George: "All fanatics are dangerous. Religious fanatics are especially so because they believe the 'Truth' they claim has the sanction of a deity and therefore cannot be challenged by mere mortals. The thousands of victims of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were some of the more recent additions to a long line of human beings who have been sacrificed to such 'Truth' by those who will permit no deviation from it." (p. 45)

You may think there's no benefit in drawing the distinction. I do. Once a person claims to be committing violent acts on behalf of a "God," then any attempt at rational discourse is doomed to failure. Such actions are not a direct consequence of religious belief, since most religious believers don't behave in such abhorrent ways, but such actions are, in my view, dependent upon such belief, else they lose their rationale.

Once the claims to ominiscience and omnipotence are made, anything human, all-too human pales in impact. Likewise, mere mortal demands carry little or no influence with heavenly decree and divine dictation. It is very difficult (doomed as you say) to convince a person to challenge or reject these sort of godly governances- if they are convinced in their legitmacy and jursidiction.

But I question if fanatics are really so sure of what they claim. Are they as certain as their words and deeds communicate? Perhaps there is a gnawing sense of confusion, misunderstanding, uncertainty that disturbs them very deeply. Perhaps it is their fear that they don't really believe, or believe enough, or have the true and right kind of faith...that motivates them to such extreme acts of piety. Maybe their fanaticism is a symptom of a faith losing ground, becoming pointless. It is a dangerous act of overcompensation: a desperate flailing against uncertainties and disillusionment.

I think there is some virtue in bringing counter-trajectories within a tradition to bear against some fanaticisms. If the argument involves theological interpretation and scriptural exegesis, then counter-arguments can be drawn from similar theological assumptions and scriptural references. Appeals to tradition and ritual can also provide a reasoning that is not entirely foreign or ipso facto rejected.

Arguments for a violent jihad that murders innocents can be countered with multiple scriptural, traditional, legal and moral arguments that describe a profoundly different piety and call to action. Likewise, a warrior Christ unleashing vengeance on the unrepentent in the name of National Security, can be countered by a Jesus who said blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, and those who mourn...who said to turn the other cheek, to pray for and love our enemies.

Niall: Well the Tamil Tigers never seemed to have any problems. Indeed, they've used the tactic more than anyone, but it just didn't get any coverage because Sri Lanka doesn't count in the western media. I know that (supposed?) experts like Robert Pape claim that it is nationalism rather than religion that motivates suicide attacks. He argues that they are motivated by strategic secular goals.

I must confess, I hadn't really considered the Tamil Tigers at all. As you say, Sri Lanka doesn't count in the western media ((and shame on the western media for that and lots of other omissions). So all of this is by way of saying, I'm going to have to get back to you on this one. I've been doing some other things and haven't had time to pursue the matter. But I will.

George

You had some specific questions about why I responded to the book the way I did, and out of courtesy I want to address those, but if you're position really is that the book is only meant to represent your beliefs, then I'm not sure there's any middle ground for discussion beyond that.

George wrote:Mad: We believe one way or another, and there is no one, obvious, objective criteria for arriving at a belief.

But this is what I find puzzling. Having taken that position, how is it that you didn't understand that what I would present in this book would be my beliefs on the subjects of atheism, gods, religions, etc. You seem to be saying, on one hand, that all anyone can ever offer are their own beliefs on a given subject, but on the other hand, I'm somehow at fault for not making it clear--which I think I did--that what was contained in my book was my view of the issues under consideration.

Well, no, obviously it isn't my position that all anyone can ever offer is their own belief on a subject. We can certainly paraphrase what we take to be other people's beliefs; even if our paraphrase doesn't exactly correspond to that person's beliefs, the fact that it varies so much from our own proves the point.

To clarify, what I was trying to say in the text you quoted was that none of us are in a position sufficiently detatched to determine whether or not any particular method for arriving at a belief is objectively valid. And that point is particularly crucial when it comes to what we "allow" as the basis for other beliefs. The closer you get to the bottom of an argument, the more you'll find it rooted in the subjective adoption of one premise or another.

But I didn't really make that statement as a criticism of the book. I was addressing a point that you made, and I meant for that point to be taken in that fairly limited context. Most of my comments about the style and approach of the book were based on assumptions that can be better discerned if you preface those comments with a clause like, "If the point is to engage the reader in a dialogue, then...." If that had been the point, then I think a different tone would have been more appropriate -- one that dealt less with the more or less concrete form your beliefs have taken and more with the shape and facets of particular questions and problems germaine to the role of religion in modern American culture. But I think I've finally come to terms with your intention for the book, which was not to create dialogue but to present a particular point of view.

Do you honestly think it's as easy to persuade someone to fly a jet plane loaded with human beings into a building populated with many more human beings, knowing he or she would not survive the experience, on behalf of a political (or some other) agenda as it is to persuade a religious believer to take such action, believing it was the will of the deity that person worshipped?

Yeah, actually, I think it can be "as easy", but I don't think it's particularly easy in either scenario. Most of our examples of people putting themselves in harms way for the sake of some institution have huge political components -- war is essentially just that: people stepping in front of a weapon in the service of politics.

Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" provides a lot of insight into the conditions that can lead to that sort of suicidal impulse, and a lot of them are applicable as descriptions of the situations jihadists face at home. Religion and politics both provide modes of response to the conditions of abject poverty (Afghanistan is rated fourth world by the U.N.), subjection, feelings of powerless and paralysis, historical decline, so on and so forth. And often teims, those modes of response are so similar as to be difficult to distinguish. To that end, you see historical instances in which crowds of unarmed protesters (Bolsheviks, for example, or Burmese monks) march steadily towards an armed contingent that is sure to fire on them, but it isn't always possible to discern whether those protesters are religiously or politically motivated.

And there are other examples where it's difficult to sort out which motive, the religious or the political, has the upper hand. World War II kamikaze, for example, dove their bombs into Allied battle ships in service of a political end. At the same time, it's arguable that the act was premised on a religious structure that permeated Japanese society. So which motive was more influential? A lot of anti-religious critics would take the possibility of a religious motive as evidence that it was invariably operable. But variation is more probably the norm, such that some kamikaze were acting in the service of a religious demand while others were acting in the service of their state.

Below is an excerpt from and essay written by Israeli peace activist and writer, Uri Avnery titled, The Revenge of a Child http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery1118.html .

In this essay he explores what it is that drives a person to terrible acts of malicious hate and terror. I think it is an interesting take on the complexities of fanaticism, and the power of rage- not necessarily religion.

The persons who do these things are not known as crazy killers, blood-thirsty from birth. In almost all interviews with relatives and neighbors they are described as quite ordinary, non-violent individuals. Many of them are not religious fanatics. Indeed, Sirkhan Sirkhan, the man who committed the deed in Metzer, belonged to Fatah, a secular movement.

These persons belong to all social classes; some come from poor families who have reached the threshold of hunger, but others come from middle class families, university students, educated people. Their genes are not different from ours.

So what makes them do these things? What makes other Palestinians justify them?

In order to cope, one has to understand, and that does not mean to justify. Nothing in the world can justify a Palestinian who shoots at a child in his mother's embrace, just as nothing can justify an Israeli who drops a bomb on a house in which a child is sleeping in his bed. As the Hebrew poet Bialik wrote a hundred years ago, after the Kishinev pogrom: "Even Satan has not yet invented the revenge for the blood of a little child."

But without understanding, it is impossible to cope. The chiefs of the IDF have a simple solution: hit, hit, hit. Kill the attackers. Kill their commanders. Kill the leaders of their organizations. Demolish the homes of their families and exile their relatives. But, wonder of wonders, these methods achieve the opposite. After the huge IDF bulldozer flattens the "terrorist infrastructure", destroying-killing-uprooting everything on its way, within days a new "infrastructure" comes into being. According to the announcements of the IDF itself, since operation "Protective Shield" there have been some fifty warnings of imminent attacks every day.

The reason for this can be summed up in one word: rage.

Terrible rage, that fills the soul of a human being, leaving no space for anything else. Rage that dominates the person's whole life, making life itself unimportant. Rage that wipes out all limitations, eclipses all values, breaks the chains of family and responsibility. Rage that a person wakes up with in the morning, goes to sleep with in the evening, dreams about at night. Rage that tells a person: get up, take a weapon or an explosive belt, go to their homes and kill, kill, kill, no matter what the consequences.

One of the problems with writing your opinions down and presenting them for other people's consideration is that occasionally you discover you hadn't thought things through quite as well as you thought you had.

In writing this chapter I was focusing on the role religious belief may have in facilitating or causing extremes of behavior. In particular, I was thinking of events like the 9/11 attacks, which were clearly enabled by Islamic fundamentalism even though they also clearly had a political component. I still think that's a legitimate point. However, in the discussion with Mad and Niall, I realize I've overstated my case.

On reflection, I think the statement there are evils that absolutely depend upon religion for their survival is unwarranted. In considering some of Mad's arguments and particularly Niall's mention of the Tamil Tigers, I have to agree a legitimate case can be made that while religious beliefs may lead some people to do unspeakable things, they are not particularly unique in that regard.

That doesn't mean I think religious ideas never lead to bad consequences or should get a pass when we are considering the causes of events, but it does mean that I recognize they have no monopoly in that regard.

So there's me thinking out loud. And Niall, I'm not an expert on the Tamil Tigers yet, but I do thank you for pointing out that example. It helped me to clarify my own thinking on the subject.

George

No problem George! I rarely change my mind about anything, but when I do, I'm always a little bit happy because it shows that I am actually thinking after all. So congrats on the change of mind!

As for the Tigers, I'm thinking of suggesting that we read Robert Pape's Dying to Win early next year. Apparently Pape covers The Tamil Tigers in it, though I'm not sure to what extent.

Niall001 wrote:No problem George! I rarely change my mind about anything, but when I do, I'm always a little bit happy because it shows that I am actually thinking after all. So congrats on the change of mind!

As for the Tigers, I'm thinking of suggesting that we read Robert Pape's Dying to Win early next year. Apparently Pape covers The Tamil Tigers in it, though I'm not sure to what extent.

Like you, I don't change my mind that often. However, all my opinions are provisional and may change based on new information. So, thanks for the new information.

I might be interested in reading Pape's book, although I'm a bit dubious about his thesis that all of these types of terrorist acts fit into a particular model (at least, that's what I understand his thesis to be). But it sounds like a good candidate for the non-fiction category.

George