Credulous skeptics

[Augustus]

Some more bad history from Tyson's Ghazali routine:

Another one:

Here (5 mins on) Tyson claims "Augustine in Cities of God told people how to be a good Christian, how to burn witches, he had a recipe for burning witches, they had to be upside down so the blood..." Now I don't now a great deal about Augustinian theology, but I'd be pretty confident that this is another of Tyson's "alternative facts".

He then repeats his "work of the devil" and clarifies that he thinks AG ended the GA because his occasionalism meant god does everything on a whim which made it pointless to study nature. Yet...

M Marmura - Al-Ghazali's attitude to the secular science and logic


For once, he does mention there are alternative explanations, although he does ruin this by being dismissive of "historians" who just naively believe it was caused by wars and kings and aren't insightful enough to understand it was about philosophy and the intellectual climate created by AG. To prove they are wrong he explains that "Islam rose again" (whatever that means) but "they didn't have science", there was no science going on in Muslim Spain (which must come as a shock to people like Averroes).

Being dismissive of historians while mangling history is never a particularly good look though.

I have been saying it's an open question. Again: Did Ghazali help advance progress? I don't know. Did he hinder progress? Again, I don't know.

You, on the other hand, seem to maintain there is no question that Ghazali contributed to a decline.

"As a sceptical freethinker, anyone who demands credible evidence before arguing AG helped end the GA is clearly biased, arrogant and suffering from Dunning-Kruger!"

 

[Hop_David]

Here (5 mins on) Tyson claims "Augustine in Cities of God told people how to be a good Christian, how to burn witches, he had a recipe for burning witches, they had to be upside down so the blood..." Now I don't now a great deal about Augustinian theology, but I'd be pretty confident that this is another of Tyson's "alternative facts".

(Googling St. Augustine burning witches...) I think you're right. It appears that Tyson is repeating yet another anti-theist urban legend.

But maybe somewhere is an Augustine text giving instructions on how to figuratively burn witches.

 

[Hop_David]

A few more anti-theist urban legends Neil likes to repeat:

Medieval Christians were flat-earthers

Copernicus kept his ideas secret for fear of The Church

I count five steaming loads Tyson has used to attack religion.

He is a Hiroshima bovine excrement bomb ignited in the midst of The New Atheists. An explosion obliterating the credibility of those who put him on a pedestal.

And Dawkins will be endorsing Tyson and his false histories at the Center for Inquiry conference this October. I am hoping this clueless clique will become known for their credulity and dishonesty.

 

[KWED]

He is a Hiroshima bovine excrement bomb ignited in the midst of The New Atheists. An explosion obliterating the credibility of those who put him on a pedestal.

The only one with an unhealthy obsession with Tyson appears to be you.

I count five steaming loads Tyson has used to attack religion.

Religion is silly/dangerous and the people who follow them are credulous/misguided.
Whatever Tyson says has no bearing on this either way, so not sure what your point is.

 

[Hop_David]

Skeptics seriously do that? I can't think of any examples.

I periodically do searches for people making that false Ghazali quote. This is the post that brought me to religious forums:

Welcome to RF.
You got your moniker from Al-Ghazali, the one who, according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, ended the Islamic Golden Age?

If you are as anti science as Al-Ghazali, you'll get your options to debate.

I will say that since I've been a participant there seems to be fewer "skeptics" posting this video.

 

[Hop_David]

Religion is silly/dangerous and the people who follow them are credulous/misguided.

Thank you for stating your opinions as absolute fact.

Whatever Tyson says has no bearing on this either way, so not sure what your point is.

My point is that this clique is not arguing in good faith.

So many so called skeptics seem to be okay with Tyson using falsehoods to attack religion. Dawkins and company should be called out for being credulous and/or dishonest.

 

[KWED]

I will say that since I've been a participant there seems to be fewer "skeptics" posting this video.

