Quran Yes. Hadith No.

[Wasp]

Their book slurs non-Muslims over and over and over and over again. The world doesn't need that sort of "help".

It doesn't slur, why do you?

You just don't like it because you're the type of person it speaks of. How come you get to speak that way about others if the book doesn't get to say it about you?

 

[firedragon]

Their book slurs non-Muslims over and over and over and over again. The world doesn't need that sort of "help".

Hmm. Since you keep repeating this,

what is the Quranic reference to "non-muslim" that you keep referring to?

 

[firedragon]

And @firedragon

I have three translations because I have been debating apologists for years. One common apologist strategy is to claim that I simply read the "wrong" translation.

As for me being a sincere student. Well I am sincere, but probably not in the way you want me to be. I'm sincerely interested in the impact scripture has on modern society. My orientation is to view scripture from the perspective of cognitive science. Cognitive science as an explicit discipline has only been around for 60 or 70 years - more or less. From a cognitive science perspective, I can honestly disregard all of the scholarly apologies for scripture. (And BTW, this applies to ALL scripture, not just the Quran. I have plenty of concerns about other scripture as well.) The reason I can disregard the scholarly arguments is that they are all based on the mind, i.e. "ego". In addition to considering the "mind / ego", cognitive science ALSO factors in how the brain works. Much of the brain's workings occur outside the control of the ego. So the scholar has ZERO control of his brain's reaction to the scripture. The only aspect of control the scholar has is over his ego, and even that control is limited.

When you study the Quran from the perspective of how the brain will react to it, the conclusion that it is a book of war, is clear and parsimonious. Human brains are designed to spot patterns. It's an essential aspect of how we learn everything we learn.

So, we can pull over 500 lines out of the Quran, and come up with a list something like this:

1 - In context A, non-Muslims are liars.
2 - In context B, non-Muslims are lazy.
3 - In context C, Allah has cursed non-Muslims.
4 - In context D, Allah will repeatedly burn off the skins of non-Muslims.
5 - In context E, Muslims should never be friends with non-Muslims.
..
..
..
501 - In context X, never do business with non-Muslims
502 - In context Y, non-Muslims are like animals..

It does NOT matter that scholars might be able to explain away each individual verse with some historical context. All of those scholarly explanations impact only the mind / ego. The brain does NOT care about the scholarly interpretations, it is a pattern making machine. And the pattern is ABUNDANTLY clear.

From the brain's perspective, the Quran instructs Muslims to despise non-Muslims.

Now, I understand that most Muslims do not despise non-Muslims. But the Quran makes peaceful relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims harder, not easier. In other words, Muslims love non-Muslims IN SPITE OF the Quran, not because of it.

You keep talking about Cognitive Science. So what's the research method you take to the book called the Quran you seem to love to hate by default? Whats the research method in your cognitive science?

 

[icehorse]

No. I'm not. There's barely any science in what you say. It's an extremely weak hypothesis based on uncertain scientific conclusions.

You could start with "Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge" by Arthur Reber, and go from there. Once you've read that one, I can give you follow up reading.

 

[icehorse]

Thats rhetoric to brother. All rhetoric.

Your arguments are a link to a list on the internet. When asked for an objective discussion, your response is all rhetoric. It has been nothing but rhetoric. You are not interested in anything but rhetoric.

So peace. Have a great day.

It strikes me that you would prefer that the conversation stay in the realm of the mind and scholarly analysis. My argument is based on what the brain does - outside of conscious control - as a pattern matching machine. For the purposes of this thread, I'm happy to grant you that all 500+ times the Quran slurs non-Muslims there is a scholarly context that makes it okay.

But the point is that the BRAIN - not the conscious mind - the BRAIN doesn't care about the scholarly explanations. The BRAIN learns primarily by repetition and spotting patterns. You know this is true. It's how humans learn to walk and talk and do most of what we do. Your MIND does not read a manual on how to walk. Your MIND cannot explain how you walk. If you think you CAN explain how to walk, book a ticket to Google HQ, they will pay you millions and millions of dollars for such a recipe.

So a book like the Quran creates a conflict between a peaceful person's mind, and their brain.

This is objective science I'm discussing here. But it's not what you seem to want to acknowledge. To be fair, even in non-controversial topics, this brain vs. mind perspective is uncomfortable to contemplate. But cognitive science is showing us - more and more every day - that outrconscious minds are actually in control of very little, and our brains are running the show more than we'd like to acknowledge.

 

[icehorse]

You keep talking about Cognitive Science. So what's the research method you take to the book called the Quran you seem to love to hate by default? Whats the research method in your cognitive science?

Counting how much repetition is in the book. The link I provided earlier lists over 500 instances of repetition on the single theme of bashing non-Muslims. If you study "perceptual learning" you'll discover that about 200 instances on a theme is sufficient for the brain to establish a pattern. 500 is WAY MORE than enough to do the job.

 

[icehorse]

It doesn't slur, why do you?

