Dear Stanley Wilkin

Prior to anyone being able to provide a meaningful answer, clarification will be need on what is mean by the massive umbrella terms "belief," "non-belief," and "religion." For example, Cantwell-Smith highlighted that Islam, which refers to itself as a "deen," does not comfortably sit within the umbrella of "religion" and this could comfortably be extended to many of the world's belief systems. So this would take the question away from the religious domain, especially as what is included in this domain has not been adequately specified.

So next we turn to what is meant by belief and again there is a lack of specificity, limiting any meaningful engagement with the question as it is currently posed.

If, as is vaguely alluded to, the umbrage is taken with views of post-death, then again which ones? If the reply is "all" then this is equally applicable to views that state there is nothing as it is to those that state there is something. If it solely applies to views that imply "comfort" in the herenow then it would be suggested there is a broad misunderstanding of how eschatological beliefs are embodied and enacted in the herenow through a moral imperative that is not enforced or justified by "non-belief."

Furthermore, without taking this point too far, there appears to be a colonialist homogenising of all that is deemed "other" without discerning the wide array of differentiation between the world's various belief systems.

Finally, "non-belief" requires definition and boundaries. Is it "non-belief" in everything, which includes belief in the validity of the scientific method and the use of reason, or is it those deemed as unjustified Religious ethics that include an eschatological element, which, as stated, are currently vague and unspecific?

Providing the caveat "it appears to me" without determining the boundaries of what is appearing to you results in a tautology. What appears to you will always be true but without clear boundaries and definitions it will mean that no meaningful discussion will develop and what appears to you will always be true.

Without greater clarity, my concern is we have a baby and bathwater situation.

Abu Bakr Sirajuddin Cook

A very good response but with elements of obscuration within it. Moving the question around is a way surely of not answering it but preventing it from being answered directly or responded to at all? Posing variations on a theme again creates mirages in order not to engage with the theme.

Throwing in colonialism seems a way of positioning a question that is made up of very few lines into a area of your own interest, but not one dealt with by the question. Here you have made a titanic leap, not a justified analysis of the questions scope. I think you think the question is about Islam as it seems that is the direction, or root, of what is an extremely and unnecessarily defensive take.

Abu Bakr,

I was struck by your initial disclaimer of what is meant by 'massive umbrella terms "belief," "non-belief," and "religion."' I will respond to this: it is difficult to find belief as such in the ancient world, and even in the Hebrew books this is not clear. The Hebrew books, apart from their plagiarism of other cultures, engage in special pleading constructing the narrative of an elite group not necessarily that of the people they represented. Yahweh, a number of different gods, is one being imposed on them probably from the Hebrew emissaries of the Persian government. This was a time when these emissaries were given orders to control the Jewish people so here belief is within the spectrum of political control. There is little evidence of religious belief elsewhere nor in fact belief as a phenomenon. Now here is one answer, the historical one, to what you see as a vast kaleidoscope, even if you see it mainly within the rhetorical focus of specific religious arenas, or appear to. A response justified by my question.

Belief and non-belief have agency as with intuitions, instinct, habits, nature, nurture and reasons for them. The conditioning of customs for the understanding is not exempt. Credence, as the degree of belief is a measure of confidence in the will to act. Whether passive or regulatory has a value, so its significance is objective.

Dear Stanley Wilkin

The quality of a question gives rise to the quality of the answer. While it is true that my area of greatest academic expertise is Islam, to suppose that my answer solely focuses on this, especially when the response mentioned the plurality of ”religious” expression and the world’s belief systems, does not show full consideration of the response provided.

While I am tempted to tongue in cheek reply that perhaps a non-answer is better than an answer, this would play into the accusation that I am avoiding the question, which my response should indicate that this is not the case. The request for greater clarity cuts to a theme that runs throughout my work, that theme being that greater nuance gives rise to more honest answers that are not as easily dismissed as broad sweeping statements.

Whilst there are political elements, or implications, of any belief system, it would be a stretch to suggest that political dominance is a primary objective or key motivation for all “religions.”

It is nice that you can find one instance from the multitude of belief systems to justify your views. I do not think the position you are suggesting would be applicable to the works of Nietzsche, who can be seen as perhaps amongst the most “religious” philosophers, especially when his statement “God is death” is read as an epistemological claim rather than an ontological claim. Equally the position could not to be seen to have any grounding in the teachings of Islam, Buddhism, Aboriginal spirituality, and a host of other “religions.”

The question’s scope attempts to group together a broad spectrum of human understanding of the absolute and reduce them to nothing as “it appears” to you. This seems to be at the heart of the colonial project that, in the name of superiority, denied any intrinsic worth to the peoples they felt justified in using for their own means and discarding what they did not understand as being of no worth. Broad sweeping condemnation of “belief” without any qualification seems to perpetuate the colonialist attitudes and practices.

Given that umbrage was taken at the suggestion that greater clarification and nuance would be of benefit, then perhaps there is an easier, though less informative way of answering the question. Isn’t non-belief better? No!

Paul, a great definition. But is shared belief objective?

Abu, quit the attitude otherwise I'll respond in kind.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who views the world from a single viewpoint has no right to perceive him or herself in the manner you appear to. I am not religious and tend to view religious people as poorly educated, whether I am justified to do so or not.

If you wish to conduct yourself as a cheeky schoolboy then try elsewhere. Or come back when you have either sufficiently educated yourself by looking outside these receptacles and tunnels of belief, where fuzzy gods exist spawned from poorly composed books and lecherous prophets.

Oh Stanley Wilkin

I am sorry you didn’t appreciate the humor. It was earmarked as such.

Asking for clarity is a good way to open up the discussion and attempt at greater depth in an answer, it also lessens misunderstanding. But perhaps that isn’t what is desired from an interlocutor.

Again, it feels strongly that you are attempting to impose a narrow view on anyone who sees another side to yours, which undermines the point of asking in the first place. As stated repeatedly, I have been highlighting there are multiple view points you want to disparage and deny, yet you are wanting to reduce my position to a single viewpoint? My repeated calls for nuance and understanding betray your accusations of black and white thinking. So it feels that the ad hominem attacks are misplaced due to a significant level of projection, though I guess I have to accept that’s how it appears to me.

Perhaps Paul Healey could correct me if I have misread, though his point seems to state he feels the significance of belief is objective without necessitating that any particular belief is objective in and of itself.

Abu,

I accept your way of doing things and I do not believe my response was right. 1) It reminded me of recent discussions over the present war and this was a debate that was often difficult because of my (sic) moral position and knowledge of the individuals involved over 20 years.

2) Too much in one go.

But I was wrong.

Better I think just to open up one area or two. Yes, we all know this is complicated, but it felt like you were actually overwhelming from your position or positions. Go ahead! Make a fist of it!

You still come across as arrogant though.

I will add, Abu/ My concern with you though is that you will not debate and that you are itemising within me faults you have yourself. At no point have you engaged.

That troubles me. Although my response was wrong, I think my reasons were correct.

Dear Stanley Wilkin

If an attempt to better understand what is being asked is not a sincere engagement then I would struggle to understand what you believe is a sincere engagement. This leaves us at an impasse because your approach precludes me from asking and clarifying. Especially if it is deemed arrogant to merely ask the question.

So, let's reverse and keep to 'belief' as a determinative of religion. The wider use of the term would take forever to discuss as concerns, at times, the various meanings of the word. These meanings are often separate and require completely different approaches.

Isn't non-belief better? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.