Having a high amount of self-esteem is just having a high amount of confidence in yourself in life. I don't get, and I have read your examples where you conclude that it necessitates a contempt or apathy for altruism in the context of choosing it between that and your own self-interest. You did argue that an unjust form of superiority is the root of some of the worst human traits in existence.
I'm afraid you have a somewhat limited definition of self-esteem. In western psychology it goes far beyond merely having confidence in your capabilities. One can be fairly confident in ones capabilities, and still have a very low self-esteem. Of course I grant that there is a relation the other way around, that is if somebody has high self-esteem they will in general be highly self-confident. But it goes way beyond that. It's also about how you see yourself, not only at face value but also in comparison to others, and in terms of superior or inferior. For the relation between self esteem and mankind's capability for altruism/egoism, I refer you to the works of Albert Ellis.
A very honest paragraph.
But there is an interesting conclusion that you could leap to based on the part I highlighted in bold. What of the best muslim and the best non-muslim? The best muslim, might act righteously (or not act immoraly) because of his religious knowledge - whereas the non-muslim still acts righteously in absence of it.
In theory, I would agree with you line of thinking there. However in practice, I doubt if its possible
-judging from the Islamic point of view of course- for an non-muslim to act equally righteous as a righteous muslim. My reasons for this:
*) For starters there's the problem of shirk we've been discussing. I don't know if it's possible for an atheist to be completely devoid of shirk (including the hidden shirks like vanity).
*) Secondly each act is judged by its intention. So even if a non-muslim and a muslim act the same, they can still be judged differently due to their intentions.
*) Thirdly, a muslim constantly redeems himself for the small sins which even the best of us make, by acts of worship.
But as you said, there's the difference in religious knowledge. So in the end we can't judge these cases, and only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows.
I don't know whether you meant it as hypothetical proposition to the muslims that do claim that muslims are inherently better than non-muslims, or whether you take it as a thoroughly accurate observation.
Yes, it was meant more as a refutation against those who claim that muslims are inherently better. Mind though, that the three things I listed, no longer hold for a "muslim" who would commit shirk. So the comparison between an atheist who commits shirk and a muslim who commits shirk is an accurate observation after-all.
I should like to say that I loathe positive discrimination. I find the concept utterly self-refuting.
I understand your ethical reservations against positive discrimination, however I fear that from a pragmatists point of view we are forced to accept it since in many cases it's the only way to improve an unbalanced situation in short-term policy. My personal opinion even goes further, thinking that this imbalance is inherited by human nature, and thus positive-discrimination is a pragmatic necessity even in long term.
I think in order to set up different sets of rules for different sets of people in order to set up a form of 'equality' then you have missed the point. If different groups have different social rights (do they, by the way?) then the equality would only be from an economic value. What I believe would be more accurate to describe what you talk about would be a system of balance, rather than equality. I regard equality as the attempt to hold everyone equally accountable to the law and give everyone the same opportunities, regardless of beliefs.
Well, allow me to point out some practical problems with that viewpoint.
*) If an employer, requires an equal physical performance of both his male and female employees, even though females only produce half the musscle tissue during workout compared to their male counterparts, would such a demand be just?
*) If a government taxes the income of a healthy person in the same percentage of a disabled person, or a person with high medical costs, would that be fair?
*) If a teacher requires the same efforts and homework out of both an ivy-league student as well as from a minority-group student who lives in poverty?
And indeed, what of atheists or secularists in Islamic Law?
Well there's a difference between Islamic laws which are expected to be enforced by the government, and Islamic laws which are up to the individual to decide whether or not he'll follow them. I think it's self-evident that an atheist or secularist living in an Islamic caliphate would have to abide by the laws which are enforced by the government, just as in a democracy liberals would have to follow the laws of the conservatives when they are in office and vice versa.
I wouldn't say "feeling confident" for that somehow suggests its a type of brainwashing, which it is not. I'd prefer to say that it helps people understand, and serves as a reminder what their purpose is. Of course, that is only one of the many benefits of it. It certainly isn't limited to that.
What else would you say it serves?
The benefits of prayer:
- It is mandatory for muslims, so by doing it one follows his religion, and seeks the pleasure of Allah subahana wa ta'ala.
- Muslims are rewarded for their prayer.
