Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

He didn't have to be a scientist. I am talking about his influence on the culture. He encouraged the wholesale abandonment of any ideas, science, or anything else that didn't come from Islam. He set the tone and set the culture against open inquiry and scientific pursuit and against cross cultural exchanges of knowledge and inquiry. The resulting culture lasted a long long time, even arguably till this day.

His influence on the culture? What are you talking about You do realise that Imam al Ghazali went walkabouts for ten years? In that time, he advanced his understanding of his place in the world and came away with knowledge that can only be reached via much contemplation. A spiritual insight into the inner workings of the human condition.

he did not promote his ideas publicly, as he ahad once done. Nope. Instead he wrote it all down in books. In these books, he clarifies that each person on the earth is given a gift, and they are responsible for nurturing it in the right way. For some people, that gift may be mathematics, others - science. So what you say makes no sense to me.

So when you say "he encouraged the wholesale abandonment of any ideas, science, or anything else that didn't come from Islam" I have to correct you with: in Islam, we are taught to be the viceregents of knowledge. To be trustees and keepers of knowledge, to be spokespersons for knowledge, to be those who take knowledge and turn it into wisdom - thru practice. No matter what that knowledge is... be it science, math, geology, history - whatever.

Al Ghazali never promoted that which you claim. I want to know how you came to this opinion. Care to explain please?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

That was no dout also part of it. But why didn't it recover? I think that is where the cultural and religious forces came into play, with the economic and demographic having some influence too.

Since the year 1156 - right up to the 14th century - many battles were fought in the middle east between the crusader legions and the Muslims. This, no doubt, impacted the sponsorships of the arts and sciences in Muslim lands, because money had to be thrown into armaments so the Muslims could stay safe from Crusader attacks instead.

Let's not forget that many Muslim regions had to be repaired also, due to Timur the Lames excursions and burning of entire towns and villages, and a city or two aswell.

The Muslims had to salvage what they could. No doubt. So when you say "I think that is where the cultural and religious forces came into play, with the economic and demographic having some influence too." - I have to tell you, you are only partly right. Namely the economic and demographic part... the previous statement is entirely wrong. Cultural and religious forces did not come into play in order to ensure that which you think happened. The only force that had a major influence were the hoardes of Crusaders who basically threw a spanner in the works for Muslims in many more ways than they thought possible...

...But look around you today, and time is witness to what the western civilisation owes Islam. A debt of gratitude for advancing the western civilisation out of the "dark ages" into the revival of the Renaissance - for which, once again, we indebt ourselves to those Muslims who improved upon the works of the earlier Greeks and Romans, so much so, that their inventions became widely accepted due to the sheer craftsmanship and practicality of such inventions...



Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

As one of the commenters on the link you posted said, it is a shame that religions so ruthlessly exploit this weakness.

Did you find it equally shameless when dawkins took out billboards such as this:

Or is that not equal exploitation of children? I don't understand why it is so allowed when the shoe is on the other foot and we've to enable it, yet so exploitative when it comes to religion?
You've to understand that whether you maintain this neutrality through atheism or not that it is a point of view and many times in an of itself borders on militant extremism. Hence when I say whether you like it or not, it is a religion/cult all its own.
by the way do you find what is natural and what is instinctive to be sperate terminology?

best,

here's actually the other one I wanted so badly to find.. obviously seems to suggest that we're born atheists and that's proven not to be the case:



On a separate note, I am glad he managed to round up a whole bunch of 'Hitler's dream' kids for that advert.

Scimitar, that was then and this is now.

I entirely agree that that in that period the Islamic middle east produced a ton of science that we rely on to this day. But.... something changed drastically in the culture in its outlook towards scientific inquiry.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is who first made me aware of this Al-Ghazali guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLDKLQYrg8

This series explores Al-Ghazali directly. It also mentions some other factors leading to the decline of the golden age of islam being pro-science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSXwPsgLhE

The link I provided in the post above to the history forum provides many more thoughts on factors that led to the decline.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but it is pretty interesting stuff.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

Did you find it equally shameless when dawkins took out billboards such as this:

Or is that not equal exploitation of children? I don't understand why it is so allowed when the shoe is on the other foot and we've to enable it, yet so exploitative when it comes to religion? You've to understand that whether you maintain this neutrality through atheism or not that it is a point of view and many times in an of itself borders on militant extremism.

It is militant and extreme to suggest children should choose for themselves?

It does seem exploitative when parents use their children as fashion accessories, or try to tell people what their children believe, when their children are too young to understand much less believe what is being said. And yes, that would include calling your 2 year old anti-theist. I would also point out that the add is not atheist. That child could very well choose to be muslim, and at a very early age (if the child could actually understand the religion enough to choose it), and I actually see "atheist child" as one of the labels it is saying not to force on a kid.

