Why do we so often see Muslims in debates changing the subject, refusing to answer questions, refusing to listen to other points of view and utterly incapable of presenting a coherent or consistent case?
Peter Tatchell was the only speaker in the discussion who was in touch with reality. He faced the Muslim panellists alone and still got accused of "bullying" despite being outnumbered. It was a truly pathetic display.
You never watched the debate and just ranted like a buffoon.
I can show you debates that will make you swallow your words, want some thing to chew on?
Scimi
It’s not necessary to watch it. I know for a fact that Muslim side “embarrassed” themselves as czgibson observed.
Hamza Tzortis debates without even knowing where he stands. He uses the weak “cosmological” argument he learnt from William Lane Craig. Even the Salafis have pointed this out and explained that Hamza Tzortis just ends up embarrassing not only himself but all of us Muslims with his intellectually immature wrangling with the atheists. Take for example when he falsely claims it is impossible for there to be an endless chain of events in the past. Even Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah disagreed with this purely speculative and baseless idea.
To me the existence of God is self-evident. It is useless to debate atheists with philosophical rhetoric that was used centuries ago and is obviously outdated.
That is my whole point, Muslims are still stuck in the medieval past and don’t know how to respond intellectually to 21st century problems and ideas. Intellectual stagnation is crippling us.
I did eventually make it through the whole video but it was painfully immature. How can you take someone like this seriously?
His simplistic understanding of logic and the scientific method has demonstrated nothing. He gets induction the wrong way round and tries to make his interlocutor agree that non-contradiction is a universal law, despite the fact that quantum mechanics shows that this is not true at the subatomic level. He assumes that his certainty makes all other views wrong, despite having no evidence for his beliefs. When there's no evidence, it's better to say that you simply don't know. He fails to realise that uncertainty and scepticism have driven scientific progress for centuries.
Please, try a bit harder to show us an intelligent Muslim debater next time.
I did eventually make through the whole video but it was painfully immature. How can you take someone like this seriously?
Easily, because he doesn't contradict himself like the guy from your camp did. Or do you think contradictions are truthful now?
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
His simplistic understanding of logic and the scientific method has demonstrated nothing. He gets induction the wrong way round and tries to make his interlocutor agree that non-contradiction is a universal law, despite the fact that quantum mechanics shows that this is not true at the subatomic level. He assumes that his certainty makes all other views wrong, despite having no evidence for his beliefs. When there's no evidence, it's better to say that you simply don't know. He fails to realise that uncertainty and scepticism have driven scientific progress for centuries.
I honestly don't think you know what the Induction is m Gibson.
Logic can be either deductive or inductive. A deductive "argument is one in which the arguer claims that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true" (Hurley, 2003, p. 31). Inductive reasoning is representative of generalizations or statistical reasoning, wherein the premises can be true and the conclusion false. In an inductive argument, "the arguer claims that it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true" (p. 31).
"If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises, the argument is always deductive; if not, it could be either deductive or inductive depending on the other factors" (Hurley, 2003, p. 37). Hurley identified several types of inductive reasoning.
Prediction: knowledge of past events used to argue for a future event;
Causal inference: cause to effect or effect to cause;
Generalization: applying knowledge of a sample to a broader population;
Argument from authority: expert or witness claim to knowledge;
Argument based on signs: knowledge from human symbols; and,
Argument from analogy: described below.
Inductive logic does not offer universally accepted ideas. One aspect of inductive reasoning, particularly with regard to legal and moral reasoning, is analogical reasoning. Items being compared are called analogues, the established item is the primary and the item being compared is the secondary analogue. There are six criteria for establishing the validity of an argument from analogy:
1) Relevance of shared similarities: Do the characteristics have a meaningful connection?
2) Number of relevant similarities between the primary and secondary analogues.
3) Nature and degree of disanalogy (differences).
4) Number of primary analogues: Are there other analogous items?
5) Diversity of primary analogues, if more than one (likenesses and differences).
6) Conclusion specificity: The closer the analogy claimed, the weaker the argument.
The Philosophy of Science can be defined as an attempt to understand methods, meaning, and structure of science through logical and methodological analyses of aims, methods, criteria, concepts, laws, and theories. Generally speaking, scientific theory is just verified common sense. The scientific method is generally considered to have five steps:
1. Theory construction, observation, and description of a problem or situation.
2. Creation of a hypothesis to explain the problem or situation.
3. Operationalization of concepts, the process of defining appropriate measurement of a phenomenon not directly measurable; however, its existence is indicated by other phenomena.
