Credulous skeptics

[Augustus]

Golden Age of Islam a thousand years ago in which Muslim scholars basically saved the world's ancient sciences and literature?

They "saved" basically none of the science from the Graeco-Roman world and were largely uninterested in the literature. The Graeco-Roman Byzantine Empire preserved everything we have today too.

What they did do was progress numerous scientific fields.

And that in the last century, Islam has basically stopped bothering translating any of the world's science and literature into their own languages? Because I believe those things are factually correct.

But basically saying "because al-Ghazali" is not remotely accurate.

What happened was that the Islamic Empire fragmented into numerous smaller empires that were frequently at war with each other (I posted a short video above that shows this pretty clearly). They then got conquered by the Mongols, and changing patterns of world trade further damaged their empires.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was on this topic as I remember it and AFAIK didn't turn into an attack on science.



AG had little to no impact.

This might give a better idea of the kind of things that did reduce the wealth and stability of Islamic societies:

Other historians disagree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They "saved" basically none of the science from the Graeco-Roman world and were largely uninterested in the literature. The Graeco-Roman Byzantine Empire preserved everything we have today too.

What they did do was progress numerous scientific fields.

Have you considered bringing your vast expertise (with sources, I hope) to Wikipedia to explain why this whole article is wrong?

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

"The Islamic Golden Age was a period of cultural, economic, and scientific flourishing in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 14th century.[1][2][3] This period is traditionally understood to have begun during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 to 809) with the inauguration of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, the world's largest city by then, where Muslim scholars and polymaths from various parts of the world with different cultural backgrounds were mandated to gather and translate all of the known world's classical knowledge into Aramaic and Arabic."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you considered bringing your vast expertise (with sources, I hope) to Wikipedia to explain why this whole article is wrong?

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

"The Islamic Golden Age was a period of cultural, economic, and scientific flourishing in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 14th century.[1][2][3] This period is traditionally understood to have begun during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 to 809) with the inauguration of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, the world's largest city by then, where Muslim scholars and polymaths from various parts of the world with different cultural backgrounds were mandated to gather and translate all of the known world's classical knowledge into Aramaic and Arabic."

And maybe the OP should look at it as well since there does appear to be some that credit al Ghazali largely with the fall of the Golden Age from a cultural viewpoint:

"Economic historian Joel Mokyr has argued that Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali (1058–1111), the author of Incoherence of the Philosophers, "was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science" and that this led to a cultural shift shunning away from scientific thinking.[150] However, it is argued that al-Ghazali was instead an admirer and adherent of philosophy but was criticizing the use of philosophy in religious matters only.[151] Additionally, Saliba (2007) has pointed out that the golden age did not slow down after al-Ghazali, who lived in the 11th century,[152][153] while others extend the golden age to around the 16th[3] to 17th centuries.[154][155][156]

There are some defenders of al Ghazali, mostly Muslim, that say that he supported the use of science. But from what I have read about him he 'supported' science the same way that a creationist supports science. In fact he oddly seemed to think that philosophy and science were two different areas. Something that Tyson was criticized for in another part of the OP's rant. For some odd reason the OP appears to really hate Tyson. And not only Tyson but some other leading scientists as well as you can see from the OP of this thread. That tells us that he may be like those defenders of al Ghazali. They are people that have no problem with someone saying "God did it" and think that is an adequate explanation.

 

[Augustus]

Other historians disagree.

You can find a historian who says just about anything.

On what grounds do you think the writings of al-Ghazali were a main driver to the end of the Islamic Golden age (often called the Abassid Golden Age) as opposed to, for example, the Abassid Empire stopping existing and the much less wealthy and far more fragmented successor states being conquered by the Mongols?

 

[Clara Tea]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

You bear false witness against Neil deGrasse Tyson in order to protect your Catholic religion from the charge that it was wrong and violent.

It is very easy to Google the info, and post the results for everyone to see it. But, you failed to substantiate your wild claims against Tyson.

So, I Googled the info, and will post them for everyone to see exactly what Tyson said. This info completely refutes your lies about Tyson.

Link above: Tyson said that major stars have Arab names (so President W. Bush was wrong about "our God" naming the stars." Clara Tea: Unless you consider that the Arab God is the same as our God.

