Strength of Islam vs Christianity.

CrazySka

Few questions
Over time the strength of christianity as a contolling force has waned particularly in catholicism, however the strength of Islam and its dedication to its practises (appear to me) to remain the same, for instance we (catholics could not eat meat on a friday, shop on sundays etc).
Why is it that when the catholic church faces trouble its followers seem to distance themselves.
I personally feel that the centralised approach to religion in catholicism gives catholics something more tangible to blame, ie Rome. Is there such a centralised approach to Islam or is the actual religion and beliefs at the heart rather than an organisation?
Or is it simply that islam is widespread in more developing societies, can you foresee a kind of watered down muslim religion similar to what exists in mainstream christianity?
Or does this already exist but the sories we hear are coming from extrremist areas, ie are we only shown one side of Islam?

RE*AC*TOR

Well evangelical christianity seems to be doing well in the states.

CrazySka

You ll always have some branches that are stronger than others but they seem to be in the minority on a global scale, whereas(and im ready to be corrected on this) islam seems to be strong in whatever form its in.
Perhaps the rise of evangelists is as much to do with a dissilusionment of a centralised church? then again it could just be americans doing things their way;)

Sleepy

As populations become educated, the dominant religions in those countries lose a lot of their power due to people being smart/educated enough to realise that a lot (nearly all imho) of what their minister preaches is horse$hit.

In the current global environment, "christian" countries appear to have more educated populations than muslim nations. It's not that Christians are smarter than Muslims, or that Muslims' faith is stronger, it's simply that as the world stands, the "christian" nations are the more educated ones.

CrazySka

Thats part of my question that i didnt really get accross there sleepy, as islamic countries become more developed and educated will a lesser form of islam come into being, without the same adherence to its practises.
For that matter do educated muslims in developed countries practise a more flexible form?

Sleepy

The islamic religion, like the christian one, has as many different levels of adherance to it as there are colours. The extremists tend to take the headlines as is pretty typical of most things. I know muslims who barely practice their religions yet still consider themselves to be muslim (much like the non-church going Irish Catholics).

InFront

john_dub wrote:

For that matter do educated muslims in developed countries practise a more flexible form?

I disagree that education causes a 'watering down' of the Muslim faith. My father grew up in Pakistan and married a London Muslim (my mother) when he went to dental school there. Both of them are well educated, my mother received all of her education in the West, and yet both are very strict in their worship.

I think that the extent of how flexible a person is with their own faith depends rather on a range of things much wider than just education. Society, family, and individual perspective all have an input too. My older brother is very serious about his Muslim faith whereas I am more flexible (mosque, prayer, type of girls, etc.). To suggest that education waters down a faith might suggest there is something 'incorrect' or fanciful in it.

In 20 years time, I have no doubt that young Muslims in ireland will resemble young Catholics today, but I dont think that education will cause change

Sangre

InFront wrote:

To suggest that education waters down a faith might suggest there is something 'incorrect' or fanciful in it.

Thats exactly what I would suggest. There is no comparison to the level of faith in the west nowdays and the middle ages, an age of unprecedent ignorance. Faith and God was used to oppress and discriminate the weak and uneducated.
Advancements in science have meant that those who believe in earth/sun Gods are few and far between. The similar effects of education occur to main stream religions aswell.
Of course the effect of education only occurs in democratic states where a non-secular government doesn't oppress conflicting views of reality.

Schuhart

Sleepy wrote:

As populations become educated, the dominant religions in those countries lose a lot of their power due to people being smart/educated enough to realise that a lot (nearly all imho) of what their minister preaches is horse$hit.

There is some truth in what you are saying, but I think the process does not stop there. People dabble in other faiths and philosophies, and even adopt belief systems that leave outside spectators wonder 'wtf are they at'? I thinking in particular of Scientology, but I think this story makes even that look like a mainstream religion. If people are willing to engineer their lives around the plot of a science fiction novel without even a pretence of it being 'God's will', then its really open season on reality.

There's nothing as queer as folk, and to be honest I'm left puzzled at how people who should know better still hold on to beliefs that they must know are untrue.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

Faith and God was used to oppress and discriminate the weak and uneducated.

