Looks like religious fanatics are running out of things to attack Dawkins

Oh I take your point. So you think the crusades are not to blame for the small number of what you erroneously called “notable discoveries” (when it’s indeed a list of various thinkers(scientists). I’m afraid your point backfires a bit though, especially in combination with your assessment that ideas take a while to ”catch on.” That would mean that the small number can also not have been caused by Imam Hamid al-Ghazali (1058–1111) who according to you was “turning Islamic thought from the one that embraced science to the one with aversion to science that exists today.”

So why do you seem to have problems acknowledging that quite obviously Islam and scientific thought are not immanently opposed to each other? Your own link to the Wikipedia list “of science and engineering in the Islamic world” (which as my link indicated is probably incomplete) refutes that notion.
Is it because you think science and religion are generally opposed to each other (obviously not – otherwise we’d all still be sitting on trees) or are you just an ethnocentric chauvinist who wants to proclaim a supposed Western/judaeo-Christian superiority?

I never claimed Dawkins wrote about al-Ghazali. I said he should have read what al-Ghazali wrote and taken his advice to get wise on a subject before setting out to criticize it. If Dawkins had done that “The God Delusion” might not have gotten reviews such as this one: “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

LoL, so that’s how you came up with Imam Hamid al-Ghazali!
That Neil deGrasse Tyson shares your simplistic monocausal thinking here, doesn’t make it any better though. Even if I shared the assumption that Imam Hamid al-Ghazalis writings were solely responsible for the end of the Islamic Golden age, the very fact that there was one shows that there’s no immanent conflict between religion as such and science.

And Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson might be perfectly nice people to have dinner with. It’s their ideas that I attack.

Gosh, I suppose you’d have the same problems with reading-comprehension if you went to the original text. He says mathematical truths are undeniable, he just advises against taking the theological views of Greek mathematicians on board as well. As an atheist being fond of science you should be the first to agree that while the Pythagorean theorem for example is fine, Pythagoras‘ belief in reincarnation is probably not. One can accept the first and deny the latter.

The ‘defense’ is right there, you just failed to see it. Have another go. Come on, it couldn’t have been more obvious.

Again: I already did explain that todays academic feminism (and resulting feminist practice) hugely is based on poststructuralist ideas. Personally I always found the phraseology and formulae of statistics much harder to understand than the writings of academics like Judith Butler. Applying Dawkin's logic I could just have dismissed these formulae as “mindwankery”.

I suppose what Dawkins finds really annoying (provided he bothered to strain his brain that far) that poststructuralism doesn’t give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the material world he’s so hooked to. Poststructuralist gender-studies couldn’t care less about genes. They’d only be interested how social discourses about genes for example shape gender-identities.

Actually due to my ‘philosophical ideals’ I try to avoid lumping opponents together. Instead I try to keep my categories small. That’s why I have a problem with people who criticize all forms of religion and treat it as a monolithic root of all evil. I’d never criticize all atheists and lump them in with the Dawkins’ gang. Actually most atheists I know are quite reasonable and thoughtful. And – to go back to the original topic – I may not like the way Dawkins ‘theorizes’ about religion, but I would not doubt that he knows a lot about genetics and evolution. Also I’d certainly never criticize him for his ancestry.

 

LOL - So when duly noting my nonresponse did you appreciate the graciousness with which I overlooked that your nonsensical answer just showed that you didn’t get my point again? Isn't it nice of me that I didn’t press you for a comment on that point but just let it go?

But seeing that you’re so eager to hear a comment on those lines of yours:
Am I right in assuming that you misinterpreted my statement that the Gregorian chants/alpha wave connecting is interesting as a kind of ‘magical thinking’ on my part about the old monks ‘supernatural’ abilities?
Let me assure you that contrary to the prejudices you may hold against religious people I’m not prone to magical thinking. I find the knowledge displayed by indios just as interesting, but I’d have the ingredients of some traditional healing-plants from the rainforest scientifically analyzed before I consume them. (And I’d seek to protect the Indios rights to said plants and their habitat against the greed of Western corporations, plus: I wouldn’t look down on the Indio's religious beliefs and traditions)
Also I have no problems whatsoever with evolution and how life-forms evolved in its process. Why should I?

No need to.

So you did get my point. Good. Because I trust you enjoy music just like anybody else does.

If you mean that all philosophical attempts to prove or disprove God have not lead to any answer yet that is indisputable, you’re absolutely right. Unless you want to write a book about it, you don’t really need to bother to get into metaphysical philosophy in the hope of finding settling questions about the existence of the divine.

