Reza Aslan on What the New Atheists Get Wrong About Islam

[rug]

October 14, 2014
9:00 a.m
By Jesse Singal

In the recent culture-war flare-ups over Islam, the side arguing that the religion is inherently dangerous and violent has tended to be overrepresented in the media, pulling together an unlikely coalition of right-wingers and otherwise-liberal pundits like Bill Maher, as well as New Atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

There aren’t a lot of well-known figures on the other side of the debate, but Reza Aslan seems particularly comfortable in the role. The University of California, Riverside professor has carved out a niche as a particularly vocal opposition figure calling for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between faith and behavior, and last week, he penned a New York Times op-ed in response to a highly watched Real Time With Bill Maher segment in which Ben Affleck confronted Maher and Harris over what he saw as Islamophobic rhetoric.

Science of Us recently spoke with Aslan about what he sees as profound weaknesses in the New Atheist worldview, the rise of ISIS, and why it’s important to understand the differences between various Islam-influenced terror groups.

So let’s say you had Bill Maher and Sam Harris as a sort of captive audience in a lecture hall for a half hour, and only a half hour. What would you focus on? What do you want them to hear that you don’t think they’re hearing?

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/reza-aslan-on-what-the-new-atheists-get-wrong.html

[cbayer]

2. I jumped the gun on this, but it is worth reading.

I find him to be thoughtful, but I know he is persona non grata in certain sectors at this time.

But to me he is a progressive voice within Islam and that is hard to find at times.

[edhopper]

3. To completely excuse religion from blame

is just as bad as blaming everything on religion.

I find this problematic:

People don’t derive their values from their religion — they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, [and] Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity. Two individuals can look at the exact same text and come away with radically different interpretations. Those interpretations have nothing to do with the text, which is, after all, just words on a page, and everything to do with the cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political prejudices and preconceived notions that the individual brings to the text. That is the most basic, logical idea that you could possibly imagine, and yet for some reason, it seems to get lost in the incredibly simplistic rhetoric around religion and the lived experience of religion

because it doesn't take into account that many people feel God is the most important thing in their lives and act in accordance with what they believe he wants.

It also belittles how much their morals are derived from their religious teachings.

He is talking as if their isn't a true religion (yes, we know) so therefore "religion" can not be the motivating factor.
This is a poor and illogical argument.

[cbayer]

7. I agree with what he says here very much.

It is only those that see religion in a very black and white way who think that morality comes from religion. That is, by the way, an idea that is adamantly and justifiably opposed by many, if not most, non-believers.

It is the inability to see that myriad of radically different interpretations that leads to broad brush assumptions about religious people.

I like the cut of his jib on this one.

[edhopper]

8. I am saying

that the morals of religious people have very much to do with their religion and are derived from that religion in a large part.
Whether I agree with those values or not, to minimize the roll of religion in morals seems absurd to me.

it is saying that religious people, whatever their outlook, don't give thought to what they might think God wants.

[cbayer]

9. That is your opinion just as it is his opinion that people bring their own morals to

religion and do not derive them there.

I tend to agree with him on that point because it is otherwise very difficult to explain how people who identify with the same religion can have vastly different ethical and moral sets.

He makes an excellent argument for this being intrinsic or innate to the individual.

Interestingly, most "morals" are shared by believers of all stripes and non-believers. Again, that is hard to explain if you take the position that morals come from religion.

It is not saying that they don't give a thought to what god wants. I think everyone pretty much knows that people tend to believe that god approves of whatever they think is right and disapproves of whatever they think is wrong.

[edhopper]

11. Because the religion they were taught is different

there is obviously no "real" true teaching. And many factors contribute to why some things are taught and others not.

But to sweep aside the impact that people's belief in God have on their thoughts and morals is untenable.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. One would be why religions develop one way or another, and what direction they take.
Since we can obviously take God out of the equation, the answer lies in all the social and cultural stuff. But even then they also form because of what people believe God wants and there is often change because someone brings a different veiwpoitt off what God wants, they don't disguard something thing it goes agaisnt God.

But the question of why an individual follows a moral path, to not look at their religion as a source and give credence to the idea that their feelings about God play a pivotal roll is to deny the obvious.