4. Collection of empirical data, observations or experiments conducted to confirm or refute the hypothesis.
5. Empirical testing of hypotheses from which conclusions are drawn, theories are established, and the process may begin again. (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998, p. 61)
Imran Hussein followed to the letter the methodology by leading his opponent by the carrot, which his opponent obliged due to his honesty.
Your claims are empty and you clearly lack the understanding behind the philosophy of scientific methdologies such as Induction which Imran Hussein simply used to show how dishonest atheist science has become.
The onus in on you to prove otherwise.
And no amount of denial without proof (as per your post) will be sufficient to sway us otherwise.
We are people of logic, reason and method. We do not bend the ideas to fit our bias, like your atheist scientists have done. Nor do we fake fossil evidence as per the piltdown man episode in history, like your camp has done.
So please, do debunk Imran Hussein soundly, if you can - I know you cannot.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Please, try a bit harder to show us an intelligent Muslim debater next time.
Peace
At this point, I recognise you are both, serious and ignorant in your request. WOW.
Easily, because he doesn't contradict himself like the guy from your camp did. Or do you think contradictions are truthful now?
In fairness, he didn't do a very good job of defending his position. That doesn't mean he's wrong, however.
I honestly don't think you know what the Induction is m Gibson.
I have a Master's degree in Philosophy and have written papers on the subject. I am well aware of the problems with induction, so please spare me the lecture.
Let's look at Imran Hussein's definition of induction: "Induction is when you go from a general set of data and you make a specific conclusion." In fact, induction involves making inferences from a limited set of data to a more general conclusion. Are you now able to see why I said Hussein has got induction the wrong way round?
Since you think you are an expert on this issue, mind telling me what Hume meant by "There is no rational warrant for for inductive references" ?????
He actually said "There is no rational warrant for for inductive inferences", and he means exactly what he says. We all use induction every day (for instance, in our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that drinking water will quench thirst, or that smoking is bad for health), but Hume was right to point out that there is a very serious problem with induction. That is, the best reason for believing inductive arguments is that they have tended to work well in the past. This itself is an inductive argument, hence the problem arises.
See bro, we're not as ignorant as you think, and can throw you curve balls you won't see coming either.
Hume's identification of the problem of induction is very well known in Philosophy. I would like to know why you are so pleased with yourself for pointing it out. What do you think it shows?
As for your level of ignorance, I'm not sure whether I have enough data. I do remember being impressed by your knowledge of maps a few months ago.
I'm still waiting for your next example of an intelligent Muslim debater.
In fairness, he didn't do a very good job of defending his position. That doesn't mean he's wrong, however.
I have a Master's degree in Philosophy and have written papers on the subject. I am well aware of the problems with induction, so please spare me the lecture.
Let's look at Imran Hussein's definition of induction: "Induction is when you go from a general set of data and you make a specific conclusion." In fact, induction involves making inferences from a limited set of data to a more general conclusion. Are you now able to see why I said Hussein has got induction the wrong way round?
Absolutely not. That was exactly what Imran Hussein was doing, when he mentioned and I quote: "Induction is when you go from a general set of data and you make a specific conclusion." Because that is what Scientist in the modern age do - he used that faulty example to prove that modern day scientists have made a pigs ear of it, and he used the sampling of birds example to prove it. He was leading the Donkey by the Carrot, so to speak.
Surely that didn't get past you Mr Gibson. Why are you playing inversions? It won't ride with me.
Clearly, the Atheist was out of his depth, with his professor alongside him claiming "and that's another big problem for us"... I had to admire his honesty. lol.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
He actually said "There is no rational warrant for for inductive inferences", and he means exactly what he says. We all use induction every day (for instance, in our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that drinking water will quench thirst, or that smoking is bad for health), but Hume was right to point out that there is a very serious problem with induction. That is, the best reason for believing inductive arguments is that they have tended to work well in the past. This itself is an inductive argument, hence the problem arises.
So why then, do scientists rely so heavily upon it if the idea is flawed? See Imrans point now?
He (Imran) gave examples of Induction as validated in science, and showed them to be wholly unrepresentative of facts which do not sit well with said inductive logic.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Hume's identification of the problem of induction is very well known in Philosophy. I would like to know why you are so pleased with yourself for pointing it out. What do you think it shows?
As for your level of ignorance, I'm not sure whether I have enough data. I do remember being impressed by your knowledge of maps a few months ago.
