Sounds better to say god made me do it and put me charge than the devil made me.
Islamic Creationism: A Short History
Fri, 2008-02-22 14:24
#52
Fri, 2008-02-22 15:17
#53
quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]
Stockwell Day's penpal.[/b]
Here it is:
[url=http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977]http://www.wnd.com/...
"Why I believe in Creation" by Joseph Farah
quote:
[b]
Since the evolutionists don't want to tell me why they believe in their theory, I figured I would explain why I believe in mine.The primary reason I believe, of course, is because the Bible tells me so. That's good enough for me, because I haven't found the Bible to be wrong about anything else.
But what about the worldly evidence?
The evolutionists insist the dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago and became extinct long before man walked the planet.
I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe there is a shred of scientific evidence to suggest it. I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!
[/b]
Of course he is right on that point though. He knows better than anybody else that dinosaurs (such as himself) are not extinct. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2008-02-22 15:20
#54
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Darwins theory has often found a place as the justification for capitalist "competative" social relations.[/b]
And bank robbers use the rules of arithmetic when divvying up the loot... Very impressive argument, Cueball.
I guess Islam, Judaism and Christianity have been getting a bum rap after all.
It's just all their mortal practitioners who have distorted the teachings to commit murder, rape, pillage, persecution, misogyny, genocide of Aboriginal people and of infidels worldwide...
The teachings themselves are simply wonderful - love, virtue, science, hell socialism - all inherent in the ravings of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.
Fri, 2008-02-22 15:27
#55
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Darwin was wrong and Kropotkin was right about how evolution works. It is not survival of the fittest it is the species that engage in Mutual Aid that have an advantage over species that don't.[/b]
Ummm, hello, Darwin never applied his theory of natural selection to society - only to biological evolution. You must be thinking of that asshole Herbert Spencer. Have you actually ever read any Darwin?
Fri, 2008-02-22 15:30
#56
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]And bank robbers use the rules of arithmetic when divvying up the loot... Very impressive argument, Cueball.[/b]
Yes. Its pretty obvious I agree. It was odd that I had to mention it. The means of transport for Darwins explorations were paid for with resources stolen from "West Indies" and the safety of his passage guaranteed by the European navies that plied the coasts, and set armies robbing and pillaging the local people, just as Columbuses discovery of the shape of the world was made primarily as a mission of exploration of new territories to [b]conquer[/b], to glorify the coffers of the Spanish monarchs.
So no, there is not a lot of evidence that scientific achievement, in and of itself, goes hand in hand with ethical, moral or social advancement, per se. This is not to subvert the intrinsic value of many scientific achievements, but seperate them from their casus beli, which is that scientifc achievement is in an of its self a guiding light for moral rectitude, as it has been posed by rationalists.
Fri, 2008-02-22 15:35
#57
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ummm, hello, Darwin never applied his theory of natural selection to society - only to biological evolution. You must be thinking of that asshole Herbert Spencer. Have you actually ever read any Darwin?[/b]
quote:
It happened with Darwin's theory as it always happens with theories having any bearing upon human relations. Instead of widening it according to his own hints, his followers narrowed it still more. And while Herbert Spencer, starting on independent but closely allied lines, attempted to widen the inquiry into that great question, "Who are the fittest?" especially in the appendix to the third edition of the Data of Ethics, the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits.
I think this from the quote above is what you mean. Yes I said Darwin instead of Darwinists, sorry.
Fri, 2008-02-22 18:20
#58
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b] I guess this is an example why ironic racism is not allowed. It is just too easily misunderstood.[/b]
And you found an instance of this?
Fri, 2008-02-22 18:35
#59
Wonderful post by sanizadeh. Looks like the fundamentalist Xians are the main culprits in perpetuating this sort of crap:
quote:
I am 100 percent certain man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In fact, I'm not at all sure dinosaurs are even extinct!
Show me the dinosaurs in the bible, dude.
quote:
But then repression of womens rights is fairly universal, under the same principle I suggested in my posted response to SJ above.
True. But religion sanctifies the oppression of women.
Fri, 2008-02-22 20:25
#60
Cueball
So does Lionel Tiger under the authority of social biological [i]science[/i].
Fri, 2008-02-22 20:31
#61
remind
Wow, I person, as opposed to centuries of multiple religions.
Fri, 2008-02-22 20:37
#62
Cueball
No, in fact sociobiology is closely linked to many of the false scientific doctrines errected in the name of science, such as "eugenics", which relied, and continues to rely today on research into DNA, and other scientific fields, giving scientific authority to gender opression, and also racism. Its not "a" person, it is a whole field of scholastic research which fell into disrepute, not because it was scientifically proven to be false, but because it was politically discredited.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2008-02-22 20:44
#63
remind
I have read exactly 1 report about persons trying to use DNA to prove gender inequality.
But really none of this aside discussion matters, as men will use whatever vehicle they can to oppress women and I, as a woman, would rather give science the next 2000 years, as opposed to allowing religions to have another 2000.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2008-02-22 20:56
#64
Cueball
Actually the biological arguement that is intended to prove the natural status of womens inequality is probably the most common one around, imo.
