Credulous skeptics

[Subduction Zone]

What mistake?

The actual Ghazali quote Augustus provides says pretty much the opposite of the (apparently) fictitious quote Tyson gives.
View attachment 64990

That is only one quote and still if one does not look at his whole work and how people reacted to his entire work your quote becomes pointless. It is mere cherry picking.

If you do not want to have a discussion you should have just said so.

 

[Augustus]

And you struggle to avoid seeing the point again using a red herring fallacy.

Another person who thinks misusing fallacies constitutes an actual rational argument.

So even though you haven't seen and can't produce any evidence he said something akin to maths is the work of the devil and you have seen evidence he praised the utility of maths to correct sensory illusions, you know Tyson was basically correct? And even though you can't identify any science he was opposed to and you have seen him caution against rejecting what is demonstrably true out of religious prejudice you know he was anti-science like a modern Protestant fundy who rejects what is demonstrably true out of religious prejudice, not to mention that science as we understand it didn't even exist then?

Can't beat that level of critical insight

 

[Augustus]

That is only one quote and still if one does not look at his whole work and how people reacted to his entire work your quote becomes pointless. It is mere cherry picking.

Could actually look at the bigger picture then.

If you want the source of the myth:

But what happened in the twelfth century when, as Steven Weinberg has phrased it, “Islam turned against science”? As Weinberg explains it, Muslims fell under the retrogressive influence of “the philosopher Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali who argued . . . against the very idea of laws of nature, on the ground that any such laws would put God’s hands in chains.” The fountainhead of this myth, it seems, is an erudite Arabist of an earlier generation, Ignaz Goldziher, also quoted at the beginning of this essay. Goldziher, whose historically awkward but ideologically satisfying ideas seem to have reached Weinberg directly or indirectly, emphasized what he considered the negative role of al-Ghazali, who, we are simplistically told, opposed Hellenistic science—and the very notion of laws of nature—in a book called the Incoherence of the Philosophers...


There are several glaring problems with this explanation, not least of which are the examples given above of impressive activity continuing past the twelfth century in astronomy and medicine. Even Goldziher conceded that Ghazali supported the study of logic and mathematics, but he failed to point out that the allegedly antiscientific Sufi mystic encouraged the pursuit of anatomy and medicine, lamented that Muslims were not doing enough in these sciences, and wrote on anatomy himself. Indeed, the Oxford historian Emily Savage-Smith tells us that Ghazali’s writings served as a powerful spur to the medical sciences.1

In the Muslim world there are no ordained clergy; no institutionalized religious orders; no synods; and no pontifical truth, a deviation from which would constitute heresy. “At most what one could claim is the prevalence of a certain religious approach at a specific time and specific locality,” explains Dimitri Gutas. “But even this has to be qualified by stating to whom, among the different strata of society, this approach belonged, because an assumption of ‘prevalence’ as meaning ‘majority view’ is not necessarily always true.”13 Thus it makes no sense to say that Islamic “orthodoxy” turned its back on science. In medieval Islamic society there was an “open marketplace” of ideas, in which some individuals severely criticized natural philosophy in the Greek tradition while others did not.14

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, political Islam suffered several severe reversals. In the West, Christians reconquered Spain, taking Cordoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248. From the East, the Mongol Hulagu Khan, a grandson of the notorious Genghis Khan, invaded the heartland of the Islamic world, sav- agely destroying Baghdad in 1258 and capturing Damascus two years later. The loss of two of its leading intellectual centers, coming on the heels of Ghazali’s critique, might have brought Islamic scientific activity to an end. But, as George Saliba, profes- sor of Arabic and Islamic science at Columbia University, has recently shown, this did not happen. “If we only look at the sur- viving scientific documents, we can clearly delineate a very flour- ishing activity in almost every scientific discipline in the centuries following Ghazali,” he writes. “Whether it was in mechanics . . . or in logic, mathematics, and astronomy . . . or in optics . . . or in pharmacology . . . or in medicine . . . every one of those fields witnessed a genuine original and revolutionary production that took place well after the death of Ghazali and his attack on the philosophers, and at times well inside the religious institutions.” Even “Hulagu’s devastating blow” did not prevent Islamic astronomy from experiencing a subsequent “golden age.”