...Of course the effect of education only occurs in democratic states where a non-secular government doesn't oppress conflicting views of reality.

I would argue that faith and God liberated the weak and the uneducated as it does today, religious leaders were the ones who abused it, but thats opinion for you:) we're all different.

How can your theory explain the case of well educated people in foreign countries who are devout to their religion? Be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Many Scientists in history were religious men. Im sure that most people would put their atheism down to what they perceive to be common sense as opposed to the Leaving Certificate.

By the way, Muslim countries can and do offer great educational opportunities.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I'm left puzzled at how people who should know better still hold on to beliefs that they must know are untrue.

Most people in the world hold onto such beliefs, and while its fair not to go along with them, you have to respect them. Its just not polite to use terms like 'should know better' and 'must know (to be) untrue', even if you do find religion puzzling.
The athiest is not going to convince the believer nor vice versa.

Cantab.

john_dub wrote:

I personally feel that the centralised approach to religion in catholicism gives catholics something more tangible to blame, ie Rome.

What exactly do you mean when you talk about a 'centralised approach to religion in Catholicism'? Are you proposing the decentralisation of the Catholic Church?! And who would you be to hold a view on matters internal to the Catholic Church? And besides, the Church has been around for a long time and is built on tradition (from the Last Supper onwards), so what gives anyone (bar the Pope) the right to change things based of some lay-persons 'consensus'?

And what do you mean when you talk of Catholics 'blaming' Rome?

lostexpectation

Cantab. wrote:

What exactly do you mean when you talk about a 'centralised approach to religion in Catholicism'? Are you proposing the decentralisation of the Catholic Church?! And who would you be to hold a view on matters internal to the Catholic Church? And besides, the Church has been around for a long time and is built on tradition (from the Last Supper onwards), so what gives anyone (bar the Pope) the right to change things based of some lay-persons 'consensus'?

Im guessing john_dub is probably a lapsed catholic in catholic country that gives him the right.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Most people in the world hold onto such beliefs, and while its fair not to go along with them, you have to respect them.

I've absolutely no problem leaving people to do as they please. I'm not suggesting that Kaotians should be shot like dogs for living their lives according to the Chronicles of Gor novels.

InFront wrote:

Its just not polite to use terms like 'should know better' and 'must know (to be) untrue', even if you do find religion puzzling.

It is simply a fact that a group of people exist that have borrowed their moral code from a series of novels. I think the implications of this are very interesting, and confirms in my mind what I have thought for many years - that many theists have taken a conscious decision to be irrational, and follow a religion. The Kaotians should know better. They are following something they must know to be untrue. I'd say Scientologists aren't far behind them, and I'd feel Western converts to Islam are in much the same category. I'm not trying to be polite to these people. I'm trying to understand their mindset, which won't happen by leaving my thoughts unvoiced.

InFront wrote:

The athiest is not going to convince the believer nor vice versa.

This athiest isn't trying to convince believers. He's trying to understand them by having a discussion with anyone who can relate to the point.

InFront

You were doing really well, I was in total agreement, until you said

Schuhart wrote:

They are following something they must know to be untrue. I'd say Scientologists aren't far behind them, and I'd feel Western converts to Islam are in much the same category. I'm not trying to be polite to these people.

Clearly!
Are you saying that Western converts should have more common sense? What of those of us who were born elsewhere and grew up in the West? Should we 'know better'? I dont know anything concrete thing about Scientology, but with regard to Islam: are you saying that you know something that I here in Dublin dont know? You might live 2 doors away from me! Or know something that people in the Middle East do not know? Please, fill us in!

Schuhart

Before we jump off the deep end together, it would help me to know if your total agreement includes the statement 'The Kaotians should know better', but not that they must consciously be following something they believe to be untrue. If you find this idea acceptable, then it looks to me like that old GB Shaw quote about haggling over the price. We'll both agree that some people can show willful irrationality in the choice of their beliefs. The only question will be where does willful irrationality end and sincere religous faith begin.

