# Is Wahhabism a great threat to humankind? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634 "2004-07-30T19:52:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/41 "2004-07-31T17:00:52Z")
I spoke to my friend, shes Muslim I told her about me possibly trying to act against Wahabbism, but she said that I shouldn’t because not all of them advocate the destruction of the West, but then again how many low level Nazis or Communists advocated the destruction of our societies and just went with the flow of things and ‘followed orders’ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/42 "2004-07-31T17:05:55Z")
Nitpick: At this point we might as well agree on the spelling (always debatable when translating Arabic letters into Roman – how many ways have you seen “Qaddafi” spelled?). Is it spelled Wahhabi, Wahabbi, Wahhabbi, Wahabi, or Southern Baptist? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/43 "2004-07-31T17:22:34Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > And of course you _never_ meet Libertarians who believe theirs is the “One True Way.” That would be a contradiction, of course, and therefore impossible since Libertarians believe that all peaceful honest people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. > [@trandallt](#): > > “Don’t judge Christianity by the Christians” – is that you are saying? (Not trying to put words in your mouth) I have heard that all my life and never really understood it. I do understand that individuals who call themselves Christian can behave in unChristian ways, but what I don’t get is how Christianity can be absolved of blame for for things such as the Inquisition. Because “Christianity” is an abstraction. The logical fallacy itself is called hypostatization, or reification — that is, assigning to abstract entities qualities of concrete entities. It is the fault of the men, i.e., the ones who actually committed the atrocities. Analogous and more modern hypostatization fallacies would include the blaming of America for the world’s ills, or the blaming of society for a serial killer’s spree, or the blaming of science for declining morality. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/44 "2004-07-31T17:51:43Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] > [@](#): > > Because “Christianity” is an abstraction. The logical fallacy itself is called hypostatization, or reification — that is, assigning to abstract entities qualities of concrete entities. It is the fault of the men, i.e., the ones who actually committed the atrocities. Analogous and more modern hypostatization fallacies would include the blaming of America for the world’s ills, or the blaming of society for a serial killer’s spree, or the blaming of science for declining morality Two things- I’ve read many of your posts before where you speak of logic in terms I do not understand (modality, for example). Can you steer me toward some literature that would expand my knowledge on the subject? Having said that, is Christianity an abstract entity? I know that you profess no religious dogma but some religions claim to know the mind of God through his agents on Earth, and that therefore by their actions they are carrying out his will. Is the Church abstract? ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/45 "2004-07-31T19:57:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Religion is no different from any other discipline in that regard. Government, business, science, the arts, and yes religion — they all are filled to the brim with politicians who abuse their power for the sake of personal gain. But that is the fault of the men, not the faith. Hmm? Is it not the case that you can judge communism by what communism says, christianity by what christianity says, islam by what islam says and so on? > [@](#): > > I spoke to my friend, shes Muslim I told her about me possibly trying to act against Wahabbism, but she said that I shouldn’t because not all of them advocate the destruction of the West, when you say “act against wahabbism”, what do you plan to do? Invade Saudi Arabia on your own? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/46 "2004-07-31T20:00:49Z")
No, please, but I want to establish contacts, learn more about the intentions of this sect, and find out what ways we can limit their influence, power and actions they take against our culture, their own people, and our beliefs. Hey, I only decided on this yesterday, its all early days. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/47 "2004-07-31T20:53:19Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > No, please, but I want to establish contacts, learn more about the intentions of this sect, and find out what ways we can limit their influence, power and actions they take against our culture, their own people, and our beliefs. Hey, I only decided on this yesterday, its all early days. In broad scope, you’ve just described what _they_ are doing against the percieved threat of the West. IOW, you’ve become your enemy. Best get back to the drawing board. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/48 "2004-07-31T20:59:47Z")
So what would you propose? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/49 "2004-08-01T00:16:04Z")
