There are many popular debates on the nature of Islam. Some commentators would try to persuade you—perhaps by reference to one verse or another—that the real Islam is peaceful and that Muslims who are violent in the name of their faith are outliers. Other commentators would attempt to convince you—perhaps by reference to other verses—that Islam is violent and that peaceful Muslims are outliers who misunderstand the fundamental nature of their religion.Both these positions are intellectually impoverished. For non-Muslims, Islam does not and cannot have any fundamental nature at all, because Islam, in the way that most non-Muslims tend to think about it, does not and cannot exist. There are two reasons for this: one linguistic and the other ontological.
The linguistic problem involves the use of the definite article. When commentators refer to the Muslim community, to whom are they referring: Sufis in Liverpool, Iranian Shias in Central London, Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia? The notion—suggested by the word the—that there is a single Islamic community that provides a common point of reference makes no sense at all.
Next, let’s look at ontology. Before we can legitimately attach any moral values to Islam, we need to discuss how Islam can and cannot exist. Let’s use the analogy of the novel Fifty Shades of Grey. If I tell you that the members of the Chipping Sodbury Ladies’ Book Club think the book is outrageously sexist, you will assume most of them have read at least part of the novel and come to a consensus about it. Now imagine that the rival Little Sodbury Ladies’ Book Club has also read the book, but has arrived at a radically different interpretation. Most of them agree that the book is sexually empowering for women. So who is right?
In fact, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. Opinions on books vary dramatically. I may opine that a book is terrible and you may opine that it is wonderful: these are two legitimate realities. The terrible book that exists for me is not the same book that exists for you. What matters is not who is right but what they think is right.
Communities tend to coalesce around subjective opinions, and subjective realities then become inter-subjective ones. Teenagers may form groups based on a shared love of a particular rock band, for example. A simple principle, such as the belief that skating or netball is good, can form a core around which a clique can grow. Conversely, similar bonds can be forged from mutual disdain for specific hobbies and passions. The existence of Fifty Shades of Grey can be verified by simple observation, but what it means to any individual reader is beholden to subjective and intersubjective filters that credit it with positive or negative qualities.
Human interpretations of phenomena often span a wide spectrum. We can readily see that the gentle theology of Little Sodbury’s elderly Anglican vicar differs radically from that of the Bible-thumping Arkansas pastor who insists that evolution is a fabrication and gay marriage an abomination. While we could deploy ethical analysis to try to decide who is right, experience tells us that the debate is largely pointless. People believe what they believe and—no matter how good our arguments—it is extremely hard to convince them otherwise. The pastor and the vicar have different truths. And it doesn’t really matter who we think is right, because they will both go on believing what they believe.
So what is Christianity? Given that the pastor and vicar are followed by radically different communities, can we legitimately define the Christian religion by reference to anything that is actually out there? Should we talk about the Christian community? Does Christianity actually exist beyond a set of symbols—or are there only Christianities, plural, organised into communities whose interpretations of the core text, the Bible, vary?
The Muslim Snow Patrol of the North-East of England is a community of Ahmadi Muslims, a profoundly socially conservative but non-violent group, organised around a coherent interpretation of the core Islamic texts that inspires them to act charitably towards their neighbours. What does this community have to do with the horrors perpetrated by the Islamic State? They read the same book, but come to radically different conclusions. While the Islamic State’s interpretation inspires them to lop off heads, the Muslim Snow Patrol’s interpretation inspires them to clear the drives of their elderly neighbours. Ontologically, this difference is similar to that between the two Ladies’ Book Clubs. That both interpretations exist indicates that the text they draw on can only exist as a shared set of symbols, to which the communities ascribe radically different interpretations. So which interpretation is correct?
Unless you’re an Islamic scholar, it really doesn’t matter in the slightest. Most individual Muslims believe their iteration of the faith to be the authentic one, and, within their personal and community spheres, they are perfectly entitled to that claim. But even the most ardently conservative Muslim would probably acknowledge that other communities contain people who believe otherwise and still call themselves Muslims (though he might dispute their right to do so). We must conclude that—aside from a set of symbols subject to different interpretations—neither the Islamic religion nor the Islamic community actually exist for non-Muslims. Neither Islam nor the Muslim community are single authorities, capable of marshalling behaviour towards any particular ends—as centuries of violent intra-faith conflict attest.
