Islam and science - continued

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2008-02-25 02:27

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Why not spend a little time Unionist, and inform yourself:
[url=http://www.islamicity.com/islamiTV/?ref=3130]http://www.islamicity.com/i...
[/b]

Scroll up, Cueball. I found that site long before you. It's the source of some of my funniest material.

quote:

[b]Here is an Islamic video describing how the big bang was Allah's will, and uses Hubble and Einstein to verify the the Qu'ran. [/b]

Allah "willed" the Big Bang? Where was He lurking when he willed that? What a dork.

quote:

[b]Simply put, as I have been trying to point out, most mainstream Muslims are not spending a whole lot of time trying to assert that science is wrong, but the opposite, that science proves the Qu'ran. The creationist arguement is simply not a great big deal to most Muslim people, because the Qu'ran is vague enough that it is not going to conflict with empirical evidence.[/b]

So find me an Islamic scholar who supports the theory of evolution.

quote:

[b]Its a big difficulty for Christians because the Bibles creation theory directly conflicts with present day scientific discovery, so they have to oppose science or abandon parts of their doctrine. Few such conflicts arise with the Qu'ran. For example there is no timeline provided for creation of the universe.[/b]

I have actually been joking about "my God can whup your God any old day of the week" scholarship. You appear to have adopted it.

May Allah forgive me. My joke has come true.

Mon, 2008-02-25 02:29

#53

Unionist

Was Einstein a Muslim?

Those other false Gods who flunked Physics 101. I guess I just answered my own question.

Mon, 2008-02-25 03:42

#54

Cueball

There is nothing in this thread that you are doing that amounts to anything even close to a scientific method. There is nothing at all rational or scientific about taking decontextualized quotes from a text and then using them as a means of ridiculing people and cultures.

This is sniggering not anthropology.

The fact that you consider any indepth discussion of the Ottoman reform period in a discussion about Islam and progress, to be thread drift, puts into relief the fact that what you are not making any kind of scientifc inquirey here, but promoting ignorant jingoism.

Your unthinking support for racist "reform" in Turkey, because you happen to believe that it had something to do with secularization of society, when it was little more than fomenting ethnic nationalism and repressing ethnic minorities indicates very deep ignorance, indeed.

The fact that you feel able to speak with authority from a position of ignorance is an example of breathtaking arrogance. Your dismissal of any attempt to contextualize or analyze the subject based on the introduction of new evidence, or with a wider view of social processes, in favour of lopping of bits and pieces of the Q'uran and presenting them as prima facie examples of religous stupidity, indicates that you wish to remain so.

Mon, 2008-02-25 09:38

#55

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]By the way [sic] does not indicate and has absolutely nothing to do with irony. You can check in any dictionary or:
[url=http://www.sicetsimpliciter.com/]www.sicetsimpliciter.com[/url][/b]

...where you will find these words:

quote:

The word sic may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully or to highlight an error, [b]often for the purpose of ridicule or irony.[/b]

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Mon, 2008-02-25 10:28

#56

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]There is nothing in this thread that you are doing that amounts to anything even close to a scientific method. There is nothing at all rational or scientific about taking decontextualized quotes from a text and then using them as a means of ridiculing people and cultures.[/b]

I have no desire to quote the Qur'an, in context or out.

My aim is to refute those who claim that Islam (or any superstition for that matter) is compatible with science.

Two ways of doing so are:

1. Look at what Islam says. But you say I'm not allowed to do that.

2. Look at what Islam does. But you say I'm not allowed to do that.

So, I guess we'll just have to wait for a piece of evidence from you (or others of similar bent in this thread) to show one single solitary example of Islam's consistency with science and the scientific method.

Mon, 2008-02-25 10:30

#57

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b] quote [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] riginally posted by adam stratton:
By the way [sic] does not indicate and has absolutely nothing to do with irony. You can check in any dictionary or:
[url=http://www.sicetsimpliciter.com]www.sicetsimpliciter.com[/url]
...where you will find these words:
quote:The word sic may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully or to highlight an error, often for the purpose of ridicule or irony.
[/b]

M. Spector, I appreciate your assistance, but I've already confessed to being a Holy Crusader on the warpath against heathens and infidels for the glory of the Trinity. It's too late for me to back out now. And what will poor adam do when (once again) his misquotes and truncations are exposed? Allow him his nanosecond of triumph, please.

