was to be no criticism of the revealed word of God, nor of his final and best Messenger.
Except...the claims, as they stand, are patently ridiculous. Yet they have never been seriously questioned. The power structure of Islamic lands have never allowed it. The lack of any real textual criticism undertaken on the Qu'ran in Islamic studies, versus the vast field of Biblical criticism makes this clear.
But now....that has changed. And it will be interesting to see what the next century will bring to religion, and those that follow it.
Posted by Quentin George at November 19, 2007 06:07 PM