Speaking of which, ever see this:
quote:
A review of the most prominent late 19th century writings by biologists focusing on Charles Darwin reveals that a major plank of evolution theory was the belief that women were intellectually and physically inferior to men. Female inferiority was a logical conclusion of the natural selection worldview because men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war, competition for mates, food and clothing. Conversely, women were protected from evolutionary selection by norms which dictated that men were to provide for and protect women and children. Darwinists taught that as a result of this protection, natural selection operated far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas. As a result, males evolved more than females. The female inferiority doctrine is an excellent example of the armchair logic that has often been more important in establishing evolutionary theory than fossil and other empirical evidence.
[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp]The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism[/url]
quote:
Vogt argued that ‘the child, the female, and the senile White’ all had the intellectual features and personality of the ‘grown up Negro,’ and that in intellect and personality the female was similar to both infants and the ‘lower’ races.22 Vogt concluded that human females were closer to the lower animals than males and had ‘a greater’ resemblance to apes than men.23 He believed that the gap between males and females became greater as civilizations progressed, and was greatest in the advanced societies of Europe.24 Darwin was ‘impressed by Vogt’s work and proud to number him among his advocates.’25
Racist and sexist all in one.
quote:
As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves, the brain would almost certainly become larger. … the large proportion which the size of man’s brain bears to his body, compared to the same proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his higher mental powers … . … that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilized races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series.’47
-- Darwin
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2008-02-22 21:02
#65
remind
Thank goodness science has progressed well beyond that structure based upon empirical evidence otherwise. And in such a short time frame too, as cpompared to religions, who have still not gotten to the truth of equality after 2000 years of trying.
In fact, their resounding failure over 2000 years really says it all.
Fri, 2008-02-22 22:59
#66
Cueball
I don't think you are being consistent, really. Either the source is patriarchy, or the source is religion. I am perfectly willing to accept that religion is a tool through which patriarchy can be manifested, but, there are numerous examples of how patriarchy can be manfiested in the rationalist "scientific" frame.
[url=http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_...' remarks on women draw fire[/url]
quote:
CAMBRIDGE -- [b]The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers,[/b] sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that [b]innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers[/b]. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.
I would also submit that science, both directly in terms of it institutions (universities for example), and as an field of philosophical endeavour (e.g. Jesuit scholars), is embedded in previous religious practice, wherein the attempt to explain the world through the mechanism of a devine being has been replaced by by an attempt to explain the world as a set of physical processes. Not that they are the same, but they are both "explanations" that carry social authority and can be used justify or explain the reigning social order, and function similarly in the organization of society, whereby, at least in most peoples experience, knowledge is handed to them by persons of authority, even if the receiver of the knowledge really does not understand what is being said.
Most people do not for example understand the basic processess that go into a nuclear explosion, and even those lay people who do endeavour some level of understanding, are required at some point, to accept certain issues on faith, for example the complex mathematics required is far beyond the scope of most peoples abilities. Certainly mine, though I can more or less explain the rudimentary principles behind what happens when a nuclear reaction takes place.
So, in many cases, the general experience of the population when exposed to "science" is one where they are cut off from the exact understanding of the science which they are being asked to accept. So, for example, the sceintific authority can easily lend itself to false, and extremely politcized ideas, such as those of eugenics which were extremely popular in the 30's and not merely the domain of Nazi racialists. Roosevelt (or was it Truman?) believed that the Japanese were 5000 years behind on the evolutionary scale.
Nonetheless, in these conditions it was very, very possible for science to become politicized, to the extent where all German universities were teaching bogus science, that was the transmitted to the popular press to justify Nazi racialist policies, and given weight by its presumption of its "scientific" authority.
Surely we can say, this was false and improper use of science, but then most religious scholars faced with clearly prejudicial or immoral interpretations of their religious doctrines will likewise cleave to the idea that these abrogations of "what is right" are improper interpretation of religious text.
So, in the end I really come down to the conclusion that the issue is not one of ideolology per se, but one of how power and politics manifest through ideology, whatever that ideology may be.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 02:44
#67
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Actually the biological arguement that is intended to prove the natural status of womens inequality is probably the most common one around, imo.[/b]
You quote from a Christian site to attack Darwin's theory of evolution?
Don't try teaching this in Quйbec. We'll padlock your "school".
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with male v. female nor social structures.
I don't know why you're trying to discredit Darwinism and glorify Islam, but frankly I find it weird. Darwinian evolution is science, Islam is nonsense. Carry on and let us know the results of your research, though.
Sat, 2008-02-23 04:06
#68
quote:
You quote from a Christian site to attack Darwin's theory of evolution?Don't try teaching this in Quйbec. We'll padlock your "school".
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with male v. female nor social structures.
I don't know why you're trying to discredit Darwinism and glorify Islam, but frankly I find it weird. Darwinian evolution is science, Islam is nonsense. Carry on and let us know the results of your research, though. -unionist
I do not think you understood the point Cueball was making (and demonstrably succeded in making).
