Redstate

Curious that you should mention him. His book, The Suicide of the West, would seem to be a must read. In 1962 he was commenting on Islam in the same vein as did Belloc in the 1930's.  The trouble with GKC is that he has written so much so well that one might dispair of slogging through it all.  He has so many good chestnuts, so to speak, that mining them would take a lifetime.

. . . . that my slight post provoked such a thoughtful response.  As always, it is well written and reasoned.  Obviously, I disagree with some of the fundamentals -- and moreover, since (as I recall) we're both Presbyterians, I find it a bit funny that we apparently have different religions.  (Given the worldview you express, however, it's not inaccurate to say so.)

It is my firm belief that a blow for clarity, and ultimately a blow for sympathy, would be struck if we were to begin to think about religion not so much as the dogmas and doctrines to which men commit themselves, but rather as the world they inhabit; not so much their formal creed as their vision of life and death and the trajectory of man; their assumptions about what it means to be men; their convictions about what they are accountable for as men.

This would actually make things less clear.  Your assumption -- a commonly held assumption -- is that "science" and "rationalism" are other religions, and are on the same footing as "traditional" religions.  It's misleading to so say.  The essential difference between the "rationalism and "religion" is that "rationalism" is a posteri -- it reasons from the behind, from what has been sensed -- while traditional religions are a priori -- they reason from first principles.  The former requires no faith; it requires one to accept only the flat edge of perception.  The latter depends entirely on faith.

It's thus wrong to call "rationalism" another religion.  By definition it is not.  Moreover, unlike religious v. religious disputes (I agree with your statements that Moslems and Christians would do better to understand their disagreements rather than attempt an impossible agreement) rationalism can be reconciled with religion.  E.g., if your a priori religious belief is that religion deals with the supernatural, there is no conflict with your a posteri scientific beliefs, which can only measure the natural.  This is not to say the need to reconciled:  Folks who believe in creationism or intelligent design hold an a priori belief that religion deals with both the natural and supernatural; accordingly, religion directly conflicts with the a posteri reasoning of science regarding the natural.

In your quest for clarity, be careful not to confuse simplicity with the accuracy (or, as it may be more elegantly put, beauty with truth).  IMHO, the real trick is to know when matters are clear and when matters are unclear.

Nice essay Paul, and congrats on your new arrival too!

Your idea of religious war contrasts with that of jihad, correct?  I tend to think jihadists would use any instrument in their power, espeically gov't, whereas your idea of religious war seems to advocate the use of rhetoric & personal example as the chief (only?) weapons.

...for the modern man to comment on religious differences and the inherent violent nature of reconciling religions without being taken as a bigot. You have, sir, done an exemplary job in hitting some of the key themes of religion and violence without making an assertion that one religion is inherently violent (and thereby implicitly asserting that the other is not). I salute you for that.  I have done extensive research on the topic but there is no reason at the time for me to expound on it (perhaps a future diary entry.) In response to your post:

As one who was raised Muslim, and as one who has a minor in Muslim-Christian Understanding, I agree that there are key differences between Islam and Christianity that cannot be resolved unless one recognizes those differences. The two main fault lines are the divinity of Jesus and the notion of the modern state (in classical Islam, the state could never be as high in importance as God, for there is only one God who is the ultimate authority).

Now, of course, there are many liberal Muslims out there (including my family), who have absolutely no problem with democracy and many of the cultural elements that come with American dominance. In theological terms, the main issue is the divinity of Jesus; however, even Muslims agree that Jesus was a prophet ...and a great one at that.

What is important to me, however, is that American Christians understnd not only the differences between the two religions but also the similarities - the basic ones that come, for example, with a shared Old Testament (although there is the interesting catch that in Islam, Abraham was to sacrifice Ishmael, not Issac...an understandable difference since Ishmael was the forefather of the Muslims whereas Issac was of the Jews).  What interests me is that even scholars, when they speak of "God" for Muslims, refer to him as Allah..just the Arabic word for God. NB: Even Christians in the Middle East pray to Allah.

