Islamaphobia?

[Onnedheil]

So, as feminists, women, fighting against patriarchy, against rape culture against male violence to women. My question is this.

Are we suddenly now supposed to be supporting a religion that is an actual rape culture, Openly accepted paedophilia, actual supremacy of toxic masculinity an actual patriarchy Which is responsible for female genital mutilation , based on a the word of a paedophile warmonger who propagates a monotheist singular God who is male .

And when Anyone, speaks out about these things We're labelled as a racist and as islamaphobe and told to silence our voice for the religion of peace?

Have I ended up in the twilight zone or something?

[Slarti]

It's not an assumption of prejudice when that prejudice is there for all to see.

[Theydontknowweknowtheyknow]

"Our view of Muslims and the countries they live in is a caricature."

I do wish people would stop telling "us" what "our" view of Muslims is. We are perfectly capable of having a nuanced view of Islam, of distinguishing between a religion and its followers, of realizing that extremes don't represent the majority or that our view of the islamic world comes through a media filter and even of disagreeing with someone's ideology whilst respecting the person's right to hold it.

This assumption of prejudice is a prejudice in itself.

[Slarti]

No, but then oil rich rulers don't really need to pay too much heed to things like human rights and equality.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

Saudi and Brunei are not third world countries. They are 2 of the richest countries in the world. There is no western European country with the same standard of living which is remotely comparable in lack of women's rights.

[Slarti]

Christianity is no picnic for women either, but I can think of plenty of Christian countries where women at least have equal rights in law, and can't think of any Muslim ones (Indonesia maybe?) where women do.

Compare third world Muslim countries to third world Christian countries and you'd find they are remarkably similar in terms of misogyny. FGM, for example, is predominantly practiced in Christian countries.

Our view of Muslims and the countries they live in is a caricature. The fact that most people can't think of Muslim countries with equality or can't think of Christian ones without it doesn't really prove that's the case rather than prove it's what we think they are like.

[laurierf]

moonstruck - you might be interested in reading this essay by Pinker and the subsequent commentaries (plus a final reply from Pinker) about whether the theory of group selection (like natural selection operating on a group level) is useful/effective in explaining cultural change and group co-operation/competition - the discussion touches on some interesting ideas. Not sure if it's the sort of thing you had in mind but I find some of the questions you've raised here about religion, community, social control/cohesion interesting.

edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection#22475

Thinking about that article has reminded me of another by Pinker that I read a while back, when I was trying to find something accessible but not too basic for a teenager, on the question of morals without religion.

www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=2

[MephistophelesApprentice]

When it comes to religion and game theory, I've always found this comic an interesting perspective: www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1899

[EnaSharplesHairnet]

Niminy I was trying to point out that picking apart the ethics of an atheist was as useful as picking holes in those of a theist. I don't presume to know what inner motivations a particular person may have.
You sound very sure of yourself. That must be nice.

[moonstruckl8]

I would like to read more laurie on cooperation and competition and that thing called parochial altruism on the game theory page. I wondered if it took it to be the other way around: that stoking fear of the other group or hyping up their competitiveness level makes a group bond and cooperate together more closely? It's a favoured tactic of right wing leaders the world over whether theists or atheists.

[moonstruckl8]

I think altruism only practised by an individual quickly becomes a burden and unsustainable. that's why we have social services and welfare benefits and a national health service that collectively comes together to help people in need. But those three institutions together only cover the minimum physical, but not the visiting the sick or helping the new mother or keeping company with the elderly. And cooperation is good when you have a good chance of reciprocity from the other but sometimes, or even many times, there isn't a chance of reciprocity. Religion gives lots of incentives in that regard, whether it's about 'good karma' or lots of cosmic brownie points in heaven or coming back as a higher caste on the next life. Those are about encouraging the ones who wouldn't be bothered about others needs over their own otherwise.it helps to have a larger number of people all practising altruism so that it doesn't become too great a responsibility on one person alone.

[laurierf]

ah x post moonstruck

[laurierf]

I'm not sure what moonstruck has said that conflicts with game theory? (I'm a bit wary of posting here so just pointing out that it's a genuine question). It's been a while since I studied Game Theory but I do remember there being a number of psychological studies at the time showing it can be a poor predictor of human behaviour so it presumably still has some limitations as a theory).

All human societies have had some form of religion. I think moonstruck's right to say that the method of organising and enforcing social cooperation has changed in many societies, but the groundwork was laid by religion and the ladder is being kicked out in circumstances where "God stuff" is no longer necessary/ palatable/ viable.

moonstruck: Cooperation also helps in competition as groups that have better cooperation within themselves makes them better at competing with other groups … which is pretty handy for crusades and conquests...

