Do religious beliefs influence behaviour, or is it the other way round?
In this thread I want to explore the question as to whether, in the main, jihadis (and I suggest we focus on ISIS members as the closest thing to a canonical example) are:
1. As some contend (eg erosewater and I think pete5383), bad people who want to do bad things (like beheading people, throwing gays off tall buildings, and raping little girls) and who cherry pick particular verses in the Quran and hadith which on a literal interpretation justify such bad behaviour, and simply use those verses as excuses for their behaviour, without believing in the verses and the jihadi ideology ("fight until Islam rules the world"),
or, instead:
2. As others contend (eg Sam Harris and Graeme Wood), normal people who would not otherwise do these bad things, but have a literal belief in the verses and the jihadi ideology.
Of course, amongst ISIS members, there could easily some from each group, but the question is: do the majority fall in camp 1 or camp 2?
At the moment, I believe it is in camp 2: ISIS are constantly on the lookout for waverers and apostates, and it must get very trying to constantly put on an act of believing stuff that you really don't with the threat of immediate execution if you fluff your lines, or fail to look sincere enough.
Here is some pretty good evidence for 2, imo:
(from http://ift.tt/1GkScj1)
The full article is too long to post here, but here are some key extracts:
In this thread I want to explore the question as to whether, in the main, jihadis (and I suggest we focus on ISIS members as the closest thing to a canonical example) are:
1. As some contend (eg erosewater and I think pete5383), bad people who want to do bad things (like beheading people, throwing gays off tall buildings, and raping little girls) and who cherry pick particular verses in the Quran and hadith which on a literal interpretation justify such bad behaviour, and simply use those verses as excuses for their behaviour, without believing in the verses and the jihadi ideology ("fight until Islam rules the world"),
or, instead:
2. As others contend (eg Sam Harris and Graeme Wood), normal people who would not otherwise do these bad things, but have a literal belief in the verses and the jihadi ideology.
Of course, amongst ISIS members, there could easily some from each group, but the question is: do the majority fall in camp 1 or camp 2?
At the moment, I believe it is in camp 2: ISIS are constantly on the lookout for waverers and apostates, and it must get very trying to constantly put on an act of believing stuff that you really don't with the threat of immediate execution if you fluff your lines, or fail to look sincere enough.
Here is some pretty good evidence for 2, imo:
(from http://ift.tt/1GkScj1)
The full article is too long to post here, but here are some key extracts:
Quote:
|
The True Believers Sam Harris and Graeme Wood discuss the Islamic State Harris: if there is anything in this world that is not a secret—if there is any intellectual or moral problem that just solves itself—it is this question of what is appealing about joining a group like the Islamic State for a person who actually believes in the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. It’s about as psychologically mysterious as my daughter’s wanting to go to the ice cream store. I can’t say that I’ve defeated the idea, but I absolutely understand it. ... But, like you, I don’t take a position on there being one true interpretation of scripture. It’s just that there are plausible readings and less so, and to my eye the Islamic State is giving a very plausible reading of the Qur’an and the hadīth. That’s a terrible problem, because one can’t stand up and say that this behavior is un-Islamic. Of course one can do this, as President Obama repeatedly has—but his denials sounded about as credible as those of one former president the moment images of a semen-stained dress appeared on the evening news. One publicly flouts the obvious at one’s peril. Wood: Even though at various points in the past we’ve ignored political or material causes, this doesn’t mean that ideology plays no role, or that we should ignore the plain meaning of words. Of course, we don’t know what people actually think. Maybe they’re self-deluded; maybe they don’t really believe in the literal rewards of martyrdom. We can’t know; we’re not in their heads. But this lack of knowledge cuts both ways. Why do so many people instantly resort, with great confidence, to a material explanation—even or especially when the person himself rejects it? It’s a very peculiar impulse to have, and I consider it a matter of dogma for many people who study jihadists. Harris: Yes, especially in cases where a person meets none of the material conditions that are alleged to be the root causes of his behavior. We see jihadis coming from free societies all over the world. There are many examples of educated, affluent young men joining organizations like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State who lack any discernible material or political grievances. They simply feel a tribal connection to Muslims everywhere, merely because they share the same religious identity. We are seeing jihadis travel halfway around the world for the privilege of dying in battle who have nothing in common with the beleaguered people of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, or Somalia whose ranks they are joining, apart from a shared belief in the core doctrines of Islam. The other side of this coin, of course, is that even the most grotesque, seemingly nihilistic actions of the Islamic State become perfectly rational—which is to say, straightforwardly self-interested—given the requisite beliefs. Once you imagine what it would be like to actually believe in paradise, and in martyrdom as the surest way of getting there, it becomes obvious why someone would want to join the Islamic State. If a person truly believes that the Creator of the universe wants him to wage war against the evil of unbelief and that the Islamic State is the very tip of His spear, he has to be insane not to join the cause. Wood: And that’s really one of the things that social sciences have triumphed in doing: explaining that within certain boundaries, rationalities lie behind what at first looks like mere craziness or barbarity. Just calling behavior craziness is a trap that a lot of ISIS-watchers have fallen into. If you see members of the Islamic State as thrill-kill nihilists, then you’re not giving them enough credit. It’s very difficult to sit across from one of these people and listen to his scholarly, often fascinating, view of history and then walk away thinking, “Oh, that person is simply crazy. He needs to be in an asylum.” Such a person has specific premises, and his conclusions follow plausibly from them. I think we should pay him the compliment of acknowledging his underlying rationality. Harris: Yes, but nor are these people “simply evil,” as you stated at the beginning of this conversation. Calling them “evil” can be as misleading as calling them “crazy.” I’m sure jihadism is selecting for thrill seekers and psychopaths to some degree. But I doubt that it’s a large variable. If 1% of the general population is suffering from psychopathy, let’s nudge that up to 10% for the Islamic State—an increase that would still do nothing to explain the larger phenomenon. I see no reason to think that most jihadis are psychologically abnormal. The truth is far more depressing: These are mostly normal people—fully capable of love, empathy, altruism, and so forth—who simply believe what they say they believe. |
"ISISJihadis are mostly normal people whose beliefs cause them to behave appallingly"