- All the small sins that you made between this prayer and the previous are forgiven by it.
- It is a reminder of our purpose in life, and the meaning of our religion.
- It is a source of spiritual strength and endurance.
- It reduces stress and worries.
- It keeps evil thoughts and acts at bay.
- It brings people together (when they pray together).
- It brings a certain rhythm and regularity in your life (especially helpful for people with to much free time on their hands).
- The physical movements one makes while praying keeps the body limber.
There might be more that I have left out...
There is no compulsion in religion. If even a Muslim isn't forced to leave what is discouraged and do what is encouraged, then why would a non-muslim in an islamic state would be forced to that?
I meant in the eyes of Allah. It is, and all will discover at some point (according to Islam) that indeed it was compulsory. Right?
The status of discouraged/encouraged acts is quite complex, and I am hardly qualified to explain the subtle difference between fard
(compulsory); wajib
(compulsory, but less severe when not followed) and sunnah
(encouraged, but only preferable not compulsory). What I can say though is that these classes exist, and thus obviously there are differences between them.
An honest, but somewhat troubling answer from my perspective. The reasons I find answers like this troubling are because in it is laced a subservient disposition towards what Allah decrees (I see this, by the way in Christians and indeed in some Jews as well). In that, I should ask you would it matter whether you should know why the hellfire is eternal and painful? You have faith and confidence that it is indeed just because of (I assume) your position that God is and cannot not be in any sense of the word unjust. So with that in mind, does the fact that some things pertaining to his decisions are not known?
Well as I said
-and as you agreed to judging from your reply- there is no universal method or criteria for us to judge this by. At best what we can do is approach the subject emotionally. And when approaching this emotionally, I am inclined to consider it just. I had considered these issues even before converting to Islam; and found in my emotional approach to this subject no restriction for accepting Islam. So in that sense my position is no different from yours. So I don't see why I, with my position would be more in need of any rational justification than you with yours. As I said, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Well I cannot be expected to dictate or present an ideal of heaven. It is not my belief. Irrespectively, it would certainly be an incompatibility to its traditional concept. I will add though, that since my first post on this thread I have stated that my issues with the concept of hell and in general unbelievers possible presence there is not due to any expectancy of entering heaven, but due to specific issues with hell.
Point taken. You're right, one does not necessitate the other. ^_^
Well, firstly as you may know - from my perspective the universe in general is rather disinterested in our affairs and is happy to send a nearby comet into our atmosphere if necessary. It has no concept of 'justice' (which I view as an exclusively human concept of unfairness to other life) and so indeed, life is unfair. And indeed, if those who were 'unfair' were not cautioned for their actions then unfair it would be. So I would grant you this.
Then I take it you'd be forced to also agree, that a higher consciousness who would balance out this unfairness to make it just, would in itself also be just?
Would God be the most just, if he doesn't punish in the hereafter those who were unjust in this world?
I don't think punishment has any intrinsic claim to or a part of justice. Understanding why people commit certain acts and removing them from society to protect others is justice. Attempting to rehabilitate them to bring them back into society is justice. Causing them suffering for what they did is all too similar to sadism.
Well there should from an ethical/philosophical point of view be a difference between peer-to-peer crime/punishment on one hand, and Creator-to-created crime/punishment. From the Islamic point of view, our physical bodies are a sort of loan, and even our souls are in a sense property of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. If we belong to him, we can rightfully be treated as he sees best fit. And I don't mean that as a premise for which his judgement is just. For I believe that Allah subhana wa ta'ala is the most just despite that! In other words, even though we belong to him, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala could rightfully do with us as he pleases, he still chose to treat us in the most just way.
That has not been revealed. We only know that that is the purpose of our creation, we don't know Allah subhana wa ta'ala's motive for that purpose. However we do know that he does not in any form need or depend upon this worship.
Okay. You made a similar point to this earlier on concerning the eternality of hellfire, and the question I asked them remains on this.
My reply is somewhat similar to the previous, since I don't consider this concept troublesome to my viewpoints, I4m more then happy to wait until the hereafter for understanding in this subject.
Are you asking about if God wishes to maintain his existence or if we wish to maintain ours? Perhaps you could rephrase to clarify what you're asking here?
I am asking if you wish to maintain yours, and for what reason. Adoration of Allah or self-interest?
