Radical 9/11 Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Shooter: Nidal Hasan is a Hero
Morgen on November 8, 2009 at 10:07 pm
It was reported on Saturday that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, attended the same mosque in Great Falls, Virginia in 2001 as two of the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. From the Telegraph:
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.
Late this evening, al-Awlaki, who is now based in Yemen, commented on the shootings on a blog posting with the heading “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing“:
Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.
The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.
I have a hard time even imagining the level of depravity and moral bankruptcy necessary to view the cold-blooded massacre of unarmed men and women as an act of heroism. It’s an act of cowardice, and Al-Awlaki is a sick and evil man. He is an enemy of this country.
You know, I spent much of this weekend defending the rights of Muslim Americans against attacks by regular commenters on this blog – people that I normally agree with. And I still fervently believe that Muslim Americans who desire to live here in peace, respecting our laws and traditions, are entitled to the same Constitutional rights to religious freedom and personal liberty as any other citizen. And I also believe that the majority of Muslims living in the U.S. fall into this category.
But anyone who has empathy on any level for the actions of Hasan, or the views expressed by Al-Awlaki, does not deserve to be an American as far as I’m concerned.
Al-Awlaki closes his post with this:
The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.
Somehow I don’t think al-Awlaki is all that concerned about American hostility towards Islam. Not when he is openly celebrating the murder of innocents and calling for other Muslim service members to follow in Hasan’s steps. I hope any of his remaining followers in the U.S. promptly heed his call to leave. And that they are being tracked very closely by the F.B.I. as long as they are still here.
As for al-Awlaki, it’s hard not to hope that there is a rendition in his future (or better yet a Predator Hellfire missile), before he inspires or plots the murder of any other Americans. And God bless the real heroes in this tragedy.
Update: Al-Awlaki’s site seems to be down now. You can see a screen shot below:
Update 2: Apparently this psychopath actually has a Facebook account:
Surely Facebook must have some content standards which could be used to ban this guy.
Update 3: A sampling of some of the early, supportive comments on al-Awlaki’s blog:
Abu Turab says:
November 9, 2009 – الاثنين 22 ذو القعدة1430 at 8:26 amShaykh Anwar al Awlaki may Allah bless you for your this timely post in defense of our Muslim brother Dr. Nidal Hasan. The defeatist comments by American ‘Muslim’ organizations were really disgusting. It made us think what you said long time ago that there will be separation between camp of Eman and camp of Kuffer; I guess we are witnessing that inevitable separation. An incident like these exposes the hypocrites & further purifies the camp of Islam.
Hammad says:
November 9, 2009 – الاثنين 22 ذو القعدة 1430 at 8:57 amComments like this make the Shaykh ‘AmeriKKKa’s Most Wanted’. Ali RA said: “If you want to recognize in which direction the most righteous amongst the Muslims are, then see in which directions the arrows of the Kuffar are going”.
May Allah protect the scholars upon the Haqq and raise them to the highest ranks of the Akhira!
Abdul Rahman Cambodia says:
November 9, 2009 – الاثنين 22 ذو القعدة 1430 at 9:03 amAssalamualaykum sheikh,
I read the article about the brother Nidal. They are trying to connect him with 9/11. This is nothing but to change the status of our hero brother from mujahidin to the coward or psycho. My brothers and sisters! Please listen to the lecture of Shiekh on the topic “The battle of heart and mind”. http://media.islambase.info/AnwarAwlaki/Battle.mp3
May Allah keep my brother Nidal patience and steadfastness. Ameen
Not sure if the comments on his site are moderated. I’m sure we’ll find out soon.
Point of Order: The NY Daily News and My Pet Jawa are crediting NEFA Foundation with uncovering al-Awlaki’s blog post. For the record, we had it before the NEFA Foundation as you can see from the date stamps. The AP is also running a story dated today (the 9th) which recounts it. This post went up around 10:20PM on the 8th. Not saying the AP didn’t find it on their own (though it wouldn’t be the first time big media ripped us off) but the fact remains that so far as we can tell, VS beat everyone on this.
