Perhaps someone who knows more about Bahaism (without being one of them) could tell whether promoting Bahaism might be a way to stop violent Islam.
Bahaism tries to be the next version of Islam, so for people who need religion in their lives it should be easier to convert from Islam to Bahaism, as opposed to Christianity. At this moment, Bahaism seems like a peaceful religion; which of course can be due to the fact that they are an oppressed minority at most places. But still, some peaceful memes could survive even if they would grow.
So, the strategy is that non-Islamic countries should support on their territory the Bahai preachers trying to convert all Islamic immigrants to their faith. First, more peaceful religion is preferable. Second, let’s give our enemies one more problem to care about, so they have less time to spend on fighting us.
Perhaps someone who knows more about Bahaism (without being one of them) could tell whether promoting Bahaism might be a way to stop violent Islam.
Islam has a pretty effective internal system for suppressing religious innovation. Religious innovation in traditional interpretations of Islam carries the death penalty. Bahai is an interesting, very progressive religion in a lot of ways, but they are heavily persecuted throughout the Muslim world and cannot proselytize openly.
Bahaism isn’t the solution—if it were, it would have worked already. The same goes for Sufism, though it might be fair to think that the Sufis are working on the problem, but haven’t been able to exert enough influence yet.
Perhaps someone who knows more about Bahaism (without being one of them) could tell whether promoting Bahaism might be a way to stop violent Islam.
I was raised Bahai and used to consider myself one when I was younger, before discovering rationality, so I will give my perspective. (If you’re wondering, I’m a white American just like many of you. If anyone else was Bahai and converted to atheism feel free to message me, it would be interesting to talk to someone else).
I don’t think this is a viable solution to ISIS, at least within any timeframe less than centuries. Converting people to a different religion is very hard, they’ve already been trying for the past 150 years, so they aren’t going to suddenly succeed just because we want ISIS to go away. An easier short term strategy might simply be to support non-radical elements within mainstream Islam, and support economic growth and education in the region, trying to prevent the populace of the area from being influence by the more radical elements. But that was probably a strategy to use prior to ISIS taking over large parts of the region. At this point the best strategy is probably to contain them and stop their military progress, and then wait for them to crumble and weaken internally.
If one did somehow succeed in replacing violent Islam with Bahaism or another peaceful religion, it would probably be preferable to violent Islam, as you noted. I don’t believe the religion will ever not be peaceful, since that is very much at the core of the religion. While Bahais are persecuted in the middle east (considered apostates by Islam), in most of the world they are not oppressed. (Over the course of many centuries however, anything could probably happen).
I do agree that peaceful religions are preferable, but I do worry that if they are successful it might create a greater opponent to rationality and transhumanism in the long term. Fundamentalist religions appear very obviously wrong to reasonable people, its not that hard to realize that evolution is true and that new earth creationists are wrong, for example. But it is much more difficult for a reasonable person to realize that religion is untrue when it claims to be allied with science, and tries very hard to not make claims that are disprovable. Many newer religions (created after the development of the scientific method) do this, and they promote the view that science and religion are not incompatible, that science is correct in everything we have discovered, but that God, souls, afterlife, etc, exist but cannot be tested by science (separate magisterium).
This is a harder premise to show to be true than those of fundamentalist religions, and still lead to the ultimate problem of people accepting death, not seeking to end death and aging, and believing that no matter what happens, nothing truly catastrophic will happen to humanity, leading them to ignore existential risks. (Though the sequences are still effective in refuting these ideas as well, imo).
On the other hand, maybe more liberal religious ideas are actually easier to break people out of than fundamentalist ones? I am not sure. While they don’t tend to be militant like ISIS, they still oppose transhumanism and thus must be defeated in order for us to build a world without death.
whether promoting Bahaism might be a way to stop violent Islam.
The answer is no. Actually, the answer is “Oh dear Lord, this is the same as asking whether you could bloodlessly win a war by sending a lot of balloons with smiley faces across the front lines”.
Bahaism tries to be the next version of Islam
No, not really, it doesn’t. It’s a small religion, an offshoot of Islam, but so are many others in the region. It’s peaceful for the same reason contemporary Judaism does not proselytize—that’s how a minority survives in a hostile world. Any particular reason you prefer Bahais over, say, Alawis? Alawis are actually fighting ISIS at the moment...
Any particular reason you prefer Bahais over, say, Alawis?
No. I just haven’t heard about them before. I guess in every situation we should support the more peaceful alternative that is already there, so the preachers are genuine.
I guess in every situation we should support the more peaceful alternative
I don’t think so—pacifism fails rather badly. Sometimes you just need to kill the bastards.
But if I may ask a general question—what led you to offer a suggestion in the area about which you know practically nothing? This isn’t snark, I am really curious. You probably wouldn’t offer advice on how all the surgeons in the world should operate, so why did you take it upon yourself to suggest changing religions for a billion people?
what led you to offer a suggestion in the area about which you know practically nothing? … You probably wouldn’t offer advice on how all the surgeons in the world should operate, so why did you take it upon yourself to suggest changing religions for a billion people?
I thought that saying “perhaps someone who knows more … could tell whether … might be a way to …” was a sufficient disclaimer.
If I had an idea about how all the surgeons in the world might operate better (e.g. trying tools from materials with different physical properties, having other surgeons watch the operation on video in real time and offer advice when asked by the main surgeon, etc.), yeah, I might ask in the same way whether someone had thought about it.
