When they claim that we should just take the motives for violent acts at face value, I always have to ask why they do not do the same for the good acts religious people claim are inspired by religion. I am an atheist and tend to think that people can do what are generally deemed to be 'good' things driven only by empathy and no (other, if you like) selfish reasons. But I also accept that I cannot just 'know' this a priori and it is a question of human behaviour that can in principle be investigated using scientific methods. The same is true for acts generally deemed 'bad'. People doing bad things claim they are doing it for all kinds of reasons: because the rich are pout of control; to save people from oppression; to stop some invented threat; to stamp out corruption; to make the world fairer. This does not mean that such desires or beliefs cause them to those things.
I find it difficult to see people well known as scientists who promote evidence based thinking can take such different views on how to judge the motives of 'good' and 'bad' acts, without at least decieving themselves due to prejudice. But it is worse than this because there is anj anti-intellectual tone, dismissing empirical studies from social scientists and assuming they are carried out for particular motives, without offering any evidence to support this.
"But there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry."
I don't claim that social sciences looking at religious violence have findings which are beyond doubt. It is a very hard field to produce rigorous findings in, since religion is so deeply embedded in culture that it is very hard to separate from other factor. I am not really well enough informed to judge but it seems unlikely that one could easily obtain enough data to eliminate all the confounding variables. However that is not an excuse to simply ignore the best attempts by people like Scott Atran, who uses empirical methods, in favour of your unevidenced assumptions and claim they must be behaving dishonestly. If you disagree look at the detail and propose better studies or do them yourself.
They also make assumptions about the bland fluffy statement issued about Islam by Obama. Now of course there is no good definition of 'true' Islam. It is what any believer makes of it. But why assume that Obama does this to "avoid criticizing religion at all costs"and because "the apologists cling to a double standard, whereby Middle Eastern Muslims are not expected to behave according to the same standards, as, say, Israel." I wonder how Obama would explain his motives and if they would take his explanation at face value? But let me guess a few alternatives. Is it possible that Obama is concerned that the could be a backlash against muslims living in the US, as history shows us there can be, and wants to direct tensions away from ordinary muslims residing in his country? Could Obama want to tell potentially vulnerable (to indoctrination) muslims that they should not believe the awful things done by ISIS are supported by Islam?
His words are of course fluffy and meaningless and I doubt they will have much impact, but they are certainly far preferable to speeches inflaming the situation, which frankly is what Sam Harris does.