Category: Islamic Jihad |
[...] weekend his former preacher weighed in on the Ft. Hood massacre. Verum Serum reported this from the news website Anwar al Awlaki Online: Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero. He is a [...]
November 9, 2009 @ 3:48 amWell, where have you been. Most muslims think like this. The true scandal here is the willful ignorance on the part of the US officials and of the general public of the enemy in your ranks.
November 9, 2009 @ 5:53 am[...] Hey, how can you go wrong when you have an Imam like this guy had? [...]
November 9, 2009 @ 6:36 am[...] how can you go wrong when you have an Imam like this guy had? Late this evening, al-Awlaki, who is now based in Yemen, commented on the shootings on a blog [...]
November 9, 2009 @ 6:40 am[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Verum Serum and Verum Serum, Bad Mayo. Bad Mayo said: Radical 9/11 Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Shooter: Nidal Hasan is a Hero – http://bit.ly/3dEC6s #tcot [...]
November 9, 2009 @ 7:29 amSo let’s consider this – Catholic priests have had scandals involving child molesting and rape. Protestant preachers have had scandals involving adultery, and stealing millions of dollars from their churches.
Most of us are willing to agree that those people are criminals who do not represent the values of their religion.
Yet when Muslims do something suddenly every follower of the Muslim religion is bad? How does that make sense? They are the same as any other religion, with good people and bad, crazies and saints.
November 9, 2009 @ 7:31 am[...] (Ed): Verum Serum has more on al-Awliki and Hasan’s [...]
November 9, 2009 @ 7:33 amHas anyone contacted the charming Rev. Wright about his reaction?
November 9, 2009 @ 8:12 amTomMalone
no, you’ve read Morgen completely wrong. According to him, not all followers of the Muslim religion are bad, as he (and others) spent much of the weekend arguing. This muslim, however, is bad. I can’t see how anyone would view that differently.
November 9, 2009 @ 8:55 amI wanted to re-post my response to Anwar al-Awlaki’s article here, because I’m sure that it will be taken down, and I feel the need to make sure it stay’s on the web SOMEWHERE:
November 9, 2009 @ 9:06 amAnwar al-Awlaki is a terrorist, but without the guts to pick up a gun.
“It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.”
Here is the true motivation for all of Radical Islam’s hate toward the west. Our culture is ‘killing’ their culture. Not out of maliciousness but out of simple evolution.
November 9, 2009 @ 10:12 amPaul – you kinda lost it a bit there in the last paragraph, didn’t you?
November 9, 2009 @ 10:31 amPaul does appear to have a problem with the premise of a communicative divinity. Perhaps even with the premise of the existence of a ‘God’.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:04 amjust wondering…will maj “jihad” hassan, upon recovery, be available to fill any obama czar vacancies?…he may be a bit more conservative than the folks already there, but should fit in ok.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:04 amLOL, I’m just enjoying seeing him rant against someone else’s religion for once.
Seriously Paul, I enjoyed your comment. Was it ever posted on al-Awlaki’s blog? I checked earlier before his site went down and it wasn’t there. Although some others from outraged Americans had slipped through.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:16 amThis is essentially the same point I made on the other thread regarding Muslims being a “nation within a nation.” They have their own loyalties to the Islamic “Ummah.”
The real challenge for the author (Morgen) here is to prove that this sheikh was “radical” at all. How does the author know that Al-Awlaki’s views are outside those of Sunni orthodoxy? Can he prove Al-Awlaki’s views diverge from Sunni orthodoxy from Sunni jurisprudence and/or the Qur’an and Hadith themselves, or is the charge of “radical” the author’s own adjective?
Can you prove Al-Awlaki is a “psychopath” (as you put it), or is he merely a rational guy following the mandates found in the Qur’an and the example set forth by Muhammad?
November 9, 2009 @ 11:21 amFor now, I am going to stick with a simple standard of judging people based on their actions, and intentions as expressed in their communications. If al-Awlaki’s expressed views are typical of other Muslims residing in America I’d like to see some examples of this.
Not because I’m questioning your beliefs/assumptions, but rather because I’d genuinely like to highlight for everyone the truth of what you assert. If there are religious leaders in the U.S. condoning murder, or worse, providing inspiration and religious justification for these acts…then perhaps our laws are not properly defined in order to defend our security.