Indeed, it is humorous to suggest this as a solution. You have now created a task that is probably about as hard as defeating aging of creating a friendly AI. (Well maybe not quite as hard but close!)
Perhaps someone who knows more about Bahaism (without being one of them) could tell whether promoting Bahaism might be a way to stop violent Islam.
Bahaism tries to be the next version of Islam, so for people who need religion in their lives it should be easier to convert from Islam to Bahaism, as opposed to Christianity. At this moment, Bahaism seems like a peaceful religion; which of course can be due to the fact that they are an oppressed minority at most places. But still, some peaceful memes could survive even if they would grow.
So, the strategy is that non-Islamic countries should support on their territory the Bahai preachers trying to convert all Islamic immigrants to their faith. First, more peaceful religion is preferable. Second, let’s give our enemies one more problem to care about, so they have less time to spend on fighting us.
Islam has a pretty effective internal system for suppressing religious innovation. Religious innovation in traditional interpretations of Islam carries the death penalty. Bahai is an interesting, very progressive religion in a lot of ways, but they are heavily persecuted throughout the Muslim world and cannot proselytize openly.
Sikhism had already tried it, and Muslims didn’t like it one bit.
Bahaism isn’t the solution—if it were, it would have worked already. The same goes for Sufism, though it might be fair to think that the Sufis are working on the problem, but haven’t been able to exert enough influence yet.
I was raised Bahai and used to consider myself one when I was younger, before discovering rationality, so I will give my perspective. (If you’re wondering, I’m a white American just like many of you. If anyone else was Bahai and converted to atheism feel free to message me, it would be interesting to talk to someone else).
I don’t think this is a viable solution to ISIS, at least within any timeframe less than centuries. Converting people to a different religion is very hard, they’ve already been trying for the past 150 years, so they aren’t going to suddenly succeed just because we want ISIS to go away. An easier short term strategy might simply be to support non-radical elements within mainstream Islam, and support economic growth and education in the region, trying to prevent the populace of the area from being influence by the more radical elements. But that was probably a strategy to use prior to ISIS taking over large parts of the region. At this point the best strategy is probably to contain them and stop their military progress, and then wait for them to crumble and weaken internally.
If one did somehow succeed in replacing violent Islam with Bahaism or another peaceful religion, it would probably be preferable to violent Islam, as you noted. I don’t believe the religion will ever not be peaceful, since that is very much at the core of the religion. While Bahais are persecuted in the middle east (considered apostates by Islam), in most of the world they are not oppressed. (Over the course of many centuries however, anything could probably happen).
I do agree that peaceful religions are preferable, but I do worry that if they are successful it might create a greater opponent to rationality and transhumanism in the long term. Fundamentalist religions appear very obviously wrong to reasonable people, its not that hard to realize that evolution is true and that new earth creationists are wrong, for example. But it is much more difficult for a reasonable person to realize that religion is untrue when it claims to be allied with science, and tries very hard to not make claims that are disprovable. Many newer religions (created after the development of the scientific method) do this, and they promote the view that science and religion are not incompatible, that science is correct in everything we have discovered, but that God, souls, afterlife, etc, exist but cannot be tested by science (separate magisterium).
This is a harder premise to show to be true than those of fundamentalist religions, and still lead to the ultimate problem of people accepting death, not seeking to end death and aging, and believing that no matter what happens, nothing truly catastrophic will happen to humanity, leading them to ignore existential risks. (Though the sequences are still effective in refuting these ideas as well, imo).
On the other hand, maybe more liberal religious ideas are actually easier to break people out of than fundamentalist ones? I am not sure. While they don’t tend to be militant like ISIS, they still oppose transhumanism and thus must be defeated in order for us to build a world without death.
The Protestants didn’t stop Catholicism. Nor did any of the minor branches of Protestants stop the mainstream branches.
The answer is no. Actually, the answer is “Oh dear Lord, this is the same as asking whether you could bloodlessly win a war by sending a lot of balloons with smiley faces across the front lines”.
No, not really, it doesn’t. It’s a small religion, an offshoot of Islam, but so are many others in the region. It’s peaceful for the same reason contemporary Judaism does not proselytize—that’s how a minority survives in a hostile world. Any particular reason you prefer Bahais over, say, Alawis? Alawis are actually fighting ISIS at the moment...
No. I just haven’t heard about them before. I guess in every situation we should support the more peaceful alternative that is already there, so the preachers are genuine.
I don’t think so—pacifism fails rather badly. Sometimes you just need to kill the bastards.
But if I may ask a general question—what led you to offer a suggestion in the area about which you know practically nothing? This isn’t snark, I am really curious. You probably wouldn’t offer advice on how all the surgeons in the world should operate, so why did you take it upon yourself to suggest changing religions for a billion people?
I thought that saying “perhaps someone who knows more … could tell whether … might be a way to …” was a sufficient disclaimer.
If I had an idea about how all the surgeons in the world might operate better (e.g. trying tools from materials with different physical properties, having other surgeons watch the operation on video in real time and offer advice when asked by the main surgeon, etc.), yeah, I might ask in the same way whether someone had thought about it.
Indeed, it is humorous to suggest this as a solution. You have now created a task that is probably about as hard as defeating aging of creating a friendly AI. (Well maybe not quite as hard but close!)