We therefore cannot legitimately attribute any moral value to the Islamic religion, since this is only a set of symbols, and how these symbols play out is determined by the individuals and communities who interpret them. Thus Islam cannot possibly be a religion of war, but neither can it be a religion of peace. It is a fiction: it does not and cannot exist, let alone lead to any consequences.
For any discussion of Islam to be meaningful, we must focus on which Islams are doing what, and not pretend that an interpretation of Islam is somehow more authentic because we consider it good (or bad). Anything that is believed is authentic for the believer or community of believers, regardless of whether the non-Muslim commentator likes the interpretation or not.
There are multiple Islams, which often have almost nothing to do with each other in the practical sense, beyond the superficialities of reading the same book, occasionally chanting the same prayers and sometimes wearing similar clothes. These superficial similarities are irrelevant compared to the ideological differences that lead to significant real-world consequences.
Until we acknowledge this, our discussions of Islam will remain dangerously misguided and irrelevant.
26 comments
I don’t believe we can properly discuss this topic without mentioning the concept of the *Ummah*, which means, roughly, ‘the Muslim community’. In some sense, a Muslim community certainly exist, because it is a tenant of Islam that a singular Ummah exists, membership in which is defined by the Shahada, the well-known Muslim declaration of faith.
There are obviously deep and sometimes fierce differences among Muslims, and Muslims may be regarded by other Muslims as having abandoned or betrayed key elements of the faith, but the proposition the existence of a Muslim community is something to be decided by non-Muslim Westerners without reference to the self-understandings and self-identifications of Muslims themselves seems questionable.
The same logic applies to alluses of “community” to mean “the set of all people who are or do X”, after all, which is just the superset of the “there is no THE Islamic Community” point.
(Actual communities are organic, typically very small, and rarely to never what “X community” is referring to.)
See “the Linux community”, which people kept wanting to be A Thing, that would follow Their Agenda About Computing, but never existed, because “everyone using a free OS for anything at all” is not a community, it’s just an external grouping.
Whenever we see “community” deployed, we should be suspicious of trickery and shell games trying to move back and forth between those two usages.
(A village or a neighborhood *may* have community, or more likely several, with many people simply not participating. If it is called “a community”, either it’s just shorthand for “a place people live”, or trickery for “everyone here is part of a social group” … but they aren’t.)
By the way, I found that the editors of this site are using a hidden ban tactic borrowed from Facebook. Well you’re going in the right direction 🙂
Every social category has a vagueness about it. Some terms are more strict, some looser. It is true that there is no such thing as the Islamic community in any rigorous mathematical sense, but that’s now how we use words anyway. There is content to the term ‘Islamic community’ and that does not presume that there are no differences within it. One can look at the aggregate Islamic world and note that it is profoundly brutal and backwards in comparison with the aggregate Christian world and that fact is not made less true by the fact that one can find tolerant and humane Muslims and one can find ignorant and brutal Christians.
Dawkins’ comment it quite correct. The author makes a non-point, namely that there is variation between the members of some or other social group. But just as the point that there is variation within a species does not mean that that species does not exist, so variation among Muslims (or whoever) does not mean that the Islamic Community does not denote something significant.
Monotheism by its very nature tends towards coercion. First, it claims monopoly on salvation. Second, no variety of monotheism is coherent and so they fight among themselves as well as others with different views. To say one is inherently more oppressive than another is to cherry pick- though regarding ‘nonbelievers’ the Jews do better because, unlike Christianity and Islam, they do not evangelize/send missionaries.
In all cases the closer a group within it gets to a mystical (not a personality) conception of the ultimate, the less violent they become- as Sufis and modern Quakers demonstrate.
The death toll by modern atheistic totalitarians easily approaches the worst of these violent religions- so religion is not the issue.
Well said, Ray. Was thinking something similar myself.
Famed atheist Richard Dawkins: Islam is the most evil religion in the world’
It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad, because they’re not, Dawkins said during a speech Sunday at the Cheltenham Science Festival, the Telegraph reported.
Dawkins was at the event to promote his newest book, Science in the Soul, and advocate for religious education in British schools because religion Christianity, in particular is an important part of European culture. He said religion should be taught comparatively because the child learns that there are lots of different religions, not just the one they were brought up with.