Your second quoted image is a weird one, and one I don't agree with what Dawkins (or whoever it is) is trying to get at.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

It is militant and extreme to suggest children should choose for themselves?

It does seem exploitative when parents use their children as fashion accessories, or try to tell people what their children believe, when their children are too young to understand much less believe what is being said. And yes, that would include calling your 2 year old anti-theist. I would also point out that the add is not atheist. That child could very well choose to be muslim, and at a very early age (if the child could actually understand the religion enough to choose it).

Your second quoted image is a weird one, and one I don't agree with what Dawkins (or whoever it is) is trying to get at.

The poster and I'd hazard say most people who are critical of religion do not know the first thing about raising kids. If you've any children of your own you'd see how flawed your statement is. Every stage in a child's life comes with its challenges to both child and parents.
Do you think it is a brand of indoctrination to let a child choose what they should eat for instance? If you don't set boundaries, create structure, define rules you'll have nothing but oppositional defiant rude kids on your hand who grow up to be anti-social adults. No more no less.
By the same token if you let them eat guava before peas they're not going to want to eat vegetables and according to the Pediatric association you should introduce certain things before others if you introduce something sweet to their palate first, they're not going to develop the palate for the other stuff.
Abstract thought doesn't develop until much later in a child's life you have to tell them right from wrong. They may have an understanding that life is purposeful, but they don't understand the directionality of that. And neither can you actually lay on them a very heavy burden at two or three or four or five or six etc yrs of age. In fact per Islam you should start teaching them at age seven but all along you need to instil in them a sense of moral compass, why it is wrong to lie, or to steal, or to curse.. it is certainly not something that should be left to their devices or their 'choosing' and if Dawkins and/or other atheists don't agree with that, then it is pitiable indeed. It is simple common sense that seems to be missing from that guy and whomever is in support of him.

Meh, even atheists are indoctrinating their child with the precepts of what defines a "better human." Yesterday this grand ma was telling his grand daughter in the exam room to say "you're welcome" when the doc said thank you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Scimitar, that was then and this is now.

I entirely agree that that in that period the Islamic middle east produced a ton of science that we rely on to this day. But.... something changed drastically in the culture in its outlook towards scientific inquiry.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is who first made me aware of this Al-Ghazali guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLDKLQYrg8

This series explores Al-Ghazali directly. It also mentions some other factors leading to the decline of the golden age of islam being pro-science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSXwPsgLhE

The link I provided in the post above to the history forum provides many more thoughts on factors that led to the decline.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but it is pretty interesting stuff.

Its a shame that you dont know about Al Ghazali other than whas Tysson says. Tysson is not a historian, yet you took his interpretation of al-ghazali to the heart. Lack of critical thought on your part.

In fact Al Ghazali is so important of a historical figure that there is a whole website dedicated to studying his works.

http://www.ghazali.org/

You'd benefit a bit more by being open minded and honest in pursuit of knowledge.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Scimitar, that was then and this is now.

I entirely agree that that in that period the Islamic middle east produced a ton of science that we rely on to this day. But.... something changed drastically in the culture in its outlook towards scientific inquiry.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is who first made me aware of this Al-Ghazali guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLDKLQYrg8

This series explores Al-Ghazali directly. It also mentions some other factors leading to the decline of the golden age of islam being pro-science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcSXwPsgLhE

The link I provided in the post above to the history forum provides many more thoughts on factors that led to the decline.

I don't pretend to be an expert, but it is pretty interesting stuff.

Watching the first video, my comments:

1) @ 2:10, the speaker introduces Al Ghazali - and claims that Al Ghazali wrote "mathematics is the work of the devil". The man is VERY wrong with that statement. Al Ghazali didn't say that, what he actually wrote was "Numerology (not Mathematics) is the work of the devil/satan" and we all know what Numerology is don't we? moving on:

2) by 2:40, he is hanging his whole point on this one fallacy. What a fail. Still, I'll humour the video and comment here for you:

3) from 2:40 to 3:30, he is making a series of blunders and it shows in his nervous mannerisms. He has no clear idea how to say what he wants to say, neither does he actually manage to say anything for almost a minute.

4) from 3:30 to the end, he is making a point of the USA losing interest in the BIG BANG theory due to skeletons of monkey holding the hands of human skeletons in a museum. Why are you even watching this guy? If I went toe to toe with him, he'd run away for sure... he makes a lot of loose points and has poorly researched Al Ghazali.