The truth about Galileo and his conflict with the Catholic Church

Tyson said that Galileo was jailed and tortured by the Catholic church. This is true. He was jailed many times, and had different punishments or corrections each time. So, it is possible that one instance of jailing might be conflated with another instance of jailing, and the punishment might seem as though it didn't ever involve torture or jailing.

///////////////////////

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/otz8p9/neil_degrasse_tyson_quotes_ghazali_mathematics_is/



Hop's Blog: Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson



Did Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali Cause the Decline of Islamic Sciences?



Ghazali: “… This (mathematics) is a praiseworthy discipline; but if somebody will exceed the bounds in it (i.e. use it for corruption and mischief) they should be prevented from studying it.”



I can't confirm Ghazali's statement that math is the work of the devil (I can't find the quote).



However, one can't say that he never said it, because that would require proving a negative.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes I think you put your finger on it here. The danger is when people who are expert in one field delude themselves into thinking that makes them also expert in another, which they have not properly studied.

I agree. That's why I try to be an expert in all fields.

 

[Augustus]

Have you considered bringing your vast expertise (with sources, I hope) to Wikipedia to explain why this whole article is wrong?

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

"The Islamic Golden Age was a period of cultural, economic, and scientific flourishing in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 14th century.[1][2][3] This period is traditionally understood to have begun during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 to 809) with the inauguration of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, the world's largest city by then, where Muslim scholars and polymaths from various parts of the world with different cultural backgrounds were mandated to gather and translate all of the known world's classical knowledge into Aramaic and Arabic."

You have misunderstood the article.

No one denies there was a translation movement, what is undeniably true is that this translation movement didn't "save" any texts of significance (and didn't even translate most literature, only philosophy).

That would mean we only had texts that exist as a result of retranslation back from Arabic into Latin/Greek. Every major text we have today exists in the Greek original as it was "saved" by the Greek speaking Byzantines. The Arabs didn't magic these texts out of thin air, they got them from people who had been preserving them for the best part of a millennium already and continued to do so.

If you doubt this find me any major text that exists purely as a retranslation. I'll wait

The Golden Age certainly progressed many fields, but was not responsible for saving classical knowledge.

(The House of Wisdom was also likely not what is claimed above, but that's largely unimportant to the main point)

 

[Clara Tea]

They "saved" basically none of the science from the Graeco-Roman world and were largely uninterested in the literature. The Graeco-Roman Byzantine Empire preserved everything we have today too.

What they did do was progress numerous scientific fields.



But basically saying "because al-Ghazali" is not remotely accurate.

What happened was that the Islamic Empire fragmented into numerous smaller empires that were frequently at war with each other (I posted a short video above that shows this pretty clearly). They then got conquered by the Mongols, and changing patterns of world trade further damaged their empires.

Croaked and went broke (that's the opposite of Vulcan "live long and prosper.")

 

[Clara Tea]

You have misunderstood the article.

No one denies there was a translation movement, what is undeniably true is that this translation movement didn't "save" any texts of significance (and didn't even translate most literature, only philosophy).

That would mean we only had texts that exist as a result of retranslation back from Arabic into Latin/Greek. Every major text we have today exists in the Greek original as it was "saved" by the Greek speaking Byzantines. The Arabs didn't magic these texts out of thin air, they got them from people who had been preserving them for the best part of a millennium already and continued to do so.

If you doubt this find me any major text that exists purely as a retranslation. I'll wait

The Golden Age certainly progressed many fields, but was not responsible for saving classical knowledge.

(The House of Wisdom was also likely not what is claimed above, but that's largely unimportant to the main point)

Greeks were enslaved by Romans, who used their science to help design their nation.

 

[Augustus]

Tyson said that Galileo was jailed and tortured by the Catholic church. This is true.

No it isn't.

He was never tortured, and was held in house arrest in a luxury villa.

Also the reason why he was charged is far more complex than "he contradicted the church". With a bit more tact he could have continued teaching heliocentrism as a hypothesis rather than a fact (and at that stage it still was a hypothesis).

Copernicus' text on heliocentrism was dedicated to the Pope and published by a bishop after all.

 

[firedragon]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

At Beyond Belief were celebrity skeptics like Ann Druyan, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Carolyn Porco and others. At TAM6 were P Z Myers, Stephen Novella, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, Phil Plaitt and others.

Tyson repeatedly flopped three steaming piles in front of a Who's Who list of celebrity skeptics. They were consumed without question.