...As Saliba has pointed out, almost to a man the leading Islamic men of science in the post-Ghazali centuries “also held official religious posi- tions such as judges, time keepers, and free jurists who delivered their own juridical opinions.

From: Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion

 

[Hop_David]

That is only one quote

There's a lot more than one quote.

Sciences whose knowledge is deemed fard kifayah comprise [all] sciences which are indispensable for the welfare of this world such as: medicine which is necessary for the life of the body, arithmetic for daily transactions and the divisions of legacies and inheritances, as well as others besides. These are the sciences which, because of their absence, the community would be reduced to narrow straits

and

The mathematical sciences deal with arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. But nothing in them entails denial or affirmation of religious matters. On the contrary, they concern rigorously demonstrated facts which can in no wise be denied once they are known and understood.

and

Great indeed is the crime against religion committed by anyone who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences. For the revealed law nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and the latter nowhere address themselves to religious matters.

and still if one does not look at his whole work

Neither you nor Tyson have looked at his whole work. Stop it with the hand waving.

You have not shown a shred of evidence suggesting there's a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

and how people reacted to his entire work

And what reaction is this? Tyson tells us that "cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period"

In the century following Ghazali was al Tusi. There were many Islamic mathematicians and scientists in the centuries following Ghazali. More than three centuries after Ghazali's death was Abu al Hasan, father of symbolic algebra.

Ghazali's fictitious quote most certainly did NOT cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period.

This so called reaction is a fiction, just like the Ghazali text containing an assertion that math is the work of the devil.

If you do not want to have a discussion you should have just said so.

I don't hope to persuade you.

I am hoping that disinterested by-standers will read this thread and notice Tyson's defenders are detached from reality. You offer no evidence to support your claims and even reject evidence placed under your nose.

 

[Augustus]

I am hoping that disinterested by-standers will read this thread and notice Tyson's defenders are detached from reality. You offer no evidence to support your claims and even reject evidence placed under your nose.

The RF "rational sceptic" playbook on matters of religious history (many are present in any thread on the topic):

• Uncritically accept the views of a celebrity "sceptic" or non-expert who says something emotionally satisfying
• Never offer any evidence that their view is correct, but continually insist it should be assumed true by default
• Claim anyone who disagrees is an apologist
• Claim anyone who disagrees is anti-science
• Claim, without evidence, that most experts support them
• Claim that any evidence presented against them is 'cherry picked' without offering anything in support
• Claim, without evidence, that direct quotes from primary sources aren't accurate
• Claim that any scholar cited from a secondary source who disagrees with their view is an apologist, no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof
• Claim directly quoting academic sources constitutes "copy/paste" and is thus not worthy of discussion
• Claim anything not directly quoted from academic sources is unsupported and thus not worthy of discussion
• Claim anyone who disagrees is committing a random logical fallacy without offering any evidence
• Claim that historical person who lived 500-1000 years ago must have been anti-science because modern US fundamentalists are anti-science or because Galileo

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's a lot more than one quote.



and



and







Neither you nor Tyson have looked at his whole work. Stop it with the hand waving.

You have not shown a shred of evidence suggesting there's a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.




And what reaction is this? Tyson tells us that "cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period"

In the century following Ghazali was al Tusi. There were many Islamic mathematicians and scientists in the centuries following Ghazali. More than three centuries after Ghazali's death was Abu al Hasan, father of symbolic algebra.

Ghazali's fictitious quote most certainly did NOT cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period.

This so called reaction is a fiction, just like the Ghazali text containing an assertion that math is the work of the devil.



I don't hope to persuade you.

I am hoping that disinterested by-standers will read this thread and notice Tyson's defenders are detached from reality. You offer no evidence to support your claims and even reject evidence placed under your nose.

