Credulous skeptics

[Augustus]

"It is not my area of expertise at all. I was merely pointing out that quite a few, if not most, historians think that al Ghazali had a major negative impact on the Golden Age of Islam. Calling Tyson ignorant for repeating that claim would not make him ignorant. At worst he is listening to scholars that you appear to be ignoring."

As I said before, you claim to know Tyson is basically correct in saying something roughly akin to "maths is the work of the devil", yet can't actually identify what this thing might be.

Also the idea he played A major role in ending the golden ages appears to be based on a misrepresentation of occasionalism which was a) present throughout the GA as it is a common point in many islamic theologies and b) doesn't necessitate nature being unpredictable anyway.

So far, the only arguments presented about AGs impact very much seem to be based on a 19th C "zombie myth" of the kind that is very common in the history of science and religion. Someone (Ignaz Goldziher) made a false claim in the past, which is kept alive by people repeating the same error.

But you weren't interested in discussing the evidence, and just insisted it was "cherry picked" without being able to make any rational argument in support of this claim.

 

[Hop_David]

Like it or not the Ghazali claim appears to be accurate. Other historians share his view. He was not the only cause, but he appears to have been a major factor in Islam's ending its Golden Age.

Are you saying there is no question that Ghazali helped cause a decline?

If so, I disagree. It's an open question. Did Ghazali help advance scientific progress? I don't know. Did he hinder scientific progress? I don't know.

I have never taken a position one way or another. Neither has Augustus, so far as I can tell.

What I object to is Tyson inventing histories to support your position.

You can't show me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You can't demonstrate a sudden drop in Islamic innovation around 1100.

You have not provided a shred of evidence rebutting my complaints against Tyson.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying there is no question that Ghazali helped cause a decline?

If so, I disagree. It's an open question. Did Ghazali help advance scientific progress? I don't know. Did he hinder scientific progress? I don't know.

I have never taken a position one way or another. Neither has Augustus, so far as I can tell.

What I object to is Tyson inventing histories to support your position.

You can't show me the Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil.

You can't demonstrate a sudden drop in Islamic innovation around 1100.

You have not provided a shred of evidence rebutting my complaints against Tyson.

Tyson did not do that. This has already been explained to you by more than one person. You took his quote too literally. The problem lies with you in this case, not with Tyson.

 

[Hop_David]

Tyson did not do that.

Yes, he sure did. Again, Tyson's words:

Here

he took all these ways people were practicing Islam put him together codified it said this is what you need to do to be a good Muslim ... And in there was the statement that manipulating numbers was the work of the devil and that cut out the kneecaps of the entire mathematical enterprise of that period

And here

in that text included the assertion . . . in there was the assertion that mathematics and the manipulation of numbers was the work of the devil

This has already been explained to you by more than one person. You took his quote too literally.

When Tyson says there's a Ghazali text containing the statement that math is the work of the devil I assume he means there's a Ghazali text containing the statement that math is the work of the devil.

I make no apologies for this interpretation. It's what Tyson said.

So where is this text?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, he sure did. Again, Tyson's words:

Here

And here




When Tyson says there's a Ghazali text containing the statement that math is the work of the devil I assume he means there's a Ghazali text containing the statement that math is the work of the devil.

I make no apologies for this interpretation. It's what Tyson said.

So where is this text?

No one is denying what Tyson said. What is being denied is your interpretation of those claims.

I earlier asked you about Jesus and his "days of Noah" quote. You did not respond to that, or t least I missed it if you did. Do you not understand that he may have been merely be using literary license in the phrasing? Tyson appears to have been doing the same.

 

[Hop_David]

No one is denying what Tyson said. What is being denied is your interpretation of those claims.

I'm having some trouble with your literal vs figurative argument.

When I say I'm older than dirt it's a figurative way to say I'm old but I'm not literally older than dirt.

But when Ghazali says the faithful shouldn't deny the exact sciences, that's his figurative way of saying math is the work of the devil?