So far as I know, not one of them has objected to Tyson's fictions. Are they okay with using falsehoods to push their narrative? Or are they credulous?

Most of these "skeptics" seem to endorse Tyson. They form a mutual admiration society. They write glowing reviews for one another's book jackets. Invite each other to their podcasts. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's widow, had Neil narrate the later Cosmos TV series. Dawkins will present Tyson with an award at the Center for Skeptical Inquiry conference in Las Vegas this October.

Does this clique have no regard for truth?

Some of them obviously don't have a regard to truth. But not all.

In my opinion, Neil De Grasse was just ignorant. Some one told him something and he believed it. I will never forget a Joe Rogan interview where a so called Muslim expert speaks of something some Muslims called "bidhaah" which means innovation. He just mentions it and Joe Rogan says "so does that mean all innovations are forbidden?" and the so called expert says "yes". This so called expert is apparently writing a book. And people will buy it for sure.

I don't think in my life I have heard more of an idiotic statement than what this guy made in such a big public platform. Bidhaah means innovation in religion. For example, the concept of Islam is that there is nothing divine for us other than God. SO if someone makes a human being divine, like Muhammed, or a neighbour, it's called Bidhaah. That does not mean if you invent a new kind of mobile phone it's forbidden.

So this kind of nonsensical polemics exist. And some people ignorantly embrace them. But that does not mean they are stupid, it's just ignorance. But sometimes I do feel it's a trend embraced for status and cash.

Newton was a hardcore Christian. He was a highly astute theologian. He did not stop anything because he had God on his brain. He was just a thinker and he thought a lot. In modern days it seems to be a burning for some people to accept that a religious man was also a great scientist. It's so burning they will have to create some narrative to help them cool down.

 

[firedragon]

I can't help but notice that your first story (Bush and Star Names) ends, in the link, with this: '"Of course very little changes in that particular talk. I will still mention Islamic Extremists flying planes into buildings in the 21st century. I will still contrast it with the Golden Age of Islam a millennium earlier..."
Well, the rest of that particular talk is just as wrong Tyson's Bush and Star Names fantasy.'

Now, is that trying to say that there were no extremists flying airplanes into buildings that day, and that there wasn't a Golden Age of Islam a thousand years ago in which Muslim scholars basically saved the world's ancient sciences and literature? And that in the last century, Islam has basically stopped bothering translating any of the world's science and literature into their own languages? Because I believe those things are factually correct.

I also noted, in that story, that Tyson admitted he erred, and got part of the story wrong. He is, after all, an astrophysicist, not a historian, and so one doesn't expect him to display the historian's skill-set.

Finding that, I didn't bother to continue with the other 2 stories.

If Tyson admitted he "erred" as you say, he deserves all due respect.

 

[F1fan]

You could argue that, but in so doing you’d be claiming that William of Ockham, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, George Lemaitre, to name but a few, “weren’t all that smart”.

Those historical people lived at a time when religion was more presumed correct, unlike today where science has advanced to a point where the modern equivalent of these people are not theists. Heck evolution wasn't even proposed at the time of most on your list of scientists, and most of them were dealing with solutions in physics, which did not conflict with religious ideas about humans and the age of the universe.

Remember in the era before reformed secular governments it was religious leaders who ran things, and they were able to monitor and control the narrative about what science revealed. Look at what happened to Galileo as an example of religion not liking the results and arresting him. Religion being in control doesn't have a good history of peace or truth.

 

[F1fan]

Yes I think you put your finger on it here. The danger is when people who are expert in one field delude themselves into thinking that makes them also expert in another, which they have not properly studied.

I think there are two issues here. One is being incorrect about history or other areas of knowledge that are not part of one's expertise, and this error is due to there being many sources that are incorrect themselves.

If Tyson reads a source that offers obsolete information and he makes the mistake of using it, and repeating the errors, that is excusable, as it happens to all of us searching for data to bolster a position we hold. There are conflicting sources out there.

If Tyson is forming an opinion that is contrary to prevailing knowledge, and he assumes expertise to form an opinion while lacking adequate knowledge, that is inexcusable. We see many right wing folks do this with their rejection of evolution and climate change.