I'm still waiting for your next example of an intelligent Muslim debater.
Peace
Bro, I'm surprised you fell so low as to try a character assassination attempt. can we stay on topic please ?
Come on bro, this was starting to get interesting.
For the record, I also have a deep interest in philoosphy, although I never studied it in any university like you did. Ever read Al Ghazali's Incoherences? Mind blowing.
But let's stay on topic (I don't want to pick up your habits here)
You just wrote: Hume's identification of the problem of induction is very well known in Philosophy.
Clearly it is not so well known in scientific circles, as was proven in the video.
Sorry for the delay. I had to leave to go and play a rock and roll gig in a pub with some friends.
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
Absolutely not. That was exactly what Imran Hussein was doing, when he mentioned and I quote: "Induction is when you go from a general set of data and you make a specific conclusion."
The point is that this is an incorrect definition of induction that Hussein has given us.
Because that is what Scientist in the modern age do
Scientists are aware that their knowledge is imperfect. They do not claim certainty, and every aspect of science is permanently open to revision upon finding better evidence. They rely on induction, as we all do.
What I'm not sure you're getting is this: induction seems to be a habit of thought that we all rely on in order to make predictions about our experience and the world around us. If you were suddenly deprived of the ability to think inductively, it is unlikely you would be able to leave your house. Your brain wouldn't be able to form enough background knowledge about simple objects and experiences to guide your behaviour successfully.
This article might clear up some of the confusion here.
- he used that faulty example to prove that modern day scientists have made a pigs ear of it, and he used the sampling of birds example to prove it. He was leading the Donkey by the Carrot, so to speak.
Pigs, donkeys, carrots. What are you talking about? Are you saying that science has been unsuccessful? Or that scientists have done something wrong?
Surely that didn't get past you Mr Gibson. Why are you playing inversions? It won't ride with me.
I played a few chord inversions on my guitar tonight. Other than that, none.
Clearly, the Atheist was out of his depth, with his professor alongside him claiming "and that's another big problem for us"... I had to admire his honesty. lol.
Yes, discussing things honestly is a good approach.
So why then, do scientists rely so heavily upon it if the idea is flawed? See Imrans point now?
Because it seems to be part of the way our brains work. Even though they are uncertain, inductive arguments are successful for so much of the time that they can still be useful to us. Along with deductive reasoning, of course. You can't forget that that's a big part of science too.
He (Imran) gave examples of Induction as validated in science, and showed them to be wholly unrepresentative of facts which do not sit well with said inductive logic.
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
It's good to see you participating on IB.
Didn't you find it embarrassing in any way?
Unfortunately, I didn't watch the video. That said, a question: Do you, for example, get embarrassed if other males in your workplace fail to show up on time because you're a male yourself or when other some specific atheists might not able to articulate their viewpoints well in a specific venue even though probably many other atheists do and have in other venues? Similarly, I don't understand why a Muslim should become embarrassed on behalf of another Muslim's performance in a debate; there's something to be said for at least having our viewpoint as Muslims represented, even if it is not articulated as well as we'd like. For example, there are doubtless debates happening about the Muslim/Islam question without the benefit of any Muslim person's presence on other panels; that is and should be far more concerning to us as Muslims.
Where are all the intelligent Muslim debaters?
Surely, this one debate can't have been that bad to make the call for "[w]here are all the intelligent Muslim debaters"? And if this was that bad, I'd love to have you point out specific issues - as human beings, we can only learn from our collective mistakes, right?
Why do we so often see Muslims in debates changing the subject, refusing to answer questions, refusing to listen to other points of view and utterly incapable of presenting a coherent or consistent case?
This could be for a variety of reasons: Muslims might feel some questions don't deserve a response; for example, on another non-Muslim board some years ago, I was once asked why as a Muslim I'm forced by my religion to hate and destroy all non-Muslims? While I did answer the question and thoroughly too, refuting that particular weird assertion in the guise of a question, I was honestly not too happy to be having to refute a weird, antagonistic, and baseless assumption. So, I can understand when some Muslims refuse to answer some questions, because some might hold some belief as to some belligerent or insincere or provoking questions not meriting a response.
Also, sometimes, there isn't enough time given to properly give nuanced answers to questions; and sometimes, there are concerns about the understanding level of the audiences; and so, an answer might be deliberately vague to drive across a particular point, though said in that way with the intent of avoiding the audience becoming engrossed in or sidetracked with irrelevant tangential issues not of immediate relevance or concern.