The word you are looking for is not "science" or "rationalism;" it is "naturalism," or possibly "materialism."  Science is a methodology, not a belief structure.

That's the point, in part.  Paul writes:

A man is no more or less religious because he believes in the Incarnation of the Word or because he proclaims that noble tautology, there is no God but God; he is rather a certain type of religious man. And indeed another type is the man who considers himself irreligious or agnostic.

Well, no:  an irreligious man is not a religious man, and it does not make things clearer to proclaim it such.  

Rationalism and religion may coexist or they may not.  There can be overlap.  There can be no overlap, however, between competing religions:  One is either a Hindu, or one is a Muslim; one is not both things.  Similarly, one can be a Unitarian and believe, at base, everything but if one is one cannot also be a Lutheran and believe only certain things.  Yet any of this folks can be rational, and rational in the same way as the atheist.  The difference with the atheist is that he does not have religion in addition to his rationalism.  It is not, as Paul posits, that he is practicing a new religion of his rationalism.

A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience.

A proposition is knowable a posteriori if it is knowable on the basis of experience.

Sorry I had to look those terms up (a bit out of my depth here?).  Now here is what Hume has to say:

The existence, therefore, of any being can only be proved by arguments from its cause or its effect; and these arguments are founded entirely on experience. If we reason a priori, anything may appear able to produce anything. The falling of a pebble may, for aught we know, extinguish the sun; or the wish of a man control the planets in their orbits. It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another. Such is the foundation of moral reasoning, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human action and behaviour.

I would argue that Reason is useful in a limited sense, and that it ultimately is a subset of faith.  On to another point:

It's not that religion deals with just the supernatural: it is a mindset about one's life in general.  If your mindset is as Richard Dawkins's is, and thus you believe "we are . . . robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" then that definitely qualifies as a rival metaphysical system, which is a simile for religion.  A belief like the one Dawkins holds informs how you live your life, indeed why you exist, and something so fundamental must be considered religious.  So I'd agree with Paul that religion should be viewed as one's "vision of life and death and the trajectory of man".  It seems pretty clear to me that there are those who hold a religious belief in "naturalism", just as there are those who hold a belief in Christianity.

The gulf is indeed huge and cannot be bridged.

There is a third, huge, fault line that you omit: The age of public revelation, from a Christian perspective, closed with the death of the last Apostle. Ergo, nothing revealed to Mohammed is of any theological significance.

The issue of the divinity of Christ is really a subordinate issue to the hostility towards the concept of the Trinity. But to set the record straight, we Christians do not believe Jesus was a prophet, great or otherwise. To attempt to soft pedal this as a point of agreement rather than an irreconcilable point of difference does a disservice to your otherwise thoughtful post.

You're absolutely right. In fact, I just had a discussion about this recently in which C.S. Lewis' <U>Mere Christianity</U&gt came up. He asserted that either Jesus was divine...or he was crazy. He couldn't be in the middle, as he claimed clearly in the Bible that he was the Son of God. (Interestingly enough, this discussion occured during an attempt to figure out how I would raise my children if I married a Christian..you think two people of different religions merely getting along is hard?)

Anyway, I apologize for the oversight...I make the claim about Jesus being a great prophet a lot and at times I forget the complexity of the issue.

..which brings me to a side note. I ceased to call myself "Muslim" a few years ago and recently have been exploring Unitarianism. However, I have come to an understanding as to why Unitarians are so darn liberal...some call themselves a Christian Unitarian, some are Muslim, some are atheist Unitarians...but really, the only way to reconcile all of this is if you are intrinsically secular.  Ironic, however, because in my opinion many who search out Unitarianism do so because they are dissatisfied with an inherently secular life...

Von, you have plunged us immediately into precisely the debate I wanted to avoid. Alas, the fault probably lies with me.

Do or do not irreligious men have views about the nature of Man, his destiny and moral agency? Do or do not freethinkers believe something about how the world works?