At that, Dawkins explained to the audience that the Muslim faith is the most evil religion in the world because if you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it’s quite apparent that, at present, the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Aisha was six
Mohammed 52
It’s a conundrum, isn’t it? It’s a mistake to conflate contemporary attitudes and mores with those of the 7th century, but a certain logical question is inescapable.
If sex between an adult male and a pre-pubescent female is not for procreation, which physically it cannot be because of that female’s physical immaturity, then it is either an assertion of property rights and power by the male, which nowadays we would call rape, or it is for the male’s pleasure, which nowadays we would call paedophilic.
Which is it? Or if neither, then what?
There has long been a tension between teachings and teachers, and I will not venture to get into that morass. But as for Dawkins’ ignorant comment, I will venture a comment. And I am in no way a monotheist of any sort, just to make that point clear.
One country in Europe rescued all its Jews and Jewish refugees during WWII, even though it had been occupied by the Nazis: Albania. Albania was also the only majority Muslim country in Europe at the time. Israel recognizes and honors this fact. No Christian nation did as well, though Bulgaria came close. But while allied with the Nazis, Bulgaria was not occupied by them.
Every monotheistic tradition has lots of blood on its hands, and I doubt anyone who studied the 30 Years War between Christians, let alone the killings in the Americas in Jesus’ name, would smugly say Christianity was less blood soaked than Islam.
But in both cases there are particular groups often despised by people nominally of the same tradition who look remarkably good, and far better than the human average. Albania had its Sufis who were central to saving its Jews, and the abolition of slavery cannot be separated from the influence of Quakers.
As for atheists like Dawkinswho wallow in a mistaken sense of superiority on this point, Mao and Stalin were atheists as well.
Simple thinking leads to confusion.
Dawkins’ “ignorant comment” about Islam being the most evil religion in today’s world was probably made largely with modern and very recent developments in mind, more than as a description of the full total historical record of any religion. Islam certainly does appear to be the most violent and destructive religion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and Dawkins is thus correct AS FAR AS THE PRESENT TIME IS CONCERNED. However, an impartial visitor from Alpha Centauri may well have been quite justified 500, 600, or 700 years ago in calling Christianity the most evil religion OF THAT TIME, especially if she compared the record of that era’s Europe with its Inquisition and witchcraft persecutions with enlightened tolerance of Muslim Al-Andalus. And, by most 21st century enlightened Western standards, Old Testament Hebrew monotheism was far more evil than “idol-worshipping” paganism in promoting what we can today only call genocide toward Canaanites, Edomites, Philistines, etc. Feminists, likewise, might consider Hindu widow-burning as perhaps just as evil toward women as anything perpetrated or condoned by Muslims. But then, the Scottish biologist and philosopher of science JBS Haldane once listed Fanaticism as one of the four or five most important inventions of the last 4,000 years, adding that it was largely the invention of monotheists.
Having followed Richard Dawkins for many years now, I certainly perk up when anyone levels a charge of “ignorance” against him. I learned long ago that pedestals are usually places from which people fall, so I try to keep my admiration for people in check. That said, I find that particular allegation more than slightly ironic. Dawkins has dedicated most of his life to fighting ignorance, to establishing the prevalence of science and reason over myth and magic, and the Enlightenment over what preceded. Dawkins has responded countless times to the most facile of criticisms of his position on Islam. T. Peter Park has already explained, as Dawkins himself often does, that nearly all religions have histories of blood and barbarism, including Christianity. Moreover, there is also no doubt that Christian scripture, through the Old Testament, provides a justification and even the potential inspiration for insane and inhumane behavior. The salient reality, however, is that Christianity today is generally interpreted in a peaceful and tolerant way. The reasons for this evolution are well known, and I will not restate them here. The same cannot be said for Islam, which has managed, with remarkable success, to lock its adherents to values and myths rooted in 7th century Arabia. The effects are manifest not just in the dramatic and sometimes spectacular violence done in its name, but also in the regressive views of huge percentages of the world’s Muslims, as consistently measured by opinion researchers.
As reference was made specifically to slavery, it is worth pointing out that most Muslims face a dilemma. The more moderate among them understand how evil and repugnant that practice was and still is. Yet, Muhammad, whom they must consider the perfect model of human-kind, was a slaver. ISIS and other extremist islamic groups give full-throated supported for the practice. But even moderates cannot bring themselves to proclaim, without qualification, equivocation, and pure nonsense, that slavery was and is evil. By the way, the buying and selling of slaves is still openly practised in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.