Just so that you don't feel I'm waiting in ambush, where I coming from regarding Western converts to Islam is not related to people here having greater commonsense than anywhere else. If you look at what we elect to Dail Eireann I think you'd have to agree that sense of any kind - common or otherwise - is utterly lacking.

I can understand that anyone brought up in a particular faith will probably stay with it if they don't think about it too much. I can understand that someone born up in an Islamic country and brought to the West (or born in the West to recent migrants) might have a special attachment to their religion because it's a link to their heritage, and maybe even a strong part of their identity. I can equally understand someone in that situation being extra prickly if someone said something that seemed to slight their identity.

But if someone brought up in the West chooses Islam, you have to ask why. I see it as someone wanting to immerse themselves in some old time religion. It might be your faith, and you might love it and take strength from seeing new converts coming in. As far as I can see, those converts are just making a lifestyle choice.

InFront

No sorry I wasnt being clear, my agreement ended with the statement that began with'The Kaotins should know better'. I agree that my religion, Islam, is irrational, as are all religions. But we take a leap of faith. I would guess that Scientologists take more of a leap of faith than the rest of us:o but dont know much about them. What I do know is if they genuinely believe it, and it isnt harmful to them, let them at it.

I would also say that whilst Islam is ancient, it cant be described as an 'old time religion', I think it is a religion for all times, and will survive until the end of the world, such is the basis of the Muslim faith. So anyone who chooses to take it up should be made welcome. I would also like to add that I dont consciously choose to remain a Muslim to maintain a link to my heritage/ nationality (it helps) but because I genuinely believe the above things.

Of course Westerners who convert to Islam are making a lifestyle choice, thats fine.... religion is there to help us make lifestyle choices in the first place. How would you feel about Muslims who choose to convert to Christianity? Look at all the Christian priests who come here from Africa. Are they being irrational?

growler

InFront wrote:

I agree that my religion, Islam, is irrational, as are all religions. But we take a leap of faith. I would guess that Scientologists take more of a leap of faith than the rest of us:o but dont know much about them. What I do know is if they genuinely believe it, and it isnt harmful to them, let them at it.

why would you chose to be irrational ?

InFront

Because as a medical student (and therefore a believer of science) I cannot perceive how certain things stipulated in the Qu'ran are possible, therefore they are irrational. But I choose to accept irrationalities (eg the existence of Allah) in a leap of faith and accept that none of us here know everything...

Do your grandparents have a religion? Ask them why they choose to be irrational

the_new_mr

I just want to make clear that I'm no religious scholar but I shall try to answer your questions as well as possible.

john_dub wrote:

Is there such a centralised approach to Islam or is the actual religion and beliefs at the heart rather than an organisation?

There is no centralised organisation in Islam. Some people say that this is a weakness but most people (including myself) say it's one of its strengths.

john_dub wrote:

Or is it simply that islam is widespread in more developing societies, can you foresee a kind of watered down muslim religion similar to what exists in mainstream christianity?

Well, Islam is widespread in developing countries and lots of developed countries as well. The level of adherence is certainly nothing to do with the level of education that any individual achieves as was suggested. As InFront mentioned, this can be clearly seen from the fact that there are plenty of educated Muslims who choose to adhere to their religion.

john_dub wrote:

Or does this already exist but the sories we hear are coming from extrremist areas, ie are we only shown one side of Islam?

Well, not sure of exactly what you're asking here. Question 2 asked about Muslims who follow a watered down version of Islam and question 3 asked about whether we are only hearing about extremist areas. No room for a happy medium? The majority of Muslims exist somewhere in between those two groups with both those groups being quite small in number (relatively speaking) and this majority group follow this because they believe it is the correct way to follow Islam.

On the subject of irrationality. I must say that I don't believe I'm being irrational at all in choosing to follow my beliefs. I guess that perhaps I differ with InFront on this but we both consider ourselves Muslims. Salam InFront

And with respect to InFront, I don't believe that Muslim youth in 20 years will resemble young Catholics of today. The reason I say that is because from the Muslim youth I've seen, I can see that a large majority are adhering to their religion willingly. In the community centre where we used to gather for prayers on Friday in Ireland, I would say that there were 2 out of around 100 or more 15-25 year olds there that would drink/go out with girls. Of course, that doesn't account for some who might have chosen to stay home on Friday

And the main reason I think that you don't find too many Muslims veering away from practicing their faith is because they are convinced with their beliefs including the core beliefs as well as things like the prohibition of alcohol and pre-marital sex etc.