Mon, 2008-02-25 11:04

#58

Snuckles

[url=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2008/02/creating_c... controversy[/url]:

quote:

Some Muslim anti-evolutionists will be presenting their case at a British university tomorrow
February 25, 2008 4:00 PM
Last Saturday's edition of The Guardian contained a small item about a talk due to be held tomorrow on "The Collapse of Evolution Theory" organised by the Islamic society at University College London. The speakers are from the well-funded and extremely active Harun Yahya organisation in Turkey that I wrote about in a Cif blog over 18 months ago.
Writing under the pen name of Harun Yahya, this outfit has since the late 1990s produced a series of very glossy books and documentaries in various languages including English which are all available to download for free and all of which seek to deny the theory of evolution and instead advocate a doctrine of special creationism.
All of the Harun Yahya arguments can be boiled down to one assertion: fossils discovered of numerous creatures show that they look just the same today as they did millions of years ago: hence life on earth did not evolve but instead each species was individually created in its present form. The influence of Christian creationist literature is evident throughout their entire output and that old stalwart of US creationism Duane Gish has indeed spoken at various Harun Yahya sponsored conferences.

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:08

#59

adam stratton

quote:

.. I've already confessed to being a Holy Crusader on the warpath against heathens and infidels for the glory of the Trinity. -unionist

Any ony confessions regarding this ?

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
Saudi Arabia isn't "akin" to Nazi Germany - it's far worse.
You know why?
Because it still murders and tortures people today.

quote:

Originally postd by adam stratton:
So does Israel. Would you say that Israel is "far worse" than Nazi Germany? Why not?

unionist simply refused to answer the question.

Any confession to being a double-standard peddler or a coward ?

unionist drew the comparison of Arab/Muslim Saudi Arabia's oppression, torture and killing of people as "far worse than Nazi Germany" but not same comparison to the Jewish state of Israel's oppression, torture and killing of Palestinians.

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:14

#60

sanizadeh

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
So Cueball - what was the name of that Islamic scientist again? That Islamic rйgime that promoted scientific endeavour in the last half-millennium or so?
Evidence, Cueball. Evidence. About Science. And Islam. Got any????[/b]

I am a little confused: Can you be a little more specific about what do you mean by "Islamic scientist"? Do you mean a theologian who uses science to justify his theology, or a scientist who simply practices the faith?

And about regimes that encourage scientific works...why limiting it to the last half millenia?

Typically most civilizations, religious or secular, support and advance scientific works when they are at their height, and ignore it when they are going downhill. The Islamic regimes are really no exception.

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:23

#61

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
[b]
I am a little confused: Can you be a little more specific about what do you mean by "Islamic scientist"? Do you mean a theologian who uses science to justify his theology, or a scientist who simply practices the faith? [/b]

You need to go back to the first thread. I'm talking about any person or institution or regime who applies Islamic doctrine to advance modern science. My thesis is that Islam (and other religions) are a brake, not an accelerator, on the science engine.

Scientists who practise their faith are irrelevant to this discussion.

quote:

[b]And about regimes that encourage scientific works...why limiting it to the last half millenia?[/b]

Again, read back. My thesis is that as human understanding of nature, society and humanity advances, religion recedes. Today, there is simply no religious thought that sheds light on scientific phenomena.

quote:

[b]Typically most civilizations, religious or secular, support and advance scientific works when they are at their height, and ignore it when they are going downhill. The Islamic regimes are really no exception.[/b]

My thesis is that any civilization which advances science does so [b]irrespective[/b] of its religious tendencies, not [b]because[/b] of them. I'm looking at the actual role of religion in advancing science - not of individuals or societies which happen (incidentally) to harbour religious beliefs.

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:29

#62

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]So, I guess we'll just have to wait for a piece of evidence from you (or others of similar bent in this thread) to show one single solitary example of Islam's consistency with science and the scientific method.[/b]

I did provide evidence, I even went so far as to attempt a detailed descitption of progressive reform in Islamic societies, and it evolution and the objective factors involved, from day one, to the present day. You countered with a disinformation course on Kemalist propoganda. When this was point out, you then determined that discussion of Turkish reform, and the Turkish reform movement was "off topic."

Instead you want to reduce the discusion to silly rhetorical questions like "what was the name of that Islamic scientist again? That Islamic rйgime that promoted scientific endeavour in the last half-millennium or so?", as if you are not aware that Pakistani Muslims build an atomic bomb.