Can you point to examples of this rather than just interpretations of Islamic texts?
November 9, 2009 @ 11:32 amSo the burden of proof is entirely on me? You have none?
If you recall, you’re the one who declared this guy “radical” and “a psychopath.” You made the claim. Shouldn’t you substantiate it?
I could point you to Jihad Watch, where such things appear on a daily basis.
I’m beginning to believe that you a) blow off everything guys like Robert Spencer say and b) have no familiarity with the basic tenets of Islam whatsoever. “Blogging the Qur’an,” which was a long-running series on HotAir (a site that frequently links here and vice-versa), must have gone completely unread by you.
Robert Spencer’s task is truly sisyphean.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:39 amNot at all. That whole post was the soul of restraint.
I have a problem with the whole idea that divine revelation is a valid form of knowledge.
Human beings are prone to delusion, hallucination and lying. Whenever anyone says “God told me ‘X’” I think “Ok, what is this guy’s angle and who is benefiting from what he says?”
I know too much about brain function to take divine revelation seriously.
The fact that this “divine” knowledge was written down thousands of years ago makes it LESS reliable, NOT more reliable.
Religion and it’s holy books are great for finding occasional pearls of wisdom, but at the end of the day, all these do is lend credibility to what is otherwise a tool of mind control.
And now we have (another) gunman to prove my point.
How many needless deaths will faith cause in my lifetime? How much needless suffering?
Yeah. If anything my post was, too easy on the guy.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:40 amI’d like to challenge this premise. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth even gets on its pants.”
We have a hard time discerning what happened as little as 10 years ago due to MSM lies. For example, our government and the MSM are already telling us that the Nidal Hasan incident has nothign to do with religion and the incident just happened.
In reality, truth often comes out a lot better the more time passes from an incident.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:45 amPR, I think for most people al-Awlaki’s words are proof enough of his radicalism. And the fact that al-Awlaki himself is attacking Muslim American groups for condemning Hasan’s actions is further proof of the distance between his views and theirs.
I’m sorry to disappoint you by not using al-Awlaki’s words to condemn others.
I really have very little interest in learning the basic tenets of Islam. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on this topic. I trust that the thousands of men and women in our Armed Forces and intelligence agencies are working diligently to keep us safe. Perhaps this trust is somewhat misplaced.
My personal efforts are directed at bringing new facts and information to light. Not preaching from a soapbox and feeding into the worst stereotypes of conservatives. Especially on issues where I readily acknowledge that I am not an expert. (But I don’t have to be an expert to defend basic Constitutional rights.)
I appreciate the references to Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch. I will try to become better informed. But it’s never been a major focus of mine or this blog – and there are many great blogs devoted to this.
November 9, 2009 @ 11:55 amThe lack of faith, leading to the lack of respect for life, leading to no moral code to live by, needlessly murders millions of babies every year.
November 9, 2009 @ 12:08 pmPR, after only a cursory look at some of Robert Spencer’s writings, it seems I am more in agreement with him than you:
I don’t doubt that he sees the nature of the threat much as you do, and again, I am woefully uninformed compared to you. But don’t you see that you have taken an extreme, an indefensible position with regards to the solution?
November 9, 2009 @ 12:13 pmBut “radicalism” is your adjective. Is it that of, say, Sheikh Tantawi? Aren’t you just projecting your own views onto him?
Yes, but a lot of what you see from “Muslim American” groups is pure squid ink. CAIR is a terrorist organization, yet it is a “Muslim American” group that has condemned this incident. I’m certainly nonplussed about that. Google “taqiyya” and see what you find.
The fact that Muslims even use the term “Muslim American” means that they see themselves as separate from the rest of us. Just how separate has been the subject of our recent slap-fight.
This is another of my points. Is it good for your health and that of your loved-ones to remain thus?
I certainly appreciate this sentiment.
Did you know that Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald have called for a restriction of Muslim immigration? Do you still like them?