Perhaps the word religious is the obstacle here, but I will not allow an asserted negation to be taken as a neutral statement. Liberalism (which is the shorthand I am using for this religion) posits certain ideas about the nature of the universe; many of these ideas are is the manner of a revolt, a rejection, a negation. But they are still ideas about the nature of the universe. Remember the Rush song "Freewill"?

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice

GKC had some astonishingly perceptive comments on Islam as well.

I agree that his oeuvre is so vast that few can manage it. Those who do, however, will be rewarded.

The two main fault lines are the divinity of Jesus and the notion of the modern state (in classical Islam, the state could never be as high in importance as God, for there is only one God who is the ultimate authority).

Very succinctly put.  I tend to think the differences were few and the centuries have seen the number increase.  I attribute this to modern Liberalism and it's expansion as the dominant religion even within the Christian community, as well as the unfortunate movements within Islam to become more beduin.  

It is the fuqh, and the Wahab who have forgotten that God is the ultimate authority, hence their effort to enforce His rule on earth.

The difference between an atheist and a theist is that atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, do not believe metaphysics are possible, wheras a theist does; "there is no God" is not a religious belief, though it is an article of faith.  The religious, by definition, believe in some kind of supernatural or metaphysical aspect to things; the irreligous (atheists) believe that this is simply impossible, that all of existence is the physical world alone -- the universe, or cosmos, or whatever.  But nothing hiding on the "other side" of reality; what we see is what we get.  Certainly it is a spiritual belief, and certainly it is taken as an article of faith, but I feel it is strongly distinct from "religion", which I would consider knowledge gained through revelation, scripture, or tradition, rather than through deductions based on one's sensoral experiences of the physical world.

Let's not mix up religion and philosophy.  One's "way of thinking" is not a religion, it is a philosophy.  Religion specifically addresses metaphysics and the supernatural, and diluting this to include one's outlook on life as a whole is a descent into the depths of unclarity if I've ever seen one.

I agree with Jason's response, and add the self-evident point that using "deductions based on one's sensoral experiences of the physical world" is not religion.  Therefore, when faced with a person who relies exclusively on "deductions based on one's sensoral experiences of the physical world," it is extremely confusing (not to mention inaccurate) to state that the person has a religion.  In fact, he has no religion.  In your example, he chose "no" -- and that he chose "no" does not create a "yes".      

I rejected the term philosophy, especially in the context which I was writing, because men do not often go to war for philosophy. A man must feel something deeper in his bones than dry questions of metaphysics when he stands in a trench against artillery; or crouches in a cave as F-18s roar overhead.

And moreover, most men are not philosophers; while most are, by and large, religious -- even under Von or Mr. Bergman's usage.

I hope that, if nothing else, my essay here might begin to suggest a real problem, which is further hinted at by our grasping at various terms and phrase, each laden with its own baggage, to describe something real.

It seems to me that the reason that Religious War (as commonly defined) is anathema is that its justification is rooted in Who People Are and not What They Do.

Now, obviously action is a consequent of belief, but the two are not equivalent.  And to punish (or, to dispense with the abstract characterization of war, kill) one human being because she shares a system of beliefs with other people, who are murderers (and yet not the same beliefs, for she is not a murderer), is monstrous, and its only justification is the urge to clarity and simplicity in a world where it's rarely forthcoming.

Your talk of war is antiseptic, Paul, and I admit I can't figure out whether you're referring to a war of ideas fought in the human soul or played out in blood.  If the former, I doubt any Liberal or anyone else would disagree with you.  You have every right to make that war on Liberalism or Islam or any other set of beliefs you abhor.  It is ours as compassionate people to try to make sure that those bloodless wars do not spill out into murderous conflict.

Do you agree, or am I to take you literally?  You cannot threaten their religion out of someone.  You can only remove it by killing them.  Srebrenica, Auschwitz, Lhasa. . that's religious war.  It doesn't horrify you?  Are you willing to kill someone for the crime of praying to Allah?  

Euphemism, indeed.

...it's just contradiction.

This:

men do not often go to war for philosophy

is not self-evident.  Neither is this:

most men are not philosophers.  

Can you explain why you believe them to be true?

Good post, Paul. A couple of thoughts, apropos of some of the discussion here.

First, that belief-system/worldview that goes by a number of terms (rationalism, secular humanism, naturalism, etc.) has been categorized by some of its greatest proponents as a religion (cf. the first Humanist Manifesto). Dewey et al believed that this worldview was a religion, even though it denied a transcendent Being. That the Second Manifesto eschewed the term seems to be based on more pragmatic reasons (no pun intended).

Second, there are a number of a priori's held by rationalism. The law of non-contradiction, for example. Or the belief that was is true in this corner of the universe is true in another. Or the scientific method itself (it can't be subjected to itself). Don't get me wrong: I believe that these things are all true. But they haven't (and indeed cannot) be empirically demonstrated.

FInally, not all of those worldviews labelled "religions" are "revealed religions." Confucanism comes to mind. It seems that there are sufficent parallels between humanism and this Eastern religion in terms of form to properly refer to the former as a religion.

Great discussion to a great post.

Massacre horrifies me, but it is a feature of virtually every war.

When I spoke of Liberalism, I spoke indeed of a war of ideas. But when I spoke of Islam and its confrontation with the West, I mean more than ideas. But I think your phrasing is suspect: "Are you willing to kill someone for the crime of praying to Allah?"

Of course not. It is no crime. But you speak in the tones of murder and genocide, where I speak of men at arms clashing in the field of battle. What is it that makes moral men kill other men whom they have never met? It is religion, and all of us have it.

Problem is no one "relies exclusively on deductions based on" their "sensoral experiences of the physical world."

I get ya, really I do.  But the use of "religion" and "religious war" seem to be off the mark verbally; I would certainly agree that we are involved in a cultural war, a clash of civilizations, but religion is more of a signifier of these civilizations than a root of it.

Thing is, there is no official religion in the U.S., but there most definitely is an official culture: democracy, which is often mistaken for a political system.  We are at war with non-democracies, and essentially have been since the founding of the country.  Though the actual killings come and go, the war is always "on".  Democracy is by no means exclusive to Americans, though by and large it is a pretty Western culture; I daresay the democracies of Europe are in no way "less democratic" than democracy here is -- after all, democracy comes from Europe.

This culture is, in the sense you use it, our "religion", and it is easily big enough to envelop the "conservate" and "liberal" subcultures that mostly comprise it; if the two camps could stop hating each other so much and sit down for a beer sometime, they'd see a lot more common ground with each other than they both would expect.  But, alas, their very hatred of each other is precisely what makes it a democracy: when you get everyone in a country agreeing with one another, democracy is failing.  When everyone supports one way of thinking about a particular issue, democracy is failing.  When there's one party left that runs everything, democracy has failed.

Thus, when you say that you are at war with the "religion" of Liberalism, you seem largely out of touch with the broader picture here.  As I suggest, you should be treating Liberals as your political foes, you should be debating policies and approaches and courses of action, but ultimately you have to realize that they are in the same boat as you -- they, too, are fighting for democracy.  You might think they are deluded, sure, but in their (our) hearts, democracy is the ideal -- it's like multiculturalism, but "super-sized"! -- and though we disagree with you as to how to go about promoting it, the first step towards progress is realizing that we do have this in common.  I would pose a snark here, too, in saying that liberalism is what this country was founded on, but I think it's pretty obvious that you and I have a different idea of what liberalism is; for my part, I think Barak Obama, all hype aside, pretty much exemplifies it, which is funny 'cause many conservatives are asking why he isn't a Republican.  (Which suggests the interesting notion that liberalism vs. conservatism does not map completely onto Democrats vs. Republicans!)  

But when you say, "it is no longer an open question for me, whether Liberalism ought to be preserved", that it is a "a decay, a decline, a corruption", I really have to wonder if you really understand what democracy is about.  If liberalism were to be eliminated tomorrow, and conservatives ran the country unchallenged, democracy in this land would no longer exist.  You need us, we need you; you define us, we define you.  Without naming names, you cannot have good without having evil; you can't have an "up" without having a "down".  There should always be at least two sides to an issue, and they're not "a right way and a wrong way"; they are one person's opinion and another person's opinion, and another's -- in fact, nearly 300 million persons' opinions at this point.  This is our religion, this is what we're fighting for, and this is what all of us would readily die for in a heartbeat -- I would hope.

I shared some of sidereal's confusion, and your follow up post didn't quite clear it up for me.

It seems a lot of the confusion rests, as previous commenters noted, with your use of the word "Liberalism" and even more confusingly contrasting it with "Classical Liberalism".  Being an interloper here, and perhaps not familiar with the jargon, could you clarify?

Which Classical?  Enlightenment Liberalism or Ancient?  Is the Liberalism you hate synonymous with with some of the other labels suggested (atheism, rationalism, naturalism, materialism, nihilism, etc.)?  The only thing that I could glean from your piece is that its clearly perjorative, but beyond that saying "Liberal" doesn't connote a belief system to my ears.

This might seem like a pedantic question, but I think it is important since how it is answered defines the nature of the fighting.

I agree with you that moral men fight only over the most serious things.  Also, that "religious war", viewed this way, is more sane than say, fighting over wealth or power.  If more sane means less venal.

But your last sentence is intriguing and goes to sidereal's confusion about the nature of the fight.  The way you put it is loaded:  It seems to me that someone that would fall into the category you describe as "Liberal" wouldn't deny that differences in "worldview" (ugh.) can become real enough to physically fight over.  They're real enough even when people aren't fighting over them, and people fight over them all the time.  But they would deny, and I with them, that recourse to arms vindicates anything except those with the strongest or most skillful arms.  

Certainly ideas and beliefs cannot be thus vindicated or defeated, although they can become dominant for a time.  In other words, what if the "religion" that you're fighting doesn't believe that warfare, however done, is the way to justify itself, or even to be properly religious?  How would a Buddhist, qua Buddhist, fit into your framework of competing religions?  A Quaker?

To put it differently -- You ask the question:  What is it that makes moral men kill other men whom they have never met? It is religion, and all of us have it.

Assuming all of us have religion, then what if your religion deems it immoral to kill other men you have never met?

Or are you defining a religion as something that would make such a thing moral?

But we're trying to work out the ground-rule definitions.

then doesn't everyone have a religion?

For the reasons Jason provides.

There are two types of confusion going on here:  A definitional confusion, which I try to address, and a confusion regarding the application of those definitions, which Jason tries to address.

You (and Paul) are arguing from tautology, which is why you keep getting back to the same place.  I'm trying to demonstrate that (a) it is indeed a tautology -- and a very popular one (many Religious thinkers have employed it) -- and that (b) it is not a noble tautology, such as the one Paul references (there is no God but God), but rather an obfuscating one.

Structure.  Of course, we seem to have evolved to be predisposed to believe it.  Which suggests that even if utlimately false, it is at least a reasonably successful survival strategy.

It took me a while (until your first use of lower case liberalism) to get what you were talking about.  Allow me to commend to your attention the phrase "Coercive Utopian" it has a reasonable history of usage, and appears to point to the group you are discussing, while delineating the religious nature of much of their behaviour.

On your statement that "wholly different religions cannot be reconciled", I wonder about that: many polytheistic and pantheistic religions have harmlessly absorbed other religions.  The mechanisms for polytheisims is obvious: co-opt deities.  Pantheism works in a similar fashion: I come from an Episcopal family, went to a Catholic school and am now a sort of Platonic Hindu, without dropping all the Xian background: I just focus on the Gospel of John.

There is similarity in the assimilation of Platonism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity as well.