I think that they are more apt to notice that you are not debating in good faith here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The RF "rational sceptic" playbook on matters of religious history (many are present in any thread on the topic):

• Uncritically accept the views of a celebrity "sceptic" or non-expert who says something emotionally satisfying
• Never offer any evidence that their view is correct, but continually insist it should be assumed true by default
• Claim anyone who disagrees is an apologist
• Claim anyone who disagrees is anti-science
• Claim, without evidence, that most experts support them
• Claim that any evidence presented against them is 'cherry picked' without offering anything in support
• Claim, without evidence, that direct quotes from primary sources aren't accurate
• Claim that any scholar cited from a secondary source who disagrees with their view is an apologist, no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof
• Claim directly quoting academic sources constitutes "copy/paste" and is thus not worthy of discussion
• Claim anything not directly quoted from academic sources is unsupported and thus not worthy of discussion
• Claim anyone who disagrees is committing a random logical fallacy without offering any evidence
• Claim that historical person who lived 500-1000 years ago must have been anti-science because modern US fundamentalists are anti-science or because Galileo

<sigh> More strawman arguments and a refusal to deal with the actual arguments given.

 

[Augustus]

<sigh> More strawman arguments and a refusal to deal with the actual arguments given.

Just reminded me of another two:

• When presented with scholarly sources, ignore them completely and find some triviality to quibble
• Then pretend the person who offered evidence from multiple scholarly sources is actually the one avoiding discussing the issue

You are indeed treating us to a masterclass, you had 2 from the list before even addressing the topic, and have steadily worked through most of the rest of them

I'll leave you to your blind faith

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just reminded me of another two:

• When presented with scholarly sources, ignore them completely and find some triviality to quibble
• Then pretend the person who offered evidence from multiple scholarly sources is actually the one avoiding discussing the issue

You are indeed treating us to a masterclass, you had 2 from the list before even addressing the topic, and have steadily worked through most of the rest of them

I'll leave you to your blind faith

Nope. I did not such thing. Is that all that you have are false personal attacks?

 

[Augustus]

Nope. I did not such thing.

No, I think that this nonsense of his is just an excuse to attack Tyson and his science. It appears to be a cover up.

Is that all that you have are false personal attacks?

See above...

You refuse to address the scholarly sources, so all that remains is to point out your bad faith discussion from the beginning, and blind faith in a position you continually refuse to explain or support yet insist should be assumed true

 

[KWED]

"There are many reasons for the decline of Islamic science, but much of the blame can be laid at al-Ghazali's door"

This from a "Cambridge-trained scientist and a traditionally-trained Qur'an-student, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, a consultant in Islamic studies and a part-time imam", so a "scholarly source" by definition.

As there is clearly scholarly disagreement over Al-Ghazali's contribution to the decline of the Golden Age, it seems unreasonable at best, and dishonest at worst to insist that he played no part.

So, to conclude, I think we can now all agree that he played some part, but that part is unquantifiable.

You're welcome.

 

[Augustus]

"There are many reasons for the decline of Islamic science, but much of the blame can be laid at al-Ghazali's door"

This from a "Cambridge-trained scientist and a traditionally-trained Qur'an-student, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, a consultant in Islamic studies and a part-time imam", so a "scholarly source" by definition.

As there is clearly scholarly disagreement over Al-Ghazali's contribution to the decline of the Golden Age, it seems unreasonable at best, and dishonest at worst to insist that he played no part.

So, to conclude, I think we can now all agree that he played some part, but that part is unquantifiable.

You're welcome.

The source relies on a common error, the source of which is explained here

The error:

His Incoherence of the Philosophers attacked philosophy on 20 counts of heresy. These included the idea that nature had its own, internally-consistent laws and ways of operating – this was heretical because only God is truly independent, and nature must be dependent on God...

The Asharis also denied causality, or the principle of cause and effect, even though their position negates free will and personal responsibility. If I were to punch you in the face, I could argue that God and his angels had actually broken your nose: it was purely a coincidence that my fist was nearby, and any imagined connection between my punch and your injury was just an illusion!