Also, I want to clarify something: Muslims do listen to other points of view - literally, any Muslim living in a Western society anywhere in the world has no choice - due to being part of a minority population; and I think you might be underestimating on just how many issues we have clarity in terms of the non-Muslim viewpoint specific to Islam/Muslims - and perhaps because Muslims already know what specific types of non-Muslims' positions are on certain issues - it may seem like specific Muslims are not immediately listening to any assertions presented forthwith in specific arenas like a debate - but the truth is as Muslims we're already familiar with and have listened to these positions but just not agreed - and so at an opportune time like an arena of debate some Muslims might just be eager to get on with the task of presenting their own viewpoints as a representation of Islam/Muslims and so in turn may erroneously come off as individuals that are not inclined to properly give a circumspect and fair hearing to other points of view on the given topic.
And hey, maybe these Muslim debaters did not present a cogent case (and I can't say either way as I haven't watched the video) - however, maybe we can clarify some points that you didn't feel was answered well in this debate?
Peter Tatchell was the only speaker in the discussion who was in touch with reality. He faced the Muslim panellists alone and still got accused of "bullying" despite being outnumbered. It was a truly pathetic display.
Callum, you have to understand something very important about bullying: A person can be a lone person and still manage to bully a group of people.
Please understand all it takes for the bullying to happen is for a strong personality to run roughshod over those surrounding him. I am not saying, by the way, that Peter Tatchell bullied the Muslim panelists, as you know that I've already admitted that I have not as yet watched the video.
However, I do want to correct the false impression that a lone person cannot manage to bully a group of persons; a lone person can, and doubtless has in numerous examples even in history; and the bullying can take place even in a roomful of audience. I'm, again, not saying that's the case here. However, a person doesn't have to be a detective or a historian or a social scientist to know that there are undoubtedly people who have a boss or a co-worker or a relative who adequately manage to fit the description of bullying a group of people even being the lone person in a roomful of others.
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,
Hi.
So, yesterday, I finally had a chance to watch the video. And I thought I'd answer the questions you've posed here now that I've had time to watch the video.
Didn't you find it embarrassing in any way?
I didn't find it embarrassing. While I don't think that any of the Muslim panelists brought any new points which we could take home, I did think they discussed the issues that they found concerning then, and I liked the fact that they emphasized that we as Muslims needed to become comfortable with our own identity.
That said, I think it is a huge characterization of the event to call it a "debate" as it was not a debate by any stretch of the imagination. When I imagine a debate, I imagine people taking opposing viewpoints and taking turns to present their sides - for or against.
Simply as a neutral observer, the event seemed more like a discussion panel and not a debate. So, I'm unsure why this specific organization called iERA felt the need to characterize it as a "debate." Even from Peter Hatchell, since I watched the video to the end, I didn't get the impression that he was any true voice of dissent, though his trying to question the panel at one point did lead to heated answers from Muslim panelists.
Where are all the intelligent Muslim debaters?
I don't think that's a fair question. This event was, from my understanding, not a "debate" and I think calling the event so is a misnomer on the part of the organization that arranged the event. A better question would be, "Where is the debate?"
Why do we so often see Muslims in debates changing the subject, refusing to answer questions, refusing to listen to other points of view and utterly incapable of presenting a coherent or consistent case?
To be fair, I don't think they changed the subject so much as they wanted to get back to the main topic, which I presume all panelists understood was, "Is Islam a solution or cause of the extremism?"
Also, I wanted to note that the panel's discussion took place in October 2015, and so I went to Wikipedia and went through the list of all terrorist attacks in 2015; while none stood out as prominently as the attacks to be followed in California and Paris which were after October 2015, I'd have to say that I do remember there being the most heightened concerns in that year as the issue of Daesh was one that really was of great security concern. So, I mined some stories of U.K. in that time period before October 2015 and found the following: British Muslim girls had traveled to Syria in February 2015 and were believed married in July 2015 and U.K. papers carried stories of youth being arrested for intending to travel to Syria - some in which males intended to do so and others in which females had intended to do so - but failed. So, as I imagine, the media must have been having a field day of anti-Muslim stories for which both The Sun and The Daily Mail are already famous for doing so and other major news networks were also carrying these stories as they were the highlight of the latest tragic news in Daesh's ability to radicalize youth and probably hysteria about the loyalty of British Muslims to U.K.