These are stupid questions, as if one could assert the opposite, in terms of Christianity, and say becaue "Christian regiemes" produced Quantum Physics, Christianity is more conducive to scientific endeavour. The truth is that many factors contributed to the general relative lack of progress in science in majority Muslim societies, and these issues are complex.

People have shown a great deal of evidence that shows that the idea that there is something "essential" in Islamic doctrine that opposes science, such as the flowering of science in the golden age, make this idea highly suspect.
But you simply dismiss any historical evidence, as off topic, and any detailed discussion of history and other detailed factors is "thread drift", but detailed discourses on sociobiology, Bonobos, Gorrillas and Elephants, goes by without comment.

Simply showing a correlation between two facts, such as "lack of science" and "Muslim dominance" and not showing the relationship of [i]cause and effect[/i] is not science. Your methodology and conclusion are on par with "look what a mess the black people make of the ghetto", and your questions about as revealing as those asked by everyday racists, when they ask: "Why are most convicted criminals Black."

The answer they want is clear.

Sorry, the answers are not simple.

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:40

#63

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
These are stupid questions, as if one could assert the opposite, in terms of Christianity, and say becaue "Christian regiemes" produced Quantum Physics, Christianity is more conducive to scientific endeavour. [/b]

Diversion and sophistry.

I have clearly stated that [b]ALL[/b] religion is anti-science, by its very nature. You keep trying, and trying, and trying, and trying, to paint anti-Islam arguments as pro-some other religion. Different flavours of shit all taste bad.

Why are you doing this?

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:42

#64

martin dufresne

"My thesis is that any civilization that advances science does so irrespective of its religious tendencies"
Well, that certainly simplifies things. First you clamoured about a link (A is impeded by B), now you are simply gloating about the absence of your hypothesized correlation. Very unscientific. I expect you could have done the same pirouette about science and art. Or science and sport...
Our point is that your solipsistic badgering of "superstitions" is limited to Islam, precisely at the same time the West uses Islam-bashing as an excuse to destroy the nations that resist its self-interested aggressions.
Now that's a correlation you don't have to look too far to verify.

Mon, 2008-02-25 19:45

#65

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Our point is that your solipsistic badgering of "superstitions" is limited to Islam, precisely at the same time the West uses Islam-bashing as an excuse to destroy the nations that resist its self-interested aggressions.
Now that's a correlation you don't have to look too far to verify.[/b]

You think that by calling me an Islamophobe and insinuating that I'm an accomplice of the "West", that I will do the obvious thing and retaliate by calling you a lying asshole?

I will not do that - because I love you.

Mon, 2008-02-25 20:09

#66

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
I have clearly stated that [b]ALL[/b] religion is anti-science, by its very nature.[/b]

Yes you have stated that, but the proposition that your question begs, is not consistent with your conclusion, otherwise you would not have made the point that you made about the lack of "Muslim science" having something to do with Islam, when it is quite clear, that scientific endeavour has been particularly succesful in Christians society. If lack of scientific endeavour has something to do with Islamic dominance, then the reverse must be true, that evidence of superior Scientific achievement in Christian society, must mean that Christian society is more open to scientific endeavour, contrary to your main thesis which is that it is all the same shit, just a different pile.

You asked:

quote:

"what was the name of that Islamic scientist again? That Islamic rйgime that promoted scientific endeavour in the last half-millennium or so?",

You are right it is sophistry and you are the sophist.

The answers are not as simple as you would have it. The issues are complex.

For example, geographic position probably had a lot to do with reduction of the relative wealth of the Ottoman Empire, and the trade of Istanbul. Conversely, Catholic Spain and Protestant England were uniquely well positioned to discover and exploit the wealth of the "new world," and assert their economic dominance over world trade and thus create the kind of social environment condusive to science. Likewise, in its hey day the Caliphate was rich, and secure, and the established elite had plenty of time to dawdle in realm of study and imagination. However, by the 17th century, expansion had ended and the Muslim lands were beset by enemies, and more than once invaded.

Nor were the Muslim peoples among the great seafaring peoples since most of their power was derived through controlling the land trade routes, and easily navigable mediteranean, so it was not practicable for the Porte to fund expensive expeditions and the like. The "explorers" went to the monarchies with the experienced sailors, and the best ships: Portugal, England, Spain and the Netherlands.

Its interesting to note that part of the inspiration for Columbuses voyage to the new world was his reading of Marco Polo, and the attempt to circumnavigate the world was in part made to re-establish the old trade links with Asia and the Empire of Kubla Khan, cut off after the collapse of the Mongol empire [i]when Muslim power was reconstituted on the overland trade routes[/i].

