copy of December 8, 2010 email to Reza Aslan:
To Mr. Aslan,
I just want to preface this email by stating that I do not wish to be your gay lover. I know you've written to
other people with this type of reply, so let's get that out of the way up front.
I am writing to respond to your article at
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html
where you state several things, but near the end you say the following: "...What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims--be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth--are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect..."
In college you learned very big words you could use. Harvard was useful for that, and so was the University of California.
Big words can be used to supplicate and provide pabulum to the audiences who enjoy your works & speeches very much, but they can also be used to hide your own lack of contextual knowledge about the subjects you claim to be a scholar of, and about subjects you're not an expert in but upon which you nevertheless speak.
If you are claiming that there is a multidimensional alien god who created the Universe, a giant alien termite who produces universes out of it's rear end, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that a bearded alien god creature visited Earth about 2000 years ago, you are making a physical scientific claim.
If you are claiming that there is a realm outside of the physical world we know of, you are making a claim about the physical nature of the universe, and thus a scientific claim.
The key aspect of science which your article failed to address is that science can address the issue of probabilities. What is the probability that an alien god creature came to Earth 2000 years ago (ie: Jesus)? What is the probability that that same alien also came to America (as is claimed by Mormons - that Jesus visited the Indians in America)? What is the probability that a different alien spoke to Mohammad (different than the one who came to America & so on)? And what is the probability that both the claims of Mormonism & Islam are simultaneously true? These are real concrete questions which can be addressed in a reasonable and thoughtful way. And they have pretty easy answers.
Is the Mormon God the same as the Catholic God? No. The Mormon God had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus (as per advanced Mormon doctrine). Whereas the such a concept in Catholicism would be considered sacrilege. Did the Mormon God dictate the Quran to Mohammad? No, not according to the Mormons. Did Allah, the god of Mohammad, dictate the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? No, not according to Muslims worldwide. And so on.
You are correct in part, in your implication that religion is a natural phenomenon, and Daniel Dennett has spoken about this.
Your claims that religionists don't understand what religion is, yes, that may be true. They may be unable to take a step back.
But, religionists make real physical concrete claims about the nature of existence, about alien creatures who may or may not have created the Universe, visited Earth, had influence upon human affairs, and so on. Each religion has it's own specific real physical claims about the nature of existence, and many of their claims are mutually exclusive.
Your own "fundamentalism" is your claim that science cannot address these various claims of the various religions. You appear to claim that there is a non-overlapping magesteria.
There is a universality in that their claims (all religious claims about the nature of creation & their god creatures) are all mostly bogus, with the small exception of the few Unitarian Unviersalist types and defacto atheist types who are culturally religious (like reportedly the astronomer royal for Anglicanism) -- people who solely define god as either love, sex, or the Universe.
Most religionists do not make a direct equivalence between the word "god" and the universe, or the word "god" and love or the word "god" and sex. Krista Tippett in her banal public radio program previously known as Speaking of Faith talks about this type of god, where god = solely the universe, love, sex. But these types of definitions do not do justice nor do they accurately describe the gods that most religionists claim to believe in.
In the rather highly animated verbally aggressive tonalities that you use in discussions and debates with those with whom you disagree, you never really talk much about what your own views are, and you never really talk much about what exactly the views are of those you act as an apologist for.
It seems disingenuous and strange to simultaneously be an apologist for Islam while at the same time accusing your own Muslim religionists of not understanding what religion is.
Here are some key questions I have for you:
Are the mosques you support and calibrate gender equal? Do they engage in gender apartheid or not? Do the mosques you calibrate and support encourage or discourage the veil? These it seems to me are key questions.
And as to the nature of what you call god, you should provide a better definition of what you're talking about. Just solely have your god be a "sense of transcendence" is absolutely not the god that is described in the Quran, nor in the Bible, nor in the Book of Mormon. People who actually believe what these books say are engaged in the religious experience. And since not all religions are equal, some religious beliefs can be more damaging & abusive than others.
Just because people react in a naturally tribal & violent manner in response to cartoons of their prophet, just because their actions are explainable, does not mean their actions are justifiable. Reference the work of Steven Pinker regarding how the moral zeitgeist of humanity has progressed and improved over time. You should not be an apologist for those groups of humans who haven't quite caught up with the rest of us morally.
Islam is at a different point in it's history. Christianity had a Reformation & Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one if we are willing to be honest.
You have jumped into and have been accepted by a liberal consensus that seeks to engage in rather highfalutin doublespeek and doublethink regarding Islam, by trying to separate out the violence done in the name of Islam and because of Islam and calling that violence by other names instead - so as to apologize for Islam and to shield Islam.
The newly repetitious & disturbing nature of native born Islamic terrorists in the U.S. is one key trait you should examine, if you're willing to be truly scholarly. But to be an honest scholar, you need to learn to take a step back yourself, from the self-loathing self-hating liberal consensus, and from Ivory Tower infected with cultural & moral relativism.
High minded academics at ivy league divinity schools may view religion as a cultural and natural phenomenon, which it is (as per Dennett's book on the issue). But people IN the religions are living them on a real basis, day to day. You and your buddies at Harvard are not.
And since not all religions have an equal ability to help humanity thrive, it's worth making exact note of which aspects of all religions either help humans be happy or not, thrive or not, and so on.
You came to America from Iran. You encountered and dove into our Ivory Tower with glee. And now you jet set around the world and the county as a result. Good for you. But as you ask the religious to take a step back so should you from the institutions here that gave your career birth.
To conclude this email, allow me to state that I'm going to post this email on my own blog, so that it's content will be of value to others, and in the event that your own reply is lacking. Should you choose to reply in a flippant tone which belies your supposed scholarly credentials I will not be surprised.
Are you curious about what your critics say, or do you just dismiss all of what they say out of hand with crass over the top responses?
On a more serious note, the native born jihadies in America seeking to destroy do take some solace and succor from the self hating nature of the liberal consensus - and I say this as a left leaning person myself.
I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck or Fox News. But it is worth making note that Ayan Hirsi Ali has to find protection at a conservative think tank. She's a libertarian. I'm a socialist. But the subculture you have been embraced by (the American liberal Ivory Tower such as at Harvard and the University of California), it's main dogmatic mantras are self hatred and simultaneous cultural relativism.
Since you're not a native born American, it's disconcerting to see you act as an apologist for terrorists here & abroad. And the relativist atmosphere you learned in has not help. Just because you can name a reason or two for anger does not mean terrorist acts are justified. And it's worth noting that there are far more Islamic terrorists than Jainist ones. And within Islam, there are far more Sunni suicide bombers than Shia ones - because Sunni Islam is more sexually repressive as per ex-Islamic-Brotherhood men I have listened to on the issue. Have you listened to some of the key ex-extremists, such as those who're in videos on the Center For Inquiry website, or does your scholarly work not extend to actually hearing what other people are saying?
If we left Afghanistan what would happen to the rights of women there to have a secular education? For women there to be free from the veil? And so on?
What of having women Imams teaching men in Islam?
What of having boys & girls socialize in healthy ways in Islam so that boys learn how to please girls and are civilized as a result?
What of allowing men & women to sit together in mosques holding hands?
What of having mosques discouraging the veil, because in many Islamic countries women are taught to hate those who are not forced to wear the veil?
Where do you stand on these issues? Your answer or lack of an answer would be telling.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