To make things worse, he not only misrepresented Al Ghazali's teaching that numerology is wrong and shouldn't be practised, but the speaker also tries to blame the decline of the golden era of islam - to Al Ghazali, using that one very broken point. That is not just weak - it's ridiculous

Ok second video analysis coming up:

1) first of all, Salahuddin didn't sell any thing from the linbraries to anyone. He restored the original works to their rightful keepers. This man in the video is citing opinion based on accounts from western sources who have an agenda to disrepute Islam in as many ways as they can.

It's good for you that I have a keen interest in Islamic history, from non western sources.

2) @ 2:57, we once again hear the same tired old argument that Al Ghazali "destroyed the philosophical basis of science of the time and replaced it with religious thought" ... Lies. What Al Ghazali did was write a book on philosophy, as he was a master of it. And he very efficiently refuted the various philosophical arguments using religious theology based on Islam. Now - if you know anything about philosophy, you will recognise that what Al Ghazali had done, was argue the best philosophy against other philosophies. And nothing in his book mentions that scientific enquiry should be curbed or stopped - so where do these westerners get these ideas from? I tell you where - from their own imaginations. The reality is very different. Moving on.

3) @ 3:07, we hear the speaker in the video make an important point - that "Al Ghazali was not against science and mathematics, on the contrary, he acknowledged that medicine and mathematics are very useful for society". Does this not throw a red herring into the point you are trying to prove? I already mentioned above that Al Ghazali propagated the belief that the study of the sciences, and mathematics were to be preserved and improved upon. And now, what I say is also in a video you posted. In the video, the speaker quotes Al Ghazali "he (Al Ghazali) even called it a sin to neglect science".

4) @ 3:20 the speaker claims about Al Ghazali - "though he was in favour of the applied sciences, he was against he practice and study of science just to gain knowledge... this is just as ridiculous as the other video. let me explain. In his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al Ghazali mentions that the study of the sciences are imperative in order for human civilisation to prosper and bring benefit to the world. He also mentions that the correct philosophy towards science should always be the grounding factor in any science - this is what we call the "Scientific Method" today. Ibn Al Haythm wrote a big paper on that - when he refuted "Ptolemy" who was a philosopher, astronomer and astrologer, as well as scientist...

So what Al Ghazali said was not wrong. It was completely correct. yet this man in the video is unable to understand the wider scope of the problems affecting the Arabian peoples at that time. Namely, the time for philosophy had ended, and the time for progress is only just starting. YES - that was his idea, that was what he propagated in his book - The Incoherence of the Philosophers. The speaker in the video is getting to be quite moronic now... but once again, i will humour the video for the sake of answering your questions.

You must understand that in no way did Al Ghazali ever try to deny people their right to seek knowledge. Infact, Al Ghazali was a strict proponent of the Hadeeth "Seek knowledge wherever ye may find it, even if it takes you to Qin (China)" - If this had not been the case, he would never have left his family and home behind, in search for knowledge - that took him away from everyone he knew and loved for over ten years...

5) From 4:37 onwards, the speaker gets himself in a twist because he is unable to understand that what Al Ghazali was making a point of in chapter 17, was the factoring in of miracles - this does not "undermine" God, as the speaker in his stupidity, thinks - but recognises that God does not need to adhere to the laws that HE set. This is a fundamental idea that needs to be taken into consideration. it is not a negation of God as the speaker in the vid would have you believe LOL. NO. It is quite the opposite... it is letting those philosophers know that that although they are unable to prove the existence of God via philosophy - he, Al Ghazali was actually able to give them the tools with which to recognise that God "can"... this is profane. Especially because the philosophers themselves always got stuck in the whole "Chicken / Egg" argument, and basically what Al Ghazali was trying to say was "you can't figure out what came first, the chicken, or the egg - but what is stranger is that you falter on this one detail and forget to wonder at the elusiveness of the answer - the answer is God created it for you to marvel at, wonder at, and know that all power is HIS alone."

6) @ 5:50, the speaker claims that Al Ghazali does not believe that Abraham (pbuh) was thrown into a fire that didnt burn him... I highly doubt that my friend. Al Ghazali would often quote this very story to his students - why would he do that if he didn't believe in it? He made the point that that if Allah wills, no power on earth can harm those who HE has offered HIS protection to. Again, this also proves another point of his too - that cause and effect are not exlcusive - because Allah can manipulate cause and effect to whatever standard HE chooses, just as HE manipulated the cause "fire" and the effect "no burning" as an exception to the rule in Abrahams case (pbuh).

7) ok, the man is now clutching at straws when he makes the whole "God of the gaps" case, which, I might add, has been refuted here on IB many a time already makes me smile - because if this the best that they can do, then i'm really not that worried lol.