What was the average frequency of posting that video before and after your arrival here - because I have visited these pages regularly for some while and have only seen it since your arrival - ironically, posted by yourself!

 

[KWED]

Thank you for stating your opinions as absolute fact.

Your opinion that my demonstrable facts are merely opinions has been noted.

My point is that this clique is not arguing in good faith.

What "clique" are you referring to, and what is the argument that they are presenting, and why isn't it in good faith?

So many so called skeptics seem to be okay with Tyson using falsehoods to attack religion.

Are they? You seem to be making an unwarranted jump from innocently accepting inaccuracy through appeal to authority/deferring to expertise, to a concerted campaign of deliberate falsehood.

You also seem to think that Tyson is some kind of spokesperson for atheism, presenting a doctrine that must be dogmatically followed by atheists. In this, you would seem to be projecting. I would imagine that the majority of the world's atheists have never heard of Tyson. Even an active, online, "militant atheist" as myself has never read any of his books or sat through any of his lectures on religion. Atheism does not stand or fall on what Tyson says any more than football relies on or is defined by what Rafael Benitez says or does.

Dawkins and company should be called out for being credulous and/or dishonest.

And you have done that, to the point of unhealthy obsession.
Do you also call out and condemn religious spokespeople and their followers for dishonesty and credulity with similar vehemence?
What's that?
You don't?
Interesting.

 

[KWED]

I periodically do searches for people making that false Ghazali quote. This is the post that brought me to religious forums:
I will say that since I've been a participant there seems to be fewer "skeptics" posting this video.

OK. I have actually watched that video now - and guess what?
It is you who is misquoting and misrepresenting (whether it is through ignorance or dishonesty is not for me to say).

Tyson does not claim that Al Ghazali said "Maths is the work of the devil".
He actually says "From his work you get the philosophy that maths is the work of the devil". This implies that others later came to that conclusion from their interpretation of what Al Ghazali wrote.
He never makes the claim you claim he is making.
The irony here is so strong that I've had to open a window.
This really has made my day. Thanks

 

[blü 2]

So many so called skeptics seem to be okay with Tyson using falsehoods to attack religion.

I'm of a skeptical nature. I've never noticed Tyson's arguments. Hence I've never checked Tyson's arguments. Hence Tyson isn't a problem for me.

I see it this way.

People are free to believe what they like. It's not whether they believe in supernatural beings that matters, but whether they're decent humans.

It's true that supernatural beings exist as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

But as for supernatural beings existing in the world external to the self, there isn't even a satisfactory definition of them such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a supernatural being or not. I suggest that this is because "a real supernatural being" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Hop_David]

It is you who is misquoting and misrepresenting (whether it is through ignorance or dishonesty is not for me to say).

Tyson does not claim that Al Ghazali said "Maths is the work of the devil".
He actually says "From his work you get the philosophy that maths is the work of the devil". This implies that others later came to that conclusion from their interpretation of what Al Ghazali wrote.
He never makes the claim you claim he is making.
The irony here is so strong that I've had to open a window.
This really has made my day. Thanks

Oh my goodness! Red letters!

Back at you

Here
"he took all these ways people were practicing Islam put them 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"

The irony here is so strong that I've had to open a window.
This really has made my day. Thanks

 

[Hop_David]

I'm of a skeptical nature. I've never noticed Tyson's arguments. Hence I've never checked Tyson's arguments. Hence Tyson isn't a problem for me.

I have no problem with genuine skeptics. Nor do I have a problem with atheism.

However there is a clique of self proclaimed skeptics who endorse Tyson and his false histories. Richard Dawkins will be giving Tyson an award this October. Most of Dawkins' clueless clique seem to have no idea that Tyson's histories are fiction. They should not call themselves skeptics.

 

[Hop_David]

What was the average frequency of posting that video before and after your arrival here - because I have visited these pages regularly for some while and have only seen it since your arrival - ironically, posted by yourself!