My answer would be both. I am thankfull to Allah subhana wa ta'ala for the many gifts he has given me and I hope to worship him not only in the present but also in the future. However I also have in me a natural self-preservation instinct. And as long as I keep that within certain boundaries; and keep from exceeding in it there is nothing sinful or worrisome about these perfectly natural emotions.
It would be a realistic reaction for people who were, heh, as you might say "positive self-esteem" materialists. I don't think it would be true of people who believe divine guidance exists.
I do think it's possible for people to genuinely believe in something, yet at the same time act contradictory to it. However I'll grant that as the conviction would increase in strength, and more importantly as the knowledge regarding it increases, then the described contradictory behaviour would indeed
decrease.
I don't agree with thought-crime, or rather the idea that you ought to be punished or held accountable by what you think.
Me neither, it is not the thought itself that is sinfull. Thoughts come and go often outside our will, and as you pointed out it would be irrational for us to be held accountable for them. But as I have tried to illustrate in my previous posts, this is not merely an issue of what one thinks, but also about to what extend people allow their personal preferences to guide them despite their thoughts, or even to allow these selfish preferences to form their thoughts.
At first, when it is only at the subconsciuos level. It is not really a "choice" already, but more of an inclination which causes you to tune out certain things and focus on others. You build your world view on these inclination of desires/need/urges/morality/shame and so on. By the time you cognitively "choose" the worldview is already half built, and the subsequent deduction and faith (or absence of it) seems inevitable.
This description does not appear to be in favour of the idea that world-views or belief systems are of choice.
What is the inclination based on?
It seems you caught me using a double standard regarding the semantic value of the world choice. My apologies for the confusion. So I'll try to clarify without using the word choice:
What I meant was that we subconsciously incline toward a world view. In this process we allow either our sense of morality, shame, conscience or on the other hand our lust, needs, preferences to lead the way. And because of that, we are in a certain amount thus accountable for our viewpoints.
For a more concrete hypothetical example. Say that a child who is first confronted with a dilemma between conscience and preference, chooses for preference and in so chooses to in the future make the same choice. If then later on in life that same person would come to decide whether or not religion is plausible, then it could be that the religious option is already cut off because of his already undermined and undeveloped conscience, a result of his previous choice. So on one hand you could claim that at this point it is no longer a choice, since only one outcome was possible despite the person's best efforts; however it was based on an earlier choice which the person
can be held accountable for. So it is a choice and it is an inclination, it is both and it is neither. It's a complex balance of emotions and ratio, of all the decisions and choices one makes throughout life, interwoven in a paradigm.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Your process appears to argue that a world view is built upon non-rational things (desires, needs, urges etc). I would contend that the things I describe are simply a different way of putting what you put. The inclination of 'desire' is what contributes to placebo effects and enables a confirmation bias. Your 'needs' can certainly enflame the former and your urges appears to be a more carnal form of 'desire'.
Well, what I meant was that the case where people's inclinations contradict their statements/expressed views are only a very specific group. The subconscious inclinations can go both ways. There are not only feelings of desires, needs and urges which but also feelings of morality, conscience and shame which can guide someone towards theism. There are a lot of atheists and theists whoms inclinations are in agreement with their expressed views.
And yes, whilst I believe that is somewhat of a unformity towards the definition of 'faith'. I understand that it effects people in different ways and in different manners. I still believe it is often abused as a reason to believe in things, when it can do no such thing.
I find that (some) people tend to abuse practically anything they can. Never underestimate the human capability for abuse ^_^
Yes but most people usually convince themselves of the very thing that they (subconsciously) want to believe. I see this both on theistic side as well as on atheistic side.
I'd like to believe I'm going to get £100. Am I an exception?
I'm not sure whether this is meant as an argument ad absurdum, a mockery or a genuine case-example you wish to put forward.
I'll reply that it's perfectly plausible for people to genuinely convince them of such a believe. However the falsifiability of this faith, and the contradiction by reality will soon keep people in check. There are however no undeniable proofs neither for nor against theism. This faith will only be falsifiable after death. Therefore I argue that the comparison is inapt.
Ps: Starting Monday vacation is over and I'll be back to work, so if we keep up the lengths of our post I'm afraid I'll have to cut down on the frequency of replies.