Concerning the idea that westerners who convert to Islam are just making a lifestyle choice, well I'm not so sure about that. I know a few converts and their conviction in their religion has impressed me so much along with how well they practice it that I would feel that I'm not practicing properly at all!

Sleepy

It's this 'leap of faith' that puzzles us atheists so much, InFront. Deciding to believe in any faith is an irrational behaviour. There is no logical argument for the existance of any deity so it puzzles us why people choose to believe in one. My own postulation is that it is a fear of one's own mortality which allows one to delude oneself in this manner.

The only other reason I can see for having a faith is gullability or ignorance. Education greatly reduces this in a population, which is why I'd theorise that this is why religious adherance drops in better educated nations.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I dont consciously choose to remain a Muslim to maintain a link to my heritage/ nationality (it helps) but because I genuinely believe the above things.

I understand that there is no conflict between acknowledging heritage and believing. A similar experience might be the way some Irish emigrants find Catholicism is a way of integrating with their adopted countries, while at the same time holding on to something familiar.

InFront wrote:

What I do know is if they genuinely believe it, and it isnt harmful to them, let them at it.

I’d add ‘or harmful to the rest of us’. But I still think the process through which they come to their beliefs is of general interest. And given that many faiths contain a belief that they should spread the word, I don’t mind if I stray into repaying the compliment on occasion. Occasionally I share their illusion that the main problem with the world is too few people think exactly like I do.

InFront wrote:

How would you feel about Muslims who choose to convert to Christianity?

Much the same, but the context in which conversion takes place can be different. In some situations conversion could be a method of social advancement or simply a way of fitting in. And, sometimes, it might even be because a person wants to believe.

InFront wrote:

Do your grandparents have a religion? Ask them why they choose to be irrational

In their case, they grew up in an Ireland where such things were not really discussed. They would have been surrounded by a consensus that there was one true Church, Protestants were living in error and anyone else (to the extent they were even thought of) was bound for Hell. My interest is more how someone can understand the flaws in a particular faith and effectively say ‘I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that.’ I do have an amount of sympathy for Sleepy’s view that it may have its roots in fear of death. Jumping from science fiction to country music in search of spiritual enlightenment, I think that sense of despair is well captured in Johnny Cash’s ‘Hurt’ video. It might well drive a man to religion.

the_new_mr wrote:

I know a few converts and their conviction in their religion has impressed me so much along with how well they practice it that I would feel that I'm practicing properly at all!

I don’t doubt there’s a warm community spirit, and converts add to it, and that’s a good thing. But I suppose I’d feel a Kaotian slave girl shows an impressive amount of conviction when she allows herself to be brought on a leash round the local shops of a North of England town. If people will do that for a work of fiction, then there’s hardly a limit to what they’ll do for something they can present as the divine word.

CrazySka

First off the_new_mr thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

Originally posted by Cantab.
What exactly do you mean when you talk about a 'centralised approach to religion in Catholicism'? Are you proposing the decentralisation of the Catholic Church?! And who would you be to hold a view on matters internal to the Catholic Church? And besides, the Church has been around for a long time and is built on tradition (from the Last Supper onwards), so what gives anyone (bar the Pope) the right to change things based of some lay-persons 'consensus'?
And what do you mean when you talk of Catholics 'blaming' Rome?

Did i propose the decentralisation of the catholic church? NO, i stated a fact that there is a central point of control for catholicism, ie Rome

Therefore it follows that if something goes wrong you are going to blame Rome, If theres not enough trains to provide a decent level of service do you go and shout the drivers?
The hospital service is inadequate, lets go and hassle the doctors.
I am a lapsed catholic (as lostexpectation said) and when a scandal happens in the church, i personally blame the outdated doctrines of the church, where have these doctrines been issued from? does each priest make his own rules? NO, they come from Rome

Maybe you think because ive posted in the islam forum that im a muslim, you seem to be one for jumping to conclusions.