I am sorry that you are not interested in entertaining any broader scope conceptions of the topic.

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mon, 2008-02-25 20:21

#67

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
If lack of scientific endeavour has something to do with Islamic dominance, [/b]

You keep trying and trying and trying. Who said that? Did I say that? I deny it. What happens to the rest of your argument now that your premise is gone?

quote:

[b]... then the reverse must be true, that evidence of superior Scientific achievement in Christian society, must mean that Christian society is more open to scientific endeavour, contrary to your main thesis which is that it is all the same shit, just a different pile.[/b]

You think religion is a moving force in human achievement (although why I don't know - you've presented zero evidence for that proposition) that you even attribute that thesis to me.

Religion, in every single society today, impedes scientific and social progress - although this thread is supposedly dealing with the scientific aspects.

Physics and chemistry and mathematics and astronomy underwent rapid development in Europe starting from the 16th century. This happened, not [b]because[/b] Europe was mostly Catholic, but [b]despite[/b] its Catholicism, and despite the frenzied efforts of the Church to stamp out any scientific advance which challenged its power, privilege, and prejudice.

Mon, 2008-02-25 20:48

#68

Cueball

Nice of you to say that. Now why don't you explain to me what lesson the question teaches us, or is it some kind of Zen Koan without a proper answer. What was the point?

How does that question end up with anyone reflecting upon how science progresses in spite of religion, and equally so?

The obvious answer you would like is there are few great scientists operating in a Muslim context. Fine. If we change the subject and now ask the same question but talk about Christian society, we will see that in a comparative sense there is much more "good" science conducted in a Christain context.

We have asked the same question, and come up with two different results, so the operative subject is the key element that changes the result. The interchanged conditions are: Muslim, and Christian. Therefore the only conlusion we can come to[i] by answering [b]your[/b] question[/i], is that religion is not just "the same shit different pile" since clearly science has recently been more succesful in Christian societies, and that all scientific endeavour does not happen "irrespective" of religion because Christian regiems produce more good scientists.

Therefore if your intent was to ellucidate that all religions are the same shit in a different pile, and that Science progresses [i]despite[/i] a dominant religious discourse, why did you ask [b]that[/b] question?

Why did you bother with the identifying qualifier at all, and not just ask: [i]"what was the name of that religious scientist again? That religious rйgime that promoted scientific endeavour in the last half-millennium or so?"[/i]

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mon, 2008-02-25 22:15

#69

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
You think religion is a moving force in human achievement (although why I don't know - you've presented zero evidence for that proposition) that you even attribute that thesis to me.[/b]

What is impeding scientific progress on this thread is your straw men, what I said was:

quote:

Simply put, as I have been trying to point out, most mainstream Muslims are not spending a whole lot of time trying to assert that science is wrong, but the opposite, that science proves the Qu'ran. The creationist arguement is simply not a great big deal to most Muslim people, [b]because the Qu'ran is vague enough that it is not going to conflict with empirical evidence.[/b]

The point is Unionist, that scientific reformers did not get into conflict with religion in Islam because of their scientific endeavours, such as the persecution of Galileo, because the Q'uran is vague enough in its material descriptions that scientific discovery did not put a person in a state where they were challenging the Qu'ran. This was the point of the [i]evidence[/i] of the video, because it shows Muslim believers quite readily incorporating scientific theory into their belief, because the Q'uran is filled with simile, metaphor and indeed poetry.

Yes, scientific study progresses in spite of religion, but in the case of Islam, it rarely comes into conflict with the Q'uranic text. Thus postulating that the earth revolves around the sun or that the earth began a long time ago after a big bang is not a contradition of text, and therefore not heretical.

Genesis is very specific, Mohammed's watered down version is a little more loosey goosey, and even incorporates more up-to-dates scientific understandings, such as the fetus description above, because it is newer.

So there was not a lot of need to persecute people proposing new scientific explanations for things, because doing such rarely meant that you were challenging religious authority, as founded in the primary text.

The people who got into trouble in Islam were not scientists, but social reformers who challenge the social order as it is interpretted from the Q'uran. Those who do what is proscribed by Q'uran and Hadith, as Sharia.

This is why I made the point in the last thread that scientific advancement, and progressive egalitarian social modes are not relative to each other, a highly advanced secular state can be just as socially repressive as a state founded on a religion, such as Islam. There would be littel reason for an Islamic state to repress scientists, because their studies would rarely find themselves in contradition of the text upon which the state authorizes it dominion. They would however repress those who contradicted accepted interpretations of the social laws prescribed in the Q'uran.