Or do all those who oppose abortion do it because they look at the cultural significance and don't give a thought to God or souls etc...

[cbayer]

15. I agree - I don't think there is any "real" true teaching.

I don't think there is "one way" and I don't think that believing is truer than not believing.

People incorporate their religion into their lives and their liven into their religion. So what?

The only reason I can see to criticize is if they do things that harm others as a result of that, but I would criticize a nonbeliever for the same actions.

What difference does it make what went into carving the path or what it is made of. What is important is where it led.

There are, in fact, people that oppose religion on non-relgious grounds. I could care less if they oppose abortion, but do care if they wish to impose that opposition on my right to choose.

[edhopper]

16. You don't think the reasons matter

Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I do.

[cbayer]

19. If someone has reached their set of morals or ethics and some

of that is a function of their religious beliefs, why do you think it matters?

How is that any different than those that say that people can't get any morals or ethics without religion? If you and a believer have identical set of morals, is yours or theirs any more superior because one has some basis in religion and the other doesn't?

How so?

[longship]

29. Wow! Just wow!

This colloquy is one of the best in this forum in a long time.

Way to go, edhopper and cbayer.

Much to chew on here. (This from a self confessed masticator.)

This is how to have a discussion on religion.

Kudos to both of you. It warms my black heart.

[cbayer]

30. You are delightful longship.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my discussion with mr. hopper and am glad that you have also enjoyed it.

Speaking of black hearts, do you have your halloween decorations up?

[longship]

32. Nobody Tricks-or-Treats here in the Manistee National Forest.

There's not enough human population here. Lots of deer, coyotes, bear, porcupines, wild turkeys, and, so I hear, puma. I suppose I could put out some treats for the chickadees. They are very nice and don't pull too many tricks. Plus, they will land on an outstretched hand if it has sunflower seeds in it.

I think that's the best Halloween adventure here.

[cbayer]

33. Are you starting to store up all your acorns for the hibernation?

I made decorations with my newly discovered grandsons.

My daughter is now living with her boyfriend and he has 7 and 10 year old boys. This is one of the greatest things I have experienced in a very long time.

I hope that you give treats to the chickadees!

[longship]

35. No acorns, but I need to stock up on heating oil.

I have a 500 gallon tank. But my minimum buy is 150 gallons and costs me nearly $600. In the depths of winter here that will last a bit over a month if I keep the thermostat down a bit. So I will likely need three deliveries before winter ends. Plus, then there's the property taxes, always in arrears. I pay when the registered letter comes from the county treasurer. It's an annual affair, always in the depths of very cold and feet of snow.

Thankfully I am very frugal. One has to be on about a thousand a month Social Security.

Thankfully, I have lots of books, and cell connection to the Internet. And friends like you.

[cbayer]

36. Have we talked about eco-fans before?

They are pretty wondrous little inventions, but I suspect you know pretty much all there is to know about how to heat your space efficiently.

I know you love your place, but just reading about it makes me shiver. I will be spending the winter in Mexico. Be very, very envious!

It is good to live frugally but I hate that you have to go through this just to stay warm.

So, I hope your heating fuel is abundant, your books enticing and your internet connection consistent. I look forward to sharing your winter with you and will send you warm sunshine whenever possible.

[CJCRANE]

54. AFAIK abortion is allowed acccording to the Bible. So the fundies have added their own idea

that is not in the original text.

That's the beauty of religion (particularly the Abrahamic religions which are full of contradictory advice): you can have your own individual interpretation.

In general people seem to see a God which is a reflection of their own views or politics.

Liberals, moderates and conservatives are fairly similar regardless of religion and have more in common with each other than with politically different coreligionists.

For me it boils down to the old Cherokee saying about the two wolves representing Love and Hate. The one you feed is the one that grows stronger.

That is true in all religions but particularly the Abrahamic ones which have a God of Mercy and Wrath.

[cbayer]

56. Great post. I agree with the Cherokee saying - let's starve the hate

and feed the love.

[snagglepuss]

76. The whole point of religions is instilling morals. The accusation believers of every stripe

hurl at atheist is that atheists without religion can not possibly have morals.