And who would you be to hold a view on matters internal to the Catholic Church?

the Church has been around for a long time and is built on tradition (from the Last Supper onwards), so what gives anyone (bar the Pope) the right to change things based of some lay-persons 'consensus'?

And who would you be to hold this view? you seem to think only the pope is allowed to have a view

And what do you mean when you talk of Catholics 'blaming' Rome?

If you were standing here now id say this very slowly so you can understand, ANY ORGANISATION WITH A CENTRALISED STRUCTURE WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AT THAT CENTRAL POINT.

Zombrex

john_dub wrote:

However the strength of Islam and its dedication to its practises (appear to me) to remain the same

The same as when?

Islamic fundamentalism is a relatively new thing in the Middle East. 50 years ago Turkey Iran and Iraq etc were full of liberal "western" ideas, that made Ireland of the 50s look like Iran now. I've seen pictures of Iran that look like New York or London.

Then the region became very destablised (thank you very much Mr. CIA) and fundamentalists Muslim movements took hold.

CrazySka

Surely islamic fundamentalism could be traced back to the time of the crusades no? or at least some form of it. But im not talking about fundamentalists as such, im talking about the average religious practises of muslims and how they seem to be more dedicated to their religion.
I dont think i reffered to fundamentalists at all.

DinoBot

john_dub wrote:

im talking about the average religious practises of muslims and how they seem to be more dedicated to their religion.

I think you brought up some very good points john_dub.

I too had thought that 99% of the muslims you see weremore dedicated to their religion then a similiar proportion of catholic. But on closer examination it proved not to be the case. Its just socially different. Yes more young people still goto mosque on Friday then their Irish peers goto church on Sunday but Id say the same number of muslims dont really care or understand about their religion.

If you look at england, the 2nd and 3rd generation muslims are just like the "natives" so in a way their Islam does get watered down.

sleepy wrote:

The only other reason I can see for having a faith is gullability or ignorance. .

A little harsh Id see it more as social conditioning. People tend to follow the religion of their parents, even if their lifestyle is at odds with it. How many people have you heard giving out about the no-sex before marrage thing but in the next sentance proclaim to be RC?
Im sick of people asking for the RC church to allow woman priests and gay priests. My answer to them is "Maybe your not roman catholic, because after all there already are woman and gay priests in some other faiths"

Why do people feel that religion is a birth right ?

Zombrex

john_dub wrote:

Surely islamic fundamentalism could be traced back to the time of the crusades no? or at least some form of it. But im not talking about fundamentalists as such, im talking about the average religious practises of muslims and how they seem to be more dedicated to their religion.
I dont think i reffered to fundamentalists at all.

Well modern western perceptions of what being a Muslim are seem to be largely shaped based around the image of a fundamentalist Islam is, rather than a moderate Islam. A fundamentalist Muslims is obviously very dedicated to his religion, but I don't think a moderate Muslim is any more dedicated than a moderate Christian.

In 1950s Iran it was quite common to see most women not wearing head scarfs.

Maybe it would be clearer if you explained what you mean by "dedicated"

CrazySka

Well modern western perceptions of what being a Muslim are seem to be largely shaped based around the image of a fundamentalist Islam is

Id totally agree with you there, thats why i wanted to raise the questions, to see if there is a more widespread (than it is portrayed to non-muslims) form.

In terms of dediacted, i mean attending mosque regularly and actually trying to live by the guidelines laid down, etc. I mean how many catholics dont attend church but still believe in god and consider themselves catholics? Id say theres a good percentage of us who fall into that bracket. is it the same for muslims?

the_new_mr says himself:

The majority of Muslims exist somewhere in between those two groups with both those groups being quite small in number (relatively speaking) and this majority group follow this because they believe it is the correct way to follow Islam.