Against the backdrop of these things, Peter Tatchell, though I do not doubt well-intentioned, made the mistake of questioning the panel. And yes, it was a mistake, I stress again, because the discussion topic was focused on whether Islam was a solution to the extremism they were seeing then in the community or not. And questioning then instead the panel as to their beliefs on specific topics in shariah (Islamic law) was inappropriate, because that was not the topic of discussion nor relevant - though I do understand that back then probably the majority of the British non-Muslim public were becoming increasingly concerned about whether Muslims somehow want to impose Daesh's version of shariah (Islamic law) on them should they somehow ever come into power. However, again, the line of questioning was inappropriate because I imagine Muslims then were already feeling under fire from all sides, and for then Peter Tatchell, to be insensitive to that, and question the panel (even with good intentions) was inappropriate.
As to Hamza Tzortzis making the accusation of "bullying", you forget that Peter Hatchell questioned Hamza as to a set of things he'd mined from Google and YouTube which were from Hamza Tzortzis himself and I could already see Hamza was uncomfortable being questioned about what he'd said and then Peter then moved on subsequently to questioning the panel as well. So, I think Hamza was talking about how Muslims were feeling probably not because Peter himself was a bully but this line of questioning felt like bullying to the panel who were not there to have their "Britishness" questioned due to their "Muslimness." That said, I don't think Peter was intending to interrogate them so much as have the Muslim panelists issue clarification on specifics of beliefs that were probably of then great concern to the British non-Muslim public. However, even being sensitive to that desire, I don't think I can give Peter a pass on this unmerited lack of questioning.
So, while I don't think Peter intended to bully the panel, I think his line of questioning was inappropriate against the backdrop that I've just painted existed for them with anti-Muslim hysteria on the rise and a question mark hanging over the loyalty of British Muslim citizens.
I understand that Peter has all these years, as he says, felt persecuted from Islamists who've given him death threats; however, if we're being honest, let's not imagine that death threats are exclusive to only him for being a prominent non-Muslim. Many Muslims too receive death threats for not being "Muslim" enough, and I imagine that the Muslim panelists have not escaped these types of threats from either the non-Muslim anti-Muslim brigade made in the image of EDL or BNP or the self-righteous Muslims who somehow imagine that they have a right to judge others on the scale of "Muslimness."
Peter Tatchell was the only speaker in the discussion who was in touch with reality. He faced the Muslim panellists alone and still got accused of "bullying" despite being outnumbered. It was a truly pathetic display.
I'm unsure how you can say Peter Tatchell was "in touch with reality." Honestly, from your point of view, what remark makes you to say he was "in touch with reality"? Is it because he wanted to question the panel? Is it because he supports Palestine? Is it because he gives Tell Mama organization money and his support? No one said Peter Tatchell was not a nice man; even I think he is a nice man.
However, his desiring to question the panel cannot be characterized as being "in touch with reality." For the record, I think Peter is probably a good man because I absolutely give him credit for the work that he's done to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia that he'd enumerated towards the near end of the video. However, I don't think his line of questioning was appropriate in a time when Muslims were already feeling threatened from the negative press coverage, governmental scrutiny, and increasing outrage from the public as to Daesh's antics and desiring to put Muslims on trial as to their faith.
Also, I have to say that Peter Tatchell is definitely not "in touch with reality" as to one important point: Secularism is a worldview. And one of the remarkable things I've had to watch in secular societies is how nonsensical positions always get a pass. For example, gay marriage had not been legalized for the longest time in the United States, until July 2015, that is, even though U.S. is a secular society and has a doctrine specifying "separation of church and state," because of religious bent of the public and not because the country had any real "secular reasons" to ban gay marriage. Transsexuals are struggling to attain legal rights in the U.S. even though U.S. is a secular society because of the religious bent of the public. Polygamy is banned in the U.S. because of the religious bent of the public in the U.S.
Also, discussions of banning articles of clothing like Britain was at one point considering in terms of niqab and Angela Merkel is saying now she'll do, is unjustifiable in truly secular societies with values of "freedom" until we take into consideration that secularism has also militant and radical strains. And I'm sorry to say that secularism doesn't get a free pass as to any moral high ground because it doesn't have it and has never had it. I'd also say that in addition to the religious bent of the majority which somehow "secularism" always takes into the consideration as well as the despotic way in which secularism has been marketed for a long time has been witnessing us getting involved in undeclared wars in the Middle East like the Iraq War and now Syria, all under the ambiguous and dubious catchphrase "War on Terror." I'm seriously starting to get sick of people marketing themselves whether it's right-wing politicians who are apparently "Christian" but not Christ-like and then Islamists who say they are "muhajideen" when they are just terrorists hungering for political hegemony but without any of the ihsan (excellence) in character and actions expected of Muslims; literally, just as we would read a label before buying a product, we need now more than ever to be wary of intelligent but meaningless labels and disingenuous clever self-marketing ploys.