November 9, 2009 @ 12:21 pmOn the last thread, I posed a legal framework under the Constitution by which Muslims ought to be treated. “Aid, comfort, and adherence” to the enemy are treason. Islam is at war with us, and is thus our enemy. The entire historical record of the past 1300 years confirms this, as well as Islam’s own division of the world into “Dar al-Islam” (the House of Submission) and “Dar al-Harb” (the House of War).
I’m simply asking that traitors be dealt with. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Please see my responses to John.
November 9, 2009 @ 12:25 pmYeah, I read the entire thread. It seems we really only disagree on one, important issue. And that is, to what extent should people be allowed to identify with and practice the religion of their choice.
I am in full, 100% agreement that we cannot tolerate the plotting of violence or the downfall of our society.
But again it seems I am more in agreement with Spencer than you are. More from his site:
I think we can defend the principles outlined here without losing the moral high ground. And I’m far from convinced that asking everyone to renounce their religion will be required. Every faith accommodates beliefs and practices across a wide spectrum, in spite of whether they may violate literal interpretations of their founding texts.
November 9, 2009 @ 12:40 pmWe have all sorts of restrictions on immigration and given that there is a sizable contingent of radical Islamists who are actively plotting to kill us, this seems very sensible.
The more difficult question – and perhaps the one you were suggesting – is to what extent this can and should be done to limit the democratic influence of immigrant groups over time. My opinion is that it is well within the rights of any nation to restrict immigration for whatever reason they choose to do. The Constitution was written for citizens of this country.
November 9, 2009 @ 12:52 pm“I have a problem with the whole idea that divine revelation is a valid form of knowledge.
Human beings are prone to delusion, hallucination and lying.”
Validity is dependent upon it’s adherence to what is actually true. Or do you also reject the concept of objective reality?
If there is a creator, then that divine intelligence may have communicated with individuals in the past and, may also be doing so as we speak.
Not to discount the difficulties that “delusion, hallucination and lying” do bring to evaluation but, since any divine communication is always personal then “divine revelation” shared is only ‘valid’ for those to whom it makes sense, that’s why it’s a matter of faith.
And faith is believing in something of which you cannot prove to another but which you feel/believe/know to be true. Since many believe through faith in contradictory things, some must be mistaken but that doesn’t make everyone wrong, it just makes it a matter of personal belief.
So divine revelation cannot be imposed or it violates free will.
“I know too much about brain function to take divine revelation seriously.”
Really? Einstein knew something about brain function as well. Consider that he posited that human beings only use about 10% of our brain’s capacity. And scientists in the relevant disciplines do agree that the cognitive capacity of the human brain far transcends the needs of daily living.
Unless you posit that nature through the process of evolution created far more brain capacity than needed and for no apparent reason, no other conclusion is possible than that it has some productive function, even if presently unused.
Certainly Buddhist’s report of and in a remarkably consistent manner, states of consciousness most are unaware of…including the state of ‘bliss’, literally a ‘oneness’ with the divine… is it so unreasonable to posit that a state of consciousness that would allow the divine to converse with us might exist?
“How many needless deaths will faith cause in my lifetime? How much needless suffering?”
Far, far more of it I’m afraid. Unfortunately, that’s better than the alternative. A world without faith is a world in which none of us would wish to live. Despite what you evidently think, it is objectively demonstrable that faith is responsible for far more good than bad.
But to understand that truism you have to understand that faith isn’t something you get by first seeing it’s factual truth and then believing…but by first taking the proverbial ‘leap of faith’ and then, as the result of that leap, having your eyes opened to see its truth.
November 9, 2009 @ 12:59 pmThis is a non-sequiter. There are plenty of very good anti-abortion arguements that don’t rely of belief in a deity to support themselves.
What DOES rely on a belief in a deity on this issue is the anti-abortion political movement. Big difference.
You are also making the wrong (and offensive) assumption that non-belief implies a lack of moral code. I consider myself as moral as the next person, but I don’t believe in God. I can also point out THOUSANDS of true believers who have done horrible things. It is ridiculous to suggest that that belief is needed for morality. In fact, I see no evidence to suggest that belief in a deity even correlates with moral behavior, much less that it causes it.
