Both attacks were carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. We can argue the ins and outs of Islamic theology all day long, we can point out that there are moderate Muslims who abhor these actions - I know, personally, a couple of Muslims who were horrified at these acts. But that does not in any way change the fact: These horrible, vicious, hate-fueled attacks on the United States and Israel were carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. But say so, and in many circles, you'll be derided for "Islamophobia."

This is not, however, an unreasoned fear. A phobia is generally defined as a "persistent, irrational, intense fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus), fear that is recognized as being excessive or unreasonable by the individual himself." 

I have a couple of mild phobias myself; I'm mildly claustrophobic (fear of enclosed spaces) and rather more acrophobic (fear of heights.) I know this and deal with it. But fear of, or at least apprehension or concern over, Islamic terrorism is neither irrational nor unreasonable. 

BigThink philosopher and author Jonny Thomson tells us why.

How justified is this fear of terrorism? One line of argument is that it’s not justified at all.

It claims there are bigger and far more dangerous threats to our everyday lives. For example, in Europe, you are 50 times more likely to die in a bike accident, 85 times more likely to die in a heat wave, and over 4,000 times more likely to die in a car crash than die from an act of terrorism. According to this line of reasoning, our fear of terrorism is engineered by a sensationalist media and psychological biases. A sober risk assessment shows us that fear of terrorism is irrational.

But, according to a new paper by philosopher Eran Fish, the fear of terrorism is not unreasonable at all. There are perfectly justifiable reasons for why we should fear terrorists more than car crashes.

There are, in fact, three reasons, all justifiable, and all rational. The first is the random nature of these acts:

As (philosopher Eran Fish) puts it, “Unlike some other forms of violent crime, terrorism typically targets a random group of people… Anyone could just as well be next.” Terrorists deliberately target anyone, anywhere to spread terror in the general population instead of limiting their attacks to military or government targets. Terrorism is, at least to the everyday person, a random death lottery.

Terrorism can be that (it can also be directed against specific military or, more often, political targets) but it can also be purely random; like Hamas targeting various Israeli kibbutzim for no reason other than they were within paraglider range of Gaza. 

The second reason is the unnatural nature of acts of terror; unlike a natural event like an earthquake or a hurricane, acts of terror can hopefully be predicted and prevented:

Natural deaths are a natural part of life.

But this isn’t the case for terrorism. Nobody believes that getting blown up at a coffee shop is a natural part of life. Instead, terrorism is a matter of security, and the problem — extremism — is seen as resolvable.

But terror attacks aren’t resolvable - not completely. They can be prevented – mostly by killing terrorists – but the tactic will probably never go away completely. Islamist nutbars aren’t the first people to use terror as a tactic, and they won’t be the last. We can kill terrorists, we can wipe out terror cells and entire terrorist organizations, but sooner or later, new ones with new motivations will crop up. Terror is an action as old as mankind, and like war, only the dead have seen the end of terror.

The third reason is that we fear insecurity.

Fish’s third line of argument is that it is reasonable to fear insecurity, particularly when the people you put in charge of protecting you (namely, the government) fail to do so.

For Thomas Hobbes, a state’s primary purpose is to provide or prevent things that individuals cannot. We pool our personal sovereignty and hand over our private liberty so the state machinery can do things in our interest. In Hobbes’ view, the first role of an authority is security, like keeping us safe from a foreign invasion. On the flip side, the state cannot prevent medical deaths and car crashes; besides, they are at least partially the individual’s responsibility.

That’s certainly a fair point – if you are one of those people who relies on the government to keep you safe. In America, we have another way to maintain our security. For instance, I'm not too concerned about Islamist nutbars trying to shoot up our stretch of Alaskan woods, because these people are essentially cowards, and won’t go anywhere where they may feel threatened themselves - and in many of America's rural and small-town enclaves, like here in the valley, gun ownership is almost universal.

SEE RELATED: 

Is Nothing Sacred? Islamist Attacks in Germany Prompt Heightened Security for Oktoberfest.

Pope Plays Politics, Suggests Israel's Retaliatory War Against Islamist Terrorists Is 'Immoral'

But it’s still, even so, a fair point. One of the few legitimate roles of government is to keep other people from hurting us or taking our stuff. Terrorists operate in those thin areas where the government, for one reason or another, is unwilling, unable, or simply unprepared to provide that protection. That, whether it be in Israel or Chicago, is unsettling to lots of people, and no, that’s not an irrational viewpoint. Neither is fear of Islamic terrorism, especially now in the post-9/11, post-10/7 world, a world where Hamas and Hezbollah are still operating and where Iran is still the world's number-one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

So, for the vast majority of us, "Islamophobia" isn't a phobia at all. It's a perfectly reasonable reaction to acts of terror, and it's not Islam per se that is the issue, it is acts of terror committed in the name of Islam. That's what we need to focus on - and that's what the civilized world needs to wipe out.