"angry mob, eh? who're we after?" (concerning attitudes toward Muslims)

especially after the 9/11 attacks, the place Muslims have in American society has really gone down. but are Muslims really who we're after?

granted, al-Qaeda is a Muslim group, but that doesn't mean we should be after all Muslims just because a few of them did this, however horrible it was.

i'm sure you've heard about Park51, the proposed Muslim center near Ground Zero. a lot of people are opposed to it since it's an "insult" to those killed in the 9/11 attacks.

okay, let's get this straight. people are insulted that a place for Muslims is being planned near Ground Zero just because the attackers were Muslim. okay, while we're at it, let's not plan any new men's clothing outlets just because the attackers were men!

the problem is, they say that Islam is their cause. but, just because they point to Islam as their reason for the attacks doesn't mean that it is. they attacked the World Trade Center because they were extremists that pervert the teachings of Islam. like all other major religions, Islam teaches love towards others. i don't know how they twisted that up, but somehow they did. so it's not Islam by itself that is their cause, at least not the Islam that most Muslims follow. rather, it's their own brand of Islam they use for their own ends.

(in case anyone was wondering, the quote in the title is from "The Simpsons"; i forgot what the episode was about)

my personal critique of Anselm's argument

if you haven't heard of it before, the philosopher Anselm of Canterbury has this supposed proof for the existence of God (or, rather, the greatest being conceivable, which has properties similar to God's) that uses pure logic alone, a so-called "ontological argument"

i'll present the original argument first:

1. something we understand exists in our thoughts
2. so, "the greatest thing conceivable" (my words, not his) exists in our thoughts
3. such a thing could exist only in our thoughts, or both in our thoughts and in reality
4. but wait, if it only exists in our thoughts, it can't be the greatest thing conceivable, since we could think of something greater. that is, the same thing, but actually existing
5. therefore, the greatest thing conceivable must exist in reality!

okay, what? i didn't fully understand it the first time, either. but read it again. to me (and apparently to other philosophers through the ages), this seems pretty stupid. but, just saying it doesn't mean it is, so i'll have to show exactly what is stupid about it.

another philosopher, Immanuel Kant, stated that existence is not a "property." that is, something isn't "better" or "different" simply because it exists. therefore, a real "greatest thing conceivable" isn't better than a imaginary one; it is simply that one exists and the other doesn't.

even if we allow existence as a property, there is still another problem: the idea of a really existing thing does not mean the thing is really existing. so, going back to the "proof" (item 4 specifically), the idea of the "greatest thing conceivable" has the "property" of actual existence. sure, but it's still just an idea! it doesn't necessarily exist.

(it can also be noted that "greatness" is highly subjective. what i might regard as the "greatest thing conceivable" might be different from others' ideas)