Finally, the frequent invocation of Mao and Stalin (rightly or wrongly, Hitler usually rounds out the trio) to suggest that atheism is as deadly as religion. The fallacy of this thinking hardly needs illustration, yet Dawkins is constantly pressed repeat the obvious. Atheism is the rejection of a belief, not a belief itself. Unlike most religions, there is absolutely nothing about atheism that would incline atheists towards intolerance and violence.
The suggestion that a brilliant, humble, soft spoken, and courageous humanist like Dr. Richard Dawkins shares anything other than a disbelief in god with the likes of Stalin or Mao is an outrageous, slanderous, and extremely ignorant, slur on one of the best thinkers of our time.
Reading carefully is a requirement for people who wish to think clearly, especially in science.
Dawkins made a very sweeping charge against religion in general- kind of arrogant given the sweep of history and variety of traditions he was including. I picked two recent examples about which he apparently knows nothing to indicate not that religion is innocent of massive atrocities- some are guilty as it is possible to be. No, my point was that the story was far more complex and interesting since two major atrocities- one for thousands of years, the other in modern times, were effectively addressed by religious communities when no one else did nearly as well. This is a simple fact and it conflicts with Dawkins’ generalization.
For a scientist, the interesting question is WHY did the Quakers and Muslims of Albania do so well when no one else did. I am sorry you found that question of no interest.
What others said or did not say about Dawkins is irrelevant to my point unless they rebutted them, which they did not.
I did not argue atheism is as deadly as religion. I argued Stalin, Mao, and others such as Pol Pot suggest the problem with mass murder is not religion, but something else, since they were atheists. That is, powerful examples pointing to the fact (for I think it is a fact) that Dawkins’ analysis is wrong.
BTW, I did not mention Hitler and wonder whether your including him was an attempt to detract from my point- hardly a scientific tactic.
Many nice people have been wrong, BTW. Some have even been scientists. Some have even thought they knew more than they did.
I may not be getting your point.
Contrary to what you suggest, I am quite interested in the of actions of Albanian and Bulgarian Muslims and Quakers during the second world war. It is an aspect of that conflict of which I was not aware, and about which I intend to learn more. However, it comes as no surprise whatsoever, that members of those faiths showed courage and compassion in the face of great danger and pressure to act otherwise. They were hardly alone in that. People of conscience and courage of many faiths, and of no religious faith at all, risked or lost their lives across Europe in that period for sheltering and protecting their Jewish countrymen and neighbors.
As it happens, I share Dawkins’ view of religion in general, and of Islam in particular, and I have no difficulty in accepting the obvious truth that just as evil is done in the name of religion, so, often, is good. That is not to say that the good and evil are equivalent, or that the evil should be overlooked because of the good. Nothing in your examples diminishes Dawkins’ claim about Islam. Nobody, whom I am aware of, has ever suggested that Muslims are evil. It is their religion and its impact on our world which are the targets of informed and justified criticism. The support for the Nazis by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, alone, does not condemn Islam, and the good works of Albanian Muslims do not, alone, vindicate it. In fact, both are largely irrelevant to the judgement of Islam as a force in our world today.
Your references to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot seem unclear. Nobody, and certainly not Richard Dawkins, has ever suggested that religion is the only cause of repression and mass murder, or that atheists are incapable of such acts. The fact that such atrocities are not the exclusive domain of religion does not mean that religion is not a cause. That, I think, is obvious.
My bracketed reference to Hitler should have been taken at face value. Nothing to do with any tactic, scientific or otherwise. In any event, you’ve subsequently chosen Pol Pot over Hitler to make a threesome of evil atheists, and that works too. In fact, any time we can swap out Hitler for some other villain, it is almost refreshing.
Now we are getting somewhere. My examples, however, are not just people doing good things, it involves people doing exceptionally good things when others, atheists included, did not do the equivalent. Further, they are doing it in large numbers and in the name of their religion or explicitly inspired by it. In the Albanian case they are risking their lives and their families’ lives in doing so. What exceptional individuals did throughout Europe people within an exceptional culture did in Albania. (Something close to that happened in Bulgaria as well- and it is Orthodox- the ‘same’ religion that supported pogroms in Russia. What people of all religions and no religion accepted for thousands of years Quakers rejected and did so effectively enough to begin the end of a nasty practice that had long been unquestionably accepted even by its victims.