Here is what I understood. Remind wrote about the source of oppression of women:
quote:
The source is patriarchy.And IMV, allowing sciences to fully investigate global history through DNA, and archeology/antropology, is primary to alleviating patriarchy. That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior. And you can replace women with any stigmatized or racialized person, I might add.
Remind has attributed patriarchy to "mythology" (religions) and relied on science (rationalism, theory of evolution, DNA) to alleviate patriarchy. Cueball argued -successfuly- that rationalism/science is not patriarchy-free.
Indeed Jean Jacques Rousseau, humanist, rationalist, who does not believe in "mythology", wrote:
quote:
The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy."[url=http://womenshistory.about.com/blrous1.htm]http://womenshistory.about.co...
quote:
I don't know why you're trying to discredit Darwinism and glorify Islam, but frankly I find it weird. Darwinian evolution is science, Islam is nonsense. -unionist
He is not. But I will let Cueball answer.
"Islam is nonsense." unionist's humanism makes much more sense. (Read above quotation of humanist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thousand of years after Judaism, about 17 centuries after Christianity and about 11 ccenturies after Islam.)
Or is humanism allowed some "aberrations" but not people who interpret religions ?
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 04:21
#69
quote:
Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the enemies of science and scientific discovery. -unionist
As a friend of science, yourself, could you abide by its rules and provide the evidence that the Qur'an is the enemy of science and scientific discovery.
Unless you are merely peddling mythologies, pun intended.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 04:51
#70
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]Remind has attributed patriarchy to "mythology" (religions) and relied on science (rationalism, theory of evolution, DNA) to alleviate patriarchy. Cueball argued -successfuly- that rationalism/science is not patriarchy-free.[/b]
Cueball doesn't like the topic of his thread (religion vs. science), so he is trying hard to derail it (as you are) into religion vs. social good, religion vs. morality, whatever.
That's why talk of creationism immediately gets distorted into irrelevant attacks on Darwin's theory of evolution via: (1) how some colonial ideologues tried to apply (falsely) the theory of evolution to social and racial matters; and (2) comparing Darwin to Columbus (hahaha) to discredit his science. You could probably do the same with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
I asked for evidence of a single Islamic ideologue, scholar, or rйgime in modern times (last 600 years, say) which has promoted and favoured scientific discovery. I try to maintain an open mind on this, although it is (I admit) hard for me to understand how Islam (or the rest of the B.S. mythologies) can favour scientific discovery. Needless to say, [b][i]not a single example is forthcoming[/i][/b]. Instead, Cueball takes refuge in attacking science. More power to him. I think religion is shit, he apparently feels the same way about science.
quote:
[b]"Islam is nonsense." unionist's humanism makes much more sense. (Read above quotation of humanist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thousand of years after Judaism, about 17 centuries after Christianity and about 11 ccenturies after Islam.)Or is humanism allowed some "aberrations" but not people who interpret religions ?[/b]
You really can't sleep easy without pinning some idiotic label on me?
I am not a "humanist". Who told you I was? I'm a human being, an atheist, a person who respects scientific, artistic, cultural, social and political achievements of all societies and all human beings greatly. I also honour and respect non-human living things and oppose the abuse and destruction of the natural world.
It is because of these feelings and prejudices of mine that I despise religion. And because most people are terrified shitless to say anything negative about religion, I have to give them a voice from time to time.
Sat, 2008-02-23 04:54
#71
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You quote from a Christian site to attack Darwin's theory of evolution?[/b]
Is there something worng with the information other than the fact that it is being parlayed by Christians? I thought that was kind of clever actually.
Sure all information is suspect to bias because of its source, but as judge once said of the cops a trial I was attending: "The same could be said of your witnessess."
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:07
#72
quote:
(1) how some colonial ideologues tried to apply (falsely) the theory of evolution to social and racial matters -unionist
But you would not allow that some elements would apply (falsely) the mission of a -any- religion to advance their own patriarchal interests.
What is good for the gander is not good for the goose ?
Anyway, you have yet to provide your evidence that the Qur'an is the enemy of science and discovery. Should I hold my breath or simply assume that you refuting mythologies by peddling your own brand of mythologies ?
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:10
#73
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]As a friend of science, yourself, could you abide by its rules and provide the evidence that the Qur'an is the enemy of science and scientific discovery.[/b]
I can't imagine that you're being serious, but I'll suspend disbelief for a moment:
quote:
83 They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story."84 Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.
85 One (such) way he followed,
86 [b]Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: [/b]Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
87 He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard of (before).
88 "But whoever believes, and works righteousness, he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as We order it by our Command."
Whoever wrote this foolishness - and it is re-printed and shoved down children's throats to this day - obviously didn't care that science had long since established that the earth wasn't flat (one of the underlying assumptions of this silly story). Indeed, Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) had long since measured, to a remarkable degree of accuracy, the circumference of the earth (and its distance from the sun and the moon).
