Intellectual Dissent (against the Islamists)

It is funny when people say you have to master Arabic and learn the historical context of the verses to really understand the points the Suras are trying to bring to justify moral or idealistic arguments. By the same stipulation, I can also argue that you have to perfect your English and understand the historical/social context when reading English works (I've encountered quite a few people whose English is not good enough who tried to 'read' the works of Nietzsche, Mill or Russell but failed miserably at understanding even the basic terms to really get the points these authors were trying to bring).

The difference between this similitude is that you can question Nietzsche. You can question Byron. You can question Descartes. The essential quality of learning--its raison d'être if you will--lies in the ability to ask questions, quite simply.

That is why science is ever evolving. That is why old philosophy can be replaced with new philosophy. And that is why you can talk about politics or the Government's economic policies without being a politician or an economist yourself.

Comparisons need to thrive in order for rational discussion to take place. The responsibility for learning (and thinking which brings to reasoning) is inherent in all of us. We must not submit our mind to a higher authority. (That is the precise meaning of faith). We must be open-minded in the sense that we are ready to always correct ourselves when our conclusions or beliefs need to be corrected.

The argument that each subject has an authoritative entity and therefore, people must adhere to such an authority is a lazy response carved in mere self-defense and impairs the capacity for reasonable discussion. I'm sure you'd roll your eyes if someone says they put absolute trust in the Government.

In science, of course, we listen to authoritative voices in their fields; but scientific inquiry is always allowed to happen and scientific conclusions or 'facts' as laymen call them, are always being improved. There is NO absolute authority on the subjects. What is there is only the path to learning.

To argue that something is divinely written and therefore, is above questioning, is indeed a lazy answer and an insult to those who dissent intellectually against it. I can hold an absolute belief, and no matter what you say, I will continue to hold on to it. That is the stupidity and stagnancy of such belief: you will never change your position, and therefore, never learn.

Authority, as a lot of people take it, is only a glorified position--a form of superiority--in its pejorative sense. Therefore, there should be NO authority in knowledge. 

A lot of the scientific discoveries were made by those who were curious about knowledge, and they often started out with reasonable inquiry--not as a professor in an established university.

For all students of philosophy, the first commandment to teaching (and inextricably linked, the path to learning) by Bertrand Russell is familiar and rings true for all of us:

'Do not be absolutely certain of anything.'