Or when Bush says "Islam is peace" that's his figurative way of bragging that his Christian God is better than the Muslim God?

Do I need to smoke crack to make your figurative interpretations?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm having some trouble with your literal vs figurative argument.

When I say I'm older than dirt it's a figurative way to say I'm old but I'm not literally older than dirt.

But when Ghazali says the faithful shouldn't deny the exact sciences, that's his figurative way of saying math is the work of the devil?

Or when Bush says "Islam is peace" that's his figurative way of bragging that his Christian God is better than the Muslim God?

Do I need to smoke crack to make your figurative interpretations?

No, what every you have smoked you have smoked too much of it already. Try asking again without any strawman arguments.


EDIT:
Perhaps the problem is one of language. You do not see the weasel words that scream out to anyone that has dealt with Ken Ham. Please note how he uses the term "exact sciences". No science is exact. When one makes that mistake it gives them an excuse to ban the science that they do not like. Also technically "science" did not even exist then. Philosophy would probably be a better term. What we call "science" did not exist then. Science is a method of solving problems. Galileo may have been the first "scientist" since he did not just observe and think, he tested his ideas, and that is a key part of the scientific method.

At any rate Ken Ham has a similar schtick where he tries to differentiate between "historical and observable" sciences. There really is no difference. Technically all observations have to be of the past. Ken just uses that to put down the biological and geological sciences since they show that all of his beliefs are wrong.

 

[Hop_David]

No, what every you have smoked you have smoked too much of it already. Try asking again without any strawman arguments.

Ghazali and Bush quotes have been provided that say the the opposite of the statements Tyson puts in their mouth. Either literally or figuratively speaking.

You have yet to provide a Ghazali quote that could even remotely be interpreted as math is the work of the devil.

Nor have you provided any evidence of a decline in the 1100s.

You have not provided a shred of evidence rebutting my arguments. Your attempt at a literal vs figurative smoke screen does not hide this fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ghazali and Bush quotes have been provided that say the the opposite of the words Tyson puts in their mouth. Either literally or figuratively speaking.

You have yet to provide a Ghazali quote that could even remotely be interpreted as math is the work of the devil.

Nor have you provided any evidence of a decline in the 1100s.

You have not provided a shred of evidence rebutting my arguments. Your attempt at literal vs figurative smoke screen does not hide this fact.

And I already explained to you, as have others, of why none is needed.

Once again your problem is being overly literal. And I added on to my prior post for you.

You cannot expect people to fulfill your demands when you refuse to argue properly.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps the problem is one of language. You do not see the weasel words that scream out to anyone that has dealt with Ken Ham. Please note how he uses the term "exact sciences". No science is exact. When one makes that mistake it gives them an excuse to ban the science that they do not like. Also technically "science" did not even exist then. Philosophy would probably be a better term. What we call "science" did not exist then. Science is a method of solving problems. Galileo may have been the first "scientist" since he did not just observe and think, he tested his ideas, and that is a key part of the scientific method.

If you are interested in a proper discussion, you are relying here on a number of incorrect assumptions here than cannot help but obscure the reality of the situation.

This is Presentism: distortion of the past by applying anachronistic modern ideas to a situation to the past that acts as a barrier to understanding.

It is common in discussions of the history of religion as people cannot help but see the issues via the lens of US Protestant fundamentalism even though this makes no sense in a historical context.

Firstly, this is not a "science v religion" dispute, it is a philosophical dispute between AG and specifically Avicennan philosophy. But if AG is Ken Ham, then the other side must be the 'good guys', perhaps even proto-scientists. In reality, neither of them are scientific positions, although AG uses science to refute an unscientific argument. Note this criticism of the philosophers is similar to that which helped give birth to modern science.

Two, thinking this is like a modern, mass media apologetic tactic couldn't be further from the reality. This is a small scale philosophical debate for the intellectual elites. KH relies on fooling large numbers of non-experts who invest little energy in rational analysis with sophistry. The tactic makes no sense in this environment.