Religions, are not all the same. They assert different values, and so create different problems, but it would be pretty dull social science just to impose blanket generalizations on religions, as opposed to discovering what makes the unique.

The idea that rationalist science, in and of itself, "revolutionary" and will cure all of mankinds ills and introduce a new order of health a prosperity for humanity is a very dated 19th century notion that gets ever more dubious each time someone turns the key in the ignition of a car.

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-02-26 03:52

#70

Slumberjack

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]...because it shows Muslim believers quite readily incorporating scientific theory into their belief...[/b]

Or perhaps the other way around. With no central authority to present a common analysis, they have many more angles of interpretation, thus seeming to refect a wider process which includes scientific theory. Vague passages can be applied to any modern situation through imaginative cheerypicking.

Tue, 2008-02-26 05:43

#71

sanizadeh

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
You need to go back to the first thread. I'm talking about any person or institution or regime who applies Islamic doctrine to advance modern science. My thesis is that Islam (and other religions) are a brake, not an accelerator, on the science engine.
Scientists who practise their faith are irrelevant to this discussion.[/b]

Thanks, I got it. I wonder why then this long discussion. It seems fairly obvious to me.

A religion might be science-friendly, but regardless of its nature, there is always one basic principle in it that is unquestionable and as such, contradicts science. This applies to any ideology that has a set of basic, unchallengable assumptions.

To phrase it as a mathematical theory:

"Suppose X is a system of religious/ideological methods with Y being the set of fundamental principles in it. For any X, there exists a system Z that is created by removing Y from X, and as a result, Z is more science-friendly than X."

So for any religous system of thought, there is a secular system of thought that is superior to it in its relation to Science.

Tue, 2008-02-26 08:46

#72

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]The idea that rationalist science, in and of itself, "revolutionary" and will cure all of mankinds ills and introduce a new order of health a prosperity for humanity is a very dated 19th century notion that gets ever more dubious each time someone turns the key in the ignition of a car.[/b]

Now who's raising the staw men?

Tue, 2008-02-26 08:50

#73

Cueball

That was just additional and thematic, not really directed at anyone in particular.

Tue, 2008-02-26 19:37

#74

Unionist

They laughed at me when I hailed the contribution of Islam to the automotive sciences. Will they still be laughing now that:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm]Turkey preparing radical revision of Islamic texts[/url]

quote:

Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion. [...]
Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.
"There are some messages that [b]ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine[/b].
"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time [b]it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that[/b]. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."
The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.
Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

[b][i]The Prophet foretold drivers' licences for Saudi women!!![/i][/b]

You heard it from me first.

Tue, 2008-02-26 20:44

#75

Cueball

Ahh I see, social reform in Islam, and Turkey specifically even, is on the table again, before it was deemed a distraction from the thread, which was supposed to be about "science". I think my original conclusion was correct, this is not anthropology but snearing.

How about changing the title so that Michelle can close it, something like: "Snearing at Islam."

ETA: I see the thread that was supposed to be called "Judaism V. Science" is also now about snearing at Islam, now, too.

[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-02-26 20:47

#76

sanizadeh

LOL! Iran is no Saudi Arabia, but even in Iran today a woman needs official permission from his husband (if married) or father (if unmarried) for getting a passport. Even here in Canada when we wanted to renew my wife's Iranian passport, the Iranian embassy told us that I had to sign a consent form and give her permission.

Tue, 2008-02-26 20:49

#77

sanizadeh

quote:

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
[b]LOL! Iran is no Saudi Arabia, but even in Iran today a woman needs official permission from his husband (if married) or father (if unmarried) for getting a passport. Even here in Canada when we wanted to renew my wife's Iranian passport, the Iranian embassy told us that I had to sign a consent form and give her permission.[/b]

Just a clarification that they do waive this requirement if one officially changes her country of residence in the passport from Iran to Canada. We had not bothered to do that.

Tue, 2008-02-26 20:55

#78

martin dufresne

This seems to be turning into a Readers' Digest type of thread - "Muslims Do the Darndest Things (Thanks God we've got cluster bombs!)"... [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Tue, 2008-02-26 20:56

#79

Cueball

Yes, but what is this to do with "science." I was warned off talking about the social reform movement in Turkey, because it was a diversion:

quote:

Go argue with yourself and convince yourself how the Ottomans were on the very verge of progress, science and Nirvana, but got screwed by someone else. I'm not playing, [b]because it is utterly irrelevant.[/b]

Is it that "automotive licensing" is now inestricably linked with scientific progress? Unlikely. This thread is just about flinging a bunch of shit on the wall and seeing what sticks. If your not flinging shit you must be "off-topic."