 

[Heyo]

Spoiler

View attachment 64804

At the 2006 Beyond Belief, the 2008 TAM6 and other large gatherings Neil deGrasse Tyson would routinely share three false histories:
Bush and Star Names
Ghazali: Math is the work of the Devil
Newton just stopped because he had God on the Brain

Just by hovering over those links, I see they are links to a private blog. Not exactly prime material to build a case on. I stay sceptical about the claims and suspect a shameless plug.

 

[exchemist]

Those historical people lived at a time when religion was more presumed correct, unlike today where science has advanced to a point where the modern equivalent of these people are not theists. Heck evolution wasn't even proposed at the time of most on your list of scientists, and most of them were dealing with solutions in physics, which did not conflict with religious ideas about humans and the age of the universe.

Remember in the era before reformed secular governments it was religious leaders who ran things, and they were able to monitor and control the narrative about what science revealed. Look at what happened to Galileo as an example of religion not liking the results and arresting him. Religion being in control doesn't have a good history of peace or truth.

Galileo was almost a unique example, I think. His treatment seems to have been something of an oddity. He didn't propose a new theory, he was just a supporter of Copernicus (who was a cleric, by the way), whose theory had been commended by the previous pope! I think you will struggle to find other examples of religion holding science back.

 

[F1fan]

Does religious belief stifle innovation, though? Are there really more examples of religion stifling innovation than of promoting it? My understanding is that most scientists, engineers and inventors from the Renaissance until the end of the c.19th had some sort of religious faith, and a good number of them were clerics.

As I noted in that era even the cutting edge scientists believed many false religious ideas, but the work they did wasn't anything that conflicted with religion and their beliefs. The conflict between religion and science is more of a 20th century phenomenon, and it continues today. We can equate the GOP and evangelical Christianity in the USA in the last 40 years since the GOP is essentially the political arm of Christianity. We do see efforts by the GOP to protect fossil fuels and stifle green energy, and the excuse is by denying climate change. And we see some Christians welcome the End Times, and all the global warming that is causing destruction and harm is a sign to these people.

That science marches on does not mean it is making the progress and innovation we humans need. It's likely we are going to see worse climate with hotter summers and colder winters, and we still rely mostly on fossil fuels to keep our buildings livable. The prices of fossil fuels are going up as well, and how will poor people afford it?

I'm not blaming just religions for the lack of innovation, but they are not helping support humanity and the serious problems the planet faces.

 

[exchemist]

I think there are two issues here. One is being incorrect about history or other areas of knowledge that are not part of one's expertise, and this error is due to there being many sources that are incorrect themselves.

If Tyson reads a source that offers obsolete information and he makes the mistake of using it, and repeating the errors, that is excusable, as it happens to all of us searching for data to bolster a position we hold. There are conflicting sources out there.

If Tyson is forming an opinion that is contrary to prevailing knowledge, and he assumes expertise to form an opinion while lacking adequate knowledge, that is inexcusable. We see many right wing folks do this with their rejection of evolution and climate change.

It's not excusable. Tyson, as an academic, ought to do his research properly before making a claim he uses in support of an argument, when it is something outside his expertise. It is slipshod not to do so and in fact weakens his case.

 

[exchemist]

As I noted in that era even the cutting edge scientists believed many false religious ideas, but the work they did wasn't anything that conflicted with religion and their beliefs. The conflict between religion and science is more of a 20th century phenomenon, and it continues today. We can equate the GOP and evangelical Christianity in the USA in the last 40 years since the GOP is essentially the political arm of Christianity. We do see efforts by the GOP to protect fossil fuels and stifle green energy, and the excuse is by denying climate change. And we see some Christians welcome the End Times, and all the global warming that is causing destruction and harm is a sign to these people.

That science marches on does not mean it is making the progress and innovation we humans need. It's likely we are going to see worse climate with hotter summers and colder winters, and we still rely mostly on fossil fuels to keep our buildings livable. The prices of fossil fuels are going up as well, and how will poor people afford it?

I'm not blaming just religions for the lack of innovation, but they are not helping support humanity and the serious problems the planet faces.

Yes indeed, the conflict between science and religion is something manufactured by recent politics and by one particular, not very representative branch of Protestant Christianity, which is prevalent in the USA. And by people like Dr Grasse Tyson and Dawkins, actually.

It is wrong to generalise from this to the relationship between religion and science in other places and in other eras. Bishop Ussher's chronology was never generally accepted dogma. It was one idea among many.