Of course, we all have differences of opinion about what is moral, but just because my moral code doesn’t agree with your moral code, doesn’t mean I don’t have one.
Well I recognize that many points of view can be held by the same person on this issue. I suppose that my favorite idea about this is that “reality” is something that does indeed exist, but that we humans are limited in our ability to perceive it.
I reject this premise. For one thing, I don’t think that “reality” is something that belief determines. I think that things are real or they are not, and you and I have beliefs that more-or-less conform to reality or they are false beliefs. The proposition that the bible/Koran is the word of God is a false belief because there is no reason to believe it.
This get’s to the “always personal” nature of divine revelation. Isn’t that convenient? Notice that the deity ALLWAY reveals his truth to one person who has much to politically/economically/socially gain, but he NEVER reveals his truth to the whole world at once. I mean, would YAHWEH really be messing with free will if he revealed himself directly to the whole world continuously, instead of mucking around with a bunch of bronze and iron age texts?
If it walks like a man and quacks like a man, I see no reason to believe that it’s a deity.
Can you quote your sources on that? How recent was the study? Or is this just an urban legend?
Modern neuroscience is making huge breakthroughs right now. I seriously doubt that this idea about 10% brain use is true. I think we are using most of what we have and the rest is redundant systems to help deal with injury to the brain.
I mean, how much processing capacity does an organic computer need to generate consciousness? Until you understand HOW it generates consciousness, you are mostly just talking smack with these kinds of statements.
All this proves is that psychological practices can create deliberately designed states of mind. This is extremely cool, but it doesn’t prove the existence of supernatural agency. Note that Buddhism is not incompatible with atheism btw.
See this sounds like more “designed states of mind” again. I believe that belief has the power to shape experience. I think it’s a fascinating area of study. However, the fact that belief has psychological power says nothing to the truth claims of the faith in question.
November 9, 2009 @ 1:28 pm[...] The jihadist major attended the same Virginia mosque that a few 9/11 hijackers attended. But let us not leap to any [...]
November 9, 2009 @ 1:59 pmPaul,
“What DOES rely on a belief in a deity on this issue is the anti-abortion political movement. Big difference.”
You are mistaking the most common and passionate reason for an anti-abortion stance for the totality of reasons. An anti-abortion stance does not solely rely upon belief in a deity.
When we speak of a baby there are three possible lines of ‘demarcation’ as to when a baby becomes a baby.
Conception, somewhere during gestation and at birth.
Birth places the transition from fetus to baby as the result of independence from the mother but then no abortion is performed, so the point is moot.
Conception ends the argument, with abortion then equivalent to murder. Sometime after conception introduces a subjective and necessarily arbitrary point of demarcation.
Why is it a fetus one day or week and then a baby the next? That is an impossible question to answer, as what qualities define a 7-week-old baby from a 6-week-old fetus? So the arbitrary attempt to say that at one point it’s a fetus and not a person but then suddenly it is a person is unsupported by any objective scientific criteria.
In other words, we know it’s going to become a baby but we don’t know when it will become one, so there’s no basis for deciding when it’s no longer a fetus. To say that it’s not therefore a baby until born is to deny the evidence of our own eyes, which was something Ms Johnson could no longer bring herself to do. She couldn’t deny the baby’s humanity.
November 9, 2009 @ 5:21 pm#29
“You are also making the wrong (and offensive) assumption that non-belief implies a lack of moral code. I consider myself as moral as the next person, but I don’t believe in God. I can also point out THOUSANDS of true believers who have done horrible things. It is ridiculous to suggest that belief is needed for morality. In fact, I see no evidence to suggest that belief in a deity even correlates with moral behavior, much less that it causes it.”
This comment is not a reply to my comments but permit me to respond. I for one readily accept that you have a moral code. Religious belief is NOT needed for morality. Any and all of us can decide for ourselves what is moral and what is not. In fact, to some degree it’s not possible to avoid personal judgment as to moral questions. The problem with having a moral code based solely upon personal decision and cultural factors is that it is necessarily arbitrary. That is because whatever the personal moral code, the premises upon which it is based are unprovable and therefore subjective.