[cbayer]

79. Where does the idea that the whole point of religion is instilling morals

come from? Do you buy the accusation of some believers that atheists are without morals because they are without religion? I don't and I don't think that is the whole point of religion.

[snagglepuss]

85. Morality is the basis of all religion as religion defines for its followers what is good and what is

evil.

snip

Islam as a comprehensive way of life encompasses a complete moral system that is an important aspect of its world-view. We live in an age where good and evil are often looked at as relative concepts. Islam however, holds that moral positions are not relative, and instead, defines a universal standard by which actions may be deemed moral or immoral.

Islam’s moral system is striking in that it not only defines morality, but also guides the human race in how to achieve it, at both an individual as well as a collective level.


http://www.whyislam.org/social-values-in-islam/social-ties/morality-ethics-in-islam/

[cbayer]

86. While i agree that issues around morality are addressed by various religions,

I do not agree that it is the basis for them or that that is the case for all religions.

Moral codes tend to be pretty standard across religions and across cultures and people without religion.

This link makes an attempt to define what that means in terms of islam, but there is much more to that religion than just this, imo.

[truebluegreen]

27. You just re-stated what he said:

How is this:
"People don't derive their values from their religion--they bring their values to their religion"

different from this:
"...many people feel God is the most important thing in their lives and act in accordance with what they believe he wants."

so apparently you agree.

[edhopper]

34. Not at all

Sorry you don't see the difference.

They believe it is true and act upon their religious beliefs.

To not say they are acting on religious grounds is absurd.

If you want to look at why religions form the way they do, that's one thing, but to disregard religious motivation is just avoiding reality.

[truebluegreen]

37. I think that they act on their values

and will seek a justification for those values, whatever the religion.

Sorry you don't see that.

[edhopper]

40. Sometimes

but if you don't think devoutly religious people are acting in accordance to what they believe God wants, you are gravely mistaken.

The idea that morals arrive in a religious vacuum and then the person seeks the religion that fits them, is an absurd notion.
Equally absurd that people don't act because they think that is what God wants.

Excusing religion from the causation of bad acts is just untenable.

Either religion is important in peoples lives, sometimes the most important, or it is inconsequential, are you really arguing that?

[cbayer]

43. Where do morals arise from in a non-religious person?

Are they somehow different when it comes to this?

I don't think this means that religion can be excused as the causation of some bad acts, but the other side of the coin is giving credit to religion for some good acts. Are you willing to see it both ways?

Either religion is important and of consequence for both good and bad things or it is unimportant and inconsequential for both.

[edhopper]

46. Yes

I am not one to say that religion only has bad outcomes. Many a selfless act is done because of peoples faith as well as many horrible acts.
I think it is all based on a falsehood, that a God exists, but I would agree people often act in good ways due to there religion.

Is the overall outcome of religion good or bad is a separate question from this claim that religion isn't a major motivating factor.

[cbayer]

48. What we see here is what I try to stress.

The variations are extreme and that is what makes lumping people together problematic.

The extent to which religion motivates individuals goes from one extreme to the other with most people being somewhere in the grey area.

And it can get really confusing when you encounter people like me. I'm not religious or a believer, but I am influenced by religion, both earlier in my life and currently. I believe my ethics are inherent and do not come from outside, but I do look to some religious teachings for guidance at times.

The critical thing to me is to take each person as an individual and avoid prejudice as much as possible.

People have said that I hate atheists or am anti-atheist. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are individuals who identify as atheist that I have very negative feelings about, but it has everything to do with them as individuals and nothing to do with them as atheists.

The same can be said for some theists that I do not like.

[edhopper]

58. Which is why

back to my original point about Aslan.

He says people do not derive their morals from religion, or act because of it, but due to other factors, unless he is trying to say there is no one true moral from any religion (and if so he says that poorly) than saying this is preposterous.

It is a unsupportable position. Peoples derive their morals in large or small part from the religion they are taught and follow and they act on those beliefs. To deny this is a foolish thing to say.

[cbayer]

59. I think his perspective is a little too narrow, but I suspect there

is truth to it and it plays a bigger role than most people recognize.

