Mohammed enslaves Women III, then John of Damascus weighs in

We seem to share with our canine friends an unfortunate instinct to grovel before bullies. 

That is the only explanation I can find for the tendency of some non-Muslim women to depict Mohammed as enlightened or anything but ruthless in his treatment of women. 

On reading it through for the first time, I find the Quran even worse than expected. It seems little more than a vehicle by which Mohammed asserted power over others, and demanded that everyone submit utterly to him.  There is one great law to which all people must bow at all times, to gain paradise with rivers of honey and water and wine and milk, and in which one lounges on couches and eats fruit and it entertained by virgin beauties, and avoids a hell of boiling water or copper that burst one's innards and has to consume hellish devil fruit to intensify agony forever.  And that law is absolute, unquestioning obedience to the "prophet's" every whim. 

Mohammed gives women more trouble.

I am presently reading through the Quran from beginning to end for the first time.  I have taught on Islam (shortly, in the context of world religions), and I have read many books on Islam, so it is past time that I finally grappled with the source of Muslim teaching in its totality. 

It has so far been an enlightening, which does not always mean exciting, ride.  The book is very repetitive.  Sometimes it gains a kind of low-key poetic majesty, in which the very repetitions feature as a useful device.  The overwhelmingly dominant themes are:

Peter Boghossian captains Titanic to bottom of Atlantic.

The skeptical world is presently agog over philosopher Peter Boghossian's new book, Manual for Creating Atheists.  And well they should be: the book is a monstrous, enormous, monumental, dare one say titanic work of hubris.  Some of the rivets of his argument are missing, it hit an iceberg even before sailing out of port, and there is a thirty-foot gash in its hull below the water line.  But it is a magnificent vessel, and skeptics from Richard Dawkins to John Loftus are clambering aboard with a considerable weight of philosophical luggage. 

I posted my review earlier.  John Loftus has just posted his.  Let us read through the latter with our customary critical engagement:

Karen Armstrong kisses up to Mohammed (and throws her sisters under the camel train)

So, what did Mohammed really think about women?  Did he hang around the tent, chatting amicably with his women-folk, as Karen Armstrong supposes?  Or was he a sexual tyrant and master manipulator whose example and teachings help explain the low status of women in the Muslim world today?  Let's begin looking for answers to that question in the Quran itself. 

I have to admit, sometimes I enjoy it when females disrespect females in the abstract.  Maybe it's the old "divine and conquer" instinct.  Not that I'd want to listen to it every day: I'm glad that the women in my life get along.  Still, whatever doubts I have about Ann Coulter, I smiled the other day when she said she thought that in times of crisis, it's best that a nation be led by a man, not a woman.  I don't know if she is right -- I was just reading about Queen Tamar and the Golden Age of Georgia in the 11th Century yesterday -- but I smiled when she said it. 

But in her Short History of Islam, "religious scholar" Karen Armstrong takes betrayal of her own gender too far for my taste. 

In the Beginning, God -- by Winfried Corduan

(Adapted from Amazon review, just posted.)

I have been fascinated by evidence for God in non-western cultures for some thirty years, since first reading Don Richardson's Eternity in Their Hearts. One chapter of my own first book, True Son of Heaven: How Jesus Fulfills the Chinese Culture (which Corduan has apparently not read) described God as he was worshipped, and often neglected, in China. Since then, as regular readers of this blog know, I have read, written, and even debated the idea with atheists like Richard Carrier and Hector Avalos. But in some ways, this book takes the debate to a whole new level.

Perspective: Teddy Roosevelt's North Dakota

Note: Christ the Tao set a new record last month for page visitors, for the second month in a row, at 12,000+.  We're still small and maneuverable and keeping the big boys off guard -- but great to have your company.  Two more milestones: our most popular post went over 10,000 total visits ("How Confucius Proves Jesus"), and my book reviews on Amazon.com now have more than 11,000 "helpful" votes from 400 or so reviews. 

We don't get quite as many visitors to "Perspectives" posts, but I like to put them up, anyway, take a break from arguing, and offer a peculiar vision of the marvelous world around us.  In a sense, that is what this blog is all about. 

Today's photos continue my summer book tour, this time from Teddy Roosevelt National Park  in North Dakota, (northern section), and also a sunflower field nearby. 