Religion offers two things to society that are of inestimable value: social cohesion and premises that transcend personal opinion. Without social cohesion there is no possibility of maintaining civilization and we are all reduced to the survival of the fittest.
The veracity of religion’s transcendent premises is irrelevant to the larger allegiance they allow to believers; mere personal opinion and the popular public whim of the moment are overridden by the assertion that the religion’s premises are based upon transcendent truths based in a reality that supersedes mankind’s limited understanding of the reality, which composes our existence.
The failure of THOUSANDS, (really millions) of believers to adhere to their own professed religious moral code is an attribute of their human fallibility, not necessarily a failure of the moral code itself.
“since any divine communication is always personal then “divine revelation” shared is only ‘valid’ for those to whom it makes sense, that’s why it’s a matter of faith.”
“I reject this premise. For one thing, I don’t think that “reality” is something that belief determines. I think that things are real or they are not, and you and I have beliefs that more-or-less conform to reality or they are false beliefs. The proposition that the bible/Koran is the word of God is a false belief because there is no reason to believe it.”
Forgive my lack of clarity. Objective reality is NOT determined by belief. What I was trying to say is that if someone claims to have received a personal experience that they believe was divinely inspired, in sharing that revelation, its validity is only convincing for those for which it makes sense. Regardless of how many people agree with the revelator, that doesn’t make it objectively true. It may or may not be objectively true but for the believers, until reality proves otherwise it provides a deeper explanation of reality which, they accept as true.
“This get’s to the “always personal” nature of divine revelation. Isn’t that convenient? Notice that the deity ALLWAY reveals his truth to one person who has much to politically/economically/socially gain, but he NEVER reveals his truth to the whole world at once. I mean, would YAHWEH really be messing with free will if he revealed himself directly to the whole world continuously, instead of mucking around with a bunch of bronze and iron age texts?”
Convenient for whom, the revelator? Perhaps and certainly if they seek to gain from the revelation. What gain did Jesus and the Buddha seek? None that I know of, as both rejected power and material possessions.
Prior to the 20th century no mechanism existed for the divine to speak to all of us at once. If our consciousness is like onto a radio then almost all of us have our tuners dialed to a frequency other than the ‘God’ channel. Thus “many are called but few are chosen”.
Then there’s the issue of free will, if you could, would you ‘vote’ that God violate our free will and make of us what he would? How would that be respectful of both our independence and our responsibility to be accountable for our actions? If you KNEW that heaven is waiting, provided that you ‘behave’, wouldn’t you? But that would amount to coercion and then, there goes free will out the window. But, it would end doubt which would certainly be convenient, aye?
November 9, 2009 @ 5:34 pmAnd scientists in the relevant disciplines do agree that the cognitive capacity of the human brain far transcends the needs of daily living.
“I seriously doubt that this idea about 10% brain use is true. I think we are using most of what we have and the rest is redundant systems to help deal with injury to the brain.”
“The human brain is only 10% functional, at best. The first to outline this theory, later proved a fact by others, was Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial Center Boulder, July 31, 1974.) “The brain indicates its powers are endless.”
In England, John Lorber did autopsies on hydrocephalics. This illness causes all but the 1/6th inch layer of brain tissue to be dissolved by acidic spinal fluid. He tested the IQ’s of patients before and during the disease. His findings showed that IQ remained constant up to death. Although over 90% of brain tissue was destroyed by the disease, yet it had no impact on what we consider to be normal intelligence.
Russian neurosurgeon Alexandre Luria proved that 1/3 of the bulk of our frontal lobes are mostly dormant. He did this by performing ablation experiments on persons. He gave physiological and psychological tests before, cut out parts and whole frontal lobes, then re-tested after. His conclusion: removal of part or all of frontal lobes causes no major change in brain function, (some change in mood alteration). The frontal lobes are mostly dormant, or asleep. (Luria, A.R. “Frontal Lobes and the Regulation of Behavior.” In: K.H. Pribram and A.R. Luria, Editors, Psychophysiology of the Frontal Lobes. New York, and London, Academic Press, 1973)
Finally, the human brain contains 10 billion neurons, mostly in the outer layer of brain cortex. the function of these currently dominant cells is fairly clear. But the brain also contains 120 billion glial cells. Aside from some secondary nurturing of neurons, the primary function of the glia is not clear. What big bang miracle awaits mankind within these mysteries?