I personally do think that there is "no one true moral from any religion". There are a set of morals that are rather consistent from religion to religion, but these are also the ones generally shared by the nonreligious.

What would be a "one true moral" that is unique to a particular religion? I don't mean rituals or beliefs or anything like that. I mean a moral standard.

Again, I think there are many factors at play in the development of one's personal ethic. The degree to which religion plays a part is going to vary a great deal, but it is highly unlikely to ever be the sole source for an individual, even if they say it is.

[edhopper]

60. Yes

and the more religious someone is the moral likely a larger role it will play. Again, Aslan is wrong about this. And for me we must separate the way morals develop in a religion with the morals an individual has. Two different things entirely.

As for the morals over different cultures. There is a lot of interesting research and papers about what is inherent or genetic in morals.
Dawkins has written extensively about this and is a leader in the field.

[cbayer]

61. Well, we will have to just disagree here.

You want to draw a bright line where I don't think there is one. To me, it's a combination of things and varies tremendously from one individual to another.

Just as people make their gods look like them, they also make their gods think like them and have the same morals as they do.

Interesting you should bring up Dawkins. Hmmm, he actually agrees with Aslan to some extent on this:

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that religion is needed to make us behave morally. In support of this view, he surveys the history of morality, arguing that there is a moral Zeitgeist that continually evolves in society, generally progressing toward liberalism. As it progresses, this moral consensus influences how religious leaders interpret their holy writings. Thus, Dawkins states, morality does not originate from the Bible, rather our moral progress informs what part of the Bible Christians accept and what they now dismiss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#cite_ref-23

[edhopper]

62. We don't disagree

"A combination of things" INCLUDING religion. Aslan clearly states he doesn't think religion is involved, he says it is the product of other things but not a factor in the development of morals.

And he doesn't agree with Aslan.

He is talking about how mankind's morals came about, he adamantly has said that people act on their religious beliefs and it is a the foundation of morals for many.

Individual as opposed to larger culture and mankind as a species, It is two separate things.. I can't seem to get anyone to understand the difference, so I am giving up.

[cbayer]

63. I don't read Aslan's take as strictly as you do,

and I do read Dawkins take as saying the same thing to a certain degree, just in a different way.

It's just a difference in perspective. You don't need to give up, just recognize that people often see things differently and reach different conclusions because of it.

If I could be blunt, I get the sense that it is very important to you that religion be held responsible for things it has done wrong and the damage that it has caused. I think you are right about that, but where we part ways is probably in how far we want to take that. You seem to want to make many more things a result of religion while I tend to want to look at the other factors that play a role.

This doesn't mean that "religion isn't responsible for anything!", as so frequently sarcastically say, it just means that it's not responsible for everything.

[edhopper]

64. I never said it was

it is more pronounced here because, well, it's the religion forum.

In this country i think naked capitalism and the corruption of money as well as the growing wealth inequity are bigger problems.
The influence of fundamentalist religion is also a problem, but the religion of the other 60% of the population isn't really. (except for Catholic Supreme Court Justices who follow their religion before the Constitution.)

In this thread i am calling Aslan to task for clearly stating religion is not to blame for how people think and act..

I think the principle fallacy of not just to the so-called New Atheists, but I think of a lot of critics of religion, is that they believe that people derive their values, their morals, from their religion.
People don’t derive their values from their religion — they bring their values to their religion.

This is pure bunk. To deny religions roles in an individuals morals is absurd.

[cbayer]

65. Ok, edhopper, you think it's pure bunk and I think it's too absolute but has

a significant truth to it.

And that is where we are likely to remain.

[edhopper]

67. So people don't derive their morals from religion

all those days at church, all the religious instruction growing up, all the sermons, all the pronouncements from the Vatican.
All the talk from Rabbis, all the prayers from A'immah, any consideration of what people actually think God wants, they don't have anything to do with peoples morals? It's all because of the other cultural stuff.

He is not saying there are many influences including religion, he is specifically saying religion is not part of the equation. You don't find that ridiculous?
That is what you think is true?

Okay then.

[cbayer]

69. I did not say that, did I?

I said that there are a combination of things.

And as I have said before, morals can be pretty standard across the board with all kinds of believers and non-believers. To me that is evidence that they may come from places other than religion.