Phil Zuckermans' Recipe for Secular Humanist Pizza

Typing out one of Dr. Phil Zuckerman's arguments for Secular Humanism, it occurred to me that it might also make good instructions for baking pizza.  So let me transcribe a portion of that argument -- which comes up in different forms later in the debate as well -- as follows.  I'll work those slight alterations to a recipe that make all the difference between a dish that gets wrapped in plastic and abandoned in the back of the fridge, and one that practically begs you to fold it greedily into your hungry mouth. 

Tis almost the Season again! 
(This one is from last year.)

How to make Secular Humanist Pizza. (Quick tip: for best results, do not add Bible verses.)

2013.  The following declaration was proclaimed.  Quote:

"Good pizza is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Now that was not Richard Dawkins talking.  That was not Christopher Hitchens.  That was David Marshall, cooking pineapple, cilantro, pepperoni and mushroom pizza, on the evening of October 25th, 2013. 

Nor does any other skilled pizza maker that I know of use Bible verses in their pizzas. 

Think about bakers agreeing on anything unanimously!

Now you might say, "Oh, Phil, you know how bakers are, they add all kinds of secret ingredients -- they'll try anything!" 

Dousing the Fireworks: Response to Zuckerman's Closing Arguments

There is a time-honored debating tradition known in some circles as the "Gish Gallop."  This involves throwing out a series of claims quickly, each of which demands a long response, for which unfortunately, there remains no time.  The Gish Gallop, named for creation scientist Duane T. Gish, comes perhaps most effectively at the end of a debate, when even less can be said.


Duane Gish

I don't know if that's what Phil Zuckerman had in mind with the final flurry of new arguments in his closing talk -- or maybe he had been suppressing all this, and just needed to get it out.  I compared it to the final rush of explosions at the end of a fireworks display, when everything goes up all at once.  I also promised, in my closing statement, that I'd answer his points later.  I meant now. 

So here's my point-by-point analysis of Zuckerman's Fireworks.  I'll put Phil's comments in orange, in honor of the holiday. 

Zuckerman: It's so weird when David picks and chooses his examples.  He didn't tell you about the Australian aboriginals, perhaps the most peaceful society ever known (among) humans.  An indigenous, non-Christian people, who were horrified by the acts of the missionaries.  So yeah, pick the Yanomamo, the most notorious violent people you can find in all of anthropology, but ignore the aboriginals.  Again, he's always taking the worst example, rather than admitting there could be hope elsewhere, and I don't know why.  I detect it's defensiveness.  

What Does Secular Humanism Contribute?

During our debate two weeks ago, and afterwards, Phil Zuckerman generously admitted several times that Christianity had done the world a great deal of good.  He also challenged me to admit what good I might think Secular Humanism has done. 

Paul Kurtz, author, "What
"is Secular Humanism?"

I alluded to this a few times in the debate, but did not answer it in detail.  I emphasized that Secular Humanism is not the worst of all possible worldviews, which may have sounded to Phil like "damning with faint praise." 

Phil was mistaken in accusing me of "defensiveness" in "always choosing the worst example" of non-Christian traditions, however.  As those who have read them know, my books revel in the truth and beauty to be found in Chinese and other traditions, from an ancient and orthodox Christian perspective I call "fulfillment theology."  

Indeed, if I wanted to focus on the worst, I would never have asked Phil to share the stage with me!

But Christians have to be honest, too.   This can thus be the trickiest question from a Muslim.  "We admit that Jesus was a true prophet of God, the 'Messiah' and 'Breath of God' as the Qur'an says.  Why can't you be generous even to admit that Mohammed was a true prophet?"  Well, because I don't believe his message was true, and I don't think he was a very good man. 

So there has to be balance, and honesty. 

Final Arguments (Marshall-Zuckerman VI)

(Note: I haven't posted the audience Q and A portion of the debate yet, though that comes before final statements.  I may post that later, but I'd like to post this first, and then continue with my analysis -- including of the many claims Dr. Zuckerman made in his closing statement that I was not able to get to here, and promised to respond to later.  I have now posted the response to Zuckerman's final flurry of comments that I promise below.- DM)

David Timms asks questions (Marshall-Zuckerman IV)

David Timms: News organizations remind us every day that our society seems to find new depths of dishonesty, violence, greed, sexual depravity.  How does your position offer hope for the future? 