Sorry, health issues and more importantly a new computer game have been occupying my attention. Anyway as regards to Wahabism in relation to Islam, **CA** has already covered this quite succinctly, but I’ll just add a couple of comments. As the good **Captain** notes it is pretty much impossible to be Qur’anic literalist - there is too much that is contradictory and ambiguous to make an unnuanced and unanalyzed stance functional. Indeed if we were talking _strict_ literalism in which _only_ the direct word of God was acknowledged, you’d have to throw out all of the _hadith_ on which rests an awful lot of Islamic jurisprudence ( not to mention a whole host of things like the specifics of hygiene - the Taliban’s obsession with beards for instance ). To be fair a few ( very few ) Muslims do take that stance, but the Wahabi certainly don’t count among them. Wahabism is an early modern ( 18th century ) interpretation that is just as much of a subjective treatment of Islam as any that have come before. The rigid jurisprudential model it uses is the youngest of all of the four main Sunni _fiqh_, deriving from the work of Ahmed ibn Hanbal ( 781-836 ), who was born ~150 years after Muhammed’s death ( the most flexible and by far the most widespread jurisprudential school in the Muslim world is actually the oldest, that of Abu Hanifa who lived 698-767 - note that the _earliest_ codification of laws is still over a half-century after Muhammed ). The main theological inspiration of Wahabism comes not from the earliest commentators on Islam, but rather from the writings of Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya ( 1263-1328 - again, born more than _600_ years after the death of Muhammed ), writing during a time of relative collapse, chaos and insecurity in the Muslim world and looking back with nostalgia to the pre-10th century Pax Islamica, ironically one of the most liberal periods in Islamic history. To say that Wahabism is a fundamentally more Islamic brand of Islam than the types practiced most everywhere else in the world is nonsense. To say it is fundamentally more Islamic than that of the of most Muslims that have come before the Wahabis is also nonsense. Of course to say it is _less Islamic_ would also be nonsense - it is an interpretation of Islam. It could be correctly be identified as a _conservative_ or _reactionary_ or even _ultraorthodox_ ( defined in terms of the Wahabis view of other Muslims ) interpretation. But the are no real grounds for viewing it as the _truest_ interpretation - such a thing doesn’t and can’t exist ( except in the individual minds of the devout of course ). * * * As to the threat of Wahabism - first let’s get or terms straight. Wahabism does not quite = radical Islamism. It’s a pernicious and intolerant ideology IMO that lends itself to the _breeding_ of radical Islamism. But most Wahabis ( like, say, most Penetecostals ) aren’t terribly bloodthirsty. As temporary western residents like **Testy** or **Paul in Saudi** can attest, your average Saudi may be conservative, intolerant, or even paranoid as all get out - but they aren’t particularly interested in hurting anyone. Indeed a salient feature of the official, royalist brand of Wahabism is its essential political conservatism and political conservatism and radicalism don’t necessarily mix well ( though the jump from one to the other in this particular context might be easier ). Saudi Arabia is increasingly unstable and breeds a lot of firebrand nutballs - but to date fewer than in places like Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Algeria ( this may change ). Second Wahabism, defined in the strictest theological terms, is NOT spreading like wildfire. SA did ( with considerable U.S. support ) attempt to spread conservative Islamic theology in the world in the 1960’s - 1980’s. But while their funding and preaching did have a real impact, especially in Afghanistan ( but see below ), by and large Wahabis per se remains mostly limited to the Arabian penninsula. The Taliban for instance were strongly influenced by Wahabi preachers from SA and adopted a few hybrid tenets - but the predominant theology of the Taliban is Deobandism, not Wahabism. It’s a very similar theology with some common roots ( ibn Taymiyya for one ) and even some early historical cross-pollination. But it is still a different sect with some different views and practices. Another similar but different group is the Ahl-e Hadith. So for instance Wahabis, strictly speaking follow the Hanbali fiqh, the Deobandi use Hanafi fiqh, and the Ahl-e Hadith reject the use of specific fiqh altogether. But all three are reactionary, ultraorthodox sects. Similarily the Islamic radicals in places like Egypt and Algeria didn’t take their cues from Wahabism but rather from parallel, bt seperate movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and particularly a 1950’s and '60’s product of that group, the writings of Sayyid Qutb. Again they cross-pollinate with the Wahabi jihadists like ObL, but they are not necessarily a product of strict Wahabi theology. All of which may seem like excessive nitpicking, but the point is that it is a mistake to think that eliminating Wahabism per se would eliminate Islamic terrorists. Islamist jihadism has multiple roots. As to what can be done about Wahabism - not much really, IMHO. Radical options ( which I will deliberately leave undefined ) are both unworkable and morally unacceptable. Prosperity and contentment are great innoculants but how you are going to conjure that up short-term, maybe even long-term in the MENA I have no idea. That’s a Third World issue generally. One imaginative ( if very cynical and draconian ) idea hit upon by a couple of former Soviet Central Asian states is to combine ruthless crackdowns on Islamism with an attempt to promote more “moderate” versions of Islam, in this case Naqshbandi Sufism ( an order which tends to regard extremely anti-Sufi Wahabism as its theological archenemy ). Whether that will have any success I have no idea. At any rate none of the above will solve the problem - at best they will ameliorate it. Fanatics may be more common under stressed conditions, but they can potentially arise out of any milieu. Eventually religious evolution may bring about a change as the world becomes an ever smaller ( and in the future hopefully happier ) place. For now constructive and nimble engagement/containment as necessary will have to do. And hell no I won’t offer specifics :D. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/50 "2004-08-01T00:29:50Z")