Tue, 2008-02-26 21:16

#80

sanizadeh

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Yes, but what is this to do with "science." I was warned off talking about the social reform movement in Turkey, because it was a diversion:
[/b]

True, but don't you agree that a religious system can never be as science-friendly as its equivalent secular system (with same set of rules and assumptions, but without the unquestionable principles e.g. belief in God, prophethood etc)?

Tue, 2008-02-26 21:38

#81

Cueball

Not really. There are plenty of examples of scientist repressing each other, and using state institutions to do so. For example, Oppenhiemers attempt to suppress Teller's attempt to make the hydrogen bomb (Oppenhiemer said it was unfeasible to build a delivery system, and he was wrong) was met by Teller having Oppenhiemer officially repressed by the state.

Science is very political. Inventions as we know have also been supressed, things such as non-fossil fuel burning cars. So if we are looking for evidence there are tons of examples where politics takes over the direction of science in the secular world. Just as when Galileo did things that impugned the authority of the Church.

Theoretically speaking, yes a secular society should be free of such supression, just as there is not a whole lot reason why Islam should supress science, and from what I can tell there are very few examples in Muslim history of Imams directly interfering in scientific exploration. For the most part they seem ambivalent to science, however they are very concious of threats to the social order.

This is probably the reason that Unionist really can only come up with examples of active suppression in the social world and not the scientific. Moreover he is being hypocritical about the evidence he will allow.

Can you cite any occassions where scientific knowledge has been actively supressed because it conflicts with the belief?

[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Tue, 2008-02-26 22:47

#82

sanizadeh

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Can you cite any occassions where scientific knowledge has been actively supressed because it conflicts with the belief?
[/b]

Well, Islam had its Galileos as well. here are some examples of scientists and philosophers who were beheaded for apostasy:

Suhravardi:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_al-Din_Suhrawardi]http://en.wikipedi...

Mohammad Bin Makki al-'Amili Shahid Awwal (1st Martyr):
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Awwal]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Zeinoddin Shahid Thani (2nd Martyr):
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Thani]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Not to mention late Ahmad Kasravi (though he was assassinated, not beheaded):
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasravi]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasrav...

[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]

Wed, 2008-02-27 00:54

#83

adam stratton

Theologians as "islam's Galileos". Killed because of their scientific endeavours ?

How come then you did not consider Al Ghazali a scientist who advanced 'science' when he declared that he re-discovered his faith and provided the 'evidence' as "Nur'on ba3athau Allahu fi sadri" (a Light that Allah shone in my chest (heart).

Au contraire, you attributed to Al Gazali's work the cause for Islam's scientific stagnation.

It is amazing that discoverer of "Nur" Al Ghazali was anti-science but the discoverers of "Nurs" you cited are not only scientists but Islam's Galileos.

With this 'understanding' of science and this logic, I would not be surprised if you count twirling derwishs who feel and/or see the "Light" frequently as full-fledged white-coated scientists in their labs !!

Finally, on one hand you are arguing that religion (Islam) impedes science and discovery and in the same breath you are arguing that these teachers of religion are scientists who are martyrs, killed because of their scientific endeavours.

Are you sustaining your thesis or sinking it as unionist was found to have done.

Talking about unionist, here is his method of articulating and supporting his thesis:

quote:

[b]The Prophet foretold drivers' licences for Saudi women!!!
You heard it from me first.[/b]

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

Wed, 2008-02-27 01:19

#84

Cueball

I agree, these are mostly theologiand interpreting Q'uran and Hadith, not doing Botany or astronomy. And this confirms the point, that Islam is not anti-scientific, it might not be pro-scientific, but because the Q'uran doesn't conflict a lot with scientific discovery in an obvious way, there has been no need for scientists to be supressed.

Lets face it, the Q'ran is not a book describing the nature of the physical world, it is a book that is intended to shape a social order, justified by metaphysics, thus because it is not scientific [i]arguement[/i], so therefore it mostly does not contradict science.

It's a different ball game altogether... now philosphy and politics, that is a different story, imo. There is plenty of room for disagreement there.