[moonstruckl8]

I found that link on game theory really interesting slugs especially the parts on reciprocal cooperation/defection, parochial altruism, and the part you mentioned that it's more profitable to cooperate when you will meet the person again. It had me thinking on religious cooperation and how that links in with this, I found the part where it said that even when there are negligible chances of seeing each other again computer modelling showed cooperation could increase if they recognised an arbitrary characteristic common to both- it used the example of a green beard but I wondered how extravagant religious rituals/dress would serve as those arbitrary common characteristics to increase cooperation amongst strangers.

The prisoners dilemma was the most interesting though Id not known of it before. I related it to the various ROSCAS iv been involved in over the years with other women in my religious community. They serve various functions: having money moving through the group whilst people save rather than everyone keeping their money at home and not spending, lending without interest which is prohibited in Islam, even keeping family money out of careless husbands hands or his grasping relatives too! They operate by mutual cooperation and trust that everyone will keep up their payments into the group for the agreed term (no. Of months corresponding to number of members) and that people won't just take their money their month then cut and run out on everyone else. They do require nerves of steel though especially long ROSCAs! but iv never been in one that collapsed, various social mechanisms are used to underpin them and along with religious exhortations on keeping promises and debts they still remain going strong.

[grimbletart]

Lewis says that conscience, that inner voice, is what indicates to us that there is a God.

That's a fanciful extrapolation. It's certainly not a logical one.

[MephistophelesApprentice]

would, say, devoting your life to outcasts and never having your own family be universally seen as socially positive behaviour?

Mother Theresa would be an excellent case in point. Yes, religiously motivated, but then really religious motivation is just a pre-scientific rationalisation of the processes I've already described.

What are these signifiers of confidence and internal security do you mean?

People who feel confident in their morality often convey that confidence in their external behaviour. Moreover, there is a body of evidence that suggests that pro-social behaviour triggers the same neurochemical structures as are triggered for less abstract benefits as food and mating. Such neurochemical rewards often have progressive physical benefits that are linked to health and therefore increased survival and mating likelihood.

And if you were behaving in selfless ways that you were aware might not be socially rewarded would you still have them? If, say, you were helping destitute asylum seekers?

All social behaviour is subject to internal interpretation. Doing something that the majority suggest is anti-social, but that you are utterly convinced is pro-social, is likely to trigger the same reward response as a pro-social act with collective recognition.

[laurierf]

without the need of a divine stick/carrot

[laurierf]

Lewis also said

there is the fact that these people, even when separated widely in space and time, have a suspicious knack of agreeing with one another in the main - almost as if they were in touch with some larger public opinion outside the pocket. What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gotama, Christ… and Marcus Aurelius, is something pretty substantial

I don't see why this needs to come from "outside the pocket" - I see it as evidence of shared human values that are evident across cultures and ages, stemming from the human capacity for rational thought and reflection and - of course - our biological make up. These shared human values are support enough for many with the need of a divine stick/carrot.

Lewis further said:

we are only creatures: our role must always be that of patient to agent, female to male, mirror to light, echo to voice. Our highest activity must be response, not initiative

[niminypiminy]

Lewis says that conscience, that inner voice, is what indicates to us that there is a God.

[BertrandRussell]

Some people do charitable things for entirely selfless reasons- pure love of humanity. Others do it for heavenly "brownie points". Others for worldly acclaim. Others for the personal satisfaction and self esteem boost it gives them. Others as a hostage to quid pro quo. Others to assuage guilt. Who knows why someone else acts in a particular way?

[grimbletart]

Maybe that inner voice (conscience) is what some think of as God? That's CS Lewis's argument in 'Mere Christianity'.

If you say so. I'm not familiar with it.

[niminypiminy]

If a person believes all will be forgiven by their deity where is their motivation to be ethical before confessing on their deathbed?

I take it you're talking about Christianity here, since Islam doesn't have that idea of forgiveness as central. In that case, you've got Christianity wrong, because forgiveness is all about new starts not about altering the past. And anyway, ethical action in Christianity is about imitation - becoming Christlike - something everyone who tries it falls short at.

Mephistopheles: would, say, devoting your life to outcasts and never having your own family be universally seen as socially positive behaviour? What are these signifiers of confidence and internal security do you mean? And if you were behaving in selfless ways that you were aware might not be socially rewarded would you still have them? If, say, you were helping destitute asylum seekers?

Maybe that inner voice (conscience) is what some think of as God? That's CS Lewis's argument in 'Mere Christianity'.