This indicates to me that most muslims follow a form of islam between a watedred down version and the extremists, but this seems, (to me anyway), that that form would still be stronger than the way most catholics practise.
This quote would sway me in that direction as well:

And with respect to InFront, I don't believe that Muslim youth in 20 years will resemble young Catholics of today. The reason I say that is because from the Muslim youth I've seen, I can see that a large majority are adhering to their religion willingly. In the community centre where we used to gather for prayers on Friday in Ireland, I would say that there were 2 out of around 100 or more 15-25 year olds there that would drink/go out with girls. Of course, that doesn't account for some who might have chosen to stay home on Friday
And the main reason I think that you don't find too many Muslims veering away from practicing their faith is because they are convinced with their beliefs including the core beliefs as well as things like the prohibition of alcohol and pre-marital sex etc.

Im really not here to argue this though more to educate myself about something i think we dont hear enough about, so ill take anything on board. i for one would like to see some programs on moderate islam rather than the scaremongering stuff thats popping up everywhere.

The Corinthian

john_dub wrote:

Few questions
Over time the strength of christianity as a contolling force has waned particularly in catholicism, however the strength of Islam and its dedication to its practises (appear to me) to remain the same, for instance we (catholics could not eat meat on a friday, shop on sundays etc).

Certainly, Roman Catholicism has been in decline in the West - but that does not imply that it has been in decline overall. In fact it has fared better than many other Christian denominations, largely because it has been active in the developing World, alongside many of the more evangelical protestant churches. The denominations that have been suffering most have been the less aggressively salvitic ones, such as Lutheranism and Anglicanism. Even the Orthodox Church was in decline up until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Islam in many ways owes it’s resurgent popularity to two factors. Aggressive funding by the governments of Iran and, especially, Saudi Arabia and its replacement of Ba’athism as a pan-Arabic nationalist ideology. If you look at Ba’athism - essentially a form of Arabic Fascism (comprising of nationalism, militarism, state economic control and secularism) it’s been losing popularity for decades. Most Ba’athist or former Ba’athist regimes have been seen as out of touch, leading people to look elsewhere. And so religion became a natural channel for nationalistic sentiment.

In contrast, Christianity’s role as a binding commonality between Europeans has long faded - the last vestige of Christendom today is probably EU resistance to Turkish accession - as we replaced it with nationalism in the ninetieth century (although an exception to this has been the resurgence and involvement of the Christian Orthodox Church in Russia). In the Muslim World, this distinction between nationalism and faith is still often linked and as nationalism has grown, so has Fundamentalist Islam.

Sleepy

DinoBot wrote:

A little harsh Id see it more as social conditioning. People tend to follow the religion of their parents, even if their lifestyle is at odds with it. How many people have you heard giving out about the no-sex before marrage thing but in the next sentance proclaim to be RC?
Im sick of people asking for the RC church to allow woman priests and gay priests. My answer to them is "Maybe your not roman catholic, because after all there already are woman and gay priests in some other faiths"

Why do people feel that religion is a birth right?

I'd see religion as more of a birth wrong!

Seriously though, if someone claims a 'faith' but has never even thought about their religion, it's hardly a real faith is it? If your "faith" doesn't stand up to questioning, it's a mis-conception you've held rather than a faith. The Pastafarian 'Religion' illustrates this quite well imho. If you accept such an unlikely story as a given without questioning it you're gullible. But in reality, the story's no less unlikely that sold by the Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Scientologist religion. So, if you accept any of their stories without questioning it you have to be a fairly gullible person.

Now, what, you might ask, of those that have questioned their faiths and still believe? Well, these people (from what I can tell, the vast majority of humanity) are clearly rejecting logic, reason and known facts in favour of such a story, or as InFront put it, taking a leap of faith. Why would anyone do this? The only reason I can see that they'd do this is it's because they want to.

Why would an otherwise intelligent person choose to reject logic, reason and scientific facts in order to believe in a God/gods/flying spaghetti monster? The only reasons I can see are because of fear of their own mortality or because they lack the courage to face their lives without the promise of a better after-life.

Mundus Vult Decipi.

coffee_cake

Sleepy wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent person choose to reject...scientific facts in order to believe in a God/gods/flying spaghetti monster?

Hang on a minute - WHAT scientific fact? The only thing science has to do with this is to say "we cannot prove/disprove a god/gods". So what are you on about?