I said fewer "skeptics" seem to be posting this story. Note the scare quotes.

Yes, I've posted and linked to it. As has Augustus. But neither of us are one of the self proclaimed skeptics I'm talking about.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a strong atheist. I have not read any of what the European atheists have written. Heard the name Tyson today, had been hearing the name of Dickens, though by what I have heard I do not think he qualifies to be a strong atheist. I have heard also of a British atheist but do not remember his name. My atheism hails from East. From Buddha and Sankara's non-dual philosophy of Hinduism 'Advaita'.

I do not even take these two, whom I consider my gurus, as 'authority' (I differ from both). So, what is this talk about some Tyson?

 

[Hop_David]

You also seem to think that Tyson is some kind of spokesperson for atheism, presenting a doctrine that must be dogmatically followed by atheists.

Far from it. I have nothing against atheists.

I get a lot of my material from Thony Christie who is an atheist.

Christie's a historian specializing in the history of science and math. He gets annoyed when people spread false history. False history should be repellent to anyone, whether you're an atheist or not.

A few of Thony's pieces on Tyson:
Why doesn't he just shut up? Thony disembowels Tyson's history regarding Newton.
Preach Truth -- Serve Up Myths More critiques on Tyson's fantasies regarding Newton.
Nil deGrasse Tyson knows nothing about nothing Thony points out that Tyson somewhat exaggerates Arab accomplishments.

Thony Christie demonstrates an atheist can exercise critical thinking skills and have a high regard for truth.

In this, you would seem to be projecting. I would imagine that the majority of the world's atheists have never heard of Tyson.

Again, I'm not going after all the world's atheists. I'm criticizing a specific clique. In particular -- Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has been a friend of Tyson for a long time. He has heard all of Tyson's fictitious histories, likely several times. And Dawkins will be giving Neil The Richard Dawkins Award this October 21 at a Center For Inquiry conference in Las Vegas.

Even an active, online, "militant atheist" as myself has never read any of his books or sat through any of his lectures on religion.

And yet here you are vehemently defending Tyson throughout this thread. You've even made some demonstrably false claims in Tyson's defense.

 

[Hop_David]

I am a strong atheist. I have not read any of what the European atheists have written. Heard the name Tyson today, had been hearing the name of Dickens, though by what I have heard I do not think he qualifies to be a strong atheist. I have heard also of a British atheist but do not remember his name. My atheism hails from East. From Buddha and Sankara's non-dual philosophy of Hinduism 'Advaita'.

I do not even take these two, whom I consider my gurus, as 'authority' (I differ from both). So, what is this talk about some Tyson?

Tyson is a charismatic entertainer. This has made him popular in U.S. pop culture. His popularity has made a folk hero in some circles of U.S. atheists. Any so called skeptics who have endorsed Tyson's false histories have shown themselves to be credulous.

But not all atheists endorse Tyson and his false histories. So my criticism doesn't apply to all atheists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not care about what Tyson or American atheists think. I have my own views which REJECT even the possibility of existence of any God or soul totally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tyson is a charismatic entertainer. This has made him popular in U.S. pop culture. His popularity has made a folk hero in some circles of U.S. atheists. Any so called skeptics who have endorsed Tyson's false histories have shown themselves to be credulous.

But not all atheists endorse Tyson and his false histories. So my criticism doesn't apply to all atheists.

I think that we may have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

 

[Hop_David]

I think that we may have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

You want to call my arguments false? Then back it up. You still have not provided a shred of evidence refuting my arguments.

I, on the other hand, have provided plenty of evidence that Tyson is a source of misinformation. Especially when it comes to history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want to call my arguments false? Then back it up. You still have not provided a shred of evidence refuting my arguments.

I, on the other hand, have provided plenty of evidence that Tyson is a source of misinformation. Especially when it comes to history.

Your arguments have already been largely refuted. There is no point in doing it again you will simply remain in denial. But that is not what the phrase that I used meant.