Today, most would agree without argument that the potential of the human brain is infinite. Thus, to state that a person uses 10%, 5%, or even 1% of their potential brain capacity (infinity) may well be overly generous.
The point is this: There is little dispute among honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and what still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folk saying was correct: “The human brain is only 10% functional.” John Eccles thinks that number is too high. “How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?”"
Certainly Buddhist’s report of and in a remarkably consistent manner, states of consciousness most are unaware of…including the state of ‘bliss’, literally a ‘oneness’ with the divine… is it so unreasonable to posit that a state of consciousness that would allow the divine to converse with us might exist?
“All this proves is that psychological practices can create deliberately designed states of mind. This is extremely cool, but it doesn’t prove the existence of supernatural agency. Note that Buddhism is not incompatible with atheism btw.”
Deliberately designed? A somewhat disingenuous description of a state experienced and reliably reported upon by literally thousands of practitioners. That’s a bit like a blind woman seeing for the first time and describing it to her disbelieving blind husband who accuses her of inventing it to cause envy.
“the fact that belief has psychological power says nothing to the truth claims of the faith in question.”
Can you prove that your mother loves you? That a child loves a parent and vice versa? Not to a convinced skeptic you can’t. Which in no way lessens the objective reality that my daughter loves me. And that I know it.
November 9, 2009 @ 5:46 pmFaith in a nutshell. Beautiful!
November 9, 2009 @ 5:54 pmWell said Geoffrey.
On the dividing line between fetus and baby, I have suggested that for consistency we ought to use the same measure at the beginning of life we use at the end. When someone is “brain dead” they are gone. So why not agree that when someone is “brain alive” they are alive. I don’t recall precisely offhand, but I think this would place a measurable limit prior to 8 weeks. This would make most surgical abortion illegal, but things like the morning after pill would remain. Thus we have a scientific, measurable cut off which bypasses any religious arguments about life. It’s a solution which, while not perfect by my standards, would be sufficiently clear and secular to become law.
November 9, 2009 @ 6:18 pmJohn, I like that idea. It’s at least evidence based. However, I am quite sure that even if it’s adopted, there would be no end to the debate.
Geoffrey,
I think you are using old research on the brain thing. I personally have worked with dozens of brain injured people, and I can tell you the effects of brain injury are profound.
Here’s a quote from Scientific America:
Here’s a link for you if you want to expand your search:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain
More like 10′s of millions. I’ve been known to do some meditating myself. How is what I said “disingenuous.” People have experiences. We also have beliefs about those experiences. If you train your mind, you can begin to notice that the experience and the belief are not the same thing. That’s one of the cool things that meditation can be good for.
This is a chestnut. First off, I CAN prove my mother loves me. FMRI’s have mapped out several neural pathways and response patterns that correlate strongly with reported experience of loving feelings. So, yeah. No problem. Just give me a research grant.
Secondly, I don’t need the MRI, because as an evolved social creature, my (90-100% in-use) brain is capable of picking up a huge range of non-verbal cues that are mirrored in my own physiology (using what are called mirror neurons). This is the biological mechanism for empathy. I feel what she feels, and unconsciously infer her state of mind.
All it took was a few million years of evolution. No magic need.
November 9, 2009 @ 8:23 pmThanks Morgan, every so often you get lucky and hit one out of the park.
Thanks for the compliment John and I agree that your ‘line of demarcation’ is reasonable.
Susac,
I agree that the info I supplied is a bit old. I thought it sufficient for my purposes. And yes, of course brain injury’s can be serious. It’s not really important whether it’s 10-20 or even 50% that we use, the point is that enough is not being used, that it doesn’t contradict the theory that ‘higher’ states of consciousness are not only possible but actually reported by vast numbers of people, as you readily admit.