Rebuttals (Marshall-Zuckerman III)

David Marshall

What does Secular Humanism contribute?   
  

I didn't know I was going to be asked to defend theocracy tonight.  And I didn't know I was going to be asked to attack democracy.

 

The Treaty of Tripoli was, as I recall, between the United States and the local government -- not a Caliphate, whatever the local government was, which was a Muslim government.   And the United States wanted to make it clear that America is not analogous to Muslim . . .

 

Let's go back (and do) a little history, again.  There's a fellow by the name of Brian Tierney who wrote a book called The Crisis of Church and State from 1050 to 1300.  And what he did was, he quoted what different people had said about Church and State and the conflicts between the popes and the church authorities on the one hand, and different governing authorities on the other.  And there are two verses that seem to crop up over and over again in these writings in the early Middle Ages.  And those verses are "My kingdom is not of this world," and "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." 

 

When we talk about "secular values," that's different from talking about "Secular Humanism."  I agree completely that democracy is probably the best -- well, I guess not completely, then -- that democracy is the best form of government.  But I would say that democracy grows out of something more grassroots than that, something within the culture itself.  The culture is influenced by religion.   

 

 

How Christianity Made Scandinavia

David Landes said "In the tenth century, Europe was just coming out of a long torment of invasion, plunder, and rapine, by enemies form all sides."  The Vikings were "So terrifying were these marauders, so ruthless their tactics (taking pleasure in tossing babies in the air and catching them on their lances . . . ), that the very rumor of their arrival" send everyone running.  (Wealth and Poverty of Nations, 29) 

 

A Muslim traveler visiting the Vikings in 922, the same century, said, "They are the filthiest of all Allah's creatures . . .  addicted to alcohol, which they drink night and day").  They left the poor to die, and they would have sex with a slave girl before sacrificing her, beating on their shields so the other girls wouldnt' hear.  And the king lived like Jabba the Hut. 

 

So 1000 years ago, the ancestors of modern Danes were sacrificing maidens and cruising the North Sea looking to pick up some monastic bling.  Now they're riding bicycles to flower shops in Copenhagen.  What happened? 

 

To make history very simple, and maybe overly simple, the Gospel happened. 

 

But here I agree with Dr. Zuckerman.  There was a disconnect over several centuries, a misunderstanding over the relationship between the Gospel and government.  First came a top-down Medieval Catholicism.  People didn't read their Bibles because they were forbidden to.  Then Lutheranism, and now the Bible was more important.  And then, Pietism. 

 

Eljas Orrman, in the Cambridge History of Scandinavia, says, "Christianity brought with it a new conception of responsibility for the poor and needy in society."  Hospitals and what-not.   

 

The murder rate in Stockholm in the  15th Century was about the same as New Orleans or Detroit today, 47 murders per one hundred thousand.  Then in the  16th Century, half that.  In the 17th Century, lower.  The  18th Century, 4, and then one, and then its slightly increased since then. 

 

What happened? 
 

According to Byron Nordstrom, "The Pietists' focus on the Scriptures and on compulsory confirmation (from 1726 in Sweden and from 1736 in Denmark) necessitated increased literacy."

 

Now it's interesting how often, when I'm reading Dr. Zuckerman's book, to see how many times Danes and Swedes themselves say, "Yes!  Our culture -- not our government . . . "

 

There's a distinction between government and society.  And what I'm arguing tonight, and maybe there's a little disconnect here, is society.  When it comes to government, I totally agree that it should not be a theocracy.  And I think the roots of that go back to the words of Jesus himself.  Yes, it needed to be developed.  And yes, there was also inspiration from the Greeks and the Romans. 

 

But there's definitely a continuity . . . For example, if you look at someone like John Witherspoon, who was also one of the most important founding fathers, who was James Madison's teacher at Princeton University. 

 

And the same thing in China, which I won't have time to get to tonight.  But maybe we'll continue this discussion, and see what we're connecting and disconnecting on, here. 


Phil Zuckerman (Thanks to Richard Wilson for transcribing this)

If the argument is that Christianity has done a lot of good in history? Yes. I agree.

