Excellent point Mr. Richert. Such hubristic, progressivist assumptions need to be laid bare for the good of the West and the East.

We may not be talking about free will but historical experience.  When a religion prevents free inquiry and thus scientific and technological progress, it cannot succeed politically for long, because it is bound to fall behind.  The same applies to an economical system that prevents free, competitive market and the rapid adoption of innovations and efficiencies forced by that competition. 

The chances of current forms of Islam succeeding in their quest of world domination are the same as those of Soviet communism.  The only difference is that Soviet system was ossified by political bureaucracy, while in Islam that role is held by theologians.  The end result will be the same.

Where did Mr. Mr. LaTulippe use “end of history” or quote the thinker who recently used the term? Is his argument the same as the other’s?

Was Moorish Spain a modern industrial or high tech society?

Wouldn’t Scott Richert’s argument be better to say that Islam will not collapse internally because its enemy is a decadent society, one that is likely to collapse first?  There was the decadence of the Ottoman court.  Isn’t that small potatoes compared to Western decadence today? Is the splinter in Islam’s eye, and the log in the West’s?

I guess you’d have to define “modern.” Islam’s only real threat to the West is its immigrants, and that is a policy of Western leftists, not Muslims.  What’s more, that threat is no worse than the threat of, say, African immigrants and in fact it would probably be better for the people of Europe to be taken over by Arab and North African Muslims than by Africans, for at least then they might get a fairly orderly society.  The problem is not Islam, it’s the self-loathing genocidal racism of the Western left, and the refusal or inability of conservatives and Republicans to stand up to or even acknowledge this auto-holocaust is the ultimate reason we are in Iraq in the first place.  If conservatives won’t conserve even the existence of their own people and culture there is simply no reason to have “conservatism.” The effort to democratize Iraq is an artificial foreign crusade designed to put off the reality of that fact for just one more day.

@Kari Konkola:

“We may not be talking about free will but historical experience.  When a religion prevents free inquiry and thus scientific and technological progress, it cannot succeed politically for long, because it is bound to fall behind.”

Thanks for proving my point.  I couldn’t construct a more deterministic argument myself, even if I tried.

@Karl Muck:

“Where did Mr. Mr. LaTulippe use ‘end of history’ or quote the thinker who recently used the term? Is his argument the same as the other’s?”

He didn’t use the phrase or quote Fukuyama.  That doesn’t mean, however, that he isn’t making essentially the same argument.  Mr. LaTulippe, like Fukuyama, is assuming that what prevails today will prevail in the future.  As Fukuyama himself has been forced to admit, that’s not such a good idea.

“Was Moorish Spain a modern industrial or high tech society?”

What does that have to do with anything?

“Wouldn’t Scott Richert’s argument be better to say that Islam will not collapse internally because its enemy is a decadent society, one that is likely to collapse first?  There was the decadence of the Ottoman court.  Isn’t that small potatoes compared to Western decadence today? Is the splinter in Islam’s eye, and the log in the West’s?”

We don’t disagree about those facts.  It appears, however, from your comments here and on the other thread, that we disagree about how we should respond to them.  Me, I’d rather not throw up my hands and let Islam sweep the decadence away.  I’d rather that we hold off Islam, while revitalizing Christian civilization.

But I certainly understand the attraction of Islam to those who aren’t firmly grounded themselves.

I question the merits here of a basically hypothetical argument. Look, Protestants and Catholics at one time were at each others throats. Because of that history, should Catholics now live in fear of their Protestant neighbors and vice-versa? Every religion has the potential to cause social conflict, but radical Islam, as stated above, isn’t a viable ideology for societies that want to function in the modern world . I would add that the Middle East and the larger Islamic world isn’t particularly interested in radical Islam as ideology aside from its ability to focus opposition to the Bush administration wrong headed interventions. What really is catching fire (forgive the metaphor) is free market capitalism. I challenge Mr. Rickert to visit Dubai, Egypt, Malaysia, and so on and see the enormous economic and social transformation that is occurring. We are witnessing a convergence and harmonization of cultures between West and East, and I don’t see this trend ending.

Well, it does seem kind of pompous to so confidently predict the approaching demise of something that has lasted ca. 1300 years.

@GM:

“We are witnessing a convergence and harmonization of cultures between West and East, and I don’t see this trend ending.”