AG believed we should assume consistency in nature, but it is not impossible that God intervenes, hence miracles.

I have already quoted AGs views that clearly assume predictability in nature, if you would prefer a secondary source (from a Professor of Philosophy, who specialises in Islamic Philosophy and thus actually understands the context):

Thus al-Ghazâlî himself raises the question of why miracles do not prevent our knowledge of the empirical world, admitting that if they did, a man who left a book in his home would have to say, 'I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.' (10) Al-Ghazâlî's response to the objection is most intriguing: he suggests that God continually creates in us the knowledge that He will not perform these miracles. Thus the source of a man's knowledge that, say, his book is still in the house, is God Himself. Indeed, al-Ghazâlî seems to be contrasting the so-called 'knowledge' of experience, which only leads to the habit of expecting given natures to cause given effects, with a certain knowledge created in us by God...

al-Ghazâlî goes on to say, in essence, that natural causes can be regarded as causes if we invoke a weaker notion of causality. He admits that a natural cause has a nature which gives rise to certain effects: fire, for instance, has a nature such that it burns whatever is in contact with it. But this does not mean that fire is a necessary cause, in the sense that the existence of fire in contact with cotton logically entails the existence of burning cotton. The nature of fire itself, says al-Ghazâlî, derives from God, and God chooses whether or not this nature will give rise to its normal effect or not. On al-Ghazâlî's view, natural causes are only contingently causes -- their effects only proceed if the true Agent who gave them their natures wishes it.

20th WCP: Al-Ghazâlî, Causality, and Knowledge


Another obvious error. What your "expert" claims represents "AG's triumph":

Al-Ghazali's triumph in the Islamic world led to a deepening gulf between religion and science. A couple of examples from 15th-century traditionalist scholars will illustrate this. Ibn Hajar, a master of hadith-commentary, queried the Muslim astronomers who explained that solar eclipses were caused by the moon blocking the sun: "How can this be, when you yourselves claim that the sun is much bigger than the moon? And the Egyptian scholar Suyuti wrote in his Qur'an-commentary, "The religious authorities hold that the earth is flat, in opposition to the astronomers who hold that it is spherical, although this is not a major principle of religion."


What AG said:

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.


So the best evidence he can offer that AG made people anti-science comes from 4 centuries later and is the exact opposite of what AG argued...

So, to conclude, I think we can now all agree that he played some part, but that part is unquantifiable.

You're welcome.

So now I think we can conclude that these claims rest on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of AGs arguments, or at least that no one in this thread has presented any arguments that do not rest on such misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Occasionalism wasn't even remotely new, it was the standard position of large percentage of Muslims throughout the Golden Age.

Given that we have numerous very clear and obvious reasons for social decline, such as warfare, conquest, economic decline and changing patterns of global trade, it seems quite clear that it would be irrational to assume AG played any significant role unless any evidence can be presented to illustrate this.

You're welcome.

 

[Audie]

The RF "rational sceptic" playbook on matters of religious history (many are present in any thread on the topic):

• Uncritically accept the views of a celebrity "sceptic" or non-expert who says something emotionally satisfying
• Never offer any evidence that their view is correct, but continually insist it should be assumed true by default
• Claim anyone who disagrees is an apologist
• Claim anyone who disagrees is anti-science
• Claim, without evidence, that most experts support them
• Claim that any evidence presented against them is 'cherry picked' without offering anything in support
• Claim, without evidence, that direct quotes from primary sources aren't accurate
• Claim that any scholar cited from a secondary source who disagrees with their view is an apologist, no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof
• Claim directly quoting academic sources constitutes "copy/paste" and is thus not worthy of discussion
• Claim anything not directly quoted from academic sources is unsupported and thus not worthy of discussion
• Claim anyone who disagrees is committing a random logical fallacy without offering any evidence
• Claim that historical person who lived 500-1000 years ago must have been anti-science because modern US fundamentalists are anti-science or because Galileo

That's not believable

 

[Augustus]

That's not believable

Unfortunately, it's about as predictable on RF as a YE creationist presenting terrible arguments against evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See above...

You refuse to address the scholarly sources, so all that remains is to point out your bad faith discussion from the beginning, and blind faith in a position you continually refuse to explain or support yet insist should be assumed true

Nope. The OP here has some personal beef with Tyson. Why we do not know for sure, that earlier post was mostly speculation, but based on an irrational attack that indicates there is some reason that he is not saying for his attacks. Meanwhile you only look at sources that you agree with. And yuse all sorts of improper debating techniques. People are not going to bother to respond to you with sources when all you have are personal attacks and strawman arguments. I offered to have a polite conversatin and you would have none of it. What is amazing is that you cannot see the bias of your own sources. They do not appear to be any more scholarly than those that oppose you.

I am always willing to have a proper discussion, but it does not appear to me that you are willing to give to your opponent the same consideration that you demand from them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"There are many reasons for the decline of Islamic science, but much of the blame can be laid at al-Ghazali's door"

This from a "Cambridge-trained scientist and a traditionally-trained Qur'an-student, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, a consultant in Islamic studies and a part-time imam", so a "scholarly source" by definition.

As there is clearly scholarly disagreement over Al-Ghazali's contribution to the decline of the Golden Age, it seems unreasonable at best, and dishonest at worst to insist that he played no part.

So, to conclude, I think we can now all agree that he played some part, but that part is unquantifiable.

You're welcome.

He won't listen. Oh wait. too late on my part. He did not listen. Only his "scholarly" sources count. He is back to cherry picking verses instead of looking at the results of Ghazali's preaching and teaching.

 

[Hop_David]

"There are many reasons for the decline of Islamic science, but much of the blame can be laid at al-Ghazali's door"

This from a "Cambridge-trained scientist and a traditionally-trained Qur'an-student, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, a consultant in Islamic studies and a part-time imam", so a "scholarly source" by definition.

Augustus provides examples of Ghazali praising math and science giving scholarly sources.

We give examples of post Ghazali Islamic innovation using scholarly sources.

You provide some scholar's opinion. What's this Cambridge trained scientist's evidence?

And no scholar whatsoever has been able to provide the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. Can we agree that this is another figment from Neil's imagination?

As there is clearly scholarly disagreement over Al-Ghazali's contribution to the decline of the Golden Age, it seems unreasonable at best, and dishonest at worst to insist that he played no part.

It's possible that Ghazali played a part in the lull three or four centuries after his death. So what's your evidence? Can you do more than express an opinion?

So, to conclude, I think we can now all agree that he played some part, but that part is unquantifiable.

I would agree Ghazali's role is difficult to quantify. But I don't agree that it's demonstrably negative. It may even be positive.

Ghazali challenged the authority of Aristotle and the Greek philosophers. This may have paved the way for Vesalius, Copernicus, Galileo and other scientists who discarded the wrong models of Aristotle and the ancient Greeks.

But yes, there are orientalists who blame Ghazali for a decline.

But can we agree that the Ghazali text Neil talks about is a figment of his imagination?

And can we agree there was no abrupt decline in 1100? It's arguable there was no decline until 14 or 1500.

Neil's story is an exaggeration and caricature of the Orientalist narrative. He embellishes and invents history to add to their arguments.

In summary I would like to thank you for stating your unsubstantiated opinions as fact. This supports some of Augustus' talking points.

You're welcome.

 

[KWED]

The source relies on a common error, the source of which is explained here

The error:

His Incoherence of the Philosophers attacked philosophy on 20 counts of heresy. These included the idea that nature had its own, internally-consistent laws and ways of operating – this was heretical because only God is truly independent, and nature must be dependent on God...

The Asharis also denied causality, or the principle of cause and effect, even though their position negates free will and personal responsibility. If I were to punch you in the face, I could argue that God and his angels had actually broken your nose: it was purely a coincidence that my fist was nearby, and any imagined connection between my punch and your injury was just an illusion!