Wed, 2008-02-27 03:47

#85

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Ahh I see, social reform in Islam, and Turkey specifically even, is on the table again, before it was deemed a distraction from the thread, which was supposed to be about "science". I think my original conclusion was correct, this is not anthropology but snearing.[/b]

Don't fabricate. Obviously, I didn't want to talk about the Armenian genocide. I am now ridiculing, not Turkey, but the religious wingnuts there.

quote:

[b]ETA: I see the thread that was supposed to be called "Judaism V. Science" is also now about snearing at Islam, now, too.[/b]

You must be reading adam stratton's posts there. He's the only one bringing up Islam.

No one so far, on this board, has made the outlandish claim that Jewish theology has anything positive to offer science. That's why it's hard to get a debate going on that.

But when you say that Islam is the enemy of science, you get associated with planes dropping bombs on Muslims.

It is dangerous and deadly, indeed, to make no distinction between religions ([b]bad[/b]) and their adherents ([b]good[/b]).

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:01

#86

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]This seems to be turning into a Readers' Digest type of thread - "Muslims Do the Darndest Things (Thanks God we've got cluster bombs!)"... [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

Here is a good example of blackmail, which tries to silence condemnation of religion by identifying it with murder and aggression.

Does this person dream that I'm going to reply: "Oh, wait, no, I don't really support the mass murder of Muslims?"

In his dreams.

ETA: There's the other blackmailer, too, who keeps asking why I don't condemn Israel as being worse than Nazi Germany. That person will get a response when the Prophet, Jesus, and Moses return to Earth wearing "I Luv My Deity" t-shirts.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:07

#87

Cueball

The problem here seems to be that you think that anyone who does not join you as the chorus for your claim that "Islam is the enemy of science", that this then means that they are claiming that it is "positive" for science. Now read closely this time for content:

quote:

Lets face it, the Q'ran [b]is not a book describing the nature of the physical world,[b/] it is a book that [b]is intended to shape a social order[/b], justified by metaphysics, thus because [b]it is not scientific arguement[/b], so therefore it mostly does not contradict science.
It's a [b]different ball game altogether...[/b]

Please pay attention.

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:08

#88

adam stratton

unionist,

You abandoned your thesis or what ?

adam straton asked you if you could apply your "far worse than Nazi Germany" to Israel as you did apply it to Saudi Arabia.

You showed to be either a spinelss coward or a plain racist, beneath your progressivenss veneer.

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:08

#89

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by sanizadeh:
[b]
Well, Islam had its Galileos as well. here are some examples of scientists and philosophers who were beheaded for apostasy:[/b]

Thank you for that list, sanizadeh.

From what I see, it pales beside the murderous record of the Catholic Church in killing and otherwise silencing the women and men of science and philosophy over the centuries.

Judaism couldn't do quite as well, because it never held political power. It had to confine itself to excommunication (in one form or another) of anyone who came up with a good idea - like Spinoza.

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:10

#90

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]
adam straton asked you if you could apply your "far worse than Nazi Germany" to Israel as you did apply it to Saudi Arabia. [/b]

How many times do I have to tell you?

Israel is a great place to visit - sun, sand, big U.S. hotel chains - historic sites, friendly people. Wonderful. Nice to its neighbours. Pacifist, almost.

How many friggin' times do you need to hear the same thing? Now leave me alone.

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:13

#91

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
Thank you for that list, sanizadeh.
From what I see, it pales beside the murderous record of the Catholic Church in killing and otherwise silencing the women and men of science and philosophy over the centuries.
Judaism couldn't do quite as well, because it never held political power. It had to confine itself to excommunication (in one form or another) of anyone who came up with a good idea - like Spinoza.[/b]

Did you even go on to read the links. I guess not.

Otherwise you would know that none of those people were Scientists. Some of them were Muslim scholars, or are you now claiming the Muslim Scholars can be scientists, in which case you have contradicted yourself once again.

Please stick to the topic. You are either trying to deconstruct "scientific" falsehoods in the Q'uran, or it's "social" framework.

You warned me off talking about political and social reform, earlier, and now you seem to find it worthy to bring up political reform and social conflict, as it suits you.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:14

#92

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]The problem here seems to be that you think that anyone who does not join you as the chorus for your claim that "Islam is the enemy of science", that this then means that they are claiming that it is "positive" for science. Now read closely this time for content:[/b]

1. Holy books and doctrine.
2. Practitioners of the doctrine.

I have given examples of both, to show how they oppose science.

You say, "oh, #1 doesn't count, because it's not about science."