People are often raised in environments or seek out environments that reinforce what they already believe. That should not come as any surprise.

As I said, I think his position is too absolute, but I think it has some validity.

Why do you think this is so important to you?

[edhopper]

72. You are confusing the

larger picture of where mankind's morals come from, to where an individual takes his own morals from.
An entirely different discussion.

He is not talking about this, he is talking about the motivation for individuals today, and removing religion from the topic.
How is that in any way valid?

It's not important, I said what I think the first time in my original statement about his interview.

I am just not letting this conversation go. I feel I have to respond to the replies.

More a kink in my personality than a reflection on the topic. If I were busier right now I probably would have stopped a dozen replies ago.

[pinto]

71. Coming in late, but you two have got me thinking about the development of morality.

My first take is that "morality" is a pretty fluid deal. Seems to have a variety of expressions in day-to-day terms. Yet I think we all share some sense of it. Where it stems from or why, for that matter, it has a basis in our relationships is pretty fluid from my point of view.

My personal sense comes from my parents, the examples of Jesus I heard in my days as a Catholic and my experiences among friends and those around me. And from my own experience - I don't count that out. Morality is active not passive. It is as personal and perceptive as we each make it.

pinto's unified field theory of morality and all that stuff -

[edhopper]

73. There is much written about the

origins of morality in mankind, in an evolutionary sense.
Some think they come from God, but since God doesn't exist (my view) we must look at other factors.

I think this is a different topic than were the individual gets their morals from. I think there is an innate sense of right and wrong, with some big taboos in our genes, but the particulars are quite varied and given the right environment, even the taboos can be overcome.

[pinto]

74. I think there's some innate sense of right and wrong, as well.

One of those - you know it when you see it responses. Not quite on the level of some basic responses among all living being but related somewhere along the line.

[edhopper]

75. Because we are such social animals

and we develop both biologically and socially, it is hard to discern where the line is. That both influence is hard to deny (unless you talk to a hard line creationist)
Dawkins' concept of memes is about how ideas and cultural phenomena can evolve like genes.

[truebluegreen]

45. My point is its a tautology.

I didn't say "morals arrive in a religious vacuum and then the person seeks the religion that fits them". I said people see their own values as being equal to what God wants. They will point to whatever scrap of scripture that backs them up, and ignore anything that doesn't.

How else does one explain the contempt right-wing "Christians" apparently have for the poor? It certainly runs counter to everything Jesus--their savior--said. Looks to me that pre-existing values, or "culture" if you prefer, is far more consequential than "religion" per se. Which was Aslan's point.

People do stupid, mean and ugly things. People do great and wonderful things. I give people--and their culture--the blame, and the credit, not whatever religion they profess.

[edhopper]

47. Or they are taught which scrap of scripture is important

to God and go on to believe that is what God wants.

You seem to think they arrive at their morals first and then rationalize it in a conscience way.
I doubt that very much.

Or you may think I am saying "Christianity" causes this or that, I am not, i am saying the particular form of what every religion they practice and believ in does.

To excuse religion is ridiculous on the face of it.

[truebluegreen]

81. Precisely. "They are taught which scrap of scripture is important...."

Taught by whom? The "religion"? Or by someone inserting his/her own values into the religion, whichever one it happens to be?

I have to say, being accused of "excusing religion" strikes this life-long skeptical non-believing agnostic as amusing. I never needed a book to tell me that other people would prefer I treat them the same way I would prefer to be treated myself. It is called empathy, and wherever I acquired it, I assure you it wasn't in a church.

I don't excuse religion, nor do I blame it. I see it as a reflection of the people who practice it, since otherwise there is no explaining the difference between--for example--Christian conservatives and the leaders of Moral Mondays. Or the difference between jihadis and Malala Mousafzai. Believers all.

So you "doubt very much" that individuals rationalize their behavior? That is ridiculous on its face.

[edhopper]

82. I see what you are saying

and I think it is another conversation on what religion actually is. I think you are saying there is no "religion", just people and the beliefs they follow. That might make an interesting thread.

I should not have used the word rationalize.

I meant I don't think people arrive at their morals and then think rationally about which religion fits.
This is what Aslan says people do, THAT is ridiculous.