 

No argument. If the argument is that Christianity improves certain civilizations tremendously from

what they were before- no argument.  This is not a debate. I think the same thing could be said of Islam.

 

Did Islam improve the situation in the Arabian peninsula?  You bet. That's not what I'm here to debate tonight.

 

I was asked, "What is a better basis for a civil society?"

 

So, let's look at the situation right now. What demographic group in the United States is the most Christian?

 

And I'm measuring that by, church attendance, faith in Jesus, belief that the scriptures are of divine

inspiration or origin, frequency of of prayer.  Every measure you can think of.  What demographic group in this country is the most Christian. African Americans.  Now, what I'm going to say can be misinterpreted, and I hope it's not, but Dubois(?) would agree with me. What demographic group in this country faces the most problems.

 

Highest poverty rates.  Highest murder rates. Highest teen pregnancy rates. Highest diabetes rates. Highest unemployment rates. You name it.  So, do I think it's because they're Christian?  Of course not! It's- something else is going on.

 

What demographic group in this country is the least Christian? Jews, and Asian Americans. Jews deny the divinity of Christ outright, so there's no- and Jews are actually the most secular group in America today. So we have two demographics.  Asian Americans who do have a small proportion who are Christian but the majority are not, and they have high level of secular identification.  Jews and Asian Americans are doing the best in this country.

 

Educational attainment. Income.  Life expectancy. You name it. However you want to measure it. Now what's going on here? Do I think it's because they're not Christian?  Of course not.  How simplistic. How ridiculous.

 

But this should cause for pause. Something's going on here. Something other than Christianity would help us explain why these two groups are experiencing such different social realities. Let's broaden it.

PEW research gives us a lot of information. What are the most Christian states in this country?

 

Measured, again, by belief, behavior and belonging. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma tied with Utah. These are the states with the highest murder rates. The highest poverty rates. Crumbling schools.

 

Underfunded hospitals. Highest murder rates. Highest obesity rates. You name it. However you like.

The least Christian states in America, again, measured by standard sociological measures of belief, behavior and belonging. Main, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Alaska, Oregon and California. Fairing markedly better on all these indicators. Not every single one, and these are averages and percentages.  Why? Is it because one's Christian and- No. I think something else is going on here, and what is that something else? Let's go to internationally.

 

The most Christian countries in the world today. Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador, Rwanda, Columbia, Brazil, Peru, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico, Jamaica.

 

The most secular societies today-  organically secular, meaning it's not being forced by some lunatic atheist dictator. Democratic societies that have given up their religion for the most part. Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic, Japan, Canada, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, South Korea, Estonia, France, Russia, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Slovenia, Germany, Hungary, Great Britain, Australia, Belgium. Which set of countries is fairing the best? So you can take an individual demographic group, go to the states, or go internationally. We see the same correlation.

 

Those societies that are the most secular today are fairing the best on almost every measure. Compare Japan's murder rate to El Salvador's. Or Columbia's. Japan is one of the least Christian countries in the world.

 

El Salvador and Jamaica among the most. So if Christianity was the answer, we wouldn't see these correlations.

 

And granted they're just correlations, it's not causation. Something else is going on here. I agree that those countries that are doing well are coming out of a Christian heritage. I agree. But they are post-Christian now.

 

Society progresses. Society moves on. Society evolves. We know this. Do I think Christianity contributes much and continues to contribute much? You bet. And I don't want to see Christianity go away. I think Christianity has wonderful, wonderful, elements. I just don't want it to be 'the', 'the' basis.  Not 'a' basis, but 'the' basis, and that's what this debate has asked me to say. What would happen if we declared Christianity the basis of American civil society? I don't think it would be very pretty. Thanks you.

 

Next Up: Part III, Q and A. 

 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

 

(Note: I either did not get or did not seize the opportunity to answer Phil's argument here during our debate.  I should have, but the timing was packed, and anyway, Phil vaguely argued correlation here, not causation, and that from what I call "satellite level," not from the ground level of real human lives.  I had, however, previously answered much the same argument by Zuckerman's coauthor, Gregory Paul, and by Gary Jenson, in some detail -- an answer the great sociologist Rodney Stark said he liked, and which I have now posted on this site as a long article entitled "Does Faith in God Up the Murder Rate?".  -- David)