Three, Because of incorrect presentist framing, you have it exactly backwards regarding "weasel words". Science then basically meant 'knowledge" or "branch of knowledge", so many things that wouldn't be science today would fall under that umbrella. Rather than "weasel words" he is actually making a necessary qualification. By noting the exact sciences, he is highlighting those where you get a demonstrably correct result and differentiating them from other subjective areas of knowledge. It's no more a weasel word than making a distinction between natural sciences and social sciences today.

Fourth, the motivation for KH to do this makes no sense when applied to the 11th C. Creationists basically argue against evolution and geology. The sciences then were things like astronomy, optics, medicine etc. The problems for modern creationists didn't exist. The kind of thing he was arguing about was "is the universe eternal or was it created" which had nothing much to do with science.

At any rate Ken Ham has a similar schtick where he tries to differentiate between "historical and observable" sciences. There really is no difference. Technically all observations have to be of the past. Ken just uses that to put down the biological and geological sciences since they show that all of his beliefs are wrong.

As you can see from above, there is all the difference in the world.

If you think of AG as something roughly akin to Abu Ken Hamid al-Ghazali, you will misunderstand basically everything about this issue.

Why do you think the analogy is clarifies more than it misleads? What sciences do you think AG want to ban and why? Why does this tactic make sense in context?

 

[Hop_David]

Perhaps the problem is one of language. You do not see the weasel words that scream out to anyone that has dealt with Ken Ham. Please note how he uses the term "exact sciences". No science is exact. When one makes that mistake it gives them an excuse to ban the science that they do not like.

Ghazali did not ban anything. Stop it with Tyson's fiction. Islamic math and science kept on going strong in Ghazali's time and in the centuries following Ghazali.

And it's pretty clear what Ghazali meant by exact sciences. This waffle word argument is just as bogus your literal-vs-figurative smoke screen.

Ghazali said don't deny the exact sciences. Pretty much the opposite of him saying "math is the work of the devil".

 

[Hop_David]

I think you have a serious downer on Tyson,

I have a serious downer on Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss and The New Atheists gang. As well their admirers here on RF, r/atheism, r/skeptics, IFLS and other communities of pseudo skeptics.

So why go after Tyson?

Tyson is charismatic, well known and influential. This has made him a hero of the so called skeptical movement.

He is also addled.

He will study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often wrong.

Most of Tyson's misinformation is harmless. Who cares if he tells us there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals? It's not as if his IFLS fan base will ever be tested on Cantor's ideas. I could not care less if his pseudo nerd poser fans think the James Webb Space Telescope is parked in earth's shadow.

However Tyson will also use his vivid imagination and strong confirmation bias to invent history. He has built an impressive body of false history that he uses to attack religion. Falsifying history is a serious offense.

And his body of false history is a large part of what's made him a hero in the pseudo-skeptic movement. We can enjoy the spectacle of his admirers posting and reposting his addled fantasies. "Skeptics" totally oblivious that Tyson is a Nagasaki bovine excrement bomb ignited in their midst.

TL;DR Tyson is the Achilles Heel for the so called skeptical movement.

Richard Dawkins will be giving his stamp of approval to Tyson and his body of false history at the October CSI conference. I am hoping this event will get lots of attention.

 

[ChristineM]

I have a serious downer on Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss and The New Atheists gang. As well their admirers here on RF, r/atheism, r/skeptics, IFLS and other communities of pseudo skeptics.

So why go after Tyson?

Tyson is charismatic, well known and influential. This has made him a hero of the so called skeptical movement.

He is also addled. He will study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often wrong.

Most of Tyson's misinformation is harmless. Who cares if he tells us there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals? It's not as if his IFLS fan base will ever be tested on Cantor's ideas. I could not care less if his pseudo nerd poser fans think the James Webb Space Telescope is parked in earth's shadow.