Not a big fan of comparative religion/interfaith talks , are you? Personally ever since childhood I have always loved this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Your ‘real science’-video has its first big fallacy in about 0:40. The creation stories in Genesis are not to be taken as a literal account of how the universe came into being. Only weird Christian fundamentalists and new atheists see them as such. Just in case you’re interested: this link quite nicely illustrates one problem that’s probably at the root of this fallacy: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

As it happens I love string theory and all the mind-blowing possibilities it opens. I see it in no way as contradictory to my faith. If anything it widens my faith.

Now as I said to Wolverine before: I don’t expect you to share my faith. I’m rather fond of interreligious acceptance, which includes that I can also accept the absence of faith or turning science into a new form of religion.
I have no tolerance for intolerance though. It seems to me that you can’t reciprocate my acceptance. If (!) that is so it’s pretty clear who of us is more of a fanatic.

 

Oh! Also XVZ... I am still right... you are still wrong as always! Happy Monday!

 

I do think that your attributed influence from the crusades to a decline in scientific undertaking is shown to be inversely correlated. In fact, conflict and competition among cultures can be a catalyst for advancement.

I mentioned from the outset that it was not a thorough investigation. It was merely an illustration. A more thorough investigation would entail an examination of the discoveries' impact and influence. Many cornerstones in mathematics are rooted in that 9th-10th centuries from the Middle East. Compare that to do modern times.

Steven Weinberg

I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and (*)(*)(*)(*) it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too.​

There is Christian thought that is becoming more adverse to science. Surely you are familiar with the Religious Right in America.

'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett

Richard was asking me the other day, he and Christopher and Sam, less me but I get a little of it, are often accused of being philosophical philisteins – crude untutored people who shouldn't mess with sophisticated complexities in the field of philosophy. And he wanted to know, did I think it was true and what philosophies should he read if he should repair this damage. I said no, I just don't think it's true. I think that theology, and particularly philosophical theology, is a pseudo-sophisticated mugging game and there’s no reason to learn any of it because we’ve just seem some of the best of it and its full of I think willful obscurity and willful use of “deepities.”​

So there is the take of Dan Dennet, a distinguished philosopher. On the other hand we have Terry “I am not myself a philosopher” Eagleton. Are there any reflections on “getting wise on a subject before setting out to criticize it” to be had there?

Red herring.

He does not just advise against taking views as you state. He discourages teaching it to those he fears will take from it views he claims are unrelated. “A clumsy and stupid person must be kept away from the seashore, not the proficient swimmer; and a child must be prevented from handling a snake, not the skilled snake-charmer.” Notice that I didn't claim he says that all Muslims must be discouraged from mathematics, I specifically said the commoner.

You: Nonsense, but yes you can be a scientist and still be a misogynist, just as you can be a scientist and not be a misogynist, a scientist and religious, a scientist and not be religious, religious and a misogynist, religious and not be a misogynist.

Oh I saw it alright, I just wouldn't characterize a one word declaration by fiat as an attempted defense. I suppose this is a lesson in objective ability?

On reflection, that sounds much more crass that I really intend it.

Yet your inference is still a non sequitur.

I tried to say that you lump people who do not agree with your philosophical ideals (the not got dropped). That does not mean people who do not agree with your philosophical conclusions. It was not meant that you attack those who disagree with your position just as it would be implied that Dawkins can appreciate scientific thought that he himself isn't congruent with when I said scientific ideals.

Just earlier in this thread you equate Dawkins and a religious fundamentalist:

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060948296-post243.html

While looking a little more suave in a suit Richard Dawkins is to religion (in his case mainly Christianity) what the bigoted islamophobe Robert Spencer is to Islam. Both pick the nastiest sounding verses out of context and pretend they are signifying for the respective religion while ignoring what theologians of religious traditions really make of these verses.​

That seems like lumping to me.

 

I was under the impression that you accept evolution which is largely the reason why I cited the eye. I made no assumptions about your reasons, nor do I attempt to imagine ways in which to bash you and it would be respectable of you to treat others with the same courtesy.

I do not consider it to be as interesting as you proclaim, namely that you find it “highly interesting.” I want to know what you mean by that because as in the eye example I gave, it is what I would regard as expected. I usually find the unexpected to be interesting, which if you could have reasonably extrapolated anything out of what I said, that should have been it: “Would you expect there to be creatures that see in a band of the electromagnetic spectrum that is nearly absent and thus rather ineffective?”

Your response of “no need to“ was along the lines of what I was after. Just a dismissive thought, not any “getting of a point.”

While I sympathize with your literalist critique in general and would not classify the introduction as science, I have to note that the narrator says “nothing like” meaning even an allegorical interpretation is on unsubstantial grounds. Furthermore, she explicitly refers to the people she is referring to that use Genesis, namely those who are the promoters of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and they are not literalists. A literalist fallacy would be saying Genesis does not describe the beginning of the universe because it did not take only six days.

But nevermind that, the science I was referring to are the cosmologists and their works that are cited.