An good scientific question is “why?” Other people claiming to follow the same religion did quite otherwise in both cases. I think there is an answer and indeed answered it far better than Dawkins in a book I wrote.
(Elevator answer for these cases – the closer monotheism gets to being thought of/experienced as an impersonal sacred source, the better the results. That’s not the whole answer, bt a crucial part of it)
As to religion and violence in general- a good scientific approach would not attach a linear explanation when there are important contradictory examples (i.e. the ones I gave), when there are similar horrors NOT done in the name of religion, and when, as a matter of fact, most religious people over thousands of years have not done such things,
For example, what did Stalin’s terror and the Crusades have in common? Not religion, that’s for sure. But they did have fanaticism, and the force of a military in common. Absent either and these horrors would not have happened. Democracies are in almost every case products of Christian societies and the majority of their citizens call themselves Christians. There has never been a war between two democracies, defined (to enlarge the set) as countries with free elections and universal or near universal manhood suffrage. Yet countries that are majority Christian and not democracies have a long record of mutual slaughter.
Natural scientists such as Dawkins often think they know more about fields they have not come anywhere close to mastering in the social sciences.
BTW, your last sentence qualifies as a slur since nothing I wrote (or believe) suggests atheists tend towards murder, let alone mass murder, and many atheists have been and are wonderful human beings. I think if you want to go there, it is you who owe me an apology, actually.
Gus, you and I are having difficulty making ourselves clear to each other. If I had thought that you had made such a ridiculous claim about atheists, I would have said so. Alas, nothing in my most recent comment, either directly or indirectly makes that accusation. Your own admonition to read carefully applies here. That said, it is indeed a common thread in religious apologetics that atheism is as guilty as, or more guilty than, religion in promoting violence and repression. Moreover, it remains entirely unclear what point you were trying to make with your reference to those rather prominent, and decidedly murderous, atheists. If anybody deserves an apology from our exchange, it would be that most honorable and accomplished man of science, Dr. Richard Dawkins. I say good-day to you sir….. harrummph!
That comment referenced your final statement on your 02/03/2021 at 7:43 pm post. You attacked me and nothing you can write will eliminate your words. My point was clear- and not implying atheists are uniquely violent. You reversed the discussion to avoid the issue Dawkings raised.
if great atrocities are linked to religion, as Dawkins claimed, the greatest atrocities of our time clearly were not. He is wrong- and simplistically so. I offered you alternative ways of discussing the issue and rather than rebutting me, you decide to leave. Fine, take your toys and go home.
Hi Gus, I’m back, but just for a moment. I think that there is value in challenging a point of view with which I disagree. Similarly, I think it worthwhile to add, where I can, to a good point made by someone else. However, I see nothing but frustration from engaging with a point of view which I simply cannot understand. Looking back on your comments, there is hardly a sentence which I can say is clear or unarguable. I have no interest in insulting you, but I see no other point to continuing our chat. I sincerely wish you well.
All you seem able to do is insult what you cannot comprehend.
The question whether Islam is a “religion of peace” or a “religion of war” has always seemed to me to rest on a false presupposition. Any religion is just what its adherents make of it. If some adherents take it to authorize (holy) war while others do not then it is just silly to say that the religion itself is warlike or that it is peaceable. The question whether one or another version of Islam is “true” Islam is a religious question internal to Islam itself. For a non-Muslim to take a position on it is as preposterous as a non-Christian taking a position on infant baptism.
The statement in the title of this piece, however, seems to me exaggerated, and not to be supported by the argument of the piece itself. I agree with Mr. Burke that it is dubious to speak of “the Islamic community.” A community in the strict and proper sense is not just a statistical aggregate of those who share a certain attribute, such as belonging to a certain religion. To constitute a community, the members of an aggregate must have significant social bonds with one another that they do not have with outsiders. But by that standard, it is equally unfactual to talk about “the gay community,” “the Black community,” “the transgender community,” and all the other so-called “communities” that politicians and journalists mention every day. (Interestingly, one does not hear talk of “the Christian community,” except perhaps with reference to a specific locale in which Christians are a minority of the population.) These are mere statistical aggregates, not communities in the proper sense. But precisely because this attenuated use of the word “community” is so common, to say that “the Islamic community does not and cannot exist” is to misrepresent the thesis of the article. It seems to signify the reality-defying claim that there is not an aggregate population of Muslims in the world, when all that Mr. Burke is asserting, or at least all that he is in a position to assert, is that the population of Muslims does not constitute a “community” if that term is understood in a strict sense that speakers of English widely flout.