[truebluegreen]

83. I think of religion as a human construct (or 10,000 different human constructs)

all trying to define or explain the divine, provide people with an understandable place in the world, relieve anxiety, etc. I think it's a given that none of them have it right, and not much better odds that any are in the ballpark. Is there a divine, a higher power, God or gods? I don't know, and imo neither does anybody else, however strongly he/she believes. OTOH, through history there certainly is a pervasive willingness to believe in something greater than ourselves. Maybe someday science will figure it out.

I think you misunderstand what Aslan is saying--I think he is just saying what I was trying to, that cultural input comes first and then religious "principles" are tailored to fit, by accepting the ones that are comfortable and rejecting or ignoring the others--but I'll go back and have another gander. Nice talking to you.

[edhopper]

84. I think he

completely exempts the place religion teaching has on the individual. Of course other factors also are in play.
He does this with other things like FGM, it's not Islam, even though that is the reason they use to force this on woman. If people believe their version of Islam says to use FGM, then their version of Islam must bear part of the fault.
He completely downplays beliefs, which is odd for a scholar of religion.

[Jim__]

4. Interesting interview.

I'd like to see a long discussion of these issues by a panel with Aslan on it. People could challenge his opinions and he could answer them; he could also criticize the simplistic opinions of some of his opponents to their face and we could see how well their claims hold up.

[cbayer]

5. When it comes to a debate on religion, I would put my money on Aslan.

Not that he is smarter than the others, but I think his depth of knowledge and understanding is much greater.

[Jim__]

6. I agree. Aslan has actually studied the topic.

Many of his critics are proud of their ignorance.

[edgineered]

17. People act by what drives them

Aslan seems to understand why we do things by looking at the things we do. He explains with fundamental reasoning not only the existence of ISIS but also why, who, and how it attracts adherents. Those it attracts think a one world concept is wonderful, and the fight against evil outsiders will make the world better.

It seems the monkeys on the train have not yet learned they cannot control where the train goes. They don't know that if everyone was 'just like me' the world would be hell. Jim Jones had no plan to die, all the goods were on the boat he was to flee on, and his followers, each one just like the other, happy to leave a horrid world where one sees the worst of himself in every person he sees, because everyone there is just like him, and full of faults.

[cbayer]

20. I love the monkeys on the train image.

I heard some truly frightening stories about ISIS and how it recruits today. People who know how to manipulate the scenario you describe can become very powerful very quickly.

[edgineered]

22. Indeed they do.

They know that we believe what our eyes see and our ears hear.

They know exactly what to show and what to tell.

Aslan sees right through it, back in the early 70's we would be calling him a guru!

[cbayer]

23. I have also been impressed with his ability to cut through the bullshit

at times, but I have never called anyone a guru.

The closest I ever came was Carlos Castaneda, but that was very much influenced by my love of marijuana.

[edgineered]

25. Different places, different people

In a small town where the 3 coolest places to be were the health food store, the head shop (The Toad), and the record store; our exposure to the outside world was so limited, but we didn't know that. We were just kids.

The guy who had the health food store convinced us all of the evils of the foods we ate, and soon we were all on brown rice diets! His name was Monk and he had been to many places and could tell stories all day. We all yearned for the apparent wisdom of the monks, so there was much talk of spirituality even then, especially after getting a good buzz.

We belonged to LARC (Love Association for Retarded Children) where once a week we volunteered our help. We also volunteered at the RAP Switchboard, which was more like a hangout with a few couches and a phone line that people could call if they were in a crisis. Most of the time it was me, Beth, Sandy, Melinda, and DiDi but no one ever called.

The four of us we raised in somewhat of religious families of different faiths. Beth's father was a rabbi, Sandy, Melinda and DiDi I can't remember, and myself episcopalian. Beth, Sandy and Melinda are gone now, but I'm sure that they too would see things in ways similar to the author. We were always searching for spiritual answers outside of our own religions.

(the lights just came back on)

[cbayer]

31. This brings back so many memories for me.

I spent my adolescence on the south side of chicago in the late 60's and early 70's, and I know what you speak of.