So after all that explaining, you still are under the erroneous conception that the beauty that can be found in what is demonstrable and the realization of the non-beauty in things that rely on human biases is all about intolerance and fanaticism. I would like for you to pick out which sentences I wrote in that explanation that you think supports that position.

 

If you want to think of ballistae and atom bombs as ‘advancements’.

I think you'll find that all in all high civilizations seem to decline when being worn down in military conflict.

A more thorough investigation would probably point you to the insight that there are very few things in history that have a monocausal explanation and that there are even fewer things the view on which is free from the ethnocentric bias we’re all prone to.

You mean modern times during which Muslims all over the world have been oppressed for the sake of our imperialist needs?

And you seriously think Steven Weinberg is an objective judge of anything that has to do with Islamic religion?

The religious right in America is certainly a worrying crowd and that’s one of the reasons why I wish people like Dawkins would see common sense, because their line of argument is anything but helpful when dealing with this worrying phenomenon of religious fundamentalism.
One example is the discussion on evolution/creationism in science classes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/27/religion.schools

Then again the “New atheists” are fundamentalists themselves. So I see little hope for common sense on either extreme.

You mean Dan Dennet, natural philosopher and along with Dawkins known as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism,"? Dawkins himself has a catchier apology for his ignorance: “Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?”

No, you don’t. But you should look up on leprechology before writing a 400 page book on the subject.

As for Eagleton: you don’t have to be a philosopher or theologian to note that Dawkins talks out of his ass in “The God Delusion”. The average general knowledge acquired in a halfway decent grammar school should do. (Then again judging by this forum I might have a slightly too optimistic outlook on the general knowledge conveyed in grammar schools)

Are you kidding me? Actually I remember this to be the starting point of our discussion. So what exactly do you think we’re talking about?

I’d be very surprised if modern democratic values such as the right to equal access to education had been held anywhere in the 11 century.

Actually it was part of a response to your logical non sequitur of denying that Iranian nuclear scientists are not really scientists because they live in a political regime that you don’t like because of its misogyny. You may not like it but on the same grounds I could argue that Dawkins isn’t a real scientist because of his misogyny (and a misogynist he is: )
Of course as seen in my ‘defense’ I don’t argue that, but just used the opportunity to point out the misogyny Dawkins and his lot are prone to.

How is drawing parallels between two people 'lumping'? Dawkins is indeed a demagogue and an islamophobe. It's actually even worse than I thought: on top of that he’s far from consistent in his ideals when it comes to bashing Islam. Just one example: http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/05/12/richard-dawkins-“islam”-is-an-“unmitigated-evil”/

And of course Dawkins and his devout fanboys are fundamentalists. They proclaim there's no other truth but their own and proclaim unbelievably simplistic black and white credos. Here's from somebody who left the cult: http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.html

 

You yourself found the phenomenon interesting enough to write:

"What we feel is expressed in brain states and is malleable from the physical experience and the ambiance in which we are saturated to. Specifically repetitive rhythm and cadence are great at affecting one's brain states."

I find it interesting that humans have made use of various methods to affect brain states since time memorial. But then I always found anthropology and religious practices fascinating. I think it’s amazing how many clever things our ancestors got wise of without having the scientific means at their disposal that we have now to explain them.
You are of course entitled not to share this interest. But why get all upset about it?

What apparently annoyed you is a previous suggestion that things such as music may affect our brain state for a reason, that our urge to search for transcendence via music, art etc. is in itself a suggestion that there may be something transcendent that’s worth looking for. If you’re not keen on the possibility of transcendence, so be it. You won’t be able to stop others to crave for it though. It seems to be an almost universal human trait.

???

You should especially have listened to the last cosmologist who was quoted (Yeah while doing the washing up I got there even though the missionary narrator of the video came across as even more annoyingly smug than the missionary William Lane Craig). The last quote could have pointed you to the whole pointlessness of the enterprise:
Of course the Kalam Cosmological argument doesn’t prove God and of course any cosmological theory won’t disprove God.

Sorry, you lost me there. I have a gut feeling you answered the implied question in my “if” with yes, but to be honest I haven’t got the slightest clue what you’re on about here.

 

And here I thought you wanted to cite Iran's nuclear program as the embrace of science. The scientific revolution in Europe came at a time of turmoil between European powers. The space race was fueled by the American-Soviet conflict. I would like to see a country like China become a scientific leader and in turn stimulate a sense of competition with the caveat that I really would like to see our species grow up and leave the war mongering as the property of history.

Yet the decline occurs before the military incursions you want to proclaim.

What part of that quote is Steven Weinberg judging the Islamic religion? He was citing his colleague, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Abdus Salam, a Muslim, and his struggle to get science into universities.