AG believed we should assume consistency in nature, but it is not impossible that God intervenes, hence miracles.

I have already quoted AGs views that clearly assume predictability in nature, if you would prefer a secondary source (from a Professor of Philosophy, who specialises in Islamic Philosophy and thus actually understands the context):

Thus al-Ghazâlî himself raises the question of why miracles do not prevent our knowledge of the empirical world, admitting that if they did, a man who left a book in his home would have to say, 'I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.' (10) Al-Ghazâlî's response to the objection is most intriguing: he suggests that God continually creates in us the knowledge that He will not perform these miracles. Thus the source of a man's knowledge that, say, his book is still in the house, is God Himself. Indeed, al-Ghazâlî seems to be contrasting the so-called 'knowledge' of experience, which only leads to the habit of expecting given natures to cause given effects, with a certain knowledge created in us by God...

al-Ghazâlî goes on to say, in essence, that natural causes can be regarded as causes if we invoke a weaker notion of causality. He admits that a natural cause has a nature which gives rise to certain effects: fire, for instance, has a nature such that it burns whatever is in contact with it. But this does not mean that fire is a necessary cause, in the sense that the existence of fire in contact with cotton logically entails the existence of burning cotton. The nature of fire itself, says al-Ghazâlî, derives from God, and God chooses whether or not this nature will give rise to its normal effect or not. On al-Ghazâlî's view, natural causes are only contingently causes -- their effects only proceed if the true Agent who gave them their natures wishes it.

20th WCP: Al-Ghazâlî, Causality, and Knowledge


Another obvious error. What your "expert" claims represents "AG's triumph":

Al-Ghazali's triumph in the Islamic world led to a deepening gulf between religion and science. A couple of examples from 15th-century traditionalist scholars will illustrate this. Ibn Hajar, a master of hadith-commentary, queried the Muslim astronomers who explained that solar eclipses were caused by the moon blocking the sun: "How can this be, when you yourselves claim that the sun is much bigger than the moon? And the Egyptian scholar Suyuti wrote in his Qur'an-commentary, "The religious authorities hold that the earth is flat, in opposition to the astronomers who hold that it is spherical, although this is not a major principle of religion."


What AG said:

Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...

The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.


So the best evidence he can offer that AG made people anti-science comes from 4 centuries later and is the exact opposite of what AG argued...



So now I think we can conclude that these claims rest on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of AGs arguments, or at least that no one in this thread has presented any arguments that do not rest on such misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Occasionalism wasn't even remotely new, it was the standard position of large percentage of Muslims throughout the Golden Age.

Given that we have numerous very clear and obvious reasons for social decline, such as warfare, conquest, economic decline and changing patterns of global trade, it seems quite clear that it would be irrational to assume AG played any significant role unless any evidence can be presented to illustrate this.

You're welcome.

Yes, I understand that you favour one possible position.
Others more qualified than you favour a different one.
Just shouting "BuT I Am RiGhT aNd ThEy ArE wRoNg!" over and over doesn't really get you anywhere.

 

[KWED]

it seems quite clear that it would be irrational to assume AG played any significant role unless any evidence can be presented to illustrate this.

So you finally admit that he played a role, but you disagree with others (some more qualified and experienced than yourself to comment) over the the extent of that role.

There, that wasn't too hard, was it?

 

[KWED]

He won't listen. Oh wait. too late on my part. He did not listen. Only his "scholarly" sources count. He is back to cherry picking verses instead of looking at the results of Ghazali's preaching and teaching.

Ironic that some rail against the irrational certainty of arguments based on cherry picking and a refusal to accept conflicting arguments or evidence, yet are more guilty than most of doing it themselves.

The hubris of over-confidence in one's own abilities, coupled with a low regard for the ability of anyone disagreeing with then, is both funny and sad. Perhaps Messrs Dunning and Kruger might be interested.