I wonder which community which cannot exist built that building in the picture that heads the article?
Apparently some person, let’s not presume gender & definately not color was chosen by some deity to deliver the final prophecy for all time.
Now let’s not jump to conclusions & imagine that this person & their actions maybe relavent in regards to their dogma so let’s not refer to them at all.
The three wise monkeys tactic is often used by Islamist apologists usually in partnership with the dogma of diversity. It’s a comfort to the subjects of the globalist paradigm in the West that can’t exist & to the athiest community that can’t exist now too apparently.
Kinda missed the point.
This problem is fundamental to monotheism- the belief there is one supreme deity that is in some sense a personality. Christians are as plagued as Muslims by this problem because the idea of such a deity is intrinsically incoherent, and their record is as violent and bloody. Jews have the same difficulty.
I wrote a book on this that came out last year (bad timing…) “God is Dead, Long Live the Gods: A Case for Polytheism.”
My thoughts exactly. Every religion, in fact every evidence-less belief system is plagued by this problem. Even race! (I believe in genetics but race, as is commonly known, doesn’t exist). I’m not getting post modern her. What does exist? Humans. Tables. Apples. You CAN have a community of apple lovers. Or people who eat apples. That’s subgroup of humans who actually exist. Maybe some like apples more than others. And there can be rifts. “True apple lovers would never prefer the Delicious over the Gala!”. But apples are real. God, Islam, Whiteness, Blackness, Jewishness etc., are not.
“But apples are real. ”
Fine, but 90% of what people concern themselves with involves your supposed ‘unreal’ categories. You might say that my race, religion, culture, etc are unreal but they are vastly more important to me that apples. I suspect that you’re one of those guys who would say that a Bach fugue isn’t real. But is sure sounds real to me. More real than apples.
The Bach fugue cited by Ray Andrews is in fact a collection of physically real objects and processes–of musical scores printed on a piece of paper, of grooves on a phonodisc, of electronic charges on a tape, of sound-waves generated by a group of musical instruments or by the playing of a tape or phonodisc. Other entities often dismissed as “unreal,” like God or the Platonic idea of “goodness,” “truth,” “beauty,” or “justice,” are called “unreal” because they correspond to no physically observable or measurable physical object or process–the closest “justice,” for instance, comes to a physically observed process is as a catch-0all term for all human activities that strike a thinker as “just”–e.g., the sum total of all printed laws and enacted court decisions that the thinker believes to be “just”–but you can’t see, hear, or smell the Platonic idea of “justice,” or detect it with a Geiger counter, or measure it with a thermometer or other instrument, nor photograh nor tape-record it.
A friend of mine back in the 1990’s once delivered a “discourse” (sermon) at a Norfolk VA Unitarian-Universalist Church on the theme of “Atheism in the Name of God,” arguing that any one particular conception of God necessarily rules out the reality of any other conception, so that an advocate of any particular concept of God will necessarily be an “atheist” to supporters of other views of God. Thus, the Romans considered Christians “atheists” for denying the existence of the pagan Graeco-Roman gods (or demoting them to mere demons), while later Spinoza was called an “atheist” for equating God with the natural order of the Universe and denying that He had any sort of human-like personality. Another friend of mine, again, told me a story he’d heard or read about the philosopher and historian of ideas Alfred O. Lovejoy, who had been grilled by Senator Joe McCarthy for alleged Communist sympathies or un-American views. Asked by McCarthy whether he believed in God, Lovejoy supposedly replied by asking the Senator exactly which conception of God he had mind–did the Senator mean Plato’s Idea of the Good, or Aristotle’s Prime Mover Unmoved, or the Hindu Brahman-That-Is-Atman, or the Old Testaments’ jealous warlike Jehovah, or Jesus’ loving merciful Heavenly Father. or St. Augustine’s Ancient Beauty, or St. Anselm’s Most Perfect Being, or Spinoza’s “Deus sive Natura,” or Hegel’s Absolute Idea, or Sir James Jeans’ Great Mathematician, or Alfred North Whitehead’s Principle of Concretion, etc., etc.?