Islam and Science by Abdus Salam

3. The Decline of Sciences in Islam

Why did creative science die out in Islamic civilisation? This decline, which began around 1100 CE, was nearly complete two hundred and fifty years later .

No one knows for certain why this happened. There were indeed external causes, like the devastation caused by the Mongol invasion. In my view however, the demise of living science within the Islamic commonwealth had started much earlier. It was due much more to internal causes -firstly, the inward-turning and the isolation of our scientific enterprise and secondly -and in the main -of active discouragement to innovation (taqlid). The later parts of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries in Islam (when this decline began) were periods of intense politically-motivated, sectarian, and religious strife. Even though a man like Imam Ghazali, writing around 1100 CE, could say "A grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by a man who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical sciences, seeing that there is nothing in these sciences opposed to the truth of religion", the temper of the age had turned away from creative science, either to Sufism with its other worldliness or to a rigid orthodoxy with a lack of tolerance (taqlid) for innovation (ijtihad-), in all fields of learning - including the sciences.

Does this situation persist today? Are we encouraging scientific research and inquiry?

Of the major civilisations on this planet, science is the weakest in the Islamic Commonwealth. Unfortunately, some of us Muslims believe that while technology is basically neutral, and that its excesses can be tempered through an adherence to the moral precepts of Islam, science -on the contrary - is value-loaded. It is believed that modern science must lead to "rationalism", and eventually apostacy; that scientifically trained men among us will "deny the metaphysical presuppositions of our culture".

Leaving aside the fact that high technology can not flourish without high science and also leaving aside the insult to the "presuppositions of our culture" for implied fragility, I believe that such an attitude towards science is a legacy of the battles of yesterday when the so-called "rational philosophers", with their irrational and dogmatic belief in the cosmological doctrines they had inherited from Aristotle found difficulties in reconciling these with their faith.​

Here you do as Dawkins does.

Anyway, this quote from Barry Goldwater sums up the situation of “dealing” with the religious fundamentalists:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible (*)(*)(*)(*) problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.​

So you are dismissing an acclaimed philosopher because you don't like his company?

So it follows then that you don/t have to be a philosopher or theologian to note when a philosopher or theologian is talking out of their ass either then.

That may have been your presumptuous interpretation of what I meant. There has been quite a bit of that from you after all.

Back peddle in motion.

I did not deny that they are scientists. You really have a propensity to distort. You make essentially the same argument in your opening remarks of the post as I did when questioning the value that shows placed on science in the culture.

You don't just draw parallels, you also place them altogether in a category.

What were your thoughts on Dawkins before this revelation and what are your thoughts now? What were the influences from that piece that altered your perspective?

Your words are what I would expect from a religious fanatic when attempting a denunciating of atheism.

So what are Dawkins and co. proclaimed truths? What are some examples of their shared credos?

 

I am not upset. Are you? I just see cultural practices subjectable to selection processes in the same way as life forms. Variation with disposal of ineffective practices and passing on effective practices.

Something I would characterize as "highly interesting" would be more along the lines of the placebo effect. It is as if biological evolution and cultural evolution somehow came upon a symbiotic relationship where cultural rituals or practices instigate the body's natural healing mechanisms.

But the mere recognition that effective processes are disconvered unwittingly given time and an evolutionary process?

The wording you are looking for is “What I imagine.” What was apparent was a detailing of the phenomenon and caution of its use without full knowledge about it.

Regarding the suggestion you seem to find, that goes back to what 'I pointed out earlier:

It is not so much that science doesn't answer any why questions, because that is just not true, but rather that one has to recognize that assuming there is an answer to every why is the error of human biases. It is a deep rooted bias that you can see readily in children. If you ask children under a certain age why sharp rocks exist with two possible answers, the first of agency 'so animals can scratch themselves' and second of just natural consequence 'because larger rocks happen to fracture', they will choose the first one.

While children grow out of the obvious fallacies such as the one above, it does not completely fade. That is why superstition is as prevalent as it is. And why people assume there must be an agency to things like evolution or beginning of the universe. Well there doesn't need to be an agency which is obviously exemplified in the case of sharp rocks. Moreover, we find the universe to be perfectly compatible as if there is no agency.​

It was an exercise in demonstrating ineffectiveness.

The point was never to disprove any type of theism, it was to show the errors of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I presented it merely as an example of a philosophical argument and how faulty conclusions are reached. I already told you earlier that I don't find the philosophical arguments of John W Loftus convincing either.

If you had actually understood what I've said all along, you would not have needed to make this point of irrelevance.

You got an affirmation of your “if” statement, from “you still are under the erroneous conception” – I am at a lost as to how that is even possible. I am left in wonderment as to the degree to which the words you read inform your perception and the degree to which your prejudices maintain your preconceptions.