Also, I came away with another thing from watching this discussion. In the U.S., for the longest time, liberals now realize that they threw around terms like "racist," "Islamophobe," "homophobe" as a way to perhaps shut down certain types of discussion but its currency seems to have expired from overuse and wrong usage. Similarly, I think now the term "Islamist" and "extremist" is about to lose its currency in U.K. because of its overuse and wrong usage.
So, in terms of sentiments, I agree with you - this "debate" which was not a true debate was uncharacteristically depressing for all those reasons I've enumerated; and I'd love to see what you think also.
Peace
Wishing you the best, as always, and yes, peace too,
Sorry for the delay. I had to leave to go and play a rock and roll gig in a pub with some friends.
Howdy, no problemo for the delay. Guitar eh?
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The point is that this is an incorrect definition of induction that Hussein has given us.
I disagree, and so did the atheists in the video once Imran corrected their understanding of it.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Scientists are aware that their knowledge is imperfect. They do not claim certainty, and every aspect of science is permanently open to revision upon finding better evidence. They rely on induction, as we all do.
It's useful, in some cases. I won't disagree, but it could be used badly too. I don't think you would disagree.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
What I'm not sure you're getting is this: induction seems to be a habit of thought that we all rely on in order to make predictions about our experience and the world around us. If you were suddenly deprived of the ability to think inductively, it is unlikely you would be able to leave your house. Your brain wouldn't be able to form enough background knowledge about simple objects and experiences to guide your behaviour successfully.
I know what induction is, when it is useful and when it's not. What I think you fail to address is exactly this: the inductive process is by its nature, uncertain. And thus, only a means by which one can navigate something they do not understand. Alongside the Deductive process and between these, scientists believe they can answer most questions, with a relative amount of certainty - the problem I have with that idea is that the very same scientists claim uncertainty in the next breath.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Pigs, donkeys, carrots. What are you talking about? Are you saying that science has been unsuccessful? Or that scientists have done something wrong?
Meh, We move on.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I played a few chord inversions on my guitar tonight. Other than that, none.
Let's keep moving. *shakes head
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Yes, discussing things honestly is a good approach.
That's what I admire about ya Mr G. The honesty.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Because it seems to be part of the way our brains work. Even though they are uncertain, inductive arguments are successful for so much of the time that they can still be useful to us. Along with deductive reasoning, of course. You can't forget that that's a big part of science too.
That's exactly what I said above - that between these two - the inductive and deductive, scientists think they can answer most questions with a relative amount of certainty - and then in the next, claim uncertainty... real quick. Probabilities to me are just something to muse over. Nothing worth taking as a belief.
Ofcourse, the abductive process is also problematic, given it's limitations, but I'm sure you will claim that this just fleshes in the methodology of the science for you. I will not disagree. But I will say, it's willfully painful a process, don't you think? I know Rome wasn't built in a day - but to invest in set of principled ideas that are in reality, only based on understanding probability factors? Certainty/Uncertainty?
I didn't watch the debate but Muslims do not alienate themselves. Just about every mosque I know of raises money, not just for Muslim causes but many non-Muslim causes. Just recently, East London Mosque and other mosques in London started a fundraiser to raise food and clothing for the poor during winter in this Christmas period. MMD, a Muslim medic organisation holds several events every years raising money for all kinds of causes and also works in conjunction with other groups, such as those campaigning for better understanding of mental health. Muslims are involved in British politics (good or bad)...heck one of the world's most important cities has a Muslim mayor, in a country where barely 5% of the population is Muslim.
I could go on but I feel I have made my point, so in which way do we alienate ourselves? Or is it more pertinent to say other organisations, religious groups and political motivations try and alienate and segregate us from the rest of society?
London Muslims donate 10 tonnes of food for homeless at Christmas
Hundreds of Muslims flocked to the East London Mosque on Friday in a drive to feed London's homeless during the festive period. Pictures showed members of the 7,500 strong Muslim congregation donating food as they attended Friday prayers at the mosque in Whitechapel.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Scimitar liked this post
hubris on your part, muffin,
(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks