Philosophy Now Forum

Terri Murray argues that ijtihad and critical debate are essential in a liberal, multicultural society.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Is_ ... e_Possible

First of all I'll start by saying I hate this form and am reluctant to participate in it. I wish it was one where authors of articles in the magazine take part. But then I understand why they might not join in, because of some of the nonsensical, lamebrain arguments they might or could find themselves in. Nevertheless, I was inspired by the nature of this article to comment on it.

I think it is possible to judge and argue against Islamic Culture. It's imperative that we challenge its archaic nature and try to reform it. The routes of Islamic culture are not conducive to the modern world. The modern world needs progressive and open societies, where women can participate equally and ideas are exchanged freely. Islamic culture fights against openness and multiculturalism. It's not the cosmopolitan entity Civilization is in favour of. One fact that makes Islam a poor venue for the modern world and the multicultural trajectory it's on is that it acts both as a religion and political entity. That mix can have devastating consequences in this world. Religion should not overrides rationale and common sense like Islamic culture tends to do.

spike wrote:First of all I'll start by saying I hate this form and am reluctant to participate in it. I wish it was one where authors of articles in the magazine take part. But then I understand why they might not join in, because of some of the nonsensical, lamebrain arguments they might or could find themselves in. Nevertheless, I was inspired by the nature of this article to comment on it.

I think it is possible to judge and argue against Islamic Culture. It's imperative that we challenge its archaic nature and try to reform it. The routes of Islamic culture are not conducive to the modern world. The modern world needs progressive and open societies, where women can participate equally and ideas are exchanged freely. Islamic culture fights against openness and multiculturalism. It's not the cosmopolitan entity Civilization is in favour of. One fact that makes Islam a poor venue for the modern world and the multicultural trajectory it's on is that it acts both as a religion and political entity. That mix can have devastating consequences in this world. Religion should not overrides rationale and common sense like Islamic culture tends to do.

But these are Western ideas, and only post-Renaissance Western ideas. Islam today is where Christianity was 600 years ago.

Islam today is where Christianity was 600 years ago.

Exactly!

Melchior wrote:But these are Western ideas, and only post-Renaissance Western ideas. Islam today is where Christianity was 600 years ago.

Christianity today is all over the place. Some christians are pre-Darwinian; some believe the old testament is literally true and are hence pre-christian. Fundamentalists: putting the moron in oxymoron. Lots of muslims are as ashamed of their nutters as many christians are of theirs. The world has advanced despite religion, rarely because of it and I don't know where you live, but in my part of the western world, many of the people are muslims.

"Terri Murray has a Master of Theology from Heythrop College, London, and a PhD in social & contextual theology from Oxford Brookes. She is a recovering Catholic and has taught Philosophy & Film Studies at Hampstead College of Fine Arts & Humanities in London for over ten years."
As a Catholic, I find the denigrating phrase "recovering Catholic" to be very offensive.

I see that she is now a rationalist, that she is no longer a Christian believer. https://rationalist.org.uk/contributors ... rri-murray

tbieter wrote:"Terri Murray has a Master of Theology from Heythrop College, London, and a PhD in social & contextual theology from Oxford Brookes. She is a recovering Catholic and has taught Philosophy & Film Studies at Hampstead College of Fine Arts & Humanities in London for over ten years."
As a Catholic, I find the denigrating phrase "recovering Catholic" to be very offensive.

I see that she is now a rationalist, that she is no longer a Christian believer. https://rationalist.org.uk/contributors ... rri-murray

"The Rationalist Association is independent, irreverent & non-profit. We are supported by our members." (Emphasis added)
I'm currently rereading Paul Woodruff's book, Reverence. I have two chapters left.
http://www.amazon.com/Reverence-Renewin ... +reverence

I'm not surprised to see that Dr. Murray rejects her Catholic faith and then enthusiastically adopts feminism and a rationalistic irreverence!

More on this after I have finished my reading.
rationalism
Reliance on reason {Lat. ratio} as the only reliable source of human knowledge. In the most general application, rationalism offers a naturalistic alternative to appeals to religious accounts of human nature and conduct.

More specifically, rationalism is the epistemological theory that significant knowledge of the world can best be achieved by a priori means; it therefore stands in contrast to empiricism. Prominent rationalists of the modern period include Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

tbieter wrote:As a Catholic, I find the denigrating phrase "recovering Catholic" to be very offensive.

That you find it offensive isn't the same as it is offensive. Who apart from you might be offended by it?

tbieter wrote:I'm not surprised to see that Dr. Murray rejects her Catholic faith and then enthusiastically adopts feminism and a rationalistic irreverence!

Me neither! Sounds like much more fun.

spike wrote:First of all I'll start by saying I hate this form and am reluctant to participate in it. I wish it was one where authors of articles in the magazine take part. But then I understand why they might not join in, because of some of the nonsensical, lamebrain arguments they might or could find themselves in. Nevertheless, I was inspired by the nature of this article to comment on it.

I think it is possible to judge and argue against Islamic Culture. It's imperative that we challenge its archaic nature and try to reform it. The routes of Islamic culture are not conducive to the modern world. The modern world needs progressive and open societies, where women can participate equally and ideas are exchanged freely. Islamic culture fights against openness and multiculturalism. It's not the cosmopolitan entity Civilization is in favour of. One fact that makes Islam a poor venue for the modern world and the multicultural trajectory it's on is that it acts both as a religion and political entity. That mix can have devastating consequences in this world. Religion should not overrides rationale and common sense like Islamic culture tends to do.

I agree whole heartedly.

madera wrote:...
I agree whole heartedly.

Do you also agree that this applies to Christianity as well?

Arising_uk wrote:

madera wrote:...
I agree whole heartedly.

Do you also agree that this applies to Christianity as well?

Can you expand on that thought A_uk! Like, what might also apply to Christianity, as well?

spike wrote:Can you expand on that thought A_uk! Like, what might also apply to Christianity, as well?

That many forms of Christianity, if they could have their way, would be as antagonistic towards what you call 'civilisation' as you say Islam is.
p.s.
I have serious issues with the word 'multiculturalism', not least because it is a contradiction in terms.

Arising_uk

I don't call it 'civilization' as you snidely suggest I do. Civilization exists, with a capital 'C'. It is a system. It is not only a system that feeds on itself, but a system that insulates and protects. It is a containment system of institutions that services the majority. Much of the Islamic world is still outside this realm because it insists on remaining tribal and not a cohesive unit as its counterpart, the Western world.

The Civilization we live in is bifurcated, having divisions of power, each keeping the other in check. This does not occur in Islamic governance. Moreover, Christians, and Jews, of all strips live in this Civilization, even if they aren't enamoured with it.

I have serious issues with the word 'multiculturalism', not least because it is a contradiction in terms.

That warms me up, that you find multiculturalism contradictory, because that's the very thing that energizes Civilization, contradiction.
Why the Islamic world is so dilapidated is because it ignores the contradictions of the world. It rules as though there aren't any and if there are, contradictions should be banished. What makes the Western world successful is that it has embraced the contradictions of humanity and works them, to its advantage. The Islamic world is still far behind in comparison because it doesn't seem to understand this, that "if you do away with contradiction you do away with reality". But, then, Islam tends to believe that reality is not of this world.

spike wrote:Arising_uk

I don't call it 'civilization' as you snidely suggest I do. Civilization exists, with a capital 'C'. It is a system. It is not only a system that feeds on itself, but a system that insulates and protects. It is a containment system of institutions that services the majority. Much of the Islamic world is still outside this realm because it insists on remaining tribal and not a cohesive unit as its counterpart, the Western world.

And yet it is the Islamic world who supplies most of the energy to keep this 'system' going?

I've yet to see this 'containment system' you talk about?

The Civilization we live in is bifurcated, having divisions of power, each keeping the other in check. This does not occur in Islamic governance. Moreover, Christians, and Jews, of all strips live in this Civilization, even if they aren't enamoured with it.

And yet Moslems live in all these 'civilised' places? You appear to ignore the Hindu and the Chinese?

That warms me up, that you find multiculturalism contradictory, because that's the very thing that energizes Civilization, contradiction.
Why the Islamic world is so dilapidated is because it ignores the contradictions of the world. It rules as though there aren't any and if there are, contradictions should be banished. What makes the Western world successful is that it has embraced the contradictions of humanity and works them, to its advantage. The Islamic world is still far behind in comparison because it doesn't seem to understand this, that "if you do away with contradiction you do away with reality". But, then, Islam tends to believe that reality is not of this world.

What 'western' world? You mean the Christian world that has pretty much abandoned the Christian Church as arbiter of morality and behaviour for Atheism. This looks like its about to be undone, not least because 'multiculturalism' is allowing the return of religious values as the authoritative guide to ones behaviour and ones interactions with others. 'Multiculturalism' is a contradiction in terms, you cannot have a culture that is not one but a multi and as such this 'multiculturalism' sows the seeds of its own demise, is my opinion. That it was introduced into my country from America to allow the politicians to avoid Enoch's cultural worry arguments about mass immigration from the Empire is the shame of our politicians and the consequences are now being played-out before our eyes.

tbieter wrote:"Terri Murray has a Master of Theology from Heythrop College, London, and a PhD in social & contextual theology from Oxford Brookes. She is a recovering Catholic and has taught Philosophy & Film Studies at Hampstead College of Fine Arts & Humanities in London for over ten years."
As a Catholic, I find the denigrating phrase "recovering Catholic" to be very offensive.

So what? be offended if you want. People are usually brought up by their parents to follow their religion. Otherwise, religions would die out. There is no rational basis for any religion. They are all crap and should be eliminated. Anyone, whether Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, who rejects the religion foisted upon him by his parents could be said to be 'recovering' because that is exactly what it is.