I think it somewhat disingenuous to discount the majority of the data (so many people reporting altered states and religious experiences) and assign a ‘reason’ for that experience (they’re mistaken, etc.) that contradicts their assertion. Just as, for instance, it would be presumptuous of me to decide that what you said happened to you didn’t really happen. Colloquially, you’re saying, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
“If you train your mind, you can begin to notice that the experience and the belief are not the same thing.”
Experience and belief may not be the same thing or they may indeed be, otherwise we would have no basis for learning. If someone steps on your toe hard, there’s little doubt that experience and belief coincide.
People who report a spiritual experience may be wrong but they may not be and none of us have a basis for evaluation beyond whether the ‘revelation’ resonates with us.
“I CAN prove my mother loves me. FMRI’s have mapped out several neural pathways and response patterns that correlate strongly with reported experience of loving feelings.”
I don’t dispute that she does love you Paul and personally I accept the evidence you offer as compelling. That said, you can’t prove it to a skeptic. They’ll discount it, in one way or another and reasoned persuasion will prove inadequate. Just as all the evidence that so many have reported you discount, simply because it doesn’t conveniently fit within the world as you wish to see it.
“Evolved social creature, using 90-100%”…well we all have our little conceits;-)
The “few million years of evolution” Paul is how we got to where the ‘magic’ can be experienced in the physical plane of existence.
November 9, 2009 @ 10:11 pm[...] the truth about Hasan’s motivations and the nature of his killing spree, as well as that act’s acclaim by his revered cleric, then not only would the lie be put to many of the assertions made during the campaign, but a huge [...]
November 10, 2009 @ 12:57 pmI see your point, but I don’t think that you see mine. Say someone steps on your toe. That’s the experience. But right along with that, you are going to draw conclusions about what that experience means. You will draw these conclusions from your pre-existing beliefs as well as the context of the event. These conclusions form a story about what happened.
So this story might go:
A) “He stepped on my toe by accident. That sucked but no harm done”
B) “He stepped on my toe deliberately. It was an act of aggression”
C) “He totally ignored my presence as he stepped on my toe and has offended me by ignoring my dignity as a person”
D) Etc. etc.
These stories arise spontaneously and more or less automatically and continuously as we go about our day. The more emotionally charged the event the more focused we become on the story (and vice versa).
If you want to define a “skeptic” as someone who only accepts propositions to be true if there is iron-clad proof then, I agree with you.
I don’t define the word that way. I think that it is possible to be a skeptic and to draw conclusions based on incomplete data. The trick here is to draw the most likely conclusion based on the data. So my mother MAY have been putting on an act for the last several decades, but the effort and diligence that this deception would require is so great that it is more parsimonious to conclude that her love is genuine.
Interesting statement. Can you say more? It sounds like you are saying that you believe that consciousness exists as a free-floating quality of the universe and that in order for it to become “embodied” we needed to evolve to the level of complexity are at in order to perceive it.
Is that right? Please elaborate.
November 10, 2009 @ 1:48 pmHas anyone else noticed that the link to that horrible blog page is no longer functional? I wonder what happened.
November 10, 2009 @ 1:51 pmYeah, I noticed when it went down yesterday. They have now reloaded a blank copy of WordPress on the site so it will be interesting to see if he starts blogging again.
Turns out the web host for his domain is based in Southern CA. So perhaps they got a visit from the FBI yesterday.
The reason I happened to see his post almost immediately after it went up late Sunday night (Monday in Yemen) is I was on there reading through his old comments. There were a few commenters named Hasan so I was looking for something which might indicate that it was Nidal Hasan.. Then that post popped up…
November 10, 2009 @ 2:10 pm[...] Well before the massacre at Fort Hood, Hasan had been keeping in touch with his former radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, after the latter fled to Yemen and became a recruiter for al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki praised Nidal Hasan as a hero for killing the thirteen unarmed people at Fort Hood. [...]
November 11, 2009 @ 6:44 am[...] Radical 9/11 Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Shooter [...]
November 13, 2009 @ 8:10 amThe difference is this…. when a priests molests a child, the Vatican doesn’t respond by praising him and saying it’s the duty of all Catholic priests to molest as many children as they can.
November 16, 2009 @ 11:36 amExcellent way to reinforce this point…
November 16, 2009 @ 4:11 pm