It contains several stories of people who have left Islam and why they did it. Their stories remind me of how I felt when I left my faith, and I would imagine there would be many parallels with anyone who left a religion that claims to be the one true way. In any case, I thought many of you might be interested to hear their stories.
I'd like to quote a little from the first page that really rang true to me:
"Frithjof Schuon, a Western convert to a mystical variety of Islam explains the Muslim mindset:
The intellectual–and thereby the rational–foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslims’ power of imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
This is fascinating reading, enochville. Thanks.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
You know, this is hardly unique to religious tenets. With a little substitution:
quote:The intellectual–and thereby the rational–foundation of atheism results in the average atheist having a curious tendency to believe that non-atheists either know that atheism is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose atheism with a good conscience quite exceeds the atheist's power of imagination, precisely because atheism coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things.
...this quite accurately describes a lot of my interaction within academia.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Dante: Indeed it can be applied to many. But, we seem to have a natural tendency to want to apply it to those we don't agree with instead of applying it to ourselves and our own beliefs.
I acknowledge that I may be wrong in my agnosticism. I continue to read arguments that challenge my belief that there is no god.
The religion that I came from discourages thorough investigation of original sources or reading well researched anti. Instead, they encouraged relying on feelings and the leaders actively hide original sources*. Futhermore, the members are encouraged to only read apologetic works that give the reader the illusion of being well-informed. So, the person grows in confidence that they are right and they think the only reason there are others who do not agree with them is because they refuse to investigate it themselves. Many of them fail to see that it is they who have not bothered to look at all the evidence.
This same pattern seems true of many other religions that claim to be the one true religion.
I will grant you that some atheists and agnostics have quit looking at the arguments or evidence that the other side presents. And that is just as wrong, IMNSHO. But, I feel that the only way we can free ourselves from deception that is detectable (as opposed to deception that is not detectable) is first to entertain the possibility that things may not be as they seem with us and then see what the other side has against our perspective (not from our apologists, but from those who do not share our beliefs and from original sources and evidence where such exist).
Perhaps some are fine with being deceived. I think that is ok as long as they conscious about the risk they are taking.
* Council of Fifty notes, Joseph's peep stones, and Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer [thank goodness we got an unauthorized copy of the latter]
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I'm familiar with all the things you mentioned, and yet I'm still LDS.
See, enochville, the thing is that you're doing it right now. You are assuming that anyone who has been "shown the light" will come to the same conclusions you have, and consquently anyone who doesn't believe what you do either hasn't understood or refuses to understand.
If you don't see the irony there, I doubt any further discussion would elucidate it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am also familiar with those things, yet I'm still LDS as well.
Enochville, it seems to me that you are careening from one extreme to another. Just a few months ago you were adamantly sure that your religion was correct and nothing could shake you from it. Now you've gone to the other extreme. I think that has to be exhausting. I think it's okay to admit that one doesn't have all the answers at once, but to list the things that one does know and start from there. You don't have to take an absolute position.
It seems like every absolute position will have things challenging it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: You know, this is hardly unique to religious tenets. With a little substitution:
quote:The intellectual–and thereby the rational–foundation of atheism results in the average atheist having a curious tendency to believe that non-atheists either know that atheism is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose atheism with a good conscience quite exceeds the atheist's power of imagination, precisely because atheism coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things.
...this quite accurately describes a lot of my interaction within academia.
Actually, it sounds like a beautiful description of King of Men.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Dante and katharina: I admit that a month ago after I learned some things, I came to some conclusions and felt exactly that way, that if people knew the whole story, they couls not stay orthodox. I was reminded by some posters here that I was bouncing between extremes. I certainly was and it was wrong and I believe I have changed.
But, I have reread my post from above again to see if I was yet doing it again, and I do not think that I am. I never claimed there that everyone else would come to the same conclusion that my former religion was not true in that post. Instead I simply claimed that my former religion promotes the type of thinking as was reflected in my original post and that it discourages questioning the certainty that it is true.
I am quick to repent when someone shows that I am in error as can be seen in all my posts here at Hatrack, but I do not believe that I am guilty of what you are charging me with here.
Edited to add: That I knew about those things, too, and remained a true believer.
[ May 22, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: enochville ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry you feel that way. My experience has been very different.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, starLisa, I don't think it's obstinacy, I think it's stupidity and wishful thinking. Obstinacy implies a certain degree of recognising the reality of the thing.