8) he ends with a quote from Al Ghazali without even giving you the commentary on the quote. Which should read something like "... because all will started with Allah, and therefore all willed laws, are HIS alone, Including the natural and unnatural laws. The duality should be considered, because without the duality, one will always find himself looking thru a bias" - something like that.

I fail to see how this prove your point. Becuase I refuted the videos with what little knowledge I have. Imagine if a Scholar had tackled it?

Here you go bro, watch this to learn more about the man Imam Al Ghazali (May Allah be pleased with him) :



Scimi

Psygocelis - do you believe in "the benefit of the doubt" ? and if so, why do you doubt first, before the benefit has been presented? in other words - why do you go to non Muslim sources first, in order to learn about Muslims? This is not known as giving the "benefit of the doubt", but quite the opposite.

In future, if you want to learn about someone from the history of Islam, come to us first - after that, learn what the non Muslims say about that someone... that will be in the nature of "the benefit of the doubt", and is also comparative in context. So as to make you aware of the intricacies of historical allegory.

I think your whole method into research is flawed - if all it takes is youtube videos and some pseudo-intellectuals opinion, bro.

There should be a correct method to follow. If I want to learn about science, I go to a scientist, not a fork lift driver. If i want to learn about Islamic history, I got an Islamic historian, not a butcher. If I want to learn how to grow pretty flowers, I go to a gardener, not to the coffeeshops of Amsterdam, see my point?

Real study, is in books. We can form opinions from opinions of others - yet we will only be fooling ourselves. It is the books which have credence that will provide a way for you to think critically and understand the nature of the subject you are unclear about, after which, you may learn to ask better questions and receive better answers.

Methodology.

Scimi

Scimi, that docu is good but man oh man what a stereotype. These docu makers keep on adding classical indian music into story of a man who was Persian, yet they portray him as an Arab, with classical hindi music in background. Three totally different cultures stereotyped into one: A Muzzie!

format_quote Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

Scimi, that docu is good but man oh man what a stereotype. These docu makers keep on adding classical indian music into story of a man who was Persian, yet they portray him as an Arab, with classical hindi music in background. Three totally different cultures stereotyped into one: A Muzzie!

I know bro, I know... but to be honest, when I was in Arabia, I went to a few shisha places and they play this same kinda music. I was like oO indian music? and they were like >.< NO - IT's ARABIC MUSIC... lol.

My guess is that over the decades, as more immigrants from Asia came over to Arabia, they also influenced its music. And now, it's supposedly "Arabic" music.

Whatever the case is, the docu-movie is ace. I love it too much. If you haven't already - download it because youtube will take it down within a few weeks. This is the third or fourth time I had to add it to my playlist "The Gift Box" which has many Islamic movies in it. You seen any of the Omar Series yet? It's fan-freaking-tastic

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I myself would go beyond that and say that much of what religions try to program children with is sick and twisted, but that is where we differ and can agree to disagree.

It is hard for me to imagine any parent approaching four year old Aminah or Johnny with a long theological discussion. Most of the time they ask the tough questions and we try to distill down terms to easy digestible bits.
Again, none of them have abstract understanding at that age. So you try to break down things in terms they can understand. Most parents are afraid their kids will walk off with a stranger than whether or not they're saved if they die that evening or if they haven't memorized the Quran. Their concept of religion at that age comes in terms of historical events that took place those that shaped our world and our understanding of it, Islam doesn't exclude any prophets or their stories from their reading material, if a Jewish kid or a Christian kid were reading the same books that we've it would be similar (minus the story of Jesus as a 'god') which doesn't make sense to children anyway and also sans the figure illustrations, believe it or not in the very secular school my niece goes to, she came home once with a book about Noah and another time with a book about God so whether atheists or not they'll have the same reading material and doesn't gear them toward one particular theology or another. That's why I take whatever dawkins et. al. says with a grain of salt. It is silly and nonsensical.
Not to bring your kids upright and teach them right from wrong, tighten their moral compass is the true form of child abuse, truly no different than someone leaving a kid in a crib all day with a bottle and no human interaction.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

There was a whole other link in the post you responded to. And you have no idea if I have looked at or read anything else about the guy.

Really? You got that from the post you quoted? I just wrote I am no expert on this. I presented a bunch of links for reading, including one to a history forum where people seem to know their stuff. And you take than and try to pretend the above? You could really stand to be more honest yourself.

You are accusing CosmicPathos of not being honest? This is funny Bro CosmicPathos has integrity on this forum, and if he so wishes, he can give you his two cents... but why should he when he has me here. he can relax and make himself a tea...

care to be honest enough with me to answer my questions in the above post?

Scimi