You say, "oh, #2 doesn't count, because mere mortals misapply the divine teachings".

Ok, I'm fine with that. Then at least show me that Islam is a benign neutral force for scientific advance.

Show me anything.

And while you're at it, Cueball, what do you think of martin and adam's accusations of racism and Islamophobia and warmongering? Not that it's uncommon for individuals who have been crushed in argument to resort to frenzied namecalling?

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:17

#93

Cueball

I will comment on their thoughts when I feel it is appropriate. They seemed overstretched, in my opinion, but they I guess that is in keeping with your own histrionics, so its to be expected, I guess.

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:18

#94

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I will comment on their thoughts when I feel it is appropriate. [/b]

If you don't condemn them, I draw my own conclusions.

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:18

#95

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Yes, Unionist and none of those people were Scientists. [/b]

A linguist is not a scientist??

A person who develops theories about light is not a scientist??

Oh I get it - if they were scientists, the Islamic Authorities would not have beheaded them??

I'm beginning to believe that the reason no one is naming great scientists that emerged from (not despite) the Islamic doctrine, is that they had all learned to keep their mouth shut and their pen dry and their head on their shoulders.

Certainly, Galileo learned that lesson. He actually recanted in the face of the Catholic murderers. You don't think that could have happened under Islam, eh?

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:30

#96

Cueball

The subject here is Islam and science, not this or that unfair outburst from the peanut gallery. I am responsible only for what I say.

Now:

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]A person who develops theories about light is not a scientist??
[/b]

Shahab al-Din Yahya as-Suhrawardi was a Sufi mystic Muslim. One of the first. When he is talking about "light", he is talking more in the sense of "the light" as in en[b]light[/b]enment: Metaphysics, spirtualism, ecstatic revelation.

quote:

Suhrawardi has been called "The Master of Oriental Theosophy”. In his writings, he attempted a synthesis of Zoroastrian, Platonic, and Islamic ideas. The "Orient" of his "Oriental Theosophy" is the symbolic Orient, the East and the dawn as the symbol of Spiritual Light and Knowledge.
Suhrawardi taught a complex and profound emanationist cosmology, according to which all creation is a successive outflow from the original Supreme Light of Lights (Nur al-Anvar).

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-02-27 04:59

#97

Unionist

Great, Cueball - so if they were beheaded for their philosophical rather than scientific theories, give me examples of science thriving in an Islamic theological framework.

More recent than the 15th century, if you don't mind, because there is no doubt that in the previous period, certain of the Muslim societies were far more tolerant of scientific, artistic and philosophical thought than the barbaric Christian societies which succeeded them in Spain and elsewhere.

Wed, 2008-02-27 05:14

#98

Cueball

And now you are getting into that complex association of where philosophy joins religion to science in the same field, perhaps in that liminal area that Suhrawardi might call the "independent intermediary world", the realm where human conception meets reality, and so, if you are going to argue that a philosophical conjecture is scientific in nature, then you are going to have to recognize that Suhrawardi used religion as a philosophical basis for his scientific endeavour, Islam specifically, and in that case you have just disproved your point.

If you are saying Suhrawardi was a scientific philosopher who was repressed by Islam, then you had better recognize that he was a [i]Muslim[/i] scientific philosopher.

Wed, 2008-02-27 05:17

#99

Unionist

Cueball, in case you hadn't realized it, I have [b]never heard[/b] of these scholars before sanizadeh mentioned them, and I know [b]absolutely nothing[/b] except the bits and pieces in his linked Wikipedia items.

Did you specialize in the theory of tangents in math class??

If you have an example of Islam promoting scientific progress in modern times, be sure to let me know.

Wed, 2008-02-27 05:19

#100

Cueball

I should think the era was irrelevant.

Speaking of which, how come all the recent scientific achievements have come from a Judeao-Christian society, some of them rigidly so? Is that because Christianity is more condusive to scientific endeavour?

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-02-27 05:31

#101

adam stratton

Here how unionist -as I understand- framed his thesis:

Islam impedes science and discovery.
Islamic scholars are scientists furthering science and discovery and suppressing them is evidence that Islam impedes science and discovery.

Science and religion are reconciled since they have the following common trait:

-Light in the sense we know in physics is the same light Sufis discover when in trance or medidation, etc...

Any congruity, coherence or logic in this thesis ?

It appears to me that unionist is desperately "renovating" his ever collapsing thesis instead of simply admitting that it is a condemned thesis, as it really is.

[ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

Pages

Topic locked