We also had a coffee shop where it was really cool to hang out. That's where I fell in love with politics.

You probably went by the music store for the Blind Faith album, picked up some very seedy/stemmy pot at the head shop, then headed for the health food store to fulfill your munchies and need for spiritual enlightenment.

Those were the days. I am sorry that your friends are gone, but I am glad that their memories survive.

Day of the Dead is coming up. It's the day when some cultures believe that those who have passed come back to visit with you. Perhaps Beth, Sandy and Melinda will knock on your door.

I can't tell you what a deja vu you have induced in me. We could have been living in parallel universes.

[edgineered]

38. For the good times -

Those were the days! I'm glad you too could feel some good memories.

It's late for me, just returned from the airport. zzzzzz

[rug]

10. If smileys weren't allowed, a lot of people in here would have a severe handicap.

[edhopper]

12. A different take on Aslan

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/05/reza-aslan-is-wrong-about-islam-and-this-is-why/

also worth reading.

[rug]

13. I read their "agenda-driven narrative" last week.

[edhopper]

14. Good

[Leontius]

18. So now that you've read both agenda driven narratives which do you agree with?

[rug]

24. Aslan.

[edgineered]

26. I'll second that.

[truebluegreen]

28. Me too.

[cbayer]

21. Agree, it is worth reading.

I like Hemant Mehta generally, although I think he loses his perspective at times.

Overall, this is an interesting debate and I don't feel anyone involved is absolutely right. There is clearly some prejudice and also clearly some apologia.

As usual, issues around islam are complicated and controversial. Perhaps the problem is in trying to simplify it and coming up with pat explanations that just can't be broadly applied.

At any rate, Reza Aslan is definitely involved in stirring this pot.

[edhopper]

41. He might be better

on religious scholarship than making social commentary, as these excerpts have shown.

[cbayer]

42. I think you are quite right about that.

[snagglepuss]

77. Excellent read. Thnaks for posting

[mr_liberal]

39. So theocracy doesn't come from religion?

Where does it come from then?

[cbayer]

44. Is it entirely religious or might there be a component of some using it

to achieve power?

[AlbertCat]

49. People With Brains on What Reza Aslan Gets Wrong About "New Atheists"

1) there is such a thing as a "New Atheist" world view or organization of some kind.

the end.

[cbayer]

50. Really?

http://newatheists.org

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Atheism-Taking-Science/dp/1591027519

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/New_Atheists

Is there a term you would prefer to describe this particular group of people?

[cbayer]

57. People with Brains also know that talking about others

and mocking them behind their back is cowardly and generally indicates a complete lack of anything that would lead to a substantive discussion.

the end.

[phil89]

51. He lost credibility

with the nonsense label "atheist fundamentalist". He can't even get the basics right.

[cbayer]

52. What about that term do you object to?

I do think the term is used in a snarky and pejorative manner, but do you think it might aptly describe some people?

I think the primary problem is in it's roots, which are clearly religious, but is there another term that might describe those who are very rigid and intolerant of those whose views might be different?

[HuckleB]

53. What is the deal with Aslan's attacks?

His twitter has been rather juvenile as of late, it seems.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

[cbayer]

55. Is this the one you find juvenile?

[HuckleB]

68. That, and his original retweet.

He has spoken to Harris enough to know how ridiculous it is.

[cbayer]

70. I think the retweet was pretty juvenile as well, but

there is more than enough "juvenileness" to go around with these guys.

They have made it all way too personal and are reacting from their guts not their heads.

[HuckleB]

78. It does make me wonder about the Internet, and twitter, itself.

It's not that academics never had silly battles before, but boy can they blow up fast in silly ways, now.

I guess it helps me remember I'm not alone in my impulsive mistakes.

[cbayer]

80. Twitter seems to be particularly precarious.

The less words you use to say something, the more likely it is to be misinterpreted it seems.

[pinto]

66. The interview is a good read as are the discussions here.

To be honest I've been pretty unfamiliar with a lot of "public" atheists and knew little of Aslan. So they are interesting reads all around for me.

Most of my discussion on the topics are one-on-one conversations I have with a few friends. Not the roundtable style format here. And I've found a range of opinions in both settings. Good stuff.