You just don't like it because you're the type of person it speaks of. How come you get to speak that way about others if the book doesn't get to say it about you?

I'm not slurring anyone. I'm analyzing a book.

 

[Wasp]

This is objective science I'm discussing here. But it's not what you seem to want to acknowledge.

This is a good time for evidence since it's supposedly objective evidence.

 

[Wasp]

I'm not slurring anyone. I'm analyzing a book.

A bad analysis turns easily into a slur.

 

[firedragon]

It strikes me that you would prefer that the conversation stay in the realm of the mind and scholarly analysis. My argument is based on what the brain does - outside of conscious control - as a pattern matching machine. For the purposes of this thread, I'm happy to grant you that all 500+ times the Quran slurs non-Muslims there is a scholarly context that makes it okay.

But the point is that the BRAIN - not the conscious mind - the BRAIN doesn't care about the scholarly explanations. The BRAIN learns primarily by repetition and spotting patterns. You know this is true. It's how humans learn to walk and talk and do most of what we do. Your MIND does not read a manual on how to walk. Your MIND cannot explain how you walk. If you think you CAN explain how to walk, book a ticket to Google HQ, they will pay you millions and millions of dollars for such a recipe.

So a book like the Quran creates a conflict between a peaceful person's mind, and their brain.

This is objective science I'm discussing here. But it's not what you seem to want to acknowledge. To be fair, even in non-controversial topics, this brain vs. mind perspective is uncomfortable to contemplate. But cognitive science is showing us - more and more every day - that outrconscious minds are actually in control of very little, and our brains are running the show more than we'd like to acknowledge.

Rhetoric.

 

[firedragon]

Counting how much repetition is in the book. The link I provided earlier lists over 500 instances of repetition on the single theme of bashing non-Muslims. If you study "perceptual learning" you'll discover that about 200 instances on a theme is sufficient for the brain to establish a pattern. 500 is WAY MORE than enough to do the job.

How do you gather its bashing "non-muslims"? Whats the phrase used there for non-muslims?

If you dont know, you could be all wrong. So again, whats the phrase used there for non-muslims?

 

[icehorse]

How do you gather its bashing "non-muslims"? Whats the phrase used there for non-muslims?

If you dont know, you could be all wrong. So again, whats the phrase used there for non-muslims?

There are many, but you're slipping back into a scholarly perspective. Of all the following, the BRAIN is most likely to lump them into a single category, that I'm calling "non-Muslim":

- those who have gone astray
- those who disbelieve
- hypocrites
- disbelievers
- those who Allah misleads

And on and on and on. Now, the scholar in you is likely to say "but those are different groups". And that's where you have to understand that the brain works differently than the scholarly mind. To the brain, all of those people being slurred will be lumped into a single category. I'm using the phrase "non-Muslims". There is nothing critical about using that phrase. You could substitute "non-believers" and get to the same result - from the brain's perspective.

 

[firedragon]

There are many, but you're slipping back into a scholarly perspective. Of all the following, the BRAIN is most likely to lump them into a single category, that I'm calling "non-Muslim":

- those who have gone astray
- those who disbelieve
- hypocrites
- disbelievers
- those who Allah misleads

And on and on and on. Now, the scholar in you is likely to say "but those are different groups". And that's where you have to understand that the brain works differently than the scholarly mind. To the brain, all of those people being slurred will be lumped into a single category. I'm using the phrase "non-Muslims". There is nothing critical about using that phrase. You could substitute "non-believers" and get to the same result - from the brain's perspective.

Well. Your association of those phrases to your own rendition of non muslim is wrong. So your data is absolutely wrong. Your research methodology is wrong. So your conclusions are most stupendous wrong.

So no human brain will make associations you have dreamt up and you have made absolutely upside down assumptions based on your nonsensical research. It's hilarious actually.

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for your friendly reply.

The main lesson I see here is: There might be people who do not like the precise verses, and they like to debate, using the unspecific verses, to argue why they need not implement/practice the precise verses. I think that is the major lesson and warning of verse 3:07

3:7 "It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding."

 

[firedragon]

There are many, but you're slipping back into a scholarly perspective. Of all the following, the BRAIN is most likely to lump them into a single category, that I'm calling "non-Muslim":

- those who have gone astray
- those who disbelieve
- hypocrites
- disbelievers
- those who Allah misleads

And on and on and on. Now, the scholar in you is likely to say "but those are different groups". And that's where you have to understand that the brain works differently than the scholarly mind. To the brain, all of those people being slurred will be lumped into a single category. I'm using the phrase "non-Muslims". There is nothing critical about using that phrase. You could substitute "non-believers" and get to the same result - from the brain's perspective.

Can you tell me what research you have done to find that "muslims will lump all of those phrases into one group called non muslims"?

 

[icehorse]

Can you tell me what research you have done to find that "muslims will lump all of those phrases into one group called non muslims"?

Read up on:

implicit knowledge and/or tacit knowledge

and

perceptual learning

And again... our MINDS are capable of making finer distinctions. So as long as you're locked into what you know consciously, you're on the wrong track. Perceptual learning and possessing tacit knowledge are - by definition - not describable by your brain.