Guess it is back to the drawing board. But if economic competence and success is what the ME needs for it and us to ‘rollback’ Fundamentalism, then why aren’t we doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/51 "2004-08-01T05:40:12Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Guess it is back to the drawing board. But if economic competence and success is what the ME needs for it and us to ‘rollback’ Fundamentalism, then why aren’t we doing that? Wasn’t this one of the stated goals of the Iraq war? Iraq was supposed to be the first domino of middle east democracy (capitalism). A prosperous nation is less likely to spawn despondent, violent males. I know that I don’t feel like blowing up things as long as I can get $3 designer coffee from starbucks every morning. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/52 "2004-08-01T11:01:02Z")
> [@trandallt](#): > > Two things- I’ve read many of your posts before where you speak of logic in terms I do not understand (modality, for example). Can you steer me toward some literature that would expand my knowledge on the subject? Sure. Here’s a [general explanation](http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm), and here is [a specific example](http://www.mises.org/ufofes/ch5~4.asp). > [@](#): > > Having said that, is Christianity an abstract entity? I know that you profess no religious dogma but some **religions claim to know** the mind of God through his agents on Earth, and that therefore by their actions they are carrying out his will. Is the Church abstract? I’ve highlighted the instance of the fallacy for you. Religions don’t claim and they don’t know — it is _people_ who make claims and who know things. Religions don’t have organs that hold consciousness and knowledge. But you can say, “some religious **people** claim to know…”. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/53 "2004-08-01T12:03:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nitpick: They were fighting for a political ideology that assumes atheism, not for atheism as such. 20th-Century Communism, in fact, was not so much anti-religious as a sort of new religion in its own right – with rationality substituted for revelation, the Historical Dialectic substituted for God, and with its own canonical books, prophet (Marx), messiah (Lenin), eschatology (the Revolution), millennium (the future society of pure, stateless communism), ecclesiastical hierarchy (Stalin as pope, Party as church), army chaplains (commissars or political officers), schisms and heresies (Trotsky vs. Stalin), inquisitions and inquisitors, Wars of Reformation, etc., etc. > > IOW, an unchallengeable dogmatic belief-system, that thinks it is the One True Way for the whole world, is a very bad thing regardless of whether God is in it or not. > [@Loopydude](#): > > Excellent summary of the analogies between what came to be Bolshevism and Stalinism and an organized faith like Christianity. I’ve rarely seen it spelled out so lucidly and concisely. Agree. I just would like to add “apologetics” to the list of similarities. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/54 "2004-08-01T16:30:25Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > Is it not the case that you can judge communism by what communism says, christianity by what christianity says, islam by what islam says and so on? No, that is not the case. Ideas and belief-systems do not speak. It is the case that, to some limited extent, you can judge Communism by what self-identified Communists say, Christianity by what Christians say, and Islam by what Muslims say. You can also judge them, again to some limited extent, by the contents of their authoritative scriptures (_Das Kapital,_ Bible, Koran) – but their interpretation is always debatable. Especiall WRT to the Koran, which contains a lot more poetry than theology. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/55 "2004-08-01T16:48:21Z")
> [@Brandus](#): > > Wasn’t this one of the stated goals of the Iraq war? Iraq was supposed to be the first domino of middle east democracy (capitalism). A prosperous nation is less likely to spawn despondent, violent males. I know that I don’t feel like blowing up things as long as I can get $3 designer coffee from starbucks every morning. It might produce that result – but it will also produce a new generation of young Arabs who will grow up hating America and Americans and the West generally, because they have seen (in person or on television) American and British planes drop bombs that killed Arab, civilians and destroyed Arab homes, and they have seen foreign infidel troops break into Arabs’ houses, humiliate the residents, maybe even beat them or arrest them, etc., etc. And that’s not even taking into account the Abu Ghraib prison scandals. We will be dealing with the horrible aftermath of this for decades, no matter how prosperous or free Iraq or any NE country becomes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/56 "2004-08-01T16:50:02Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Agree. I just would like to add “apologetics” to the list of similarities. 😕 Not familiar with that term – could you please explain it? (If I could edit the post, I would add that Communism has its own version of the jihad/crusade (the class struggle).) ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/57 "2004-08-02T03:56:26Z")