Religious obscurantism then - as today - continues to deny scientific progress and tries to attribute humanity's achievements to some unemployed deity.
quote:
[b]But you would not allow that some elements would apply (falsely) the mission of a -any- religion to advance their own patriarchal interests. [/b]
Of course I allow that. The difference is that you can't apparently name one single piece of Qur'anic or Islamic doctrine or scholarship that truly favours science. In science, on the contrary, accepted experimental and theoretical accomplishments are the rule - Spencerian distortions are the temporary exception, which are swiftly refuted and widely reviled.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:13
#74
Cueball
It's a metapahor.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:14
#75
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]It's a metapahor.[/b]
Hahahaha. It means whatever I say it means! The good bits are to be taken at face value - the stupid and evil bits are a "metaphor" for something good and intelligent!
Give me a serious break.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:15
#76
Cueball
Looks like poetry to me.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:20
#77
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Looks like poetry to me.[/b]
Not a single Islamic regime or scholar is within a century of modern progressive scientific thought. Same goes with the Jews, the Catholics, and others. At the very best, they have to drag their religious idiocy kicking and screaming into "metaphorical" concordance with the simple facts that any schoolchild, today, understands better than the men of the cloth (because there are really no women, are there).
These scholars and regimes should select another poem to inspire them, instead of waging war with each other over whose Supreme Deity can kick the ass of the others.
Might I suggest a poem to replace the Qur'an, the Tanach, and the Gospels?
quote:
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: [i]Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori[/i].
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:39
#78
Cueball
Nice. But very unscientific.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:44
#79
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Nice. But very unscientific.[/b]
Owen's poem is not scientific - it is realistic. Find me a few shuras, pesukim or verses that can boast that quality.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:48
#80
Cueball
quote:
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
That doesn't sound very realistic or scientific... looks metaphorical to me, since it is obviously niether scientific or realistic.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:53
#81
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]That doesn't sound very realistic or scientific... looks metaphorical to me, since it is obviously niether scientific or realistic.[/b]
Right. Luckily, the poem hasn't yet been used as an authority to wage wars, kill infidels, crush women, censor free speech, or undermine science - all of which are done, [b]today[/b], in the name of the Qur'an, the Tanach, and the "Holy" Bible.
Are you starting to get it?
ETA: Still looking for a single example of where Islam promotes and favours scientific investigation? Take your time.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:55
#82
Actually, it's a simile. (Uses the word "like".)
Unfortunately, in scriptures where reformists try to pass offensive crap off as "metaphor", there generally isn't an obvious clue such as using the words "like" or "as" to let us know for sure that it is not meant to be taken literally.
Sat, 2008-02-23 05:55
#83
Cueball
I assume when I see things that conflict with knowledge I have that the author is not intending to be realistic, rather that they are being metaphoric.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 06:11
#84
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
Unfortunately, in scriptures where reformists try to pass offensive crap off as "metaphor", there generally isn't an obvious clue such as using the words "like" or "as" to let us know for sure that it is not meant to be taken literally.[/b]
Exactly - and in this case, there doesn't appear to be a single credible "scholar" around to explicate the consistency of this fairy-tale stuff in the Qur'an with science.
There certainly aren't any Islamic rйgimes around that use Islamic doctrine to promote science.
They're too busy cracking down on the sale of red roses on Valentine's Day.
Allah be praised.
Sat, 2008-02-23 06:14
#85
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Actually, it's a simile. (Uses the word "like".)Unfortunately, in scriptures where reformists try to pass offensive crap off as "metaphor", there generally isn't an obvious clue such as using the words "like" or "as" to let us know for sure that it is not meant to be taken literally.[/b]
Which brings us back to the point I was making about intepretation, and how the text serves the power. It is not the source of it.
Sat, 2008-02-23 06:15
#86
unionist,
In your attempt to support your -baseless- argument that Islam is the enemy of science and discovery you took the quotations -that you posted- literally. How are you different - in terms of intellect, reasoning and logic- from people who take the promise of 72 (?) virgin huryias literally and go blow people and themselves into smitherins ?
Sat, 2008-02-23 06:21
#87
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]unionist,In your attempt to support your -baseless- argument that Islam is the enemy of science and discovery you took the quotations -that you posted- literally. How are you different - in terms of intellect, reasoning and logic- from people who take the promise of 72 (?) virgin huryias literally and go blow people and themselves into smitherins ?[/b]
Because I'm not an Islamophobe, and I'm an enemy of U.S.-Canadian-British imperial murder and conquest.
Apologists for religion (like those in this thread) have a habit of saying: "Oh sure, all those Islamic regimes are evil and nasty, but that's because they're distorting the beautiful teachings that they claim to uphold."
So, I go back to the teachings.
And you and Cueball say: "Hey, don't do that, they're only metaphors!"
LOL, you don't bother saying what they are metaphors [b]FOR[/b]!
So, if you don't want me to quote the bullshit out of the Qur'an (and its predecessor holy books), and if you don't want me to allude to the evil reactionary obscurantism of the practitioners of Islam, then please refer me to something which actually supports your spurious defence of Islam.
Take all the time in the world.
You'll need it.
Sat, 2008-02-23 06:42
#88
Cueball
Yes well. You did degenerate the level of discourse to a bunch of tropes, amid some really nasty rhetoric, so there was not much that could really be said.
You completely ignored the point that I was making which was that scientific advancement has never been shown to co-incide with social development, and the point I was making, which was that such advancement does not guarantee social advancement in any society, Islamic or not.
Furthermore, you trotted out the usual right wing gossip about Saudi Arabia, and decided to ignore any evidence that shows that Saudi Arabia, is very much outside of the norms of Islamic society both present and past.
You, decided that the right to drive cars is somehow associated with scientific progress, and was relevant to the discussion. It is not.
The fact that there is no prohibition in most Islamic societies against women driving cars is yet another example of this. Your exmaple is like suggesting that Pol Pot is norm in terms of Socialist leadership, and is exemplarary of it.
Completely spurious arguementation, which is nigh on slanderous, because you know better than that, and you are just using cheap rhetoric in the place of real arguement.
There has been nothing at all scientific in your examination of the differences between religious ideologies, and you have supplanted mass generalization in the place of precise investigation. There is nothing glorious about Islam, nor is there anything glorious about making unfair stygmatizations of Islam, in excess of the actual fact, based on the excesively morally abberant behaviour of one specific clique that you then extend to all of that group.
As if one could sum up Judaism by exampling the repressive policies of Israel.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 06:54
#89
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]You completely ignored the point that I was making which was that scientific advancement has never been shown to co-incide with social development, and the point I was making, which was that such advancement does not guarantee social advancement in any society, Islamic or not.[/b]
That's not the topic of this thread, which you have tried to derail from your very first post. This is about Islam and [b]SCIENCE[/b], not science and social advancement. I appreciate that you can't make one single argument on the thread topic, but that's really not a very good reason to derail it. Go open another thread.
quote:
[b]Furthermore, you trotted out the usual right wing gossip about Saudi Arabia, and decided to ignore any evidence that shows that Saudi Arabia, is very much outside of the norms of Islamic society both present and past. [/b]
Name me a country that is within the norms of "Islamic society". And don't name one from the past, please. [b]TODAY[/b]. Which model are you promoting here? Oh and by the way, condemning Saudi Arabia as a country of murderers and torturers is not "right-wing gossip". It is the right-wing Mr. Bush who props up those barbarians, in case your memory is failing.
quote:
[b]You, decided that the right to drive cars is somehow associated with scientific progress, and was relevant to the discussion. It is not.[/b]
That was a joke. I was mocking the view that Islam and science are like Romeo and Juliet. Hope it worked.
quote:
[b]The fact that there is no prohibition in most Islamic societies against women driving cars. [/b]
Inshallah, you're taking my joke seriously! Sorry, Cueball, I retract all jokes, past and future.
quote:
[b]Completely spurious arguementation, which is nigh on slanderous, because you know better than that, and you are just using cheap rhetoric in the place of real arguement.[/b]
A brilliant characterization of the very paragraph which contains it.
quote:
[b]There is nothing glorious about Islam, nor is there anything glorious about making unfair stygmatizations of Islam, in excess of the actual fact, based on the excesively morally abberant of one specific clique that you then extend to all of that group.[/b]
Name me the great glorious Islamists that you want me to analyze, and I'll have a look at them. In the meantime, forgive me if I take as "Islamic" those who use the name every day in the real world.
And again, I am not talking about [i]believers[/i]. I'm talking about the snake-oil salespersons, issuers of fatwas, torturers, enemies of women, etc., who speak officially in the name of Islam.
quote:
[b]As if one could sum up Judaism by exampling the repressive policies of Israel.[/b]
Israel does not follow Jewish doctrine. It is an ethno-national-religious supremacist state, not a theocracy, except for certain civil matters. Orthodox Jewish doctrine is [b]far more anti-human[/b] than the savage policies Israel follows. Israel improves on it in some ways (e.g., not shutting down schools that teach Darwinism), and is far worse in others - example, many scholars had concluded that Yahweh's mandated genocide against Amalek was only a metaphor (excuses, excuses - sound familiar?), whereas Israel, not showing much poetic sensitivity, is applying God's sacred command literally in the case of the Palestinian people.
Sat, 2008-02-23 07:16
#90
Listen, unionist, I am not religious myself nor am I defending any religion. I simply oppose prejudice against peoples' beliefs). I oppose fanatism of the religious, the secular, the humanist, the atheist and the holy flying spaghetti worshipper alike.
You have no clue about Islam, yet you are making wild statements about it being the enemy of science and discovery, wondering why in the last 600 years it has been stagnant. Why did you pick the last 600 years, you did not say.
Anyway, it appears that science and discovery are and will continue to be catching up to Islam. here is an example:
quote:
E) [b]The Quran on Seas and Rivers:[/b]
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1 For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth..
...
The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress. God has said:
"He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress." (Quran, 55:19-20)
But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. God has said in the Quran:
"He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition." (Quran, 25:53)
One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?
Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.”.. This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water..
This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc. The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).
Must be part of some mythology spun about 14 centurie ago...
Science and knowledge are referred to as "3ilm" in Arabic. (the 3 is the same as in the Hebrew letter 3ayn -eye). "Seek 3ilm from the craddle to the grave" is a commandment to men and women in Islam.
"Seek 3ilm even (if you have to find it) in China.", said the prophet Mohammed.
Quite an enemy of science and discovery!!
Sat, 2008-02-23 08:16
#91
remind
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]Remind has attributed patriarchy to "mythology" (religions) and relied on science (rationalism, theory of evolution, DNA) to alleviate patriarchy. Cueball argued -successfuly- that rationalism/science is not patriarchy-free.[/b]
Not true, I have stated the patriarchy uses whatever vehicle it can to oppress women and that it has used religion for at least 2000 years.
And that I believe empirical evidence, such as science provides, in combination with today's secular thought has more of a chance at eradicating patriarchial notions than does religion of any type.
Religions would try to keep things status quo, while science is continually searching. Though admittedly men have used, and no doubt will continue to try to use science to foster their own supremacy desires. But I believe they have less chance to do so than religion that seeks to keep things status quo and women oppressed.
I would rather live in a secular country than a religioun driven country, nothing GOOD for women, has came out of such countries over the ages. And in fact contries that use Creation Myths that suggest women were and after thought and only companions for men, really need to study biology, or at least look at how unrational that belief is.
Sat, 2008-02-23 08:28
#92
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]You have no clue about Islam, yet you are making wild statements about it being the enemy of science and discovery, wondering why in the last 600 years it has been stagnant. Why did you pick the last 600 years, you did not say. [/b]
Because if you are interested in reading, or capable of reading, you will note that I referred to the Golden Age, during which science of various kinds flourished under the Caliphate. That ended in the 15th century (a bit earlier actually), and it's been obscurantism ever since. By the way, I have seen no evidence that science flourished [b]because of[/b] any doctrinal aspects of Islam.
I won't comment on your silly quote from the Qur'an allegedly prefiguring scientific discoveries. That's the kind of story clerics tell little kids. We're all grown up here.
And please don't accuse me of being "prejudiced" against religion. I [b]loathe and despise[/b] religion. But I came to that on my own, not because of some prejudice.
Bring me evidence that religion is not deceptive, divisive, and destructive, and I will definitely listen.
You, on the other hand, have not a critical word to say about Islam - you just excuse the horrors committed in its name as being some misinterpretation. That's fanaticism and prejudice in my book.
Sat, 2008-02-23 08:59
#93
quote:
Originally posted by remind:Religions would try to keep things status quo, while science is continually searching. Though admittedly men have used, and no doubt will continue to try to use science to foster their own supremacy desires. But I believe they have less chance to do so than religion that seeks to keep things status quo and women oppressed.
Exactly, yes science has been influenced by the social norms of the time, such as the general view that women were inferior during Darwin’s time. (scientists are only human and like all people were and are influenced by social norms) But science has come much further in 100 years than religion has come in 2000 years because science progresses through improving on and correcting errors, inaccuracies and biases of previous science, whereas religion, for the most part feels that the original work was perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin1951: Darwin was wrong and Kropotkin was right about how evolution works. It is not survival of the fittest it is the species that engage in Mutual Aid that have an advantage over species that don't.
Well first, Darwin used the phrase “natural selection” in place of “Survival of the fittest.” Second, Darwin never said that individualism was the best mechanism, or only mechanism for propagation of genes in a social species. Latter on you say that it was not Darwin that was wrong, but “Darwinists.” Sure some were on this issue, but most people who are called “Darwinists” advocate cooperation as a better form of passing on your genes than non-cooperation among social species. Dawkin’s book the Selfish Gene, for instance, is about cooperation.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball: Exactly right. "Survival of the fittest" has been actively inserted into common capitalist discourse, as scientific authorization for standing social norms.
The term “survival of the fittest” came from capitalist discourse and was nowhere to be found in the first 4 editions of Origin of the Species.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball: “When antrhopology and sociology are scientific pursuits which have often been used to express latent cultural ingrained biases, so that scientists (Lionel Tiger for example) have easily come to the conclusion that Baboon culture is partiarchal in structure, and then been able to assert that patriarchy is "Natural."
Patriarchal and matriarchal structures can and have evolved through natural selection and are therefore “natural” in those situations. So what? Doesn’t mean that it is natural for us, and I don’t really understand the appeal of “natural” anyways. Cannibalism is quite natural (and indeed anthropologists say it was common and widespread). Just because that appears to be natural for early humans doesn’t mean that it should be accepted in modern society. Evolution doesn’t mean that we must behave the exact same way as our last common ancestor did – in fact evolution means that we evolve – and not just physically, but in every way. But of course if you look at our closest living relatives – Chimpanzee’s, Bonobo’s, Gorilla’s and Baboon’s you will see completely different social structures. Furthermore most of the evolutionary changes that have occurred in humans since splitting with our closest common ancestors indicate (to me anyways, but through study on these issues) that those evolutionary changes were towards a social structure that is more equal between men and women, more equal between those of the same sex, and more monogamous. For instance the difference in size in between men and women is smaller than patriarchal species such as baboons and gorillas. Changes such as losing of hair (which makes us more sensitive to the touch) , and women maintaining breast size outside of times of breast feeding (no other primate species does) are indications of long-term coupling (ie monogamy at least for significant periods of time). There are hundreds more, but the point is as humans developed larger brains our reproductive years were delayed and as such the raising of offspring required immense parental resources, so we were more successful – and thereby passed on our genes more successfully – if we lived in a cooperative society, with parental care being provided by more than the mother alone (hence group cooperation, long-term coupling as it was an evolutionary advantage for those that stayed together, and often help from grandparents – in many species animals don’t live past their reproductive years, but as we can live long past ours the evolutionary advantage may be that those who had long living parents and grandparents were more successful at raising more children because they had more help and therefore those genes which better favored longevity were passed on.)
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball: No, in fact sociobiology is closely linked to many of the false scientific doctrines errected in the name of science, such as "eugenics", which relied, and continues to rely today on research into DNA, and other scientific fields, giving scientific authority to gender opression, and also racism. Its not "a" person, it is a whole field of scholastic research which fell into disrepute, not because it was scientifically proven to be false, but because it was politically discredited.
First Sociobiology is not in disrepute but has been fully credited. Second Kropotkin’s book “Mutual Aid” talks about altruism being an evolutionary favored behavior which would make it a sociobiological trait. Can’t have it both ways. Sociobiology is not “determinism” so although it is often linked to “eugenics” the comparison is weak, especially as eugenics has been discredited. Mostly sociobiology deals with the behavior of animals as has been very successful at that – such as social insects. Obviously humans are animals too. Recognizing that we too can be influenced by our genes (again influenced not determining behavior) may make many people uncomfortable, and yes many people may conduct research which is affected by their biases, but over time science’s self correcting mechanism will correct those biases. I don’t think that the state of sociobiology has much resemblance to what you make it out to be.
But those who want to find out for themselves might want to check out E. O. Wilson’s “On Human Nature” (which won the Pulitzer prize in the 80s) and more recently Steven Pinker’s “Blank Slate.”
(Edited due to having three paragraphs in a row starting with the word "well" and finding that embarrassing.)
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 09:50
#94
remind
Excellent post trevor, I agree and you fleshed out what I was getting at wonderfully..
Sat, 2008-02-23 09:58
#95
Well, well, well done trevormkidd!
Sat, 2008-02-23 10:39
#96
quote:
Because if you are interested in reading, or capable of reading, you will note that I referred to the Golden Age, during which science of various kinds flourished under the Caliphate. That ended in the 15th century (a bit earlier actually), and it's been obscurantism ever since -unionist
Help me out here, unionist.
1) Up until 600 years ago, Islam does not appear to have been the enemy of "golden ages".
2) For the last 600 years it has become their enemy.
3) The doctrines of religions (and here we are talking about Islam) are the forces of darkness
4)"This", (you say about the forces of darkness comment), "doesn't apply to the believers of those religions."
If you have knowledge about Islam having shifted doctrine, please pass it on.
Another possibility is that for the last 600 years -and for whatever reason- Muslims themselves have strayed from the doctrine and become forces of darkness. But you stated that that is not the case.
Do you have an argument or is this just some version of speaking in tongues ?
Sat, 2008-02-23 11:04
#97
quote:
But science has come much further in 100 years than religion has come in 2000 years because science progresses through improving on and correcting errors, inaccuracies and biases of previous science, whereas religion, for the most part feels that the original work was perfect. -trevormkidd
How about providing concrete examples rather than indulging in generalities and vagueness such as "for the most part", "feels" and "perfect".
You may have extentive reference about evolution. Do you have any about religions, especially Islam, in order to move on from your generalities and impressions to something more precise.
Perhaps I should help you out by saying that the only perfect and central dogma in Islam is "tawheed" (also written Tawhid, tavhid etc). It means the affirmation that God is one and unique.
Does that hinder or discourage sientific endeavour, knowledge seeking and flourishing of science and discovery? How? Does that run counter evolution ?
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 11:18
#98
When discussing the relationship between science and an ideology (or religion), I think we could make a distinction between how the theological aspects of a religion and social values of religion contribute to or block the progress of Science.
There is no doubt that theological teaching of every religion stands against science, basically by attributing the secrets of the nature to an almighty God without having to investigate any further. That harms science.
The impact of the social impacts of religion on science is more complicated. I can suggest an explanation for the fact the introduction of Islam resulted in fast growth in scientific and literary activities of that region. It is based on the historical realities of that time.
in 7th century, the two main civilizations of the middle east (Persian and Roman empires) were rigid ,aristocrat and hierarchical societies. In the Persian Sassanid empire, learning and knowledge was restricted to the noblemen and clergy. A common man was not allowed to be educated. Now it should be obvious that most bright minds don't often come from highly privileged classes. That contributed to the decline of science and literature in the last centuries of Persian empire.