Here are a few examples of tacit knowledge:

- a chess master is truly a master, but she cannot truly explain how she made that last move
- most of us are "masters" at walking, but none of us can truly explain how we walk
- a professional diagnostician makes consistently good diagnosis, but cannot explain his process

If we're going to be honest, we MUST acknowledge that much of what we can do as humans, we cannot accurately describe. That's tacit (unspeakable) knowledge.

Perceptual learning is how we really do much of what we learn. We are exposed to hundreds and thousands of examples of "a thing", and our brain spots the patterns. So in the Quran, "people who do not believe in Allah" are slurred, over and over again. Our brains will absolutely pick up the pattern and draw a conclusion. You and I are communicating via words. I've used the phrase "non-Muslim". I just used the phrase "people who do not believe in Allah". We don't really know what phrase - if any - the brain uses. Because, it's tacit. But the brain makes associations and generalizations all the time. It's what brains do. It's how we function.

 

[firedragon]

Read up on:

implicit knowledge and/or tacit knowledge

and

perceptual learning

And again... our MINDS are capable of making finer distinctions. So as long as you're locked into what you know consciously, you're on the wrong track. Perceptual learning and possessing tacit knowledge are - by definition - not describable by your brain.

Here are a few examples of tacit knowledge:

- a chess master is truly a master, but she cannot truly explain how she made that last move
- most of us are "masters" at walking, but none of us can truly explain how we walk
- a professional diagnostician makes consistently good diagnosis, but cannot explain his process

If we're going to be honest, we MUST acknowledge that much of what we can do as humans, we cannot accurately describe. That's tacit (unspeakable) knowledge.

Perceptual learning is how we really do much of what we learn. We are exposed to hundreds and thousands of examples of "a thing", and our brain spots the patterns. So in the Quran, "people who do not believe in Allah" are slurred, over and over again. Our brains will absolutely pick up the pattern and draw a conclusion. You and I are communicating via words. I've used the phrase "non-Muslim". I just used the phrase "people who do not believe in Allah". We don't really know what phrase - if any - the brain uses. Because, it's tacit. But the brain makes associations and generalizations all the time. It's what brains do. It's how we function.

You didnt answer the question.

Can you tell me what research you have done to find that "muslims will lump all of those phrases into one group called non muslims"?

 

[firedragon]

Read up on:

implicit knowledge and/or tacit knowledge

and

perceptual learning

And again... our MINDS are capable of making finer distinctions. So as long as you're locked into what you know consciously, you're on the wrong track. Perceptual learning and possessing tacit knowledge are - by definition - not describable by your brain.

Here are a few examples of tacit knowledge:

- a chess master is truly a master, but she cannot truly explain how she made that last move
- most of us are "masters" at walking, but none of us can truly explain how we walk
- a professional diagnostician makes consistently good diagnosis, but cannot explain his process

If we're going to be honest, we MUST acknowledge that much of what we can do as humans, we cannot accurately describe. That's tacit (unspeakable) knowledge.

Perceptual learning is how we really do much of what we learn. We are exposed to hundreds and thousands of examples of "a thing", and our brain spots the patterns. So in the Quran, "people who do not believe in Allah" are slurred, over and over again. Our brains will absolutely pick up the pattern and draw a conclusion. You and I are communicating via words. I've used the phrase "non-Muslim". I just used the phrase "people who do not believe in Allah". We don't really know what phrase - if any - the brain uses. Because, it's tacit. But the brain makes associations and generalizations all the time. It's what brains do. It's how we function.

Based on what research do you come to conclusion that muslim brains that read the Quran associate all those phrases as "ones who do not believe in allah"?

 

[icehorse]

Based on what research do you come to conclusion that muslim brains that read the Quran associate all those phrases as "ones who do not believe in allah"?

and

fd: You didnt answer the question.

Can you tell me what research you have done to find that "muslims will lump all of those phrases into one group called non muslims"?

==

I've given you a link to a book on the subject, and I've given you three phrases you can find with a search engine. I've also made several extensive posts - in good faith - to try to give a sense of the basics of these topics in cognitive science.

I'm not willing to talk only about those branches of science with which you happen to already be familiar. I'm also not willing to drag you up to speed on branches of science for which you are not familiar.

Go study tacit knowledge, implicit learning, and perceptual learning.

The world doesn't revolve around only those ideas you happen to know.

 

[Wasp]

How do you gather its bashing "non-muslims"? Whats the phrase used there for non-muslims?

If you dont know, you could be all wrong. So again, whats the phrase used there for non-muslims?

You expect him to quote three different translation on 500 different parts.

Thank you for your friendly reply.

The main lesson I see here is: There might be people who do not like the precise verses, and they like to debate, using the unspecific verses, to argue why they need not implement/practice the precise verses. I think that is the major lesson and warning of verse 3:07

And there there are those who argue everyone should obey the verses which they claim are precise and literal.