As **Tamarlane** mentioned, the average Wahabbi tends to be xenophobic as hell, intolerant of other religions and other branches of Islam, and is generally a sort of Middle-Eastern redneck. Having said that, “Abdullah Average” has zero interest in joining a jihadh. As far as the religion becoming a dominant force in the world, I don’t see how that would happen. Wahabbism will inspire terrorists to go out and kill however many infidels they can get their hands on but that is both short-term and counter productive. In a larger sense, Western democracies view Wahabbism as some kind of disease and moderate Islamic governments aren’t far behind them. Even inside Saudi, Wahabism is not followed by the majority of the educated classes. Everyone pays lip-service to it but few are actually as strict as they should be. Unfortunately, they also donate money to various Islamic charities that makes its way into terrorist pockets. Just my 2 cents worth. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/58 "2004-08-02T15:02:00Z")
> [@](#): > > No, that is not the case. Ideas and belief-systems do not speak. It is the case that, to some limited extent, you can judge Communism by what self-identified Communists say, Christianity by what Christians say, and Islam by what Muslims say. You can also judge them, again to some limited extent, by the contents of their authoritative scriptures (Das Kapital, Bible, Koran) – but their interpretation is always debatable. Within limits though. For example, however you interpret communism you cannot turn it into islam and vice versa. So there are parameters. Within these parameters, you can make judgements about individual belief systems (whatever interpretation we are dealing with). Thus ideas and belief systems do speak. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/59 "2004-08-03T10:37:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not familiar with that term – could you please explain it? If you search Google for “apologetics”, you get many relevant links. Something like [this](http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm) > [@](#): > > Apologetics is the practice of defending the Christian faith against those who raise objections to its validity. Here’s a nice one: > [@](#): > > Classical Apologetics is that style of Christian defense that stresses rational arguments for the existence of God and uses evidence to substantiate biblical claims and miracles. Yeah, right… Same thing with Marxism. It’s very difficult or impossible to “debunk”, even though on the surface many tenets seem outdated or simply false. Like the definition of capitalism, the rigid class distinctions, or the apparent emphasis on goods as opposed to services. I tried to look for some fun examples but couldn’t find very good ones just right now. Many of my past favorites are from [here](http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/correspo/correspo.shtml) or [here](http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/polemics/polemics.shtml). Something like [this](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/lett-m15.shtml) with the reply linked there. BTW, another similarity, possibly relevant for the OP: although radical Islamism is the inspiration _du jour_ for terrorism, Marxism used to have that honor not so long ago (Rote Armee Fraktion, Baader Meinhof, Sendero Luminoso…) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634/60 "2004-08-03T14:48:53Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Same thing with Marxism. It’s very difficult or impossible to “debunk”, even though on the surface many tenets seem outdated or simply false. You have drawn a false analogy. Arguing against Marxism is impossible because it is a pseudo-science. From _Conjectures and Refutations_, Karl Popper, 1963 > [@](#): > > I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment. > > The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which “verified” the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their “clinical observations.” As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. “Because of my thousandfold experience,” he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: “And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.” On the other hand, arguing against the modal ontological proof for the existence of God requires a thorough knowledge and rigorous application of higher level logics. From _The Logic of Perfection_, Charles Hartshorne, 1962 > [@](#): > > 1. p- \> p perfection cannot exist contingently > 2. ~~p perfection is not impossible, or p > 3. p -\> p modal axiom > 4. p v ~p principle of excluded middle > 5. ~p -\> ~p Becker’s postulate applied to ~p > 6. p v ~p 4, 5, substitution > 7. ~p ~p 1, modal modus tollens > 8. p ~p 6, 7, substitution > 9. p 8, 2, disjunctive syllogism > 10. p 9, 3, modus ponens I’m afraid that debunking the best theological apologists will require much more from you than the rather smug, “Yeah, right…”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-humankind/257634.md?page=4)