However Tyson will also use his vivid imagination and strong confirmation bias to invent history. He has built an impressive body of false history that he uses to attack religion. Falsifying history is a serious offense.

And his body of false history is a large part of what's made him a hero in the pseudo-skeptic movement. We can enjoy the spectacle of his admirers posting and reposting his addled fantasies. "Skeptics" totally oblivious that Tyson is a Nagasaki bovine excrement bomb ignited in their midst.

TL;DR Tyson is the Achilles Heel for the so called skeptical movement.

Richard Dawkins will be giving his stamp of approval to Tyson and his body of false history at the October CSI conference. I am hoping this event will get lots of attention.

Yes of course, such hatred is the Christian way as taught in the bible.

 

[Hop_David]

Yes of course, such hatred is the Christian way as taught in the bible.

There's some truth to your personal attack. I often fail to love my neighbor. As do many Christians and self proclaimed Christians.

If attacking me is your goal, there is plenty of ammo. I'm a flawed person.

But as for countering my arguments -- you evidently have nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

There's some truth to your personal attack. I often fail to love my neighbor. As do many Christians and self proclaimed Christians.

If attacking me is your goal, there is plenty of ammo. I'm a flawed person.

But as for countering my arguments -- you evidently have nothing.

Attack? I think not, just the blindingly obvious. You attact "new" atheiest with venom and you get all upset when one points this out as being typical if Christian love. It tells me so much that confirms by previous experience of some "good" Christians.

Sorry you don't like it.

I have no need to argue against hatred and confirmation bias, it's a worthless pastime

 

[RestlessSoul]

Interesting, this, I think. From Tyson’s Wiki page…

 

[Hop_David]

Attack? I think not, just the blindingly obvious. You attact "new" atheiest with venom and you get all upset when one points this out as being typical if Christian love.

I'm not upset. There's some truth to what you say about me.

And I am pleased that you offer no evidence defending the body of false histories Tyson uses to attack religion.

I am really enjoying contributions from the "skeptics" in this forum. You are demonstrating that you're not about the evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not upset. There's some truth to what you say about me.

And I am pleased that you offer no evidence defending the body of false histories Tyson uses to attack religion.

I am really enjoying contributions from the "skeptics" in this forum. You are demonstrating that you're not about the evidence.

Nope i am demonstrating that i cannot be bothered with bigotry and deliberate ignorance

 

[Hop_David]

Interesting, this, I think. From Tyson’s Wiki page…

View attachment 65056

Yes, Tyson prefers the label "agnostic".

He doesn't want those atheist cooties -- that would alienate some of his potential audience.

But we all know what he believes. Rejecting the atheist label is nothing more than a shrewd P.R. move.

I have nothing against atheists, by the way. I get much of my material from Thony Christie who is an atheist. I love Thony's piece "Why Doesn't He Just Shut Up?" where he shreds just about everything Tyson says about Newton.

You don't have to be a Christian or a Muslim to be repelled by Tyson. Just someone who has some regard for truth and accuracy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, Tyson prefers the label "agnostic".

He doesn't want those atheist cooties -- that would alienate some of his potential audience.

But we all know what he believes. Rejecting the atheist label is nothing more than a shrewd P.R. move.

I have nothing against atheists, by the way. I get much of my material from Thony Christie who is an atheist. I love Thony's piece "Why Doesn't He Just Shut Up?" where he shreds just about everything Tyson says about Newton.

You don't have to be a Christian or a Muslim to be repelled by Tyson. Just someone who has some regard for truth and accuracy.

I don’t know what he believes. I am generally wary of celebrity academics, or at least of academics who appear to actively court celebrity. Mary Beard and Simon Schama are two I make exceptions for.

I agree that science vs religion is a false dichotomy, but don’t you think fundamentalist Christianity in the US must bear considerable responsibility for the needless animosity between opposing camps?