On the other hand the Islamic religion, young and fresh, was based on equality of people regardless of their wealth, rejection of nobility and aristocracy, and racial equality. The conquest of middle east by islam, more than anything else, released the underprivileged class from the restriction of their time. Thus science and literature got a huge boost. There is no surprise that Persians, released from their rigid class-based restriction, became by far the largest contributors to Islamic civilization, art and scientific achievements: Avicena, Farabi, Rhazes, Geber, Biruni, kashani, and hundreds of other scientists during the golden age of Islam.
Later on when gradually the Islamic empire started to decline, and particularly after the Mongol conquests, another basic tenet of Islamic thought, the belief in God's will, or fate, contributed to rapid decline of science. While strong belief in fate was a ray of hope for the people during those hard times of wars and destruction, it contributed to laziness, lack of ambition and will for change in Islamic societies.
So in a way, Islam was responsible for both the rise of the middle east into a mighty empire and later for its fall into despair.
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 11:26
#99
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]If you have knowledge about Islam having shifted doctrine, please pass it on.
Another possibility is that for the last 600 years -and for whatever reason- Muslims themselves have strayed from the doctrine and become forces of darkness. But you stated that that is not the case.
[/b]
There was a doctorinal change. for the first 300-400 years of Islam, there was an intellectual battle between those who believed in human rationalism and men's ability to learn the issues on his own, and those who believed exclusively in following the script and "sunnah". The first group were mainly philosophers who brought the work of Greek philosophers into the Islamic teaching.
However in 11th century, the scriptists got a boost from Ghazali, the brilliant and prominent scholar of the time, who spent his life fighting the philosophers and the ideas of Greek philosophy and rationalism. He singlehandedly destroyed the basis of Islamic philosophy for centuries to come, and the efforts of a few remaining rationalists like Averros after him did not lead any where.
For more on Ghazali's work, you can check here:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazali]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazal...
So in a way, a doctorinal change did happen in Islamic teachings around 11-12th century that continues to this day.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Sat, 2008-02-23 11:40
#100
quote:
Not true, I have stated the patriarchy uses whatever vehicle it can to oppress women and that it has used religion for at least 2000 years. -Remind
This is what you have stated.
quote:
That way when mythology is proven to be just that, then we will no longer have men; writing words down, or telling stories in oral traditions, or relating previous words by men, that state that some God says women are inferior -Remind
Again, Jean Jacques Rousseau was not inspired by any mythology (does not believe in any) when he wrote:
quote:
"The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up, to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable; these are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy."
Sat, 2008-02-23 12:29
#101
quote:
Originally posted by adam stratton:
How about providing concrete examples rather than indulging in generalities and vagueness such as "for the most part", "feels" and "perfect".
The Koran is supposed to be the divine revelation of God. How is that not perfect? The God of Christians, Muslims and Jews would fail an elementary school science test badly.
quote:
You may have extentive reference about evolution. Do you have any about religions, especially Islam, in order to move on from your generalities and impressions to something more precise.
I know more about religions then I care to know. I have been an atheist since I was 7, but I have still read the bible and (most of) the koran. Didn't care for either, but a religion is not simply what is written in an old book - it includes the cultures and biases of its holy people and followers. Whether there is or is not specific quotes anti-science passages in the Koran I couldn’t say and it would mean little to me. The religion IS anti-science, much like I believe Canada, the US and Western Europe would be if had allowed Christianity to maintain in an infallible position of power. Yes, in the Golden Age it appears as though Islam and science got along fine, however this was also at a time when science was not discovering and providing evidence for things that were going against religious mythology and holy scripture. The Golden Age was over before Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo provided the evidence to show that the earth was not the center of the universe (yes, some before like Democritus believed that the earth revolved around the Sun, but they didn’t have the evidence for it so their beliefs had almost no support. It was well established over 2000 years ago that the earth was round, but that round earth was still at the center of the Universe with the Sun revolving around it.) The earth not being at the center of God's creation was bascially the first real test from science towards religious tolerance and the major religions all didn’t respond very well as far as I am concerned. Yes Islam didn’t oppose science when science was supporting Islam, but that is like saying that you support freedom of speech as long as you agree with what is being said.
quote:
Perhaps I should help you out by saying that the only perfect and central dogma in Islam is "tawheed" (also written Tawhid, tavhid etc). It means the affirmation that God is one and unique.
Does that hinder or discourage sientific endeavour, knowledge seeking and flourishing of science and discovery? How? Does that run counter evolution ?
No it doesn’t hinder or discourage scientific endeavor etc. But Islam does. Again I consider a religion to more than a book. Let me know when holy leaders start preaching that Islam and muslims must or should not hinder or discourage scientific endeavors and starts preaching that Muslims should be seeking knowledge so that science and discovery starts to flourish.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]