Ah, the end of history once again.  With some Tofflerite optimism thrown in, to boot.  Tell me, GM, what exactly is conservative about your worldview?

Scott
I’m baffled by your definition of “determinism.” When we discover a cause and effect link in history, the knowledge of that connection enables us to avoid actions that produce harmful effects and thus frees us from determinism.

On the other hand, if we see somebody repeating a behavior that earlier has produced stagnation and backwardnes, we can safely assume that the outcome will again be the same.  You seem to assume that we cannot learn anything from history.

@Kari Konkola:

“On the other hand, if we see somebody repeating a behavior that earlier has produced stagnation and backwardnes, we can safely assume that the outcome will again be the same.”

Only if we assume that the somebody in question is incapable of doing otherwise.  That’s the determinism I’m talking about.

It’s funny--over on the other thread, I’ve been accused of being “bigoted” against Muslims, but over here, it seems that I’m being attacked for believing that Muslims are actually capable of something other than slipping into the dustbin of history.

Hm, Scott, clearly you’re not “bigoted”, but perhaps there’s just a margin of incongruity between your expressed disbelief in determinism in this post, versus your slight implication of determinism (or something close to it) in the other post.

I agree with you almost 100 percent in this post - I too am hostile to all “deterministic thinking - but in the other post you come close to something ALMOST resembling determinism in your severe pessimism (which I share) about the prospects for Muslims to assimilate.  Generally, most Muslims might have that tendency, but then one needs to refrain from ideological determinism, the belief that one’s professed (or attributed or ascribed) beliefs inevitably determine his conduct.  Being a Christian does not inevitably cause one to behave like Christ (understatement), and being a Muslim” does not determine behaviour either, although it does indicate some tendencies about which we can and should be pessimistic vis a vis Muslims’ ability, or more importantly, willingness to assimilate.

@John Ball:

“Generally, most Muslims might have that tendency, but then one needs to refrain from ideological determinism, the belief that one’s professed (or attributed or ascribed) beliefs inevitably determine his conduct.”

Oh, I agree.  And some Muslim immigrants will assimilate, and even assimilate to what remains of the historic American identity, including becoming Christians of one type or another.  The problem, from a public-policy standpoint, is that we have no way of knowing how many, or who, will do so.

That’s why the commitment to mass immigration that some commenters on this site seem to have is so suicidal.  We really need to get beyond the emotional outburst--"My ancestors we’re immigrants; therefore, if you want to put restrictions on immigration, it’s like you’re saying that I shouldn’t exist!” That’s how children react, not adults.

LaTulippe appears to be correct inasmuch as Islam lacks the capacity to independently develop the kind of modern industrial base necessary for global military conquest.  But note that at the same time as saying that Islam will not conquer the world, he foresees its conquest of western Europe and possibly of the Orthodox world.  So, his prediction is merely that Islam will not defeat and conquer the major powers of China, India, and the USA, nor, presumably, will it conquer US-protected Latin America.

The problem with this analysis is that an Islamic Europe will not need to independently develop an advanced industrial civilisation - it will *inherit* an advanced industrial civilisation.  And Islam will be politically dominant in Europe long before the majority of Europeans are Muslim.  On current projections it’s perfectly possible that the Islamic-dominated world ca 2050 will extend from Ireland east across Europe and most of Africa and Asia as far as India & China.  The Americas will not be Islamic (though possibly north America will be as Latin as the south), but the world will look very different, and darker, than the one we know today.

I think the key question is if a “modern society” can last more than one generation.  It seems both radical Islamists, Catholics, and protestants at least have children and pass on their values.  “Modern Society” is sterile in every way except STDs.

Scott, your reply to me was as clear as crystal, and as close to perfect truthfulness as any mortal man can express.
Good on ya!

Scott
Thanks for your answer, because that points to the core of our miscommunication:  I had in mind the observation that there undoubtedly are people who are incapable of learning from their (or other’s) errors, and who thus repeat them—e.g. current Latin American efforts to try socialism once more.  In this sense, history repeats itself and can be used to predict the effects of current behavior.

However, I could not agree more with you that all humans have the potential for critical thinking and trial and error learning—this is what good education in history is supposed to be all about.  In this sense, there is no determinism, because some people learn from the past and behave differently.

The question is, how to teach the